application of the provisions subsection three hundred dollars double a twelve d of the vaccine act from my research i don't believe that this court has ever expressly addressed this provision and there are a lot of petitioners and i assume the government who needs and your direction from this court on this so subsection  to three hundred double a don't let me ask you a question did did you present evidence that  presented evidence of that yes there are the parties can move for a ruling on the record if the parties plural move subsection three where does it say if the parties move subs i says indeed it's an include the opportunity for parties to submit arguments and evidence on the record without requiring routine use of world presentations right parties is plural and we believe congress meant it to be plural and subsection i mean is that the real problem with all of this is so the statute came as a set in subsection c and b provide for a ruling on the record subsection b which happens routinely in the vaccine program and hat we do that all the time  i think that you know it has to be read in light of see and that why in the world when anyone you see if i kind of think these are your themes america right if if somebody can just say i'm going to announce her ruling on the record and i get to choose and this is this is the real question for the court and this is the thing respondents brief is not answered at this level or below claims court if the moving party just gets to choose why would they ever choose see what point give your opponent extra protection in summary judgment roll in in if the special master if it's not the moving party let's say they're arguing in again this is not their brief they're arguing well it's a special match we can move for a ruling on the record we can move for summary proceeding and then the special master just gets to choose well in one of the switches standard there i understand what you're saying my my concern as include the opportunity for priests met arguments and evidence on the record that requiring routine use of oral presentations cross examinations or hearings seem to lead to be separate proceedings i'm just you know plainly look at ingham and then there and there's a and there's a but they're all separate things i'm having a hard time understanding how i'm supposed to read this to say that india is somehow limited by c when none of the other provisions seem to have that sort of relationship well is in the room we could do you see whenever you want it but it's probably because the rules are for or flexible and don't require the use of the rules of civil procedure most of you are going to use it because if you think you have evidence on the record then you summary judgment when you think you have such a clear case that you don't need further development of the record and you want to move for summary judgment and you get to move for it even though the special master might not think that this is a case it might not be inclined yet to moving under subsection d you do not get to have a hearing you do not get to view the evidence and have the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party we can do that to them to their care but they get the chance to submit evidence on the record well that's not what happened here are you saying that the special master deprives you of the evidence to the ability to submit written evidence on the record and anyway no i thought your argument was the special master decided i don't need an oral hearing or present there is a special master didn't do which directly violates subsection c is he did not view the evidence in the light most parties so there's that plural vs singular a question here and in the statute does not say either party can move for a ruling on the record even with the opposition of the other party and other the nonmoving party doesn't get the protection or of subsection c the summary judgement really doesn't say that so that's not what happened so when in a situation like this where one party respondent moves for a ruling on the record in the other party says i'm not going to join you on that ok at that point then the summary judgment then it is a summary judgment proceeding one part moved the nonmoving party gets a protection of summary judgment and a new digs exactly the same as in the civil arena that's what i do but it's not because this rule this statute makes it clear that the special masters are allowed to ask for more flexible less adversarial rules and so it doesn't have to act the way it does in the civil reda you're absolutely right in the federal rules of civil procedure this doesn't happen but your seeming to impose requirement on subsection t that just by mentioning that the parties the plural properties that that means it has to be an uncontested  well again and i think probably almost never because if you think you've got the evidence to support your case you're going to want the written benefit of the decision by the special master when the evidence but there may be that rare case where you think you dentist so overwhelmingly good that the government's not going to be able to get any disputed material issue the fact or the government thinks your evidence is so overwhelmingly inferior that there's no disputed issues of material that that they don't want to go says that a special master may require the testimony of any person in the production of any documents as may be reasonable and necessary and then the very next provision room in europe for a says that special master cheryl afford all interested persons an opportunity to relevant written information why isn't this statutory provision consistent with the idea that a special master you know sound must receive all written information but only now may require testimony and cross examination that's that's consistent with the idea that there's going to be special rules in these proceedings to allow a special master to make a summary judgment as a provision and if what you're saying is true then that particular provision at the discretion of the special master he can just take that out he doesn't have to apply that have we have oral testimony we can explain things the mrs cries and back could have given her testimony about the history of her son all of that doesn't mean it's not only important it's not only important at special good morning it may please the court julia carson for the secretary of health and human services in that case and notably appellants are not challenging any of the special masters actual or causation determination you're just his discretion to decide this case without a hearing at the court of federal claims has determined well settled case law establishes that the special master has that discretion to decide a case without a hearing and that the special master in this case did not abuse his on the basis of written submissions without an evidentiary hearing and as noted by the court of federal claims going back to thank you ninety seven and the special master in this case that discretion of the special master is tempered i rule three b which directs that each the special master afford each party a quote full and fair opportunity to present their case and also directs the special master to create a record that is before the requirements of the three b if that if the if the claimants here wanted oral ready testimony and wanted to be across the government's experts and all that kind of stuff and that in the special master decided not to is there review of that decision yes the parties can ask the court of federal claims and then this court to review whether the special masters decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing was an abuse of his discretion and the court of federal claims in this case decided to term and that the special master did not abuse his discretion they specifically point out that the petitioners in this case had quote an ample opportunity to support their claims with brute written evidence and briefs and post which resulted in a plethora of information specifically the case was pending for ten years during the course of that time one thousand five hundred pages of medical records were submitted into the record there were three expert reports filed on either side along with attendant medical literature and full briefing so preparing briefing and then briefing once the the court determined that he would be deciding this case on the papers if you have any sense of how often these cases are decided just on the written record as opposed to suggests that the opportunity for a judge to decide a case on the record is really very important to the education of vaccine claims in the vaccine program and as was noted at the advisory commission for childhood vaccinations at their most recent public meeting more than tall one hundred cases a year are filed in the program and the vast majority of those are in fact results by the parties how without a ruling from the special master however there are only eight special masters to resolve the remainder of those claims and at this point in time when hearings are scheduled which is frequently they're being scheduled into twenty million two hundred and two thousand and twenty one you have no distinction between a case we consider to such a settled case a case that's settled without the input of the special master and there will be a stipulation filed that both parties sign when entitle meant ruling is issued e special master deems it appropriate to resolve the case without a hearing as special masters have been doing for the last thirty years within the program and what the petitioner is really asking for in this case is for the determine a nation of whether the case is closed whether that rule three be a requirement has been met that that discretion be taken away from the special master and reside within concerned with in this particular instruct that they are to be used when the one of the parties wants to move prior move for judgment in the case prior to the end of the case or effectively at an arbitrary point in the litigation dictated by the movement the movement and not the the special master of the final point that i wanted to address was that a sixteen the petitioners were awarded eighty one thousand dollars in fees reimbursement and petitioner seems to make the argument that they would potentially not be able to minute thank you your honor so according to the government they get to decide whether or not the opposing party the petitioner gets the protections of the rules  decide when he thinks the record is sufficiently developed for him to make a decision and if you want to object you can and that can be reviewed by the court if they don't claim somebody else but the question is do you  know the special masters decision to decide the record is sufficiently developed that i don't need an oral hearing right well no not even that we they moved for summary judgment they didn't move for summary judgment a move or a decision on the written record if the special master had thought that the record wasn't sufficiently developed where if you had objected and wanted to put in additional written testimony additional evidence or requests of the hearing you're d allowed to do that the special master is the one that got to make the final call you're suggesting that the government is controlling this is inconsistent with what happened here the special master determined that he did not need oral testimony if that's the decision you're objecting to then you could have objected to that decision and said it was an abuse of discretion but that's not the argument  presented ok so now under that circumstance where petitioner objects to a ruling prior to the part of the hearing does rule fifty six is true fifty six triggered that's my question to this court let me ask you a question just to be clear you didn't challenge any of the merits of the decision you're just you're you're only bringing on appeal the the procedure before us i'm only a with the appeal is of not granting us the protection of rule fifty six when we viewed the evidence that is true however we disagree across the board with this fact finding i mean it's in our it's our statement of