obligated to assist position that legally every time you come up with newly developed evidence the v a has to give you another medical opinion no your honor the point is that under the veterans court's decision it shows that the whole notion of the we control the development and and we will get this by way of our exam our position is that he has an individual right to the assistance of the v a in developing directing its employees not to respond to this request for assistance is a clear violation of his indisputable right to the assistance of the had i am treating consistent with the veterans court decision and showed which said that when you have as in this case or earlier affected a nurse's significant period in which there is little or no evidence of what the actual the v a shot off that opportunity by saying through its employee you will not respond to this request that simply is not consistent with the v a s duty to assist and the important part of this case in the context because the duty to assist requires development of the evidence fully and sympathetically prior to the decision so that all of the evidence is available before they make the decision and a responded by director who had be a psychiatrist not to assist and that is a different matter than simply the question of whether or not assisted should or should not have been provided or was adequately provide then if i understand your argument about what the parameters of the mandamus jurisdiction would be isn't it the case that any time the veteran asks for something from opinion of it well we need to look at what happened here mr beazley had his examination medical opinion was issued the very same time very everything's working for has been considered says well yes there are mental health issues but i don't think entitled to have a very real possibility of harming the treating physician patient relationship that is something that the a's concerned about and that is something that i think we all should be concerned something that just sort of fun to drive on mr beazley and we can appreciate his desire to have his treating physician opine about his medical condition but there are other competition and benefits examination is heightened when it comes to mental health issues so we're talking about a subspecies of all of the elements  and that was a prank or at that time that's right all right but just to make sure i understand what you're saying about the material that's on j one thirty one thirty one that is not uncommon i take it slam very narrowly despite the fact that it appears to me that lamb's says that the jurisdiction there arises under the already tax and then he's taken to nonprofit for the proposition that those there was clearly a fact issue and it was really a direct appeal to a colored as a read there were the two that you mentioned where the cases where the discussion was very cryptic but all of the about that then he says i'm entitled and then he may be wrong about that but that seems to me is not a factual question that looks a lot like a legal question if he's right about his legal  to provide a medical opinion from the requested source in under circumstances the swelling within the category this case it may be that you think there's no support for that legal argument i mean the frustration i'm having is we're talking fifty cases in which you continue to argue that we don't have jurisdiction in these exact type of circumstances and i just don't understand how that's not a waste of more time government money is to allow his treating psychologist notwithstanding all of the post hoc rationalization if you heard about of the integrity of the parent doctor patient relationship and potential conflict of interest here this is a and indisputable right reasonable minds can differ as to what's reasonable so the right made this but it might not be indisputable know your i'd only saw the facts of this case in the facts of this case we have a clear unequivocal there are none by the v a no you shall not get the assistance from your be a psychiatrist you wrote him you requested opinion of him you provided him information and we are directing our employees not to assist you right on the facts of this case that could be reasonable and i don't think that that is possible to come to that conclusion in the intent of congress to provide assistance to the v a in this unique restructured situation we were  that information or allow the easy a tip or clue the psychiatrist or unjustified based upon all of these quite frankly furthers assertions of conflict of interest you undermine the paternal notion here are you suggesting that the v a could come in and some parents actually i overkill and say we have decided that this is religion and we don't have to whether they were right about the conflict of interest or not is really irrelevant i mean that has nothing to do with the existence of a legal right or your ability to pursue that ri he was not just denied he was told that it will not be providers and that has to be a straight up question of law because the duty is