[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
We have four of your cases this morning.

[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
The first is number 23-15-05.

[00:00:05] Speaker 04:
Garrett Cleveland versus Collins.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
Toulousey.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Toulousey.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:11] Speaker 04:
You may please support.

[00:00:15] Speaker 00:
My name is Glenn Toulousey.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
I'm here on behalf of the Veterans Executive Service.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
Congress set up a statutory scheme that is friendly to veterans.

[00:00:34] Speaker 00:
As the Supreme Court recently recognized in Henderson v. Shinseki, the judiciary has long applied the canon that provisions for the benefit of members of the armed services are considered to the beneficiaries' favor.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
This appeal presents the question of what happens when the supposedly veteran-friendly statutes end up harming the veteran by causing delay.

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
Here, Mr. Cleveland brought two claims for an earlier effective date for total disability individual unemployment.

[00:01:01] Speaker 03:
Look, the law's not really unclear here, right?

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
The Veterans Court has jurisdiction over final board decisions.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
It doesn't have jurisdiction over remands, right?

[00:01:12] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:01:13] Speaker 03:
Do you think the Veterans Court has jurisdiction over remands?

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
I don't believe the Veterans Court has jurisdiction over remands.

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
No, but the Veterans Court has jurisdiction over decisions, not necessarily final decisions.

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
But there has to be a decision.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
If it's a remand, they don't have a jurisdiction, right?

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
Completely agree, Your Honor.

[00:01:30] Speaker 00:
And here, there is a disagreement.

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
And I don't think there's any disagreement here about the law the Veterans Court applies.

[00:01:34] Speaker 03:
What there's a disagreement about is whether the decision that the board issued were remands or not.

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
I think that's right, Your Honor.

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
Again, our primary argument is that there is no decision here that- OK, but that decision was wiped out by the Veterans Court, right?

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
The Veterans Court said they didn't have jurisdiction.

[00:01:56] Speaker 04:
They said what the board did was of no effect, right?

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
Well, it said that it was a mistake, but the remand decision from the board doesn't open up any additional factual development.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
Under 38 U.S.C.

[00:02:09] Speaker 00:
section said.

[00:02:10] Speaker 04:
But if they said it has no effect, that's binding and further proceedings, right?

[00:02:15] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
But again, there's no remand for additional factual development on the earlier effective date for TDIU and DEA.

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
Thus, there's no ability for the regional office to come to any decision other than what it already came to, which is that the veteran has not met the criteria for an earlier effective date for TB-IU and K&K.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
So it's your view that even though the board remanded, that decision was a mixed decision because it remanded only on certain issues.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
Is that your view?

[00:02:45] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Barbara.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
My day job is a patent lawyer, so I'll admit I struggled with that a little bit.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
of thinking through patent issues.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
Normally, if one issue is remanded, then all issues have to be decided before the support and the category of veterans court at jurisdiction.

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
But the veterans statutes are different.

[00:03:02] Speaker 03:
No, we understand that.

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
I mean, unlike most situations, if there's a kind of mixed decisions, partial remands, partial final decisions, the veterans court, and then we can take jurisdiction over what's final.

[00:03:18] Speaker 03:
But that's not what happened here according to the board and the Veterans Court.

[00:03:23] Speaker 03:
And so we're talking about looking at the document, which is at pages 15 to 17 of the appendix, right?

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
15 to 18.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
And the first paragraph remands every single one of those claims.

[00:03:35] Speaker 03:
It says, entitlement to effective date, remanded.

[00:03:37] Speaker 03:
Entitlement for TDIU, remanded.

[00:03:39] Speaker 03:
Entitlement to DEA, remanded.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, but again, it's a remand in name only.

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
There's no ability for the regional office here to engage in any further factual development.

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
Was that because of the veterans court, because of the board decision, or because there's nothing left to be done on the remand anyway?

[00:04:02] Speaker 00:
The original decision from the regional office, which then turned into the board decision, was for additional factual development only on the tenitis claims.

[00:04:11] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in either the board's decision or the Veterans Court decision that reopens or creates additional factual development opportunities.

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
for the effective date for TDIU.

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
Can you elaborate on that?

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
Specifically, I see that on page A17 to A18, they say that the matters are remanded for the following actions.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
Why isn't the first one, for example, related to TDIU?

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
How do you know from reading this language in paragraph 1 and 2 that it's only for tinnitus?

[00:04:45] Speaker 00:
Because the Social Security records are related to the Tonitis claim.

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
The veteran, again, the board's decision focuses on remanding for the purposes of additional factual development with respect to the Tonitis claim.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
There's no discussion of reopening or using the Social Security Administration records to find an earlier effective date for TDIU and DEA.

[00:05:10] Speaker 00:
And I spoke with the veteran's representative below.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
I know this isn't part of the record,

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
The issue is not for the factual development.

