[00:00:02] Speaker 04: We have a mix-up. [00:00:12] Speaker 04: The first case this morning is 181486 Susick versus Wilkie. [00:00:19] Speaker 04: How do you pronounce your client's name? [00:00:29] Speaker 02: May I please the court? [00:00:30] Speaker 02: Kenneth Carpenter appearing on behalf of the adult children of Mr. Jack Sukik. [00:00:34] Speaker 02: Mr. Sukik unfortunately has passed away. [00:00:37] Speaker 02: An issue in this case is the right of the adult children of Mr. Sukik under the provisions of 38 USC 5121A to be substituted as appellants in his pending appeal before the Veterans Court that is on remand from this Court. [00:00:54] Speaker 02: The issue in this case is the interpretation of the phrase the Veterans children [00:00:59] Speaker 04: as used in a provision that is referred to in 5121 A. So the argument is that we don't need to interpret children because there's a definition of it. [00:01:12] Speaker 04: So what is your view as to why that definition doesn't control? [00:01:17] Speaker 02: Because that definition pertains to the use of the term child as it relates to the award of benefits, either additional benefits for the veteran [00:01:27] Speaker 02: or benefits independently for the child after the veteran dies. [00:01:35] Speaker 02: This statute is a... How do we know that? [00:01:38] Speaker 04: I mean, is there anything in the language that says that? [00:01:40] Speaker 04: Is there some limiting cross-reference? [00:01:43] Speaker 04: How do we know that? [00:01:46] Speaker 02: I'm not sure that there is any way to discern that from either the text of the statute 101, p. [00:01:56] Speaker 02: 4, [00:01:57] Speaker 02: or, for that matter, from the text of 5121, lower case A. However, the fact is that when Congress wrote 5121, lower case A, the Congress used a specific term in the third category of qualified survivors of dependent children, which evidences an intent upon Congress and expresses to this court [00:02:24] Speaker 02: a clear understanding of that intent. [00:02:27] Speaker 02: Mr. Carpenter. [00:02:28] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:02:28] Speaker 03: You draw, regarding 5121A, you draw a distinction between the use of the word veteran's children and the use of the word child. [00:02:38] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:02:40] Speaker 03: Supposing the veteran only has one child. [00:02:43] Speaker 03: Is that children? [00:02:46] Speaker 02: No, because one child would be the veteran's children. [00:02:51] Speaker 02: However, the question... [00:02:53] Speaker 04: No, it would be the veteran's child. [00:02:56] Speaker 02: Excuse me. [00:02:57] Speaker 02: It would be a child of the veteran. [00:03:00] Speaker 02: And the child of the veteran, whether an adult or a minor. [00:03:04] Speaker 02: So the distinction between children and child doesn't apply there, right? [00:03:09] Speaker 02: I don't think the distinction is relevant as it relates to the definition provided by Congress in 1014. [00:03:17] Speaker 03: What I'm suggesting is... But you argued that the plural form somehow altered [00:03:21] Speaker 03: the understanding, the underlying meaning of children as opposed to child? [00:03:27] Speaker 02: Well, simply in this context, because there were three children, the distinction here is the way in which Congress used the phrasing of the veterans' children versus the veterans' dependent parents. [00:03:45] Speaker 04: I know that's a point, but why don't we stay with Judge Wallach's point, because the other sort of incongruity is that they talk about dependent parents in C, but if there were only one dependent parent alive, you would clearly say that parents includes one parent. [00:04:07] Speaker 04: So in that regard, the veteran's children includes every child, which brings us back to the definition in 101 of the word child, right? [00:04:18] Speaker 02: Well, I think it only does if that definition is relevant to the determination as to substitution. [00:04:25] Speaker 02: And I'm suggesting that it is not relevant. [00:04:28] Speaker 04: But can you point us to anything either in 5121 or in 101 that cabins [00:04:35] Speaker 04: the applicability of the definition. [00:04:38] Speaker 02: No, I cannot. [00:04:39] Speaker 03: How do you deal with one USC1, the very first thing in the United States Code, which says, quote, in determining the meaning of any act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise, words importing the singular include and apply to several persons? [00:05:04] Speaker 02: And I don't see that as a barrier here because that is why... You seem to be drawing a distinction in your brief. [00:05:12] Speaker 02: I'm looking at page 12. [00:05:13] Speaker 02: Yes, but that distinction is in the context of this case and in the context of what 5121 Lower Case A does. [00:05:24] Speaker 02: The function of 5121 Lower Case A is to allow for a class