[00:00:01] Speaker 03: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session. [00:00:06] Speaker 03: God save the United States and this honorable court. [00:00:13] Speaker 03: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. [00:00:15] Speaker 03: Uh, first case this morning is David Murphy versus Wilkie 19 dash two zero six four system. [00:00:27] Speaker 02: Good morning, your honors. [00:00:28] Speaker 02: May it please the court. [00:00:30] Speaker 02: The CAVC aired when it held that the rules for determining the scope of an initial claim and request to reopen are not the same. [00:00:40] Speaker 02: The sympathetic reading requirement as established in Hajj and embodied in Zemre, Roberson, and Clemens applies with equal force to request reopen because it applies to all pro se veterans submissions. [00:00:55] Speaker 02: That liberal reading obligation extends beyond what's written on the claims form. [00:01:00] Speaker 02: to include all the evidence of record. [00:01:03] Speaker 03: Council, in July 2014, the regional office declined to reopen a claim for service connections to schizophrenia, and Murphy didn't appeal that. [00:01:17] Speaker 03: Isn't that the end of your case? [00:01:21] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor, I would respectfully disagree that it is not. [00:01:24] Speaker 02: That is because the regional office improperly [00:01:28] Speaker 02: interpreted Mr. Murphy's VA-9 as a new request to reopen his schizophrenia claim. [00:01:37] Speaker 02: But, Your Honor, the 2012, the February, our position is that the February 2012 claim to reopen was a claim to reopen for both post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia. [00:01:51] Speaker 02: Put another way, Your Honor, the request for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder [00:01:56] Speaker 02: The scope of that request included service connection for schizophrenia, Your Honor. [00:02:03] Speaker 03: Well, shouldn't Mr. Murphy have appeal in 2014? [00:02:11] Speaker 02: Mr. Murphy didn't. [00:02:12] Speaker 02: Because, Your Honor, the February 2012 request reopened the post-traumatic stress disorder claim, when looking at all of the evidence of record as required by 7104A, sympathetically, Your Honor, [00:02:25] Speaker 02: It was evident that Mr. Murphy was claiming also a request to reopen his schizophrenia. [00:02:31] Speaker 02: Therefore, he did not have to file a second NOD with the regional offices denial in July 2014 because he had already filed a jurisdictionally conferring NOD when he disagreed with the denial of reopening for the post-traumatic stress disorder, Your Honor. [00:02:51] Speaker 01: Mr. McDonough, this is Judge Chen. [00:02:55] Speaker 01: What is it that you can point us to in the February 2012 request to reopen that when read sympathetically and liberally reasonably informs the VA that Mr. Murphy intended for the VA to reconsider based on new and material evidence, not only a PTSD claim but also a schizophrenia claim? [00:03:25] Speaker 01: Can you point that out in the appendix? [00:03:30] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, it is true that the February 2012 request only lists post-traumatic stress disorder, Your Honor. [00:03:37] Speaker 02: But Mr. Murphy is a severely mentally disabled schizophrenic veteran who only has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, Your Honor. [00:03:46] Speaker 02: And so our position is that when Mr. Murphy, who doesn't know what disability afflicts him, filed that request to reopen claim in 2012, if you look at the medical evidence at that time, Your Honor, where he was only diagnosed with schizophrenia, you look to his notice of disagreement, where he talks about both conditions, and then very clearly in his VA-9, [00:04:10] Speaker 02: states that he wants 100% service connection for what became of his life due to his schizophrenia and his post-traumatic stress disorder, Your Honor. [00:04:19] Speaker 01: I would agree with you, Mr. McTarnaghan, that when it comes to the NOD and the VA Appeal Form 9, it's more than reasonably clear to everyone that Mr. Murphy is also very interested in reopening and having consideration for a schizophrenia claim. [00:04:37] Speaker 01: I'm just trying to understand [00:04:40] Speaker 01: what's the way to get there and looking at the 2012 submission, especially in the context of all the other prior requests to reopen, where multiple times there were requests to reopen both a PTSD claim and a schizophrenia claim, or maybe just one or the other of those two PTSD and schizophrenia claims. [00:05:07] Speaker 01: And then in this particular instance, [00:05:10] Speaker 01: coming around in February 2012, we see Mr. Murphy referencing PTSD alone. [00:05:19] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:05:19] Speaker 02: Well, I think the line of cases Roberson and Comer are instructive on this issue, Your Honor. [00:05:27] Speaker 02: Roberson applies equally to construing the scope of the Notice of Disagreement. [00:05:32] Speaker 02: And I know that that case [00:05:33] Speaker 02: dealt with 2202, and here we're dealing with the scope of a claim and not the scope of an NOD, but the fact remains the same that in those line of cases, the VA was required to not just look at that one single piece of paper as the CABC did here. [00:05:55] Speaker 02: What the VA was required to look at is all of the evidence [00:06:00] Speaker 02: of record. [00:06:01] Speaker 02: And in certain cases, as in Roberson, some of that came in through the medical evidence showing unemployability. [00:06:11] Speaker 02: And so we would suggest that taking a step back, looking at what was requested, and understanding that severely mentally disabled veterans don't necessarily understand what their psychological affliction is, [00:06:27] Speaker 02: and don't have a duty under VA law to understand that. [00:06:32] Speaker 01: Looking at all of those... Mr. McDonaghan, I read the Veterans Court. [00:06:38] Speaker 01: It said a lot of things, but it appeared to also issue an alternative holding. [00:06:45] Speaker 01: And the alternative holding was even if the Veterans Court considered the February 2012 submission liberally and sympathetically, [00:06:57] Speaker 01: It agreed with the VA that that 2012 submission was devoted to only a PTSD request to reopen and not a schizophrenia-based request to reopen. [00:07:11] Speaker 01: That alternative holding, which is, is that something that we can review that's within our jurisdiction or is that something that's more akin to a question of fact or a mere application of the artifact? [00:07:28] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, we believe that it's evident from that particular line in the Veterans Court's decision, in the CABC's decision, that it was only looking to that single piece of paper. [00:07:45] Speaker 02: And so we believe that that bolsters our argument that the CABC used the wrong rule. [00:07:51] Speaker 02: which is a question of law that this court would have jurisdiction to resolve. [00:07:58] Speaker 01: Well, I'm sorry. [00:07:59] Speaker 02: I'm a little lost. [00:08:00] Speaker 01: Are you disputing that the Veterans Court made an alternative holding? [00:08:05] Speaker 01: No, Your Honor. [00:08:06] Speaker 02: We're not disputing that. [00:08:08] Speaker 01: OK, so just focusing on that alternative holding, what I'm asking you is, what is it about alternative holding that [00:08:19] Speaker 01: makes it something that you can challenge here at the Federal Circuit? [00:08:27] Speaker 01: What's the legal error in that holding? [00:08:31] Speaker 01: I guess is what I'm wondering. [00:08:35] Speaker 02: The pure legal error in that holding, Your Honor, is that the Veterans Court limited the review of the scope of Mr. Murphy's claim to solely what was on that single piece of paper. [00:08:47] Speaker 02: And if this court holds [00:08:49] Speaker 02: that sympathetically reviewing the scope of requests reopened requires a larger review consistent with 7104A in our pleadings, Your Honor. [00:09:01] Speaker 02: The Veterans Court would then have to look at all of the evidence again using the correct rule because that's what the Veterans Court failed to do the first time. [00:09:12] Speaker 03: Well, this is Judge Clemenger, Mr. Ingram. [00:09:15] Speaker 03: Your argument is directed to convincing us that there is a question of law involved in reviewing the alternative holding, as opposed to it being a matter of fact. [00:09:28] Speaker 03: And I disagree with your ruling because the citation to Ingram in connection with the alternative holding, that part of Ingram [00:09:46] Speaker 03: the proclamant. [00:09:48] Speaker 02: Those are actual questions. [00:09:52] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:09:53] Speaker 02: I'm not sure if that's on my end or yours, but I had a lot of difficulty hearing your question. [00:09:59] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:10:01] Speaker 03: I'm saying that the York... Can you hear me now? [00:10:04] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:10:05] Speaker 02: Thank you so much. [00:10:06] Speaker 03: Yeah. [00:10:07] Speaker 03: I think you were saying in response to Judge Chen that we [00:10:12] Speaker 03: review the alternative holding as a matter of a legal question as opposed to a fact question. [00:10:18] Speaker 03: And I was simply saying to you, I disagreed with you on that because the discussion of the alternative holding... Can you hear me? [00:10:28] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor. [00:10:29] Speaker 03: The discussion of the alternative holding in the CAVC opinion cites both Clemens and Ingraham. [00:10:37] Speaker 03: And Ingraham informs us [00:10:39] Speaker 03: as to what the nature of that alternative inquiry is about, namely the reasonable expectations of the claimant and the secretary. [00:10:50] Speaker 03: Those seem to be factual issues. [00:10:56] Speaker 02: Your Honor, I'm just very quickly reviewing that part of the CAVC's decision. [00:11:03] Speaker 03: Well, it's one step behind that. [00:11:05] Speaker 03: It's Ingram. [00:11:07] Speaker 03: important CAVC decision that informs this whole topic? [00:11:14] Speaker 02: Absolutely, Your Honor. [00:11:15] Speaker 02: I'm looking at that sentence of the CAVC's decision right now. [00:11:19] Speaker 02: I would say that the February 2012 request reopened is still being examined under the incorrect rule of law. [00:11:32] Speaker 02: And that's because [00:11:34] Speaker 03: Mr. Ingram, could I point you to something else? [00:11:38] Speaker 03: If you have the government's brief with you. [00:11:43] Speaker 03: Yes, your honor. [00:11:44] Speaker 03: If you return to page 17 of the government's brief. [00:11:51] Speaker 04: Yes, your honor. [00:11:53] Speaker 03: Six lines from the bottom. [00:11:57] Speaker 03: The sentence begins, although. [00:12:01] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:12:02] Speaker 03: The government is saying that they agree. [00:12:04] Speaker 03: They are no longer arguing that you use a different test for examining a reopen claim. [00:12:16] Speaker 03: I read that sentence in the government's reply brief to say that they are hanging their hat, in this case, on the alternative argument, on the alternative holding party. [00:12:31] Speaker 02: Well, looking to that part of the government's brief, Your Honor, the government is arguing that although they do have a duty to sympathetically review prosaic pleadings, it doesn't mean that Mr. Murphy's request reopen necessarily encompasses other mental health conditions. [00:12:52] Speaker 02: That is incorrect as a matter of law, Your Honor. [00:12:55] Speaker 02: It does necessarily include other mental health conditions. [00:12:59] Speaker 02: And it includes that because of the underlying purpose of this entire veteran's law system, which is to sympathetically review pro-stay veteran's claims and submissions. [00:13:11] Speaker 02: And I hear that my time is up, Your Honors, if there are no further questions. [00:13:16] Speaker 03: We will save your rebuttal time three minutes, Ms. [00:13:19] Speaker 03: McDonaghan. [00:13:20] Speaker 03: Ms. [00:13:20] Speaker 03: Rose? [00:13:21] Speaker 03: Thank you very much. [00:13:24] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:13:25] Speaker 00: May I please the court? [00:13:26] Speaker 00: The Veterans Court's decision should be affirmed. [00:13:29] Speaker 00: The initial claim here, or excuse me, the claim to reopen cited a single word, PTSD, which even if read sympathetically, which as the court has noted is a factual matter that's not reviewable, but even if read sympathetically, it did not encompass more than the PTSD claim. [00:13:49] Speaker 00: There are important considerations here of the rule of finality that are not, [00:13:56] Speaker 00: present when the VA is considering a newly filed initial claim. [00:14:02] Speaker 00: There, in instances of initial claims, we agree that the rule in Clemens applies and that the VA should work to understand all of the conditions that could be related to a claimed condition. [00:14:21] Speaker 00: However, Mr. Murphy here has several final decisions on both his PTSD claims and his schizophrenia claims. [00:14:29] Speaker 00: And because of that, the rule of this court in Boggs and the rule that the Congress announced in 7104A and B apply to