[00:05:20] Speaker 00:
It's the application of the default date as opposed to the date that the veteran requested.

[00:05:25] Speaker 00:
So again, the factual development won't assist in that issue.

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
So you want us to look beyond what the actual language in the board decision says and how the Veterans Court construed it and construed it for the first time as when it says remanded, it was actually final.

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
I don't, Your Honor.

[00:05:45] Speaker 00:
I don't want you to look beyond what's in the record or beyond what's in the board's decision.

[00:05:49] Speaker 00:
The board's decision on pages 16 through 17 is clear, stating that the criteria for an effective date of January 2nd, 2013, but not earlier for granted service connection for tonight has been met.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
The criteria sees them being the wrong spots.

[00:06:07] Speaker 00:
The criteria of an effective date earlier than August 16, 2016 were granted to me and you have not been met.

[00:06:13] Speaker 04:
But those are the findings that the Veterans Court said were in effect, right?

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
Again, Your Honor.

[00:06:19] Speaker 00:
Yes, now?

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
There's no opportunity for additional factual development that would give the regional office any opportunity to change anything.

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
And I'd like to point you to 38.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
What?

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
You keep saying that.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
But what's to prevent the veteran from, during a remand, offering additional evidence?

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
That happens all the time in these proceedings.

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
Because the veteran doesn't have or need additional evidence.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
The veteran is asking for a merits review of the evidence that's already on the record.

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
If the veteran knows that there's

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
potential fact that is now said to be erroneous that goes against him, why wouldn't you think about adding additional evidence?

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
I mean, there's no, no preclusion for adding additional evidence that could support the claim, right?

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
You know, there's no preclusion, but the evidence has to exist in order for the veteran to add it to the record.

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
And as far as I know, there's been no identification of additional evidence that would assist his claim.

[00:07:15] Speaker 00:
The veteran's position is that the board stopped the denial of the earlier effective date for TDIU and DEA from.

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you something else?

[00:07:23] Speaker 01:
I think it's Tireadies or maybe it's Kirkpatrick.

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
One of them says that you want to make sure that the board's decision, when it's a mixed decision, that it's clear

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
that it's the next decision.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
And the idea behind that is because if there's a next decision where the board says certain issues are decided and certain issues are remanded, it wants to be clear because it puts a burden on the appellant to appeal within so many days.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
So why in a case like this, where there's some indicia that suggests maybe the board was, you know, there's a clear statement of remand, but unfortunately there's also some findings in fact, and conclusions a lot, just make things a little bit more mild.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
Why in this case, where it's unclear,

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
Should we stray from that rule that there should be, it should be very clear that the board is, that it's a mixed case as opposed to a case that's re-ending all issues?

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
Respectfully, Your Honor, under the statutory scheme, including 38 U.S.E.

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
section 7104 that says accept as provided in section 5108 of this title, when the claim is disallowed by the board, the claim may not thereafter be re-adjudicated and allowed, and the claim based upon the same factual basis may not be considered.

[00:08:41] Speaker 00:
That is a final decision when the board says that the criteria for a earlier effective date of TDIU and DDIM.

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
Yeah, but the problem is if this had gone back and under this document, and it came back up, and the board had said, well, you didn't appeal these other two things, which were final, so you're out now, you would be here arguing the exact opposite to us, that it wasn't a final decision because it was a complete remand.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
I think that's the problem we're having is why should we be looking at a document that on its face may be ambiguous if the Veterans Court has already said this is what it means.

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
And to the extent it said something else, that was a mistake.

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
And the VA is not bound by those factual findings.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
That's what the Veterans Court said, right?

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
had the complete freedom, they may not have done it, but they had the complete freedom under the Veterans Court's decision to re-adjudicate the TDIU and DEA claims.

[00:09:44] Speaker 00:
I disagree with that.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
That's what the Veterans Court said.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
You disagree with what the Veterans Court said?

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor, I'm not aware of any case law that would permit the regional office to re-adjudicate TDIU.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
You mean you think that the regional offices are not, in a specific case, going to follow the direction of the Veterans Court, that this is an open question and they're free to re-adjudicate it?

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
It seems unlikely to me that the VA is not going to follow an expressed statement from its review in court.

[00:10:15] Speaker 00:
I'm certainly not accusing the VA of not following directives of the court.

[00:10:19] Speaker 00:
However, there is no additional evidence that will be presented here.

[00:10:22] Speaker 04:
OK, but that itself is a factual issue.

[00:10:25] Speaker 04:
I mean, you're asking us to make a determination that there's no additional evidence to be presented.

[00:10:30] Speaker 04:
That's really not our job.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
That's not within our jurisdiction to even determine that.

[00:10:35] Speaker 00:
What the veteran is requesting this court to find is that a final decision on all issues is not required.

[00:10:41] Speaker 00:
And that this is the final decision because it does what Kirkpatrick says is a decision in that it makes a decision with respect to the benefits sought by the vet veteran.

[00:10:53] Speaker 03:
The statements you're relying on are in direct conflict with the opening paragraph, which remands all of this.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
And when the Veterans Court looked at those two contradictory statements, it followed the first one and not the second one and said the second one was a mistake.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
We can't review that, can we?

[00:11:11] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, the request for review is whether or not the Veterans Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.

[00:11:17] Speaker 00:
The Veterans Court said they did not have jurisdiction.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
And if the Veterans Court understanding of this document is consistent with what it said it was, they were correct, weren't they?

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
If the Veterans Court read this document as remanding all three issues and that the statements that you're quoting us were a mistake,

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
and therefore it's a complete remand, not a mixed, final, partial remand, then the Veterans Court correctly applied the law.

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, again, the Veterans Court... No, no, no.

[00:11:45] Speaker 03:
Answer my hypothetical.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
If the Veterans Court's understanding of this document is what it said it was, which was those three first sentences remanding everything is the controlling language and that the language you're relying on was a mistake, then they correctly followed the law.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
If this was a final decision on all issues, then yes.

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
However, it isn't because... If it wasn't a final decision on all issues, if it was a remand on all issues, then they correctly decided it.

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
And that's what they said it was.

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
That is what they said it was.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
Respectfully, they were incorrect, noticing that they were applying a law that they had to have a final decision on all issues.

[00:12:23] Speaker 03:
No, they weren't.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
They were finding that this was a remand on all issues.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
I think you're trying to gin up a legal argument that's not here.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
The Veterans Court fully understands, as it has for decades, that it can review mixed decisions of final decisions and partial remands.

[00:12:40] Speaker 03:
It can review on the final decision part.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
It found no final decision here at all.

[00:12:47] Speaker 03:
If that's what is this document, then they applied the right law.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
Under Kirkpatrick v. Nicholson, this court said that it does have jurisdiction to review whether or not the Veterans Court correctly found that there was a final decision.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
So I ask you if you could tell us what the status is of the case on Rehman.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
Although I see I'm in a bit of a bubble time.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
You nonetheless have to answer the question.

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
Yes, no, I don't.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
The status is that the regional office is currently considering the issues on appeal.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
There's been no decision, and excuse me, issues from the direction presented,

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
There's been no decision.

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
And the result of that is that the veteran will have this same appeal and be back in front of you just at 18 months, maybe two years from now.

[00:13:48] Speaker 00:
The point of the statute is that they're intended to be veteran friendly.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
And the requirement that the veterans qualify for a final decision on all issue as opposed to a mixed decision allowing the appeal is just delay for the veteran.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
So it's still back at the RO, or is it back at the board?

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
The supplemental authority we got said there was a July decision from the agency denying an early effective date.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
I believe that's correct.

[00:14:14] Speaker 03:
So it's back at the board then?

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
I believe that the RO has made the decision, and it's currently pending the board.

[00:14:21] Speaker 04:
OK, we'll give you two minutes.

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
You're a model.

[00:14:23] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
Mr. Faulkner?

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
May it please the court?

[00:14:31] Speaker 02:
The Veterans Court dissolves any contradictory findings in the board decision by engaging in factual determinations and applying the laws in the past two days, which respects the findings on the way the Veterans Court has heard of the court decision.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
If your opponent's view of this document is correct, that it actually is a mixed remand final decision document, then the Veterans Court would have been incorrect to find no jurisdiction, right?

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, in those circumstances.

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
But, of course, the Veterans Court found that it was not a mixed decision, that it was a remand, and that it didn't have jurisdiction because it was a remand that occurred after the discourse precedence decades old at this point.

[00:15:14] Speaker 03:
What do we do with all of this if we look at this document and see that it's contradictory?

[00:15:19] Speaker 02:
Well, I think the Veterans Court already cleaned it up.

[00:15:22] Speaker 02:
You can understand, in this court decision, it's saying, well, why are these findings conclusions in here?

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
There's an appeal to the Veterans Court.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
And at that point, the Veterans Court makes this finding.

[00:15:31] Speaker 02:
It says, there's no reasons or bases for denial here in this remand order.

[00:15:37] Speaker 02:
any findings or conclusions were mistakenly included.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
And there's, in fact, no denial here.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
So the Veterans Court kind of cleared it up.

[00:15:44] Speaker 02:
It also said that these findings and conclusions are binding.

[00:15:48] Speaker 02:
Under a Veterans Court precedent, they won't be binding.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
And the secretary agrees that these were mistakenly included.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
So at that point, the Veterans Court kind of cleared it up.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
And under this court's precedent, the remand

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
was appropriate and there's no distinction.