of individuals identified by Congress [00:05:33] Speaker 02: to step into the shoes of the veteran and under the lowercase a, file a new claim on their own, in their own behalf versus under 51. [00:05:46] Speaker 03: And how do your clients fit in that category? [00:05:49] Speaker 03: I'm sorry. [00:05:50] Speaker 03: How do your clients fit in that category? [00:05:52] Speaker 02: Because they are in the class of the veteran's children, whether singular or plural, without regard [00:06:02] Speaker 02: without regard or need in the context of what you're doing under 5121 lower case A to collect or to attempt to recover benefits that were due in owing the veteran at death. [00:06:18] Speaker 02: And a minor child or a dependent child is just as capable of doing that as an adult child is when you look in the context of 5121 A [00:06:31] Speaker 02: as to what the function is. [00:06:32] Speaker 03: But they identify the minor child and they identify the dependent child who's in college and so on. [00:06:39] Speaker 02: Yes, but what they do not do is to expressly exclude the adult children. [00:06:45] Speaker 02: And the government and the Veterans Court have by inference decided that the phrase, veterans children, excludes adult children. [00:06:56] Speaker 03: Clearly, the definition in 101-4... Well, the statute as one reads it logically excludes those children who are not covered specifically. [00:07:05] Speaker 03: There are Latin maxims that explain that. [00:07:10] Speaker 02: Except that, Your Honor, the qualifier in 101-1 is to look at the context of the statute. [00:07:17] Speaker 02: And in this case, the context of the statute involved is to, if you will, [00:07:23] Speaker 02: designate representatives to act on the veterans behalf after the veterans death. [00:07:29] Speaker 02: And there is no reason. [00:07:30] Speaker 02: You don't think it's to designate beneficiaries? [00:07:34] Speaker 02: Well, they do not become beneficiaries unless they succeed. [00:07:39] Speaker 02: And that's the important part of understanding the total context of 5121. [00:07:43] Speaker 02: You can step into the appellant's shoes and lose the appellant's appeal. [00:07:49] Speaker 04: So what is relevant? [00:07:51] Speaker 00: Could your clients bring a separate accrued benefits claim? [00:07:58] Speaker 02: I believe that they could. [00:07:59] Speaker 00: A separate action? [00:08:00] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:08:01] Speaker 02: Under 5121, if this court interprets the phrase the veterans' children to include adult children, under the existing case law and interpretation of 5121, lower case A, they could not. [00:08:17] Speaker 02: They would be expressly excluded. [00:08:19] Speaker 02: And that's the point of reading 5121, lowercase a, as a statute that excludes certain of the veteran's children, i.e. [00:08:31] Speaker 02: the adult children. [00:08:32] Speaker 00: But when Congress amended the statute, it did so in order to allow children to step in as substitute and see the claim through to its completion. [00:08:44] Speaker 00: But I'm not sure that Congress intended for the [00:08:49] Speaker 00: the children who were not eligible for accrued benefits to become eligible. [00:08:56] Speaker 00: That is correct, Your Honor. [00:08:57] Speaker 00: Well, your interpretation leads to that scenario. [00:09:02] Speaker 00: If we accept your argument, then we have to accept that the statute also changed who is entitled to accrued benefits, and I just don't read the statute that way. [00:09:12] Speaker 02: Respectfully, Your Honor, you're looking at the two statutes as though they were one. [00:09:19] Speaker 02: 5121 capital A is the substitution question. [00:09:23] Speaker 02: And Congress made that substitution statute dependent upon qualifying under 5121. [00:09:30] Speaker 02: I don't understand. [00:09:32] Speaker 04: When you have a provision in the statute that is titled definitions, that doesn't do anything in and of itself other than to provide definitions of terms that are used in other sections, right? [00:09:46] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:09:47] Speaker 04: So you're saying that 5121 is an exception to the other rule that we would normally apply was all of these definitions apply. [00:10:00] Speaker 02: I'm suggesting that 5121 lowercase a must be looked at through the lens of what it does. [00:10:08] Speaker 02: And it provides a two step process post death of a veteran when there is an assertion that there are benefits [00:10:17] Speaker 02: that are due and unpaid. [00:10:20] Speaker 02: And those benefits are not benefits where there is necessarily a determination of entitlement, but in fact a pending appeal or claim for entitlement. [00:10:33] Speaker 02: And that claim under 5121A has to be continued by someone. [00:10:40] Speaker 02: Prior to the adoption of 5121A, the veteran's claim died with the veteran