subordination, subordinate for purposes of distribution all or part of an allowed claim to all or part of another allowed claim or all or part of an allowed interest to all or part of an allowed interest.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(c). Application of the doctrine is at the discretion of the court. BankWest, Inc. v. United States, Farmers Home Admin., 102 B.R. 738, 741 (D.S.D.1989); see also Bayer Corp. v. MascoTech, Inc. (In re AutoStyle Plastics, Inc.), 269 F.3d 726, 744 (6th Cir.2001) (stating that a court is permitted to, not required to, subordinate a claim). The test that most district courts and courts of appeal follow is found in Benjamin v. Diamond (In re Mobile Steel Co.), 563 F.2d 692 (5th Cir.1977). United States v. Noland, 517 U.S. 535, 538-39, 116 S.Ct. 1524, 134 L.Ed.2d 748 (1996) (<HOLDING>). It is a three-part test that requires the
recognizing ajlthough presiding judge mccormicks opinion in davis  is labeled a concurring opinion it was joined by a majority of the court and may be regarded as an opinion for the court holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others recognizing mobile steel as an influential opinion recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue