state the state seeks five million dollars in and it damages attorneys fees cost an amount equal to the taxes and any other remedy under justice but at no point  and that much the government and i can agree on that we absolutely do waive any right to our money mandating statutory climb that's not what this is and we never claimed that it was what it is it's not a money mandating like this is a case that we brought for an implied breach of contract against the v no point did we claim that we want veteran's benefits and and in order to affirm the trial course decision this core must believe that somehow we were seeking veterans benefits and exactly what the trial course decision we are seeking damages refer to it that we're seeking damages based on conduct that we believe was outlined the complaint and those paragraphs of the conduct is the denial of benefits there was conduct that gave rise to to an understanding that there was this mutuality of an intent to contract it wasn't and i'm and i understand that it that it can be seen as it is a denial benefits but frankly that it's offensive that it was you know up or characterized as a as a a military benefits case we believe that we're not seeking any military benefits thinking damages for denial military we're seeking damages based on what we believe was an agreement that these pardons came to what was the agreement for you know if you agree it was the agreement if i don't get  health care benefits that i'm entitled to and i deserve five million dollars and i'm trying to understand what is the what is the agreement the implied agreement and and in no way am i trying to serve here that we've agreement that if i'm wrong fully deny veteran health care benefits there that that is a breach of a contract that entitle me to damages flow from that breach of a contract i would either think it drips you know we don't we don't believe that this was a denial of healthcare benefits this was a nick we believe this was two parties with an understanding and one party just completely ok and what is that understanding that the two parties at the v a being that they would provide health care and then jason believing that he was going to receive health care so that we don't leave it with the understanding is the government was obligated to provide health care and if it somehow breached that  that yes yes however we are not granting health care about it well they never even undertook to do anything they put they held themselves out there that they were going to help him he believed they were going to help him and there wasn't any help coming so we believe we have presented some evidence we do have more and we believe that the government has more in their possession but but but to say that we haven't even raised of a fair inference that there is this implied contract enough to vest  mean it is limited only in certain specific irrigation but allegations you're making  suv and and that those cases belong under this thirty eight u s c five eleven a which vest this case the sensually with the secretary a statute that entirely deals with veterans benefits claims and the presiding judge is certainly a fine man and a legal genius but he made a mistake i do believe the mistake was made and that's ok but we need to correct that judge essentially said death that court doesn't have jurisdiction the secretary does and that's just not true the secretary has jurisdiction over claims for benefits ours is not a benefit he's saying that you don't really want five million dollars you want better and manifests and and that's just that's just not true at and it's also strange that we don't want veteran's benefits was we've said in our complaint what we want we believe we've raised that fair inference that that confers that tucker and jurisdiction and i don't see anything that that would but as it stands if not in converse jurisdiction it has been held that if it is a suit for money damages and the united states as a government is a party that that is the proper jurisdiction in he visit v a hospital facilities for treatment he did not know he was he was sent home early from afghanistan and essentially turned on the street and when he did seek help from the v a which was via phone he was assured that he was going to get help and that help was coming and there's an piece of evidence in the exhibits that referenced that ten ten easy parm where it confirmed that the ok we have received registration from the hampton v a you know there will be some follow up comment and it just never came and hampton that had a meeting of the minds and one party absolutely failed to perform there please the court a couple of points in response but first schism controls this case you know it's directly contrary precedent you know the benefits that we're talking about here are derived from the status of mr small as a soldier as a veteran what's it supposed hypothetically that he had to go on to a v a hospital so early and he'd been turned  away would he eventually have a cause of action or negligence he could your honor under thirty eight us eleven fifty one you know i think there would have to be an examination into the specifics claim i know in this case there have been additional tort claims filed against the v a those original had and i think at this point given the shorts that you were magicians for those those are now expired obviously if there had been a recovery there eleven fifty one works in conjunction with the federal tort claims act but in this situation at least on the merits i'm somewhat skeptical of that appellant's counsel is represented that mr small would never went to a v a hospital in the first place that there could be on the merits an eleven fifty one claim  life that seems to be more or less what the complaining say and under those circumstances have you know how far they have to go given the the see whether or not there needs to be some sort of her for all for example if somebody has p t s d or something like that well when was the exam here where the exam here is in june two thousand and twelve part of a separation as part of  separation there was no referral that's in the record the the the written answers that were provided you know at that point there was no referral afterwards  after mr small would die and there was a determination that he was service connected and so in that sense benefits flowed from that back to answering sort of the specific question about you know obviously the v a is a big organization it's difficult when for example there's been an examination there's been no referral for a specific illness or injury if there were negligent that w rays or whatnot you know that would have to be brought under the federal tort claims act which which happened in this case and that's sort of a different matter but what we're discussing here is whether or not there's a contract systems i'm not sure that that would solve your particular issue with them being connected but they are spare separate agencies and so that there does need to be some sort of communication between the two agencies on this is about damages it's not about veterans benefits jason's death it doesn't want benefits and i understand that  you say that they are damages from the a benefits or healthcare benefits of five eleven a doesn't allow us to bring a claim for damages so it it is impossible that five eleven a could serve as as our remedy here when we have plainly broader claim for a breach of an implied contract claim of five million dollars in p damages and be told that instead we can file a v a benefits claim it's just not true  he's dead you know you can't get benefits there's nothing that we've sought for benefits now are i will the meddling in this family obtain benefits survivor benefit the they do receive a a death pension yes yes to which they're entitled and there may be some facts here that certainly support negligence and maybe ten other cases against against the government in the suit but nothing would foreclose us to bring this implied breach of contract with the v a and i understand that we have not proven our case in the complaint however we were required to we were to bring a fair inference of how correct jurisdiction here and this complaint is a small piece in a larger litigation strategy and for us to have to lay out all our evidence in a complaint puts you state at an extremely disadvantage state especially knowing that we have an automatic motion to dismiss coming as soon as we there was an understanding we believe between these two parties and one party the v a failed miserably and their obligation under that agreement but but to say that he was denied benefits is just absolutely not true