and accrued benefits [00:10:47] Speaker 02: beneficiaries, potential beneficiaries, had to start anew. [00:10:52] Speaker 02: They had to go all the way back to the regional office and start the claim all over again. [00:10:59] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:10:59] Speaker 04: Can I just ask you just for clarification? [00:11:01] Speaker 04: 5121 to the phrase is upon the death of a veteran to the living person first listed below. [00:11:11] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:11:12] Speaker 04: So if you've got a spouse, [00:11:15] Speaker 04: you don't reach B or C. That is correct. [00:11:18] Speaker 04: So in your view, the veterans children, this debate we've been having about whether it's child or children, whether there's a difference, you would agree would you not that as Judge Wallach pointed out, if you don't have a spouse and you have one child, you would say that B would be covered and then you don't reach C. So even though it's a child and not children, that would be tough. [00:11:43] Speaker 02: You wouldn't get to the dependent parents. [00:11:45] Speaker 02: And just follow it. [00:11:46] Speaker 04: You would not reach the dependent parents. [00:11:47] Speaker 02: You would not reach the dependent parents. [00:11:49] Speaker 02: And in fact, there is another provision. [00:11:51] Speaker 04: But that cuts against your view of the word, your view that children somehow brings us to a definition other than the definition of child. [00:12:03] Speaker 02: What I'm suggesting is, Your Honor, when Congress chose to use the phrase, the veteran's children, and not use the phrase, the veteran's dependent children, [00:12:15] Speaker 02: as Congress clearly did in the next subsection. [00:12:18] Speaker 04: Well, let's say the word in B said the veteran's child. [00:12:24] Speaker 04: Would you argument be any different? [00:12:27] Speaker 04: Would you still say it had to say dependent child, even though that term is explicitly defined in 101? [00:12:37] Speaker 02: No, except that Congress placed a parenthetical [00:12:43] Speaker 02: behind both of those definitions of in equal shares. [00:12:48] Speaker 02: So the suggestion is that Congress's thinking was in terms of multiple children, even though I agree that, as Judge Wallach points out, you could have just a single child. [00:13:00] Speaker 04: Well, if there were a definition of parent in 101, you wouldn't say, well, that definition doesn't apply to 2C because that talks about parents and not parent, right? [00:13:16] Speaker 02: That would be correct, because in C, Congress expressly qualified the term parent or parents by the term dependent. [00:13:28] Speaker 02: And that communicated and expressed intent upon Congress to limit the class to only those parents who were dependent and impose no such limitation [00:13:42] Speaker 02: on the preceding section in B that applies to the veteran's children. [00:13:48] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:13:49] Speaker 04: We'll reserve the remainder of your time for rebuttal. [00:14:07] Speaker 01: Good morning. [00:14:08] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court [00:14:11] Speaker 01: This court should affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims because Congress, in the definitional section of the statute, section 101, subsection 4, explicitly defined the term child, quote, for the purposes of this title, meaning all of title 38. [00:14:31] Speaker 01: And that includes section 5121A, the section at issue here, with the phrase, [00:14:38] Speaker 04: Can I ask you kind of a sideshow question, which is just as a practical matter, what's happening to these benefits? [00:14:45] Speaker 04: My recollection is that this veteran won benefits back dating to a certain date, but there was still a dispute over how far that date went, how far back that date went, right? [00:14:58] Speaker 01: That's correct. [00:14:59] Speaker 04: Is he given his unfortunate death in the interim? [00:15:05] Speaker 04: Is he still going to get, or has he gotten the benefit? [00:15:09] Speaker 04: I mean, there was no dispute he was entitled to certain benefits back dating to a certain date. [00:15:14] Speaker 01: That's right. [00:15:15] Speaker 04: Is that part of the case that was still open at his death? [00:15:19] Speaker 04: And if so, does that mean that he doesn't get anything? [00:15:23] Speaker 01: No. [00:15:24] Speaker 01: That's not my understanding. [00:15:26] Speaker 01: To dig in a little bit into the background weeds here, my recollection is similar to yours, Your Honor. [00:15:33] Speaker 01: This veteran was found in 2007. [00:15:35] Speaker 01: to have a service connection dating back to 2003. [00:15:37] Speaker 01: And the way that works, based on my understanding, is that that person would then be getting the benefits. [00:15:44] Speaker 01: He then appealed that decision and sought