[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Our next case is number 212104, SRM Group E versus Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
Okay, Mr. Walters.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
We've likely all heard the concept of the empty chair defense.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
This arises when a defendant blames a person absent at trial and that absent defendant is unable to defend himself.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
Well, this appeal is about an empty chair opinion witness.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
Why do we say that?

[00:00:31] Speaker 01:
According to the United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, or the board, the appellant's claim, in this case, seeking additional compensation arising from two unilateral contract modifications issued by the government, fails because appellant did not explain the opinions of a witness that did not testify at the evidentiary hearing.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
Can I just?

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
You put the witness's testimony in the record.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
Now, it was there, and you never said we're not relying on it.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
You may, in your post hearing brief, not have relied on it.

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
But you never said we're disclaiming the testimony or withdrawing it.

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
You put it in, and there it was.

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
It was part of the record.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
It was in the record.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
It contained, it was in the record because it contained a significant amount of

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
cost information and supporting data upon which all of the experts relied, including... Well, you were worried that if it didn't remain in the record that the board might say, well, it's too late to put this stuff in.

[00:01:34] Speaker 02:
But having put it into the record, why is it beyond the board's authority to say, well, you put in this evidence, you have to reconcile it, you have to explain it?

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
We contend that that's requiring the appellant to satisfy basically an impossible burden.

[00:01:55] Speaker 01:
Because the testimony that was presented at hearing was the opinion of the expert who presided at the hearing, who testified at the hearing.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
And it was his opinions that he was relying on.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
What the board did here is the board found that we did not satisfy our burden of proof because we did not explain or

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
or reconcile the opinions of a non-testifying expert.

[00:02:21] Speaker 01:
That witness was not available to make statements or give testimony or subject to cross-examination.

[00:02:30] Speaker 01:
Yes, his reports were in the record, but there was no indication that SRM ever intended to rely upon that, just the data that was in those reports.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
So one analogy that comes to my mind, and I'm

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
is this and tell me why this is a bad analogy.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
So as a scientist running a lab and runs an experiment five times and writes up the results from number five.

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
Wouldn't it be a legitimate thing for other scientists, for readers to say, I don't really think I can credit what you are saying because you haven't addressed seemingly contrary results in the first four experiments.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
Isn't that a kind of a legitimate fact assessment technique?

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
And why is this different from that?

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
Respectfully, I think this is different from that because, as I understand Your Honor's question or your hypothetical, you're asking the witness who is testifying as to his prior iterations to

[00:03:42] Speaker 01:
explain why he changed his or modified his experience.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
That's not the... Seemingly contrary evidence in the... Seemingly contrary evidence.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
But that's not the situation we have here.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
We have a subsequent... Suppose you had two experts here, both of whom testified.

[00:03:57] Speaker 02:
Suppose Radek and Fordham both testified.

[00:04:02] Speaker 02:
and gave these inconsistent things.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
Could the board then tax you for not explaining and reconciling the two pieces of testimony?

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
I think the board could, because the experts in both of those cases would have had the opportunity to explain their opinions, state their positions, be subject to cross-examination.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
But we don't have that here.

[00:04:22] Speaker 03:
The problem here is that we're talking about your evidence.

[00:04:26] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:04:26] Speaker 03:
We're talking about your evidence, talking about your experts.

[00:04:31] Speaker 03:
And you had one expert and that expert ultimately was, you got another one to rely on, but you didn't move to strike the part of the first expert's evidence that you didn't like or you found unfavorable.

[00:04:48] Speaker 03:
Maybe you didn't think about it, but as fair as it may seem, you're saddled with it because you took on that burden and never did anything about it.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
I agree, Your Honor, that we didn't run away from that prior expert's findings or conclusions.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
And this really isn't about that.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
This is an issue of whether the board required and the board imposed upon appellant a higher burden of proof because, effectively, we had to eliminate all uncertainties created by prior opinions or prior expert reports.