differentiate between the claims. [00:14:42] Speaker 00: In Boggs, this court held that claims are not encompassed by the symptoms but rather by the distinct diagnosis and therefore, [00:14:51] Speaker 00: It was proper for the board to find that it only had jurisdiction over the PTSD claim. [00:15:00] Speaker 00: And in fact, had the board considered the claim for schizophrenia with no development and no opportunity to submit evidence to the RO and no decision by the RO on that claim, we believe that would have been a reversible error by the board. [00:15:15] Speaker 00: So it was proper for them to find that only the PTSD claim was before it. [00:15:22] Speaker 00: Does the court have any questions for me? [00:15:25] Speaker 03: No, I don't. [00:15:26] Speaker 03: Because, Rose, this is Judge Clevinger. [00:15:29] Speaker 03: You heard me cite the sentence on page 17 in your brief. [00:15:37] Speaker 00: I did. [00:15:37] Speaker 03: Do you have your brief there? [00:15:39] Speaker 03: I do. [00:15:40] Speaker 03: All right. [00:15:42] Speaker 03: So what they're saying is you're agreeing that the VA has the duty sympathetically to read the pleading regarding the attempt to reopen [00:15:52] Speaker 03: the previously denied claims, right? [00:15:55] Speaker 00: Yes, we do agree that there is a duty to reopen. [00:16:02] Speaker 03: The concession is a little inconsistent with the thrust of your briefs, but I'll take the concession as it stands. [00:16:10] Speaker 03: So it seems to me that you seem reading that concession against the CABC decision. [00:16:17] Speaker 03: It appears to me that you are relying [00:16:21] Speaker 03: for affirmance on the alternative holding by the CAVC. [00:16:25] Speaker 00: Is that correct? [00:16:27] Speaker 00: That is not correct, Your Honor. [00:16:28] Speaker 00: I think that our position is, while there is a duty to sympathetically read the 2012 request to reopen, that the scope of the 2012 request to reopen cannot be informed by submissions post-stating the RO's decision, which the only thing that Mr. Murphy's counsel is pointing to here [00:16:51] Speaker 00: to inform the scope of his 2012 claim is the Notice of Disagreement and the Form 9. [00:17:00] Speaker 00: So here, we think that 7, 8. [00:17:02] Speaker 03: I understand what you're saying about evidence that postmates. [00:17:08] Speaker 03: I mean, that's what new and material evidence claims always are. [00:17:14] Speaker 03: You're finding something after the RO has made a decision. [00:17:20] Speaker 03: and is asking to reopen the case to consider that newly found in evidence. [00:17:29] Speaker 00: So here, the 2012, February 2012 request to reopen had a line for the veteran to describe the conditions that they were seeking to reopen. [00:17:43] Speaker 00: And a veteran can also submit additional evidence if they wish to do so at that point. [00:17:47] Speaker 00: The only thing that's happened is they submitted it [00:17:51] Speaker 03: He submitted a Form 9, did he not? [00:17:54] Speaker 00: Not until after the RO had issued its decision on the PTSD claim. [00:17:58] Speaker 00: And that's the disconnect here. [00:18:01] Speaker 00: I think Judge Lurie noted at the outset. [00:18:06] Speaker 03: Isn't that always when the Form 9 is filed? [00:18:10] Speaker 00: Yes, which is why it is our position that a Form 9 cannot inform the scope of what is before the RO when the RO is rendering its decision. [00:18:20] Speaker 00: As Judge Lurie noted at the beginning of the argument, when Mr. Murphy indicated in his Form 9 and notice of disagreement that he was also interested in pursuing his schizophrenia claim, the RO at that point properly took... This is a new argument, is it not? [00:18:37] Speaker 03: The Form 9 cannot inform the scope of what was in front of the RO? [00:18:41] Speaker 03: I didn't see that in your brief. [00:18:43] Speaker 00: That is not a new argument. [00:18:45] Speaker 00: Let me find a reference to that in the... [00:18:47] Speaker 00: the brief. [00:18:48] Speaker 00: Can you cite me in your brief where you made that argument? [00:18:52] Speaker 00: I believe that our response to that argument is made on pages 11, 12, and 13. [00:18:59] Speaker 00: Specifically, that's three pages. [00:19:04] Speaker 00: Can you be a little more specific? [00:19:06] Speaker 00: I don't see. [00:19:10] Speaker 00: Well, [00:19:11] Speaker 00: I believe, Your Honor, we reference the NOD specifically here and referencing decisions like