an earlier effective date, which after a number of remands, even before it got to this court, ultimately came to this court in 2016, this court remanded just that issue of the benefits going back. [00:15:59] Speaker 04: So even though the case may still be open, that he's not forfeiting upon his death [00:16:04] Speaker 04: He's got some back stuff coming under this case. [00:16:09] Speaker 01: Well, I think it already came. [00:16:11] Speaker 01: He would have been awarded benefits in 2007. [00:16:14] Speaker 01: Going back to 2003, that would have been awarded. [00:16:18] Speaker 01: That's my understanding, although it's not an issue. [00:16:20] Speaker 04: It's your understanding. [00:16:21] Speaker 04: It's just the remainder that remains in dispute that is affected by our conclusions. [00:16:25] Speaker 01: That's right. [00:16:25] Speaker 01: And just to finish the thought, [00:16:27] Speaker 01: That is an issue that this court addressed in Youngman. [00:16:32] Speaker 01: I think we can all agree that it's an unfortunate situation when there's an open claim and the veteran passes. [00:16:38] Speaker 01: But this court stated in Youngman that the benefits are essentially for the veteran, the veteran's benefits. [00:16:46] Speaker 03: Or the benefits minor. [00:16:48] Speaker 03: Or dependents. [00:16:50] Speaker 03: So supposing that a veteran has a child in college and so you're looking at four years [00:16:57] Speaker 03: or something. [00:16:58] Speaker 03: But the question of those possibly accrued earlier benefits hasn't been decided yet. [00:17:06] Speaker 03: How does it get handled? [00:17:08] Speaker 01: Well, that's an issue that the Veterans Court addressed. [00:17:11] Speaker 01: I think I understand your Honor's question correctly. [00:17:13] Speaker 01: Obviously correct me if I'm getting it wrong. [00:17:15] Speaker 01: But that's an issue that the Veterans Court [00:17:19] Speaker 01: dealt with below in this case, and it also cited by cross-reference to one of this court's decision in National Organization of Veterans Advocates. [00:17:27] Speaker 01: So it's in the record. [00:17:30] Speaker 01: The statute explicitly says that the claimants claim the beneficiaries accrue, quote unquote, upon the death of the veteran. [00:17:39] Speaker 01: And so what this court discussed in National Organization of Veterans Advocates and what [00:17:44] Speaker 01: CAVC discussed below in this case when it was the argument is that the operative date is the date on which the veteran passes upon the death of the veteran rather than the date of the claim. [00:17:58] Speaker 01: The original argument that Mr. Suchich... But there's an inchoate amount of money that hasn't been decided whether he's entitled to that money at the time he [00:18:12] Speaker 03: dies, that claim continues, correct? [00:18:16] Speaker 03: If you have a minor or a dependent child. [00:18:18] Speaker 01: Yes, that's correct. [00:18:19] Speaker 01: That's what both 5121 small a allowed that claim to continue. [00:18:26] Speaker 01: It says that if you're an accrued benefits beneficiary, you can... Do the same presumptions apply in favor of the veteran, apply in favor of the veteran's dependent children? [00:18:42] Speaker 01: I think that's an open question, and I don't think that's an issue that's been explicitly decided. [00:18:46] Speaker 01: They're obviously not the veteran, but they are, to the extent the statute is a pro-claimant statute, to the extent that they fit within the statute, they would be the object of the pro-benefit aim of that statute. [00:19:04] Speaker 01: The difference here is you're dealing with adult children. [00:19:06] Speaker 01: I know, that's where I'm going. [00:19:10] Speaker 01: We would respectfully disagree with one of the points that Appellant's Council made in his remarks, which is he said that the statute does not anywhere exclude adult children. [00:19:22] Speaker 01: And we respectfully disagree with that, because the definitional provision of the statute, 101 sub 4, explicitly defines child as a minor child. [00:19:32] Speaker 01: And I should add that that definition, 101 sub 4, includes [00:19:38] Speaker 01: one explicit exclusion, which is Chapter 19, which deals with life insurance benefits. [00:19:44] Speaker 03: You're anticipating my question, which is, when you have an adult child who's not a dependent, has anybody ever talked about whether they stand in the position of a privileged beneficiary? [00:20:03] Speaker 03: Or has that claim ever arisen? [00:20:04] Speaker 03: You see what I'm saying. [00:20:08] Speaker 03: Congress clearly has some interest in protecting those dependent children and in placing them in a position of wardship. [00:20:20] Speaker 03: Right. [00:20:20] Speaker 03: And it doesn't necessarily have an interest in placing the adult children in a position of wardship. [00:20:31] Speaker 01: I would agree with that