basically scarred kind of carpenter appearing on behalf of mr john cameron at issue in this case is a question of entitlement to receive and charged a fee we believe that there are two bases for error below the first involves whether or not the the decision below complied with this court's decision in stanley and stanley this court held that the statute and regulations concerning attorney fees must be read to allow the retention of paid counsel after a board decision which is final as to a particular issue there was only one issue in mrs golden ms golden's cases the that issue was the rate to be assigned her service connected psychiatric disability that issue based upon the undisputed facts in this case and in occur in accordance with this court's decision in stanley mr cameron was entitle to the services that he rendered ms goldin after the board's two thousand and one decision under the statute there are two ways to trigger the right to charge a fee the first is that the attorney and appellant engage in first i don't completely understand let's let it was every man's and yet there was a reference in the record to miss golden having withdrawn her appeal as it relates to my request seeking an earlier active date right now because well in this case because the two thousand and one board decision was vacated the initial rating to be assigned more than thirty percent is at issue therefore the issue that had been decided on affected aid flows into that because it's now part of one of continuously prosecuted play the decision in this case came before the actions that were involved that we were just discussing in which the original two thousand and one board decision was agreed to be vacated it was mr cameron's efforts to continue to have that case litigated on the basis that that's a pretty complicated question mr cameron will only get cs for that period from the time of the original claim to the current effective date for the rating of one hundred percent which is what resulted in i believe it was the two thousand and eight decision that is at issue in this case and that matter is on remand and is yet on resolved at issue in this case is the two thousand and eight decision and whether or not the i believe it's one hundred eighteen thousand dollars and past two benefits is subject to a fee but your question goes directly to the point that there is and can only be one case because this is a continuously prosecuted claim there was never a separate case involving ms goldman and the v a it was always about the single issue of what is the appropriate rating for her psychiatric continuous claims had the board taken pursued me had the court taken jurisdiction of the two thousand and one of board decision and vacated it as they did some decades later then that would have been part of the ongoing question of what the initial rating would have been including that point in time i believe it was from april of two thousand and four to april of two to the two thousand and eight decision it would have been part of initial claims stream because the case would have gone back for consideration which would have then included that reasonably raise claim from the medical record that was in the claim in the april time period following the january two thousand and one board's decision in other words the two thousand and one board decision would have been nullified and the claim stream would have been reopened from the beginning date to the time in which it was fin resolved but because the court found i believe was three different times that it had no jurisdiction that that two thousand and one or decision was never found to be within the court's jurisdiction till the government finally agreed post henderson that that matter was subject to a quibble tolling and the court did have jurisdiction based upon her late file ok i think the other alternative issue separate from stanley as to whether or not this is or is not the same case or the same issue is whether or not the veterans court misinterpreted the statute itself and we believe that this court's recent  decision in cameron addresses that issue cinc plea and applies clearly to the facts of this case because in the earlier cameron case this court interpreted the statute to apply t services provided after the board's final decision there is no question that the services provided beginning with the april two thousand and four reasonably raise claim services that he provided back before the agency while the case was pending before that the court and this court were services provided after the january two thousand and one board first challenge the effective date that was established for her one hundred percent disability rating for the claim that was informally created in april two thousand and one she was hospitalized the second challenge the february two thousand and one determination of the board that ms golden was not entitled to a greater than a thirty percent disability rating as of that state now once those two appeals went up to the cour of veteran claims ms goldman abandons the second actually i just presented the first issue the question of the proper effective date for it to be one hundred percent disability rating but she continued to pursue the appeal so the question of effective dates of the claim for increased there is because it was a claim for increase and not an original claim the most that the effective date could have been set back was within one year and with respect to the second to the appeal that still pending the war didn't consider january two thousand  hospitalization record and i believe a hospital not us was a medical center record and one from late two thousand because of that the v a and ms golding agreed to remand the case to the board so that they could look at with respect to that plane the adjudication of ms golden's claim for increased benefits presented precisely the kind of situation in which congress did not intend attorney fees to be available a this court has made clear in stanley and carpenter and jackson congress intended by passing the preachy thousand six version of section fifty nine zero four to enable veterans to enlist the aid of attorneys in revers prior adverse poor decision whether by an appeal to a court or by a collateral challenge such as a clear and unmistakable error motion in order to prevail on her claim for increased benefits is golden didn't need to reverse any prior adverse court decision and actually didn't to the contrary in adjudicating her claim for increased the board said in three thousand one prior to april two thousand and one it was not possible to say that she was entitled to a higher disability rating that in fact the board was correct in february two thousand and one in ruling that thirty percent was the highest rating available based upon the evidence given your own error and as a as a pragmatic matter one can say that congress is wrong touristic restrict attorney fees but it's that there are many scenarios in which upset or it could benefit from the a that when attorney making an end initial claim but congress laid the benefits and costs without approaching decided that it didn't want to make fees available when the v a was looking for the first time at a given set of facts they only wanted them available when litigation became more complex because it was necessary to overturn a prior court decision but still for me but isn't that really what happened here in the partner who or did make a decision it wasn't a final decision but the board had to be persuaded to the alternate decision that the board didn't alter that decision the february two thousand and one judge's decision determines that as of that state the highest rating that mr coleman was entitled to two thousand and one decision ms golden's conditions deteriorated as of april two thousand and one when she was first hospitalized for her depression it was that change set of factual circumstances that gave rise to entitlement one hundred percent rating not any factual scenario that was before the board in february two thousand and one as the case stands right now the board was right in february two thousand and one in refusing to award an increased  rating that's a factual finding that the board reaffirmed in two thousand and ten and as a result there was no need even to revisit that poor decision in order to adjudicate the rating that was warranted because of the change ms golden condition in april two thousand and one in fact the board in fact the v a adjudicated that kind of simply on the basis of the letter asserting a claim submitted by mr cameron on behalf of miss goldman and the evidence that would before the v a it wasn't necessary for mr cameron to present argument concerning the any error that had previously occur all that happened with the a assess the evidence which would be different from what would be for the board in february two thousand and one because there had been a change in the factual nucleus of her claim a change that resulted from the deterioration in her condition  mr mr cameron series that the two claims are necessarily part of the same case simply because they relate to the same disability has no basis in either the tax the history necessarily encompassed within the same case as a claim for service connection between because the two related to the same disability in both cases the court said that wasn't the case because the claim for g c i you wasn't raised cameron doesn't address any of the issues that are at that are disputed in this appeal cameron dealt with the extent to which an attorney had provided services after a final court decision it didn't feel at all with the scope of the case and in fact neither did stanley stanley related to the question of what constitutes banality in a board decision didn't address the question of when to claim should be considered part of the same case despite the fact that they may not have depended on the same factual nucleus or that they may not have required that one may require reversal of the board said no doubt the t r u claim in stanley was directly related to and stems from the veteran service connection of playing notwithstanding that fact mr stanley like mr jackson was not entitled to attorney fees the there were if if you're referring to the appeal from the feb two thousand and one board decision i believe what was happening there was that there were remittance from the court to reconsider the dismissal in light of the this court's decision aerate i believe the veterans court concluded that that decision did still did not warrant retain the case the dismissal was still appropriate that decision was appealed again and i believe was held state and in the decision in henderson once the decision was decided by the supreme one hundred   believe that the out there was based upon the interaction of the new case law that was coming out at the time you make it sound like there is no really need for lawyers because the that veterans with service connection claim don't ever prosecute them because they aren't aware of the way the law works or how to do it and that a lawyer would be useful to them but congress decided that that was not the way that it wanted to balance the right to fee that there was an interest served in ensuring that a lawyer could not siphon off twenty percent of veterans benefits simply because he submitted what was a fairly straightforward application and in fact in this case what mr cameron did with respect to miss golden benefits was he wrote a series of nearly identical letters inquiring after the status of the cla and based upon those services alone claimed the title went to thirty six thousand dollars of mrs golden benefit that i would submit it precisely the kind of scenario that congress was attempting to avoid and which by present fairly straightforward claim and attorney in large part because of delays in the v a education process claims an enormous amount of the veterans passed to benefit and because that wasn't what congress intended in passing section fifty nine of four we respectfully request that the decision of the veterans court  i'd like to correct a mistake but i believe that the government made regarding a two thousand and one court decision the government suggested the two thousand and one board decision is still the law of this case and that is simply not correct th a below agreed by a motion for a joint remand to vacate that decision so that decision doesn't exist that the issue is back before the board for reeducation to determine whether or not the initial rating of thirty percent was or was not correct as a matter of law based upon the facts one of the benefits a veteran gets on remand is the ability to submit additional evidence to demonstrate why the original board decision was incorrectly decided as it is now it should be decided a new there it will be a new decision when the government suggests that congress is intention was to have or decisions corrected for the basis for writing fifty nine  e that is simply a incorrect statement of the intent of congress congress intent was to create a line of demarcation as to when that persons were eligible to hire counsel in this case had mr cameron decided that ms golden did not have a valid basis for her untimely filing she could have gone back before the agency and file the claim a new had she done that or had there been a finding of jurisdiction are originally then mr cameron would have followed the case back below and identified this pending playing in either of those two scenarios the circumstances for the award of benefits would have been on the basis of his services what is required is services based upon the case there is only one case here with a single issue basis from the appeal that was pending of the board's two thousand and one decision to proceed back before the agency and that was the point i was just exploring that council has the right or scuse me the opportunity on behalf of the veteran or other claimant to continue proceedings back before the agency there is no mandatory obligation to proceed to an appeal mr cameron identified a claim that was the v a did based upon his repeated efforts to get them to adjudicate it finally did adjudicated and found that yes a great deal of time had gone by since the time that that claim arose and the time that they decided that that's what resulted in the but you still sing a final court decision i ask you well you need a final board decision or you need representation before the court those are the two alternative ways under fifty nine  average final court decision that you're going to take the board's two thousand and one decision the board's two thousand and one decision was we now find timely appealed in retrospect but it was challenge for being untimely appeal mr cameron stayed with that case through three appeals to this court and finally got the government to agree that mister golden's two thousand and one board decision appeal was tunnel therefore all of the services that were rendered after that board decision were part of the same case whether it was in the proceedings before this court in challenging the boards or the court's  dismissal of the two thousand and one board decision or in going back before the agency and raising the issue of the pending april two thousand and four pending claim that was raised by the v a medical record how did he get around the statement that he made in the he said yes i have i'm aware that i'm trying to the statement that he made at that point was correct because there hadn't been a determination made on ms golden's case at that time because ms golden's appeal of the two thousand and one board decision was still pending and had not been resolved they were too penikett that's how we ended up with two appeals at the court the original feel of the board's two thousand and one decision and the appeal of the effective date of the assignment of the one hundred percent rate and that again demonstrates how these are the same claims because when he got back to court the effective date was nullified because he had a pending claim because ms golden had a pending client but at the time of the mandamus action they were identifiable as two separate proceedings and i believe that what was being described there was is that there were two separate proceedings and the mandamus action was justified in order to move on the separate proceeding