[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
I have an extra argued case, it's number 21-1481, way against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Carpenter, when you're ready.

[00:00:49] Speaker 02:
Okay, Mr. Carpenter.

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Kenneth Carpenter appearing on behalf of Mr. Harold Blake.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
If I could begin with a brief discussion of the Johnson decision below.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
The Johnson decision below is relevant to this case because in Johnson they specifically interpreted

[00:01:23] Speaker 00:
the provisions at issue in this appeal, and specifically found, and the Secretary conceded, that they were framed in the disjunctive, that the use of or meant that each of the three elements that were identified in the rating criteria at both 70 and 100 were framed in the alternative.

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
so that only one of those needed to be met in order to meet the requirements of the rating schedule.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
Diorio was the case that came thereafter, but was reversed by the Veterans Court and was not able to be heard because Mr. Diorio passed away.

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
In this case, Your Honor, at issue in this appeal is whether, when is here, the criteria of a rating for a mental disorder

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
is substantially the same.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
Does the duty of the VA to maximize the benefits to be awarded?

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
Mr. Conner, let me ask you, the Johnson decision, and correct me if I'm wrong, post-dated the R.O.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
decision, didn't it?

[00:02:28] Speaker 01:
We're talking about the 1986 RO decision here?

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
And we're in a Q environment here.

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
We are.

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
And so Johnson, after the RO decision, pronounced the law, you would say.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
But the Q decision was before that.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
But only as it related to the fact that the regulation

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
rating criteria was interpreted to be in the alternative.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
It did not reach the question that was reached in DeOrio or has been decided by any other court as to whether or not the criteria for the inability to work that is in the 70% criteria versus the 100% criteria is substantially the same.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
That's the matter at issue.

[00:03:23] Speaker 00:
That was the allegation of misinterpretation that was made.

[00:03:28] Speaker 00:
There is no case law that controls this specific interpretation.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
The interpretation that is required in this case that was not addressed by the court below is whether or not, if you have two substantially the same rating criteria, which is very unusual,

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
and clearly the VA corrected that in October 1996 when they amended that rating criteria.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
But the rating criteria that existed in 1986 was clearly A, framed in the alternative, and B, had two substantially the same descriptions relative to the impact of the veteran service-connected mental disorder on his ability to work.

[00:04:13] Speaker 00:
Given that, the question is, was the VA required under the VA's statement of regulatory policy to afford the veteran the maximum benefit or the higher benefit, the next level of ratings?

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
under the rating criteria as a matter of law.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
We believe that they clearly were, and that that constituted a clear and unmistakable error.

[00:04:38] Speaker 00:
The court below did not reach that question, feeling that Diorio was not in control and in the alternative, as your question just suggested, Judge Shaw, that it would not be susceptible to

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
But that limitation in Q, as has been adopted by this court, is not a limitation when the issue is not addressed.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
There is no change in the law, as it were, based upon the decision in Johnson.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
The decision in Johnson simply announced... You say that the issue that you're presenting was not addressed by the Veterans Court?

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
I am, Your Honor.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
But what about the discussion at Appendix 6 through going into 7?

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
It says, the court does not agree with Mr. Wade the board misinterpreted in its cue determination.

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
All that the court had to say about it was that the court disagreed.

[00:05:48] Speaker 00:
The court did not address what the proper interpretation was.

[00:05:53] Speaker 00:
And clearly, that did not happen, except in the case of Diorio, in which the court did say that they were identical.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
But that case, as the court below correctly pointed out, was vacated by this court

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
because of Mr. DeOrio's death.

[00:06:11] Speaker 00:
Mr. DeOrio prevailed before the Veterans Court, got that favorable interpretation, which might have then been a bar.

[00:06:20] Speaker 00:
It is not a bar based upon the fact that this court was required because of his death to vacate that decision.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
We relied only on D'Orio for the interpretation that we relied upon that was misinterpreted by the VA in 1986.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
Your interpretation that the 70% rating criteria and the 100% are the same?

[00:06:44] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
Or at least substantially the same.

