is that three point three or four sub have sub five a stablish is the stressor itself that is that under the regulation this decision was made a stablish is clearly that the stress of the military sexual trauma exists you see the report by the physicians no i'm saying the treating of this regulation is not to establish p t s which this court actually has already ruled one but to establish the existence of the stressor it's important to remember that as a subset of anxiety p t s d requires the stressor in certain offsets i mean i guess i'm getting more confused than i maybe that's my fault rather than yours i'm just i'm still at the threshold question of whether or jurisdiction so i am trying to tease out not the evaluation of the facts or the facts in this case but really what the heart of the legal issue that you're presenting to the score is what was the legal error that the board medical opinion that relied was based on his own self reporting as that's the issue because i was frankly what what i didn't understand there or what i don't appreciate is arc i think our case law me says that she can't you are permitted to rely on it and i think the a b a in the c b c here didn't say you absolutely can't use that at all they just didn't think it was sufficient just a factual matter and if that's the way this case went that regulation takes the place of the contemporaneous as in the military file that the exist in or are you saying that this report should have been conclusive and that factual difference not not arguing the facts of my case the seeming guys in this case them and guys the it was in fact the compensation exam that produced the evidence of whether or not  she experienced sexual trauma while she was in the military this case is entirely different because the agency the v a has been treating this veterans for  rising out of the military sexual trauma for a decade that that led in this case that lets the the lawyers at the b v a level override the clinical judgment of their specialists and sexual trauma p t s d and again the hospital and say well we know i understand what you're saying i mean it sounds like that if you look at the facts of this case it's probably likely given the history and everything that there was a totally fishy thing treated for p t s d from the trauma but the problem i see is that the board rejected that as a piece of evidence and found it not ability of the p t a to disregard the evidence based on a one time interaction between the veteran and examining physicians for the issue of p t at the with that examination just know why i say this is a catch twenty two in the method that examination is inconclusive from the b d a point of view because the examining doctor says well i don't know that there's a stressor but we do know that there's a stressor because he's being treated at that point for ten years for sexual trauma and p t s d arising from that it's simply logically not anybody's ability to weigh evidence and disregard the evidence of ten years when your treatment by the da at a hospital because you run into one doctor who says well i don't know whether it's true or not because i don't know error is to on the subject the opinion of the treating physician with regard to the establishment causation as if it were a simple evident treatment when when a veteran is there is really just in her i mean excuse me but your your time is fleeting so to speak i read the first sentence in the argument portion your brief says this case demonstrates why this court should adopt rule is that what you're saying because you're saying we should adopt a dissenting opinion and then it gussie that means that you think many gussie was wrongly decided for x men are gussied was wrongly decided to the f five replaces other evidence with regard to proof of the actual incident that gives rise to the p t s but it seems like if you read the that having reached the legal conclusion it's still susceptible to the harmless error review of federal public works this can't ever be harmless  to five right absolutely but that's what your argument is that they look at it and they said we see this but we don't think it's good enough to establish the stressor as a matter isn't that what they said yes and what's i mean i know you agree with that as a factual finding i could agree with that as a fact of a need to but that's not what we did a review so but legal air in that regal or is that if it looked at it and what it seems to say is that you know there are other types of evidence to support the establishment of a stress or other that a veteran service records and then it is a long list of examples but it doesn't suggest that those examples are court deals with english construction all the time i think that may in front of the list of ways to do it simply is in may of alternatives you can do it on the expert's opinion that the stressor occurred but on the p g a second level analysis that they're better at diagnosing veteran than the psychiatry is and that the psychiatry has only assumes that they have all of the correct as it and there when we look at the evidence and we see conflicts between he said november one time in june doctor patient relationship but the busiest position which is okayed by the court of evidence appeals is that they at the v a have the ability not to challenge the expert opinion with another expert opinion i probably would never case because i think they probably can do that but they can't challenge an expert opinion from their own doctors the stressor occurred because they don't thank you your honor may it please the court this case does ultimately turn on boards weighing the evidence matter which this court does not possess jurisdiction to review to the extent that the claimant is asserted legal error it is clear from there does seem to be agreement that the board can weigh the evidence the disagreement in a god he seems to be over whether the board actually did weigh the evidence whether we had a harmless error in that particular case and here they weighed the evidence you have been describing it they don't simply reject out of hand they describe the two thousand and nine letters having low probity value and then proceed to back up why they actually reach that conclusion the factual inconsistency is that they found as well as assertions that  the record well assuming that's true so maybe i mean which we're all trying to figure out what the legal issue if there exists around is so what about the argument that at least your friends viewpoint is that in the absence of other inconsistent medical doctor medical documentation the boy this compelled to accept this well understand that to be his argument and if so what is probably the to the extent that's that's the argument i would i would say that first of all the regulation says that these are types of ads that may cooperate so it doesn't provide that any particular piece of evidence is conclusive that's also contra board's general function which is weighing the evidence that's put before it in some cases and we do know from the regulations that in the absence of contrary evidence there are cases where psychiatry's report may ultimately be sufficient ask and service cooperation this case different of course because the different psychiatrists who received different opinions ultimately declined places great weight upon the role of the particular psychiatry and i understand you don't think this is case i don't think probably either you do have this patient who has been treated for a decade or p t s d and all along to the v a those psychiatrists to have treated it understood it to be as a result of military sexual trauma and that's the only of it into the record that exists about the cause of p t s d the stressor and the like and the board just when it gets to that decide we don't find that a bit it's compelling you know they're not saying it out right there nothing except that evidence but they're essentially rejecting it without any valid reason i would find it very hard to find a circumstance which that would be and there are a lot i mean i think they would have a problem to veterans court in terms of ultimately having an adequate reasons basis for their conclusion or it could be a clear error of fact not what but at the end of the day i think it's very hard for that to reach a level you know that sense you know that circumstance doesn't ultimately this this would be a matter of fact finding it is a matter of time and leo of balance again i understand the concern and i would say that concern is mitigated by the overall presumptions we have a good faith that they would not try to disguise a legal conclusion as a factual conclusion but at the end of the day you know is this court does have to to pass to determine and has in certain instances that something that sounds  factual conclusion is a legal conclusion that is the case here and all but you know if the evidence supported ultimately that inclusion that even though this is couched as a fact or conclusion it really is a legal conclusion this court has taken jurisdiction in most cases you know that's not at all the case here i mean it's quite clear that they were ultimately weighing the evidence and and that there is no error in in their determination the the only other briefly wanted to also touch upon is also note that while we focused on the occurrence of the stressor mean there also was no service connection on determined and so at the end of the day even if there's there a stressor to be determined and there's an error a legal error and not determination they did also minutely also determine that there is no service connection given the twenty some odd year plus year gap in time between the occurrence of the symptoms at issue and ultimately his military service lesser for the questions for those reasons and the reason set forth in a brief respect the request of the court from the decision veterans court thank you your honor i believe that further argument that this is in fact a legal issue is that the p v a's reading of the regulation allows them and i said earlier to reply circular logic to the case they use the examining doctor's inability to make a determination as to causation is the reason to disregard the f five information in the record with regard to the treatment relation between mr holland and dr perper that is the say that did you make the reasons and basis argument to the veterans court of the point probably not i didn't mean it to like amateur era veterans court i assume that this was so obvious that a court looking at this case and seeing how the evidence was developed and looking at the regulation would say that you can't do this but  i was wrong i guess there's the plethora of famous lawyer stories were people just assume that people other people pellet courts for example see what they're seeing but what i see here that this is in fact a legal issue and the legal issue is whether or not the p t a can get a round the regulation that exists for the protection of veterans by using the evidence that someone else doesn't know anything about the veteran today in refute the fact that the treating physician at the v a has an opinion that this is an in service sexual trauma the twenty