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
The only thing you had to do was withdraw it, which you didn't do.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
We did not, again, we did not do that because we relied upon, we needed the cost information, the supporting documentation that was in the record, in those reports, was different.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
You could have withdrawn everything but that cost information.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
Respectfully, I believe that there would have been objections to that because the government's attorneys relied upon that information as well.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
But the issue here, again, is

[00:05:54] Speaker 02:
whether our expert who tested... Withdrawing everything except the data.

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, I didn't... Withdrawing everything except the data.

[00:06:02] Speaker 02:
You could have done that.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
Again, we could have, but we weren't... There wasn't anything in there that we objected to necessarily.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
Again, the issue... Now you see the problem.

[00:06:16] Speaker 03:
You have two experts and they both are offering competing or contradictory, or let's just say inconsistent... They're offering different methodologies.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
All of the expert opinions found that SRM was entitled to additional compensation, and we've cited this in our briefs, additional compensation was required.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
was permissible under their analyses.

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
Even Mr. Raddick's different iterations of his report found that SRM was entitled to different methodologies.

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
Mr. Fordham's opinion wasn't the highest or it wasn't the lowest.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
It was somewhere in between.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
So we're not running away from or attempting to avoid the evidence in the record as to the prior opinions.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
What our argument is is that the board held us to a higher standard of proof by requiring our expert and by rejecting our claim for quantum.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
by virtue of the fact that our expert who testified at hearing did not explain why his opinion, why his methodology differed from those of the prior testimony.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
And we contend that's legal error.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
That's holding SRM to a higher burden of proof.

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
This really, with all respect, is not an evidentiary issue.

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
It's a legal issue as to what the appellant's burden of proof is at trial.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
The other issue that I think warrants mentioning to the court is an issue that we raised in our motion for reconsideration and that we break this issue.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
And that has to do with the clear abuse of discretion that the board committed on the appellant's motion for reconsideration.

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
We did not raise the issue of credibility of the witnesses.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
We did not think that was appropriate on a motion for reconsideration.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
Yet the board injected itself into that situation and found

[00:08:04] Speaker 01:
that our real complaint was that we did not find its expert witness analysis credible.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
And at the hearing and in the original order, there was no issue of Mr. Fordham's credibility.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
But then on reconsideration, the board changed its mind and Sue Espante chose to weigh in on Fordham's credibility in a very negative way.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
The judge who issued the after the fact credibility determination was not even the judge who presided over the evidentiary hearing.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
In the interim between issuance of the final order and the motion,

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
the judge who presided over the hearing had resigned or retired from the board.

[00:08:36] Speaker 01:
So we had a new judge who was weighing in sua sponte on credibility of the witness.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
And we contend that's an abusive discretion.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
Finally, I would just ask that the issue we're seeking here, we're not asking this court to retry the issue of damages.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
And I believe the government has argued that in its briefing.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
We don't believe that the court need to reach the issue of damages or any factual issues.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
If the court finds that the board imposed upon the appellant a correct burden of proof, we don't get to the numbers.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
However, if the court finds that the board erred in the burden of proof imposed upon the appellant, then we believe that on remand, the board has adequate evidence to determine quantum based on the evidence presented at the hearing and in the record.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
All of the evidence, including Mr. Raddick's opinion.

[00:09:24] Speaker 02:
Well, the board didn't like your evidence.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
It said it was estimates.

[00:09:27] Speaker 02:
rather than actual cost.

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
And we said recently in the Kellogg case that we can't do that.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
I disagree respectfully with the board's findings there.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
Earlier claim quantifications were based on estimates because of the fact that the work was ongoing.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
When the government added back the service of the two dormitory buildings,

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
the estimated costs in the negotiations between the government and the appellant were based on estimated costs, but the costs presented by, to a certain extent, by Mr. Raddick and by Mr. Ford were based on actual cost estimates.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
They weren't segregated costs.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
They were looking at actual costs incurred and then allocated according to certain

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
methodologies that these experts believe were appropriate and acceptable methodologies.

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
And which weren't rooted in actual experience.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
And which weren't rooted in actual experience.

[00:10:27] Speaker 01:
They were rooted based on those experts expertise in quantifying claims of this type.

[00:10:37] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
You want to say the rest of your time?

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
Yes, your honor.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
Mr. Onoffer.