[00:06:48] Speaker 00:
Obviously, the words are different.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
But at the end of the day, they're only describing one thing, the impact of the psychiatric disability to the veteran's ability to work.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
And clearly, in that context, and to be candid with this court, I know of no other VA rating criteria that ever speaks this directly to the inability to work, other than in their separate regulation for TDIU.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
So within the normal rating criteria, which normally describe the symptoms or manifestations of the condition that require a specific rating, there is no other, and now is no other,

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
rating criteria that specifically addresses the inability to... What if we left with the final part of the Veterans Court's decision, I'm looking at appendix seven at the bottom where they say, even if Mr. Way has also not shown the board adopt, that had the board adopt his preferred interpretation, it would have resulted in a manifestly changed outcome.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
And I read the court there as saying, OK, even if we accept this, the evidence nevertheless supports the outcome in this case.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
Now, we can't examine the evidence.

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
Where do we come out on that in your view, given?

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
In my view, in Mr. Way's view,

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
the way to address that is to recognize that this is a question of law.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
This is a question of regulatory interpretation and the conclusion made by the Veterans Court simply is incorrect as a matter of law.

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
If the law in fact required that the, excuse me, if the correct interpretation of the rating criteria was they were substantially the same, then they were required by their own regulatory

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
policy to award the maximum rating available, and they did not do that.

[00:08:55] Speaker 00:
That was an error of law, and that was a failure to comply.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
But I guess isn't the court there saying, OK, assume that Mr. Way is correct on that point.

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
The evidence, and I believe there was evidence saying there was some employability,

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
the evidence nevertheless doesn't support his claim.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
Except that the court is doing what the court is not supposed to be doing and that is to decide what the facts were below.

[00:09:22] Speaker 04:
No, but the board is supposed to be doing that and they weren't deciding what the facts were.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
What they were saying was as the board filed and is not disputed, your side never disputed it, they rely on the board's finding.

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
That's what they do, right?

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
The Veterans Court that is correct, but the board in its de novo review of the denial of revision Was supposed to be looking at what the evidence was of record?

[00:09:49] Speaker 00:
And they said, we don't need to look at that evidence of record because there is no basis to afford a higher rating.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
The only rating was the rating of 70%.

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
That is not a factual determination.

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
That is a legal determination.

[00:10:08] Speaker 00:
When the board made its determination that there should be no revision, there was no cue here, then the board was making a legal determination

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
that a clear and unmistakable error had not occurred.

[00:10:21] Speaker 00:
The translation of that is that the VA in 1986 correctly applied the law.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
the VA, under the correct interpretation, did not correctly apply the law.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
If it did not correctly apply the law, then the board was legally bound by the claim.

[00:10:39] Speaker 04:
I mean, I'm looking at Appendix 7, which is the board's opinion.

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
And they say Mr. Way also has not shown that had the board adopted his preferred interpretation, it would have resulted in a manifestly changed outcome.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
And then they look at the evidence.

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
I mean, we have these reviews all the time.

[00:10:58] Speaker 04:
I'm sure you're as familiar as I am, Mr. Carpenter.

[00:11:01] Speaker 04:
And in all other venues, I mean, often the court below provides an alternative finding.

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
And I don't understand why that wouldn't avoid deciding the other issues because the board says even if you're right on those issues You feel as a matter of proof to establish a manifestly changed outcome because you work I don't see why that's improper or unusual because it relies upon a misinterpretation of their own rating criteria it Presuppose no, it's it presupposes.

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
No, it says the board is

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
had the board adopted your interpretation, it would still not have resulted.

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
So it presupposes that even hypothetically, we're accepting what you say, and it still doesn't change the outcome.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
But that is not correct as a matter of law, Your Honor.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
If the interpretation in their premise was adopted, then they would have been required to assign the 100% rating because they had

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
regulatory obligation to assign the maximum rating available.

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
They had two alternatives, a 70% rating, which they assigned, or a 100% rating, which they did not assign.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
Based upon the identical evidence, it demonstrated an inability to work.

[00:12:22] Speaker 00:
If there was an inability to work due to his service-connected mental disorder,

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
then the law required the assignment of a 100% rating.

[00:12:30] Speaker 04:
But if the facts indisputably established that he could work, then he doesn't get that rating.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
But Your Honor, that's an inherent contradiction.