point, Your Honor. [00:20:34] Speaker 03: Has it ever been disgusting work? [00:20:37] Speaker 03: I didn't see it. [00:20:38] Speaker 01: The closest thing I would point your honor to is there's a Morris decision that we cited in our brief. [00:20:44] Speaker 01: In page 499 of that decision, this is a Veterans Court decision. [00:20:49] Speaker 01: One of the things the Veterans Court said was that, and it was another instance, it was one of these cases similar to this court's young decision where it was a fiduciary rather than an adult child, but it presents very similar circumstances. [00:21:00] Speaker 01: And one of the things the court pointed out there is the three categories of dependents who are listed in 51, 21, 2, [00:21:07] Speaker 01: are the same kind of three categories of dependents for which the veteran in life could get additional benefits for having a dependent, either a spouse or a child or a dependent parent. [00:21:20] Speaker 01: I think that on the one hand shows a congruence between the type of point your honor is making or who is Congress really seeking to protect here. [00:21:27] Speaker 01: And then, Your Honors, could also look at the structure in the context of the statute itself. [00:21:31] Speaker 01: It's reasonably clear that Congress has set this up for the benefits to belong to the veteran. [00:21:39] Speaker 01: They're obviously certain dependent. [00:21:40] Speaker 01: When you have a dependent, colloquially you could call that an extension. [00:21:45] Speaker 03: I think there's a quote on the VA building from President Lincoln about who has borne the battle and his widow and his children. [00:21:56] Speaker 03: I walk by it every day. [00:21:59] Speaker 01: I'm not familiar with the quote, Your Honor, but your point is well taken. [00:22:04] Speaker 04: Does 4A, does the definition of child, which Judge Wallach in his question referred to the fact that the kids are in college or in school, and that's what that's included in the definition of child. [00:22:17] Speaker 04: That sounds so familiar. [00:22:20] Speaker 04: Do you happen to know if that corresponds to the Social Security Administration? [00:22:24] Speaker 04: Because I know for dependent benefits, if you're still in school, you have continuing on. [00:22:30] Speaker 01: I don't know the answer to that, Your Honor. [00:22:31] Speaker 01: But I do know it's effectively, I know from personal experience, it allows a child who continues to be dependent on his or her parents because they're going to school, at some point it was added to, OK, they don't have to be under it. [00:22:48] Speaker 01: They can be over 18 if they're still in school. [00:22:52] Speaker 01: So that's the nature of that. [00:22:53] Speaker 00: I'd like to follow up on the question I asked Mr. Carpenter and direct it to you. [00:22:59] Speaker 00: Would his clients be able to bring a separate accrued benefits claim? [00:23:08] Speaker 00: Let's say they don't want a substitute. [00:23:09] Speaker 00: Instead, they want to just go off and file a new claim. [00:23:12] Speaker 00: Would they be able to do that? [00:23:14] Speaker 01: No, they would not. [00:23:15] Speaker 01: but only for the same reasons that they're not eligible beneficiaries to substitute. [00:23:21] Speaker 01: And that actually gets to a point that I was about to make myself, which is that the substitution statute, 5121 capital A, twice cross references the definition of who counts as an accrued benefits beneficiary under 5121 small a. It's in the first paragraph of the statute, but maybe even the last paragraph [00:23:45] Speaker 01: of the statute is the clearest. [00:23:46] Speaker 01: It's subsection B, limitation. [00:23:49] Speaker 01: And it says, those who are eligible to make a claim under the statute, quote, shall be determined in accordance with section 5121A of this title. [00:23:58] Speaker 01: And the reason that that's relevant to your question, Your Honor, is because the point here is that 5121A changed procedurally the process for someone [00:24:10] Speaker 01: who is an eligible beneficiary to step into the shoes of the veteran claimant. [00:24:14] Speaker 01: Previously, they had to go back and start a new claim. [00:24:17] Speaker 01: 5121A makes it possible for that person, rather than having to go back and start a new claim, to step right into the shoes of the veteran and continue the veteran's claim. [00:24:29] Speaker 01: But it does not change the definition of who counts as an eligible claimant. [00:24:34] Speaker 01: It doesn't change the definition of 1014. [00:24:37] Speaker 01: And it doesn't purport to change how that's carried through in 5121 small a. In fact, it twice cross references that statute. [00:24:48] Speaker 01: So it's a procedural change, but it doesn't change the substance. [00:24:51] Speaker 01: And so if someone was an eligible beneficiary, [00:24:54] Speaker 01: presumably they would be able