[00:10:44] Speaker 04:
Good morning, your honor.

[00:10:46] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:10:48] Speaker 04:
SREB's central argument that the board improperly considered the expert reports of its non-testifying expert is directly and unmistakably refuted by rule nine of the civilian board of contract appeals, which defines what

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
is the record for decision.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
Part of what the record for decision, that is what the board may consider, includes the rule for appeal file that the parties submit to the board.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
Under your rules, could SRM had withdrawn part of the evidence from the first expert?

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
Yes, it was withdrawn.

[00:11:27] Speaker 04:
It could have moved to a strike.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
In fact, the board during the hearing

[00:11:31] Speaker 04:
as is indicated in the reconsideration decision, expressly reminded SRM that these prior expert reports, the reports of Mr. Raddick, are still in the record.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
Yet, despite that notification, that reminder, SRM, for its own reasons, its own tactical reasons, of which I'm not aware, decided

[00:11:51] Speaker 04:
not to object and say, well, we want to strike the analysis of Mr. Braddock because it differs and we think it's not reliable.

[00:11:59] Speaker 04:
All the arguments that SRM made in its reply brief, how unreliable Mr. Braddock's analysis is, how he's not even an expert, all of that they could have made at that time when the board said, these reports are still on the record, meaning under Rule 9,

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
of my rules, that is part of the record of decision.

[00:12:15] Speaker 04:
I'm allowed to decide that in determining whether or not you have met your burden of proof.

[00:12:20] Speaker 04:
But SRM blinked at that moment and decided not to move to strike.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
It did not object.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
And therefore, when it was time for the board to decide whether or not SRM had met its burden of proof, whether or not, by preponderance of the evidence, it had shown that the costs that it claimed, the $3.3 million costs, were causally related to the change in the contract

[00:12:37] Speaker 04:
it could not meet that burden for several reasons, one of which certainly is the fact that you have analyses by Mr. Raddick, methodologies that are inconsistent with Mr. Fordham's, their testifying expert, and there was no expert, there was no witness that could explain for the board how do you reconcile these two things.

[00:12:55] Speaker 04:
That was one of the grounds that the board found that you needed to have done, because it's again part of the record of decision.

[00:13:02] Speaker 04:
And the second was independent of that, which is that even if you look at Mr. Fordham's analysis, his methodology, it's not persuasive compared to the government's testifying expert, Mr. Hudak, because that's Mr. Hudak, persuasively found.

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
And that's the word that the board found, persuasively found.

[00:13:20] Speaker 04:
The more sensible and reasonable methodology is to look at the specific individual cost elements

[00:13:28] Speaker 04:
that are tied to the change in the contract requirements.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
That's what the government did, and that's how it determined ultimately that there was approximately $800,000 worth of difference between the calls by the contract requirements, which pales in comparison to the $2.1 million that the government paid

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
SRM for those changes pursuant to modifications 16 and 43, which is why ultimately the government is owed money, although we're not seeking it because we waived that right.

[00:13:57] Speaker 04:
But the point is, that second round is simply looking at what Mr. Fordham did and saying, you haven't met your burden of proof just by looking at your analysis.

[00:14:06] Speaker 04:
What you're doing is taking this

[00:14:08] Speaker 04:
22% of all the costs and attributing it to the claim, but not looking at whether or not that 22% of extra cleanings that you're claiming is actually related to a change in the contract requirements, which is what under the law you have to do.

[00:14:23] Speaker 04:
You're entitled to the change, not to an overall total cost figure.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
The board's initial determination stated that although Mr. Fordham, and I think Mr. Fordham was a second expert, right, although Mr. Fordham

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
adequately explained his own methodology, he did not account for the different methodologies, the different conclusions, nor could he justify the varying amounts claimed.

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
I find it that it would be unfair to have one expert explain the methodologies of another expert, and especially to try to shore them up or to

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
want to make them credible.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
Is that what happened here?

[00:15:08] Speaker 04:
That's not what's happened here.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
This is not a bolstering argument.

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:
This is a language out of the board's decision.