[00:12:41] Speaker 00:
You can't rely upon the facts when you assigned a 70% rating.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
The VA in this case assigned a 70% rating based upon the facts as known.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
The board can't change that.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
What the board was attempting to do was to evade revision by suggesting that somehow they weren't obligated, as a matter of law, to apply the next higher level of rating criteria, which was the 100%, which is substantiated by the contemporaneous VA regulations in existence at the time.

[00:13:18] Speaker 00:
When there's a choice between the rating assigned and the next higher rating,

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
If there is a basis to assign the higher rating, then they are required to assign the higher rating.

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
They didn't do that.

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
That was an error of law.

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
So to pretend that this is about a factual determination, and that they have conceded the fact.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
Bruce, why is it, sorry for jumping in because you're getting in the end, but why is it pretending?

[00:13:45] Speaker 01:
I mean, we have the board decision at appendix 22 which says,

[00:13:49] Speaker 01:
At the conclusion of the examination, the VA examiner opined that the veteran was capable of employment, even though the medical history spoke against such a finding.

[00:13:59] Speaker 01:
And then it goes on to say what the VA examiner said.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
Maybe I don't have my lights off on today, but I don't understand.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
the arguments you're making in response to what Judge Pro said.

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
Because that ignores what the VA did in its 1986 rating decision.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
If that interpretation of the fact was correct, if that was a correct statement of fact by the board, then the VA in its rating decision in 1986 would have assigned a 50% rating and not a 70% rating.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
Because the 50% rating does not address the ability

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
inability to work due to the service-connected disability.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
In fact, what the rating decision did in 1986 was to reject the very evidence that the board relied upon by now trying to re-weigh that evidence and say, well, here in the record was evidence from a source that he could work.

[00:15:00] Speaker 00:
not the point.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
The point is when they assign the rating, and they assign the rating as 70%, they use the rating criteria, and under the correct interpretation of that rating criteria, it required not just consideration of the 70, but a legal duty to assign the 100% rating.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
Unless there's further questions, I hope I can retain some of my rebuttal.

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
We'll save you rebuttal time, Mr. Carpenter.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
And let's hear from the government.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
Bizak.

[00:15:49] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:15:50] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
As an initial matter, I just want to very briefly touch on our point that I don't think has been addressed yet, that this court lacks jurisdiction.

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
Let me ask, let me know on that.

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
You dutifully raised that, and I can only speak for myself, but I think this is one situation

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
where I'm not persuaded by the jurisdictional argument.

[00:16:15] Speaker 01:
So maybe if you could just, at least just speaking for myself, I can't say what Judge Neumann and Judge Prost think, but maybe if you could just jump to the merits issue here.

[00:16:26] Speaker 01:
And then if they're interested in jurisdiction, they'll pipe up on me.

[00:16:29] Speaker 03:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
I can absolutely do that.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
So with respect to this question of the identical nature

[00:16:38] Speaker 03:
the 70% and the 100% rating.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
First of all, as I think the court has explored to some extent so far, the justification for that argument comes from the decisions in Johnson and DeOrio, which post-date the decision at issue here.

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
And as this court has determined in George most recently, those post-dated interpretations of

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
the regulation cannot serve as a basis for Q. More fundamentally, I think it is clear from the language of these regulations themselves and the rating criteria themselves that there is a distinction between a 70% and 100% rating.

[00:17:24] Speaker 03:
It's a matter of degrees.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
It is true that... What about the point that seemed to consume a lot of time

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
in the discussion that I was having with Mr. Carpenter and that Judge Prost was about, well, even assuming Mr. Carpenter is correct in his view as to the regulation, to the two ratings, still it doesn't make any difference here because

[00:17:49] Speaker 01:
the court found based on what the board had found that, you know, this is irrelevant because even under his view, he loses on the facts.

[00:17:59] Speaker 01:
We can't view the facts.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
What is your take on the discussion that you heard we had with Mr. Carpenter on that?

[00:18:08] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, it's a discussion that has not yet come up in the briefing of this case, but I think that the court is entirely correct that

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
There is a sort of follow-on analysis done by the Veterans Court indicating that even assuming that Mr. Way's interpretation is credited, there is no undebatable impact on the ultimate conclusion because there has been a finding by the RO, by the board, that there is evidence of record of the ability to work.

[00:18:43] Speaker 03:
And therefore, even crediting this interpretation

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
that fact remains and it wouldn't change the outcome.

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
Now, candidly, Your Honor, I think some of the confusion here comes from a lack of a clear understanding of exactly what the interpretation is that Mr. Way is putting forth.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
And I think that comes back to this question of whether there is a degree

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
question implicit in the 70% and the 100% ratings.

[00:19:16] Speaker 04:
And you're saying our job here is to look at the language and compare the language irrespective of those, and what effect does the subsequent, those cases we've been talking about all morning have, the veterans' evidence, the BBA cases?

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
We don't believe they have any bearing, Your Honor.

[00:19:32] Speaker 03:
The ultimate question is, in 18, 18, 1986, what was the understanding of these two criteria?

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
I don't think there has been any argument as to how that has been interpreted in terms of case law or by the VA.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
But the clear language of the regulation that was in place at the time indicates that for a 70% rating, there is a severe impairment in employability as opposed to a 100% rating, which is unemployability.

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
And so your view is if we agree with that interpretation,

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
that you're putting forward, none of the other cases make any difference, and they don't affect the ultimate conclusion with regard to CUA.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
That's correct, Your Honor, and I think that's a fair statement.

[00:20:24] Speaker 04:
So just going back to the difference that you identify between the 100% and the 70%, the 100% says demonstrably unable to obtain or retain employment.

[00:20:39] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:20:39] Speaker 04:
compared to the 70% saying there is a pronounced impairment in the ability to obtain or retain employment.

[00:20:49] Speaker 04:
So what's the difference?

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
If you're impaired, that means you might be able to do it.

[00:20:54] Speaker 04:
So unable versus impaired, that's the distinction we're drawing here.

[00:20:59] Speaker 03:
I think I think that's those are the key phrases you're on yes, so the severe impairment or pronounced impairment Indicates that there is something left that there is is at least some ability to work although it is impaired as opposed to in the 100% setting unable to retain or obtain or retain employment contains no qualifier means there's an inability and so because again

[00:21:27] Speaker 03:
there was a finding made that there was at least some evidence of an ability to work.

[00:21:30] Speaker 03:
70% was the appropriate rating.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
There is no undebatable error there.

[00:21:36] Speaker 04:
So is that what, going forward, is that what if we're in one of the proceedings below, and we've got to compare these two?

[00:21:43] Speaker 04:
So are you saying, what if Mr. Wehier, what if the record established that he had not been able to obtain employment?

[00:21:52] Speaker 04:
Would that automatically put him in the 100% versus the 70%?

[00:22:00] Speaker 04:
Is that how it's applied?

[00:22:02] Speaker 04:
I mean, there's a difference in the language.

[00:22:04] Speaker 04:
Obviously, we can all read it, and there are different words used.

[00:22:08] Speaker 04:
But as a practical matter, is that how you evaluate whether or not 100% or 70% applies?

[00:22:17] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, outside the Q environment, if we're talking about the initial determination, frankly, I don't think that the regulation is still in place as it was in 86, but I think that would be

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
yes, the way that it would, practically speaking, be applied.

[00:22:35] Speaker 03:
Obviously, it's a degree.

[00:22:37] Speaker 04:
Because if you're impaired in your ability to obtain or retain employment, that means that at least in many or some circumstances, you're not going to be able to be employed.

[00:22:49] Speaker 04:
And in that respect, there is an overlap.

[00:22:52] Speaker 04:
The words might be different and 100% might be, but there is some group of people

[00:22:59] Speaker 04:
who can't get employment because they're impaired.

[00:23:01] Speaker 04:
And so therefore, they're essentially the same as the 100%, right?

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
It's a very fact-specific question, Your Honor.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
And I think looking at the facts that we have here, the RO initially in 86,

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
um, analyzed a lot of evidence regarding employability and it had to do with, uh, various jobs that, that Mr. Way had, had either been let go from or had not been able to hold or, um, statements from

[00:23:30] Speaker 03:
previous employers, and then also the clinical opinions regarding unemployability and... Okay, so that's informative, that the difference between the two is teased out, whether it's at the evidentiary record or something.

[00:23:45] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, and I think that is done at the evidentiary level, at the RO level in this case.

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
As I indicated in the beginning, I am happy to take any questions on the jurisdictional issue.

[00:23:58] Speaker 03:
I think just our

[00:23:59] Speaker 03:
points here are that neither in his original Q claim or in the NOD initially raised to the board, did Mr. Wei raise this argument that these two criteria are identical.

[00:24:14] Speaker 03:
He simply said

[00:24:16] Speaker 03:
The only evidence of record was of unemployability, absolute unemployability.

[00:24:19] Speaker 03:
Therefore, I was entitled to 100%.

[00:24:21] Speaker 03:
This identical issue never came up until his briefing before the board.

[00:24:25] Speaker 03:
It wasn't addressed by the board.

[00:24:27] Speaker 03:
And it was first addressed in a decision by the Veterans Court.

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
As this court has determined in Andre, the jurisdiction when it comes to Q claims is defined by the specific error identified in the Q claim, the original Q claim.

[00:24:41] Speaker 03:
And this error was not identified here.

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
Unless there are any additional questions, we would ask that the court either dismiss Mr. Way's appeal or make a formal decision.

[00:24:53] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:25:02] Speaker 02:
Mr. Carpenter.

[00:25:09] Speaker 00:
I'd like to start the rebuttal by talking about the purpose of clear and unmistakable air.

[00:25:17] Speaker 00:
This original VA regulation was eventually codified by Congress for one purpose and one purpose only, to correct mistakes made.

[00:25:32] Speaker 00:
Reliance on the part of the Veterans Court on the notion that there would not have been a manifestly different outcome simply begs the question that it presumed to have conceded that there was an error.

[00:25:47] Speaker 00:
If there was an error, then this court, according to Congress's jurisdictional mandate, was created to interpret regulations.

[00:25:59] Speaker 00:
Just these kinds of regulations,

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
so that a chronically mentally ill individual gets the benefit of the maximum rating available under law.

[00:26:10] Speaker 00:
That didn't happen here.

[00:26:13] Speaker 00:
We can quibble back and forth with the benefit of 2020 hindsight about what it might have done.

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
But what it did do was to assign a 70% rating.

[00:26:25] Speaker 00:
When it assigned the 70% rating, it acknowledged that there was evidence of record that substantiated the rating criteria in the last alternative

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
for an inability to work due to his service connected mental condition.

[00:26:43] Speaker 00:
The question then becomes, as was raised in his

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
cue request to begin with, whether or not the VA had failed to assign the maximum rating available under law, which is what their regulatory statement of policy requires them to do.

[00:27:00] Speaker 00:
To accept this get out of jail free option of, but there wasn't a manifestly different outcome, evades this court's responsibility to interpret the regulation.

[00:27:12] Speaker 00:
We ask you to interpret the regulation in the manner in which we have

[00:27:16] Speaker 00:
encouraged that there is no substantial difference between these two and therefore when there is evidence of record to support the one that the VA's statement of policy requires as a matter of law that the second be assigned.

[00:27:32] Speaker 01:
I just have one quick question.

[00:27:34] Speaker 01:
You said, and I think government counsel agrees, when was this regulation changed?

[00:27:39] Speaker 00:
1986, about ten years after.

[00:27:43] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:27:45] Speaker 01:
So the RO decision was 86.

[00:27:50] Speaker 01:
When did the regulation get revised?

[00:27:52] Speaker 00:
In 1996.

[00:27:52] Speaker 01:
96.

[00:27:52] Speaker 00:
Oh, I didn't hear that.

[00:27:55] Speaker 00:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:27:56] Speaker 00:
Yeah, 96.

[00:27:57] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:27:58] Speaker 00:
Unless there's further questions from the panel, thank you very much, Your Honors.

[00:28:02] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
Thanks to both counsels.

[00:28:05] Speaker 02:
The case is taken under submission.