[00:16:02] Speaker 04:
She seems to be arguing alternatively that even assuming that the improper findings by the board was wiped out that there's still no fact issue on the remand and that somehow that makes it final because the social security records are only relevant to one of the claims and not the other two.

[00:16:23] Speaker 04:
Could you comment on that?

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, true point.

[00:16:25] Speaker 02:
In terms of social security records, it's impossible to know whether they're relevant to the claims until they were received.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
So I don't know how you could prejudge that.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
And then in terms of the remand, certainly the veteran was entitled to submit additional materials, additional argument, additional evidence.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
And the regional office would be obligated to consider those materials in reaching this decision.

[00:16:45] Speaker 02:
And then on appeal to the board, the board would, of course, have to consider all of that evidence when it reviews the marriage-based decision, which is where it's at right now.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
Do you know why there's been such a tremendous delay in the appeal from the RO to the board?

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
So I know that there was one year of

[00:17:05] Speaker 02:
About one year until the notice of disagreement was filed after the 2000, I think the 2020, regional office decision that then sat for several years until the board remanded it again.

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
And the only comment I can make there is just the significant number of appeals that the board handles.

[00:17:23] Speaker 02:
I think the materials in this document and this appendix alone show at the end of the fourth quarter of 2021, there was some 200,000 pending appeals.

[00:17:31] Speaker 02:
So I think it would just relate to that, the large number of appeals being processed by the board.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
Do you have any sense of, because I think it is on appeal to the board again, do you have any sense of how long it's going to take to the board to get to it this time?

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
Is it going to have to wait another two years, or because it's from multiple remands, does it get expedited in the chain?

[00:17:57] Speaker 02:
where a claimant's at being able to be expedited.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
So I'm not entirely certain how long it would take.

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
I'm certainly sending frequent emails to the board.

[00:18:07] Speaker 02:
I would leave it to this case.

[00:18:09] Speaker 02:
What's the status?

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
Has it made any progress?

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
Can we provide any updates to the court?

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
Was there any ability to expedite?

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
any appeals in situations like this?

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
It seems like where something has been remanded, that it shouldn't have to go all the way to the back of the line.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
But you're saying there's no process like that?

[00:18:30] Speaker 02:
Well, I think it was unfortunate.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
There's a lot of remand.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
So I think any process like that is going to get bogged down.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
And I'm not aware of any process that would be able to isolate these things and highlight them.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
In other words, to have them at the top of the line in front of other board appeals.

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
OK, anything further?

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
If there's nothing, if there's no further questions, we just respectfully request the court to turn.

[00:18:55] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:18:55] Speaker 04:
Torres.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
I just briefly want to highlight, as my friend across the aisle pointed out, there's been a mistake here.

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
Who does the mistake get held against?

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
Should it get held against the veteran under a statutory scheme that's supposed to be firmly to the veterans, or should it be held against the Veterans Court and the board?

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
I think the answer under the statutes and under Henderson is quite clear.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
The veteran is supposed to get the benefit here.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
This is not a standard case.

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
This is not going to blow a hole.

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
But the mistake isn't being held against the veteran.

[00:19:25] Speaker 03:
It's being wiped out.

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
And a remand is being given for additional opportunity to present evidence.

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
I know you say you don't want to, or that there isn't any.

[00:19:34] Speaker 03:
What they're saying is this wasn't a final decision that forecloses a remand.

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
To call that being held against the veteran is not entirely accurate.

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
In most of these cases, veterans want to remand to present additional evidence.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
Oftentimes, veterans do want to remand.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
In this particular circumstance, the veteran doesn't.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
The veteran has presented the evidence that he has for an earlier effective date for TDIU and DEA.

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
And again, as my friend across the aisle acknowledged,

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
What this is going to end up in is a significant delay, maybe multiple years before the merits can be appealed.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
That's an issue that is harmful to the veteran.

[00:20:11] Speaker 04:
OK, but we've said again and again that remands make it non-final, and the veteran can't create a final decision by saying, I don't need a remand.

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
Well, again, as the Secretary acknowledged, the Veterans Court sort of cleaned up the decision here by making it not

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
not final, saying that it was a remand on all three issues.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
But that's not what the board said.

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
The board said that the criteria for an earlier effective date for TDIU and DEA had not been met.

[00:20:40] Speaker 04:
Well, let's wipe that.

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
Right, there's two different rulings.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
And the Veterans Court looked at it and said the best reading of this is that it's a remand, not a final decision.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
Respectfully, Your Honor, that is harmful to the veteran because it causes a several year delay.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
And this court does have jurisdiction to review whether that was the appropriate understanding of the decision under Kirkpatrick.

[00:21:04] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:21:05] Speaker 04:
I think we're out of time.

[00:21:05] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:21:06] Speaker 04:
Thank both counsels for taking this event.