[00:15:15] Speaker 04:
I agree you correctly quoted from what the board said, but in the context of that statement by the board is, yes, Mr. Fordham, I understand, I adequately explained meaning I understand what your methodology is.

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
I don't have any questions as to what you did.

[00:15:30] Speaker 04:
But the board went on to say that Mr. Hudak's critiques of that methodology, which Mr. Fordham adequately explained, that Mr. Hudak's analysis was more persuasive for the reasons I just mentioned.

[00:15:46] Speaker 04:
Okay, and so what the board was not expecting certainly Mr. Fordham to bolster his opinion on the back of Mr. Raddick.

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
That's not the issue, because I agree under federal evidence 703, you can't bolster and take the ball.

[00:16:01] Speaker 03:
That would be an error, wouldn't it?

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
Well, in the context of, not necessarily, in the context of

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
the board proceeding under Rule 10, the board is not bound by the federal rules of evidence.

[00:16:11] Speaker 04:
And it's a guide, and hearsay is generally omitted unless there's some objection, in which there was none here.

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
So that's a separate argument.

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
Our point is, federal rules of evidence don't apply in one.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
So their argument is about whether or not it violates the rules of evidence or not.

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
applicable.

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
But even if it is, even if you do apply for a list of evidence, that the concern with 703 is if you're an expert and you're saying, I'm going to rely upon a second expert to make my expert opinion better.

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
You're basically almost co-opting or piggybacking off of that expert, even though it's not your own work.

[00:16:42] Speaker 04:
And that's a 703 problem.

[00:16:45] Speaker 04:
That's not what the board was expecting.

[00:16:46] Speaker 04:
The board was saying the exact opposite, which is

[00:16:49] Speaker 04:
Just as Mr. Hudak, who testified, who's the government expert, just as his analysis is different than yours and that's a problem, your own expert who's not testifying, whose reports you left in the record, therefore I have to consider it as part of the record of decision, you also have no witness to explain why that methodology, which again was your expert,

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
How is your analysis better, more persuasive than your own prior expert?

[00:17:15] Speaker 04:
It's no different than explaining why Mr. Hudak's analysis or his critiques are not merited or not worthy compared to your own.

[00:17:23] Speaker 04:
It's the same thing.

[00:17:24] Speaker 04:
The problem here is one of SRM's own making, which is

[00:17:27] Speaker 04:
If they wanted to avoid having the board expect some sort of witness to explain the difference between its prior expert and its testifying expert, all it had to do was object or move to strike Mr. Radek's expert report, specifically the analysis.

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
If they wanted to keep the cost, the data, unknowing data, that's fine.

[00:17:48] Speaker 04:
That was not an issue.

[00:17:49] Speaker 04:
What the board was saying was the reports themselves, the analyses, they're still in the record.

[00:17:54] Speaker 04:
What do you want to do?

[00:17:56] Speaker 04:
They kept it in.

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
But now they're stuck with the consequences of that decision.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
Do you regard the board's ruling in this respect as the necessary part of the decision?

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
Can you repeat that, Your Honor?

[00:18:09] Speaker 02:
Do you think that the board's ruling in this respect about the obligation to reconcile is a necessary part of the decision?

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
No, I don't.

[00:18:17] Speaker 04:
It's not a necessary part of the decision because there are really two prongs of the board's decision.

[00:18:21] Speaker 04:
If you read the board's decision carefully on Appendix 9 at the very end, it makes a conclusion.

[00:18:27] Speaker 04:
Yes, the very first sentence of its holding says, on balance,

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
we find that Mr. Hudak's analysis, his critiques of Mr. Fordham's report analysis, we find them persuasive.

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
And earlier in the opinion, the board said, and this is the only time that the board used the word credible, found Mr. Hudak to be a credible witness.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
So the first problem was the critiques that Mr. Hudak make are more persuasive.

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
And that in and of itself is enough for SRM not to meet the burden of proof because Mr. Hudak's critiques, as the board outlined in its opinion,

[00:19:12] Speaker 04:
show that the most credible and most reasonable way to address the issue of damages is to look at individual cost elements, link it to the contract requirements that changed, and see what that delta is, what that amount is, not what Mr. Fordham did, which was take a total cost approach, take a flat 22% figure, and not look at the difference in requirements.

