mr carpenter good morning to you welcome back we see you here on a regular basis please proceed in the case of mr johnson very much the conclusion that your evidence proved an increase in disability as i read the statute you have to prove an increase in disability in if you do that you your claim pay over time as carpenter in your reply brief that you put with it seems to me to be the not of your argument the strongest as a matter of law the presumption is triggered when there was an injury sustained during his period of active duty service correct that's your position that regardless of whether the injury resulted in a shot increase disability if there was an injury the only place the presumption that the statutory language is very clear about natural progression of the preexisting condition as a finding that would be required once the provision is triggered but what is your authority for saying the former what is issue here because you don't have to do anything more when you have evidence of an injury and in proof that is understood in the record in ny in eighty four they found that to be decision itself that there was an injury there was a hospitalization that hospitalization record shows that increased pain for his preexisting back condition a period out proximately ten days after the injury is sustain clearly triggers the obligation on the part of the v a to go to the second prong of the presumption of expectation which is to come forward with a specific finding that it was the natural progression of that preexisting condition and not the result of the injury was to stay and serves there's no factual dispute that there was an injury was operating this forklift it a pothole he injured his back he had some temporary problems there that increased over that has to be more than an instant taney is increased if i fall down the steps leaving the courthouse today for a minute or two i'm going to be disabled but i might be fine five or ten minutes later and walk home so it have to have some enduring quality lead might not have to be permanent whatever you were implying by parents but it has to be more than momentary and i think it has to be more than for a injury is what triggers the right to that sounds like there is an injury fear and there is an increase in the free existing condition to his back had more back pain as a condition i'm not so confident as you seem to be that they're one of the same what i believe in this case they are but i think it's a general proposition they have to be considered as well as what the statute talks about in terms of and that that we're quires if i mean a service that is an injury or a disease there is no requirement for a disability to be shown to have existed during the period of s what is required is that there is either a injury or disease or an aggravation of a preexisting condition the facts are not in dispute that there was a preexisting back and the facts are not disputed that there was an injury  a has to prove that there wasn't an increase once there's clearly been an accident you seem to be saying i understand you from your brief that the burden of agreed with you and i disagree with you he said there is a difference he said as i recall that the disability look you would have to prove to get money but that to get service connection you would only have to prove that the injury to show that the preexisting injury or condition got worse but i would think you would agree with them but i think there is a lot more to be agreed on where you're trying to identify which is which i of the presumption sounds so it does become a question of who's heard is it is not the veteran's birth it is the the better can't rely upon the undisputed evidence of an injury which aggravated a preexisting condition that triggers the presumption at that point the bird must shift to the government to either come forward and show there was no inquiries or to point to a specific file the whole question there clearly is so it is a question here of whether the presumption was or wasn't trigger and it was triggered then the burden shifts to the governor that the the presumption of aggers of aggravation takes care of the it would be sufficient because all the trouble i love on the head would be enough to trigger the presumption of aggravation to a back injury but not well possibly it could depending upon what the medical evidence said as in trigger but those are not the facts here he didn't have a bomb that he had a pin in his back he had a preexisting condition which existed before he went on active duty for training he had an injury that injury resulted in