from the Veterans Court in general. [00:19:19] Speaker 03: We know that, but the law is clear that the NOD is required to be read through the eyes of the Form 9. [00:19:26] Speaker 03: That's rock-solid law. [00:19:30] Speaker 00: And as the Veterans Court has held, nothing in an NOD could confirm jurisdiction upon the board over a claim that was never presented to and adjudicated by the RO. [00:19:40] Speaker 00: because there is no decision on such a newly raised claim. [00:19:43] Speaker 03: The question is whether it was presented and was overlooked. [00:19:51] Speaker 00: I think there is no dispute here that the only... When it comes to the claim to reopen in 2012, the first time that schizophrenia was mentioned was in the news of disagreement and Form 9. [00:20:05] Speaker 00: And it is the government's position relying on [00:20:10] Speaker 00: 7104A and B, fogs, and decisions from the Veterans Court, including Gerald, that nothing that post-dates an RO's decision, including a notice of disagreement and Form 9, can inform the scope of the claim that was before the RO prior to rendering its decision. [00:20:30] Speaker 02: Ms. [00:20:30] Speaker 03: Rhodes, this is Judge Gen. [00:20:33] Speaker 03: You're relying on CABC cases. [00:20:36] Speaker 03: We don't have a federal circuit case to that effect. [00:20:41] Speaker 00: Again, this has to be read in connection with Boggs. [00:20:45] Speaker 00: Boggs has, in Boggs, the court held that... Boggs, the leader filed Form 9 questions? [00:20:59] Speaker 00: It didn't deal with Form 9 questions, but it did deal with the scope of the claim. [00:21:03] Speaker 00: And the claim is not dependent on symptomology. [00:21:06] Speaker 00: It is dependent on diagnoses or distinct injuries. [00:21:11] Speaker 00: We cannot hear. [00:21:12] Speaker 03: And Boggs replies where you have two diagnoses, correct? [00:21:21] Speaker 00: Where there are two distinct conditions. [00:21:23] Speaker 00: Here, although Mr. Murphy. [00:21:26] Speaker 00: I thought Boggs said two diagnoses. [00:21:29] Speaker 00: Diagnoses or injuries, and that is on page, so give me one moment. [00:21:36] Speaker 00: 1337 of Boggs, and that's an important distinction. [00:21:40] Speaker 00: The court in Boggs was distinct in symptomology, which is here what Mr. Murphy is really trying to rely on from diagnoses and injuries. [00:21:52] Speaker 00: And if Mr. Murphy's argument were to be accepted, it could have a detrimental effect on veterans like Mr. Murphy, because although it's what Mr. Murphy wants here, [00:22:06] Speaker 00: It would have the same effect as the court was concerned about in bogs of potential foreclosing through a single claim, other diseases or injuries that have the same symptomology. [00:22:21] Speaker 03: I believe Judge Tran has a question. [00:22:26] Speaker 01: Oh, yes. [00:22:27] Speaker 01: Thanks, Judge Laurie. [00:22:29] Speaker 01: I just wanted to clarify with Ms. [00:22:31] Speaker 01: Rose. [00:22:33] Speaker 01: Is it possible that there can be times where [00:22:37] Speaker 01: statements made in a Nod or an Appeal Form 9 help illuminate what really should have been a reasonable sympathetic reading of the initial filing, whether it's an initial claim or request to reopen? [00:22:56] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I think that hypothetically that could be the case. [00:23:01] Speaker 00: However, I think then it would need to be [00:23:04] Speaker 00: it would need to be made in the context of the premium that's being reviewed. [00:23:10] Speaker 00: And here, the premium being reviewed has a single word, PTSD. [00:23:17] Speaker 00: And so I think this is where the Veterans Court Alternative Holdings does come into play, that there is no basis to pursue that entry as encompassing more than [00:23:31] Speaker 00: and PTSD, particularly given the Mr. Murphy's history of understanding his claims as two distinct claims. [00:23:41] Speaker 01: Another question I have relates to some examinations and examination evidence of Mr. Murphy back in 2007 and 2008. [00:23:56] Speaker 01: And my understanding is one of Mr. Murphy's contentions is [00:24:02] Speaker 01: that that evidence was never really addressed and explored by the VA. [00:24:14] Speaker 01: Do you know what the status of that evidence is and to what extent has it in fact been specifically confronted by the VA in any subsequent ruling? [00:24:31] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I'm looking here at the 2014 rating decision. [00:24:37] Speaker 00: And the 2004 rating decision does encompass earlier rating decisions and all evidence contained therein, including decisions from 2007, 2008, 2009, as well as medical treatment reports from 2014 and 2013. [00:25:00] Speaker 00: So from the VA's position, all of that evidence has been considered. [00:25:07] Speaker 00: If Mr. Mofi wanted to make arguments about whether that evidence was properly considered, it is subject now to final decisions. [00:25:21] Speaker 00: So his options for reopening would be new material evidence or a Q claim. [00:25:28] Speaker 00: And had he wanted to continue to pursue his claim for new and material evidence on the schizophrenia claim, the proper course was for him to file an appeal to the board of the 2014 claim. [00:25:45] Speaker 03: Ms. [00:25:45] Speaker 03: Rose, it's Judge Clevinger again. [00:25:48] Speaker 03: I just have a question. [00:25:50] Speaker 03: It seemed to me that in the circumstances, even if Mr. Murphy didn't prevail, [00:25:55] Speaker 03: on this appeal, he still has the opportunity to file a new and relevant evidence claim, supplemental claim. [00:26:05] Speaker 03: Is he bound to file under the new system or can he file under the legacy system? [00:26:14] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I agree that he is able to file a new claim, a claim for new [00:26:23] Speaker 00: based on the material evidence, I apologize. [00:26:27] Speaker 00: I have not looked into whether that would be under the new system or the legacy system. [00:26:34] Speaker 03: But in either event, his fundamental argument, as I understand it, is that there's new material evidence to show that his schizophrenia claim should have been respected. [00:26:48] Speaker 03: And so what's at stake here is the [00:26:52] Speaker 03: Assume that he would file a new and material or new and relevant evidence claim and he succeeded, then we're basically talking about effective date differences, isn't it? [00:27:05] Speaker 03: Yes, I would agree with that, Your Honor. [00:27:10] Speaker 01: Ms. [00:27:10] Speaker 01: Rose, my last question is, what if in February 2012, Mr. Murphy said, I want reconsideration of [00:27:21] Speaker 01: my claims related to my mental health condition. [00:27:28] Speaker 01: Do you think, really, in that context, the only reasonable reading of that would be that he's seeking to reopen both his PTSD and his schizophrenia claims? [00:27:44] Speaker 00: I think that that, in that hypothetical, a fair reading would be [00:27:49] Speaker 00: that he wanted to reopen any prior claims, any prior claims relating to his mental health condition. [00:27:58] Speaker 00: So in that circumstance, I would agree that he would be reasonable to assume that he was trying to help invoke. [00:28:09] Speaker 03: Thank you, Ms. [00:28:10] Speaker 03: Rose. [00:28:11] Speaker 03: Mr. McTonegan has three minutes for a bottle if he needs it. [00:28:16] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:28:18] Speaker 02: It is necessary for this Court to order the CAVC to read Mr. Murphy's submission sympathetically, and we respectfully request that it does. [00:28:27] Speaker 02: The alternative holding is merely couched as a factual finding, but at the end of the day, Your Honors, the CAVC is not reading the submission sympathetically, and that's legal error. [00:28:37] Speaker 02: Mr. Murphy does not have to use exact words, and as the Secretary just noted, [00:28:42] Speaker 02: And your honor just asked, if Mr. Murphy had used the word site for different letters instead of post-traumatic stress disorder, his claim would have encompassed both PTSD and schizophrenia. [00:29:00] Speaker 02: The rule of finality set forth in Boggs, your honor, that only looks retrospectively to determine the nature of a prior claim to see whether new and material evidence is required under 7104B and 5108. [00:29:12] Speaker 02: That's the second step, Your Honors. [00:29:14] Speaker 02: It does not inform VA about what the scope of the current claim is, which is the first step, and guided by the sympathetic reading requirement in Hodge and its progeny. [00:29:24] Speaker 02: The rule the CAVC imposed, Your Honors, would be the sole exception to the requirement to sympathetically review a pro se veteran's pleading. [00:29:37] Speaker 02: And if there are no further questions, Your Honors, [00:29:40] Speaker 02: Thank you, counsel. [00:29:41] Speaker 03: The case is submitted.