[00:19:34] Speaker 04:
In and of itself, you haven't met your burden of proof.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
Your expert, your testifying expert, is less persuasive than the government's testifying expert.

[00:19:42] Speaker 04:
End of story.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
The second sentence is, again, the basis of their appeal, which is also, your expert could not account for Mr. Raddick's reports, which you're in the record, which you put in the record and object to.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
That's also a problem.

[00:19:57] Speaker 04:
But they're two independent grounds, Your Honor, to answer your question.

[00:20:03] Speaker 04:
The second point that Council for SRM today raised is regarding the motion for reconsideration.

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
In that motion for reconsideration, the Judge Lester, who is not the presiding judge, but who was on the panel and the presiding judge was still on the panel for the motion for reconsideration, indicated that SRM's real argument here regarding the rule for issue and the issue of Mr. Raddick's reports being in the record, their real argument here is simply that

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
they have issue with the boards finding the government's effort to be more credible.

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
The point there is that the reconsideration decision and the initial decision both are in sync with respect to credibility because the initial decision

[00:20:56] Speaker 04:
The board, as I mentioned, said expressly that Mr. Hudak was credible.

[00:21:00] Speaker 04:
He was a credible witness.

[00:21:01] Speaker 04:
Did not say that of Mr. Fordham.

[00:21:03] Speaker 04:
In contrast, said that Mr. Hudak's analysis was more persuasive, that the credible witness was more persuasive than Mr. Fordham.

[00:21:11] Speaker 04:
And then you go to the reconsideration.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
It's the same point that they're making, which is that at the end of the day,

[00:21:20] Speaker 04:
your expert was not more credible than the testifying expert.

[00:21:23] Speaker 04:
That's exactly what the initial board found, is that Mr. Hudak was more credible and was more persuasive.

[00:21:28] Speaker 04:
It's two ways of saying the same thing.

[00:21:30] Speaker 04:
So I don't see any daylight between the reconsideration decision and the initial decision.

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
The findings are the same, contrary to what SRM posited today.

[00:21:41] Speaker 04:
Unless there are further questions, we ask that

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
The board affirmed, excuse me, we ask that you affirm the board's decision.

[00:21:48] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
Mr. Wilters, you have several minutes here left.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
A couple of points I'd like to raise.

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
First of all, on the last point on reconsideration, the board did not make a finding or a comparative finding as to the credibility of Mr. Hudak versus Mr. Fordham.

[00:22:09] Speaker 01:
And it's on Appendix 14, which is on page four of that order.

[00:22:14] Speaker 01:
The board says SRM's real complaint is that we did not find its expert witness credible, which is not the issue that we raised on the motion for reconsideration.

[00:22:23] Speaker 01:
The board took it upon itself to assess Mr. Fordham's credibility.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
The other issue with regards to Mr. Raddick, although we candidly and readily admit that his reports and records were in the record, or his reports and the supporting data, Mr. Raddick was never tendered as an expert in this case.

[00:22:43] Speaker 01:
He was never accepted by the court as an expert in this case.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
He was not subject to direct examination.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
He was not subject to cross examination.

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
And in effect, what the board did was they gave him more credibility in his absence than they gave to Mr. Fordham.

[00:23:01] Speaker 01:
at present there to testify as to his methodology.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
And the final point I'd like to make is, Judge Dyke, you asked a question of the Government's Council, whether the Board's finding as to Mr. Fordham's lack of distinguishing or resolving the conflicting methodologies was a central part of the decision.

[00:23:25] Speaker 01:
We contend it absolutely was a central part of the decision.

[00:23:29] Speaker 01:
The board specifically found we did not meet our burden of proof because of that, because Mr. Fordham had not adequately explained the prior expert's opinions.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
And with that, I yield back the rest of my time.

[00:23:42] Speaker 01:
We would ask that the board reverse this and remand it to the board.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
The court reverse this and remand it to the board.

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
Thank you for your time.

[00:23:50] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Walters.

[00:23:50] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Oliver.

[00:23:51] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted.