concerning the application of the case of brooks since these done with manufacturing in the brooks case this court concluded with the retroactive application of the method sections to zero two to ninety two depending actions with a rational mean pursuing a legitimate legislative purpose in that in that case the court allowed the statute to wipe out current pending claims under the queen can act in our case we've got the same rules that would apply but with a different result with a rational basis of analysis the government still has to show that there was a legitimate legislative purpose in that they used a rational means for achieving this rational government purpose in this case there was a provision in the daylong act which the government construed as giving it the right to apply retroactive regulations throughout the entire act through up throughout the entire public service officers benefits act we don't read it that way but even if we were to take the government's reading of that act they do that they have identified as the only legitimate process question your argument presupposes that the original regulation allows for recovery for mental health issues yes that is long as they that from the physical traumatic injury that's correct your honor but that's here as i understand the factual record you have a finding by the workers compensation group saying that that they are totally independent that in other words that she may have suffered from p t s d but it didn't but it wasn't caused by her knee injury that was a decision made by the workers compensation commission in south carolina this is a decision that would have to be made by the director of the of this particular agency in the department of justice after reviewing all of the facts and considering all of the factors involved in this case our client was  was severely injured physically on that on the job that she required knee replacement surgery seven years later so we have a serious physical injury and but of course we got a total psychiatric disability as a result now whether here it would be up to the director when she is actually weighed all the evidence in front of her to determine if if our client is is totally in and of permanently disabled she never made on if you if you  it was you know i couldn't this is a mental health illness that's right flowing directly from a terminal physical right injury but there is nothing in the medical record that indicates that her mental health problems flowed from the ne injury well i i think if you look at it dr beck's report which which the agency has put aside basically and not really given given full weight to i think that shows that at the end of the injury in all of the circumstances surrounding  other i but it would be difficult to try to try to divide this up if we could imagine circumstances in which somebody was attacked and didn't didn't have an injury and that would take this that that's not this case we have both injury and in the end the cycle the obvious psychiatric reaction to that injury how how one divides that up this would be difficult to say but again that's a decision that the that the director would have to make on remit she would have to basically try to you know how do you divide the line say are regina harris who is totally disabled because of what happened because of the injury to her knee or she's totally disabled because for people attacked her i don't think from the injury should be considered and it would be difficult to imagine that a circumstance in which somebody was suffering stress that wasn't with the result of actually the actual consultation it accurate because there is no question that some disability some injury some change had taken place i think that the agency would have to find that she was the fact that the the hearing officer in two thousand and six or excuse me in two thousand and four found that she had been assaulted that that finding was not adopted by the director she referenced that finding in her findings of fact that was never a time grand there it's impossible i think to to separate the and that the physical injury and that the psychiatric injury in this particular case they all arose out of the out of the same incident and it would be it would be up to the director to make that determination a test right now is is because this talk about a uniform rule that that's the only basis that patients they have for they never said anywhere in the legislative history that they never use the word retroactive in the legislative history they never pointed out what the scope had been something in the legislative history that said we're going to make the entire act retroactive allow us to apply retroactive regulations the entire act and then it would have been clear on its face but there's there was none of that anywhere in the legislative history this was a provision that nobody understood in and if you read it the the entire statute as it was presented that is congress voted on it  rule we already had a uniform rule there was a uniform rule for this cage that was in place when regina harrison filed a claim the government is now timing the right to change that rule at any time that was changed in her case that can be changed  in almost any case but i think this is this this is one of those cases because again there is only one rational basis found the need for a uniform rule we already had a uniform rule the rationalization one where your case comes right down to the river bottom the question is whether the disease in the earlier regulation means a physical base a disease like a bone right disease or a disease in your ear or rather it that's that's correct your honor and part of our argument in we brought up the king the parallel case so this is a very important case because the way the government is reading this statute is deliberately discriminating against the mentally disabled which is totally against national policy and basically they have written they have attempted to write out the exception of the ankle case so that they can basically say that personal injury owner first of physical ruination in this particular case ye that this statute is not intended to and was never intended to cover mental stress or strain even if it in conjunction with the physical injury and even if the host traumatic or otherwise that the house report was written in the summer of two thousand and twelve and our client filed her claim seven years before that that is not legislation that that is the verbiage that was put in if you actually look at the positions that the  taken the yank go to exception was based on age of the written agency position and we think that at the very least the ankle exceptions should be enforced and that should the case should be remanded back to the agency and requiring  entitled to benefits in this case under either version of the regulations and i would like to respond to some of the court's concerns about that point and the first thing that i think it's important to emphasize is that the bureau has already repeatedly addressed and rejected ms harrison's claim under the previous regulations first in two thousand and five when the office ruled on and rejected her claim under the previous regulations and that  the rational basis i think there are activities i think there are at least two rational bases and the first has already been mentioned and is discussed in our brief and that is congress rational mandate to in the year before the house report that the bureau was working with over seven hundred claims at the bureau has quote struggled to keep abreast and must be provided an adequate means to enable it to administer the program and determine claims under the law more efficiently than it does at the present and the house report went on to say that this legislation makes certain changes of a technical work ministry of nature to the p s o b a and related lot it should help to expedite the administrative processing of these legal claims against the federal government and clarify congressional intent with regard to certain mathematics and by mandating the consistent application of current regulations without regard to  particular aspect of the amendments with the house report says is that that rational basis justifies in general the daylong public safety act of two thousand and twelve which includes among other things the  retroactivity provision and has already been pointed out earlier this morning even if congress had made no statement whatsoever about the the purpose for the amendments at that time all that is necessary in a rational basis review  to simply streamlining and expediting claims and from fashion retroactivity also serves the rational purpose of allowing to be recalled to promptly and efficiently adjusted terms or procedures of the program consistent with the statute and with the bureau broad grant of rule making authority to promote the fair and judicious allocation of limited funds under the program which is something that congress very well could have rationally concluded would be desirable in response to potentially changing nature of claims or questions about the meaning of certain regulations as has arisen in this case now getting back to the diseases which may arise as a result of physical injury clause creed two thousand and six version of the regulation which is the only basis upon which petition argues that she is entitled to relief the few points i would like to make first by definition p t s d like the vast health report stated in excess of seven hundred claims were pending at that time and that was prior to the house report to answer your question the the regulations in question went into a fact in on september eleventh two thousand and six and before and after the new regulations went into effect the bureau and this court and congress have only consistently ever sad that no claim it is intitled to benefits under the public safety officers benefits act with for any sort of matter then all of the pending cases were promptly reviewed and to the extent that they would have been changed oppose the new regulations retroactively or the yes my understanding is that the the two thousand and six regulations which went into a fact fund september eleventh two thousand and six have location i do not know how the bureau handled individual cases in the intervening period but what is clear from the case law and the record is that the practical result was no differen because whether the previous regulation was applied or whether the current new regulations were applied the bureau has always consistently deny claims for disability benefits hinges on psychological or psychiatric  that consistent with the euros the historical practice that these are not the sorts of injuries which which are compensable under the act and this gets a second point that i wanted to make one  requested by both sides at various points in the intervening seven years as harrison had to be examined by she was examined by several doctors so it's there's no one reason that we can point to there i would say that there were several reasons i think to get back to the the meaning of the of the deleted diseases clause in the in the original regulation in the pre two thousand and six version of the regulation i mentioned that post traumatic the the disease clause because by definition post traumatic stress disorder is caused by exposure to traumatic stress not necessarily physical injury and in this case there is a minimum substantial evidence in the record which is a from my low cut the most well i i appreciate that your honor that well the other point i would make that is that at a minimum regardless of how this court reads the the office's initial determination and regardless of how this court reads the administrative hearings subsequent determination and the final decision in any event the standard of review under amber messick is simply whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the the bureau final determination and if you read the director's final determination if you particularly look at the appendix to that final determination there is at a minimum substantial evidence in the record to show to support the conclusion that ms harrison that there isn't a minimum substantial evidence to support the bureau's finding that her p t s d was was not caused by physical injury in another self so in so much as it was caused by the traumatic exposure the very stressful just as you've described i would say there was a decision and the director cited all the evidence and as your honour's pointed out there is some evidence in the record to go both ways on my point as a director didn't say as you know assuming that what  i would also point out your honor that the bureau repeatedly referred to the yank her decision in justifying it's the decision that was made three times to deny the petitioners claim for her benefits and that the import operating under question you said you would concede you said even for purposes of argument you're going to say ok even if we're under the old regulation and even if the old regulation contemplates mental health issues that flow directly from the physical injury that takes us out yes but to the point that i was trying to make your honor is that the bureau repeatedly cited yank open apply danko to the facts of this this particular case in denying the saracens claim so it's it's not as if the that the bureau simply cited all of these facts in a vacuum and denied her claim without any explanation at any step of the way not the the t one i would say that essentially the same is not the same as exactly the same and certainly certainly we acknowledge that a change was made to the regulation and the diseases clause was deleted and it's it is conceivable that a certain claimant who has an identifiable disease that that was caused by physical injury could conceivably be entitled to compensation under the narrowest grounds for the courts to resolve this case i think it is to hold it doesn't matter which version of the regulations applies the court wishes to address to retroactively question i think that the provisions in thirty seven ninety six and the and she said i will listen to him because of the new regulations that everyone will fly i don't think that the court should or could throw out the two thousand and twelve amendments because i'm just saying to the the due process question you're required to have expressed terms requiring the clear intent quick wiring clear intent assures the congress itself has affirmatively considered the potential and fairness retroactive application and determine that it is an acceptable price to pay for the countervailing benefits and there is none of that in the legislative history that there is nothing to show that congress wait wait the potential unfairness to to to the claimants and that they made an affirmative agoraphobia which is again beyond just the p t s d we're dealing with somebody who basically is an unemployable because she can't leave her house most mornings and that that that that was the problem was that she is there's no indication that she provided an explanation she her panic disorders and of the other related psychiatric disorders so we're dealing with not just p t s d but a whole host of psychiatric disorders and in this case the again the council brought up the fact  that our client has been examined by doctors and that was part of the reason for the delay she has never been examined by a government psychiatry the government decided not apparently decided not to have a psychiatrist examine her so there's there's no psychiatric filing from the government to show that our client stress and psychiatric disorder was a result of strictly on her knee injury or whether or not it was part and parcel of the knee injury and basically the circumstances surrounding how she she she suffered the knee injury i will say this though that part of the delay was attributable to our asking for more time we needed more time to basically get everything together  so i want to give the agency credit for doing that or from the time the dr bextra what was presented to the agency in january two thousand and thirteen was the layer of more than three years before the the agency rendered its decision in retroactive rulemaking without that without any express authority from congress to do that and i would say that no wonder the princess cruises test that that the agency that is it that runs against the our understanding of how american large supposed to work that why is that so if we if we look at that the princess cruises tests here that there was a substantial change in this in the regulation after regina  and it had an effect it had a direct effect on basically what her behavior was and it violates basic due process of fair notice when when my when regina harrison showed up to work on the twenty fourth of october in two thousand and one this benefit existed for people who suffered some forms of stress under the under the ankle exception and that was that was a limited after the fact that was a eliminated retroactively and so i  all three parts of the princess cruises test that the the agency was required to apply the regulation as it existed on the day she filed her claim now so there the government is now saying well we have this later saying to the director that the reason she didn't come is because her husband was controlling and he convinced or not you know now are not coming up with new facts that that you think sound  controlling over the years they are no longer together and so what she did have the advice of legal counsel and things to read here when she made the decision not to not to show up yes she i don't see affirmatively declines to attend the hearing i don't think she did your honor i think that's that's a guide to question that would really have to be developed it's not a fact question that to be developed because your clinic was specifically told the director that fact that she made a decision  decline not to come in she did it because you know she was under the thumb of her husband not because she was to him table of showing up and i think there was a combination of reasons your honor but it is correct that the letter from from my student tourney's did indicate that but that was that was one of the many factors we were dealing with a client or with the petitioner here who is an extremely damaging woman that that's basically what dr beck said this is the most  rationale was for her not appearing at the hearing it was i believe that if we look at social security hearings that if a client is suffering from a mental disorder and does not show up for hours for social security hearings i believe it's the common practice to t