to do it either way. [00:24:57] Speaker 01: They could start a new claim, although clearly why would you want to if you could continue the veterans claim, or they could continue the veterans claim. [00:25:04] Speaker 01: But as a non-eligible beneficiary, they couldn't do either. [00:25:10] Speaker 04: Can I ask you about one of Mr. Carpenter's arguments, which goes to the amendment that included veterans-dependent parents? [00:25:19] Speaker 04: Yes, you're right. [00:25:20] Speaker 04: I mean, I know we all have to take a deep breath if we're talking about Congressional intent, but it seems more logical than not, doesn't it, that if Congress just at one time is not writing 101, they're writing this provision and they're putting in the word dependent for parents, the same people doing that would, if they intended to only include dependent children, likely put the same word in there. [00:25:48] Speaker 01: Well, Your Honor, I think I can clear up some confusion there. [00:25:51] Speaker 01: And we've discussed this in our brief and so did the Veterans Court itself. [00:25:55] Speaker 01: The difference here is that there is a definition of parent that's in Section 101 of the statute. [00:26:01] Speaker 01: It's actually Section 101-5 and 102. [00:26:03] Speaker 01: The statute, the basic statute, 101, this is 5, so it's the next one right after child, defines parent but doesn't have the same type of dependence limitation. [00:26:14] Speaker 01: There actually is a separate definition of dependent parents in 102. [00:26:19] Speaker 01: And this is exactly what the Veterans Court said. [00:26:21] Speaker 01: It actually supports our position, because the point is child is already defined as dependent. [00:26:26] Speaker 01: Parent is not defined as dependent in its basic definition. [00:26:31] Speaker 01: And so unless Congress added that moniker dependent parent to parents, they would have been connoting all parents, because that's what the basic statutory definition says. [00:26:42] Speaker 01: So if anything, it supports our position. [00:26:45] Speaker 01: All of the claimants under sub 2 are different types of dependents. [00:26:50] Speaker 01: If Congress had not added dependent in front of parent, it would have been using the 105 definition, which is all parents. [00:27:01] Speaker 01: Adding that same moniker in front of child or children would have been redundant because the statute's definitional provision already defines [00:27:11] Speaker 01: child as either a minor or somewhat, some other form of dependent child. [00:27:20] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:27:20] Speaker 01: We request the firmance of the CAVC decision. [00:27:30] Speaker 02: Your Honor, I'd like to clarify something that the government said. [00:27:35] Speaker 02: Maybe I misheard what the government said, but in this case, Mr. [00:27:41] Speaker 02: Sukik's benefits will be forfeited if there is no substitution. [00:27:46] Speaker 02: His appeal, his claim, will die with him and there will be no recovery and assuming for the moment that there is an entitlement to those benefits. [00:27:58] Speaker 02: Those benefits will accrue to the benefit of the government because they will not [00:28:03] Speaker 02: be ordered and obligated to pay. [00:28:05] Speaker 04: Yeah. [00:28:06] Speaker 04: No, I, maybe I'm thinking about something else. [00:28:08] Speaker 04: Maybe it was, did you, do you disagree though, what he said about my question about the benefits that everybody has already agreed he was entitled to? [00:28:16] Speaker 02: Those are not involved. [00:28:19] Speaker 02: No, no, those were received by Mr. Sukic during his life. [00:28:22] Speaker 02: The appeal that he carried on until his death was to deal with the earlier effective date [00:28:30] Speaker 02: And this court ordered that it be returned to the board for another consideration of whether or not there was or wasn't entitlement. [00:28:37] Speaker 02: And that's where the substitution in capital A becomes different from the lower case A, because it allows the substituted appellant not to have to go back to the beginning, but then simply pick up where the case was at the time of death. [00:28:53] Speaker 02: And that seems to me to get to the salient purpose or the salient [00:28:58] Speaker 02: difference between the definition in 101 and its use in Title 38 versus the statute that was created by Congress that dealt with how you recover those benefits and identified within that statute clearly a difference between the veteran's children and the veteran's dependent parents. [00:29:23] Speaker 02: And that should allow [00:29:25] Speaker 02: for Mr. Cukic to continue his appeal after his death in order to recover those benefits. [00:29:34] Speaker 02: Let's just move to the questions. [00:29:35] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:29:35] Speaker 04: We thank both sides and the case is submitted.