we're in the regime with the deepest davis county exception applies we have to follow the law there it seems to me that what you complain about is the way the special master what we do is tell me i did under a fair a slash status can we make two terminations one where was most of the work done where was the overwhelming majority of work done and two what is the discrepancy  if any between the former in this case district of columbia and we'll call the hometown green in wyoming and decide to stand in that context what do you complain that i am complaining that the the basic law sit down by the supreme court has not been imported into the vaccine program and that there has not been a proper market determination or or relevant community on the part of the special master was in determining again doesn't come in his determination of the two hundred twenty dollars rate because you're saying the special master went about it the wrong way well no tribunals anywhere that i know of is allowed to draw irrational inferences from the evidence much less make up the evidence this special master had government in defining the federal practice market between wyoming and washington d c and indeed everyplace else the don't understand the best evidence of the federal practice year there they're making what fifty dollars an hour they make eighty seven per syrian of what washington d c attorney smeared i would therefore be willing to take eighty seven percent of laughing matrix rapes because the people who do federal practitioner in washington d c under every statute usually the term reasonable attorneys fees receivers the laughing matrix sets rates for pay of federal employees including i might add judges at pretty low numbers that is not something that i think i am let me put it this way in the in the  of the age i don't think you want to go there well imagine a situation where usually the logic of this case and the advertisement for vaccine attorneys in the department of justice was out saying vaccine attorneys wanted limited skill set needed and those who turners were paid less than other federal attorneys that is what this situation is this purdue case and from the united states supreme court said that my burden in order to get and they've just made as it were actually i'm i'm earlier in the process because i just want the rates to properly to begin with but when it it should be a distinction without a difference between setting the rate or adjusting the rate and justice alito wrote in the purdue case that my burden is to them to fight a factor not taken into account by the lodestar and me in this case the factors that have never been taken into account in the so called lodestar which is simply what our first tranche of rape lodestar is not a very helpful term but the thing that has never been taken into account in vaccine delaware valley to it was a there are actually two cases in delaware delaware valley and the second one talked about whether or not contingencies in patients should be compensated with an enhanced went for it and they did this are you saying that there should be some kind of a special production vaccine and no i think i think we should be entitled to get what people get in washington d c for doing for it cases i believe that we should get what people get in washington that was state court practice and that was practice on retainer that was practiced where i got paid that was practice where i didn't have to wait six or seven or nine or fifteen years to get paid for my for my effort federal law it is not countenance a hardship on council federal law calls for rapes that allow council to be effective and somewhat y because of the federal rates in different places sacramento california for instance an h p l technology reached the laughing major traits with reference to the difference between locality pay a federal correct if if you look at the federal government and malice of the market value of government federal practitioners you find a measure that dovetails with my own calculations with my accountant who we'd be right and necessary rate to do a dedicated federal dedicated bechstein practice of between four hundred sixteen and five hundred dollars an hour and that is a clear bones practice that would allow me to make a salary that would be les what i'm what i'm saying is that if they say that five hundred dollars an hour that would you would end up with less than what a federal attorney would bill was several thousand dollars for that for the settlement effort i have subsidized this program for years you missed cases and in every other there was a time when when my when i phoned my first vaccine firm we took one hundred cases that was sort of the time when the statute promised to cases would be prominent finished in two hundred forty days and ten years later i was still working on those hundred cases the only thing i'm asking for is for this type of statutory litigation to be compensated the same way as all other federal statutory live patients using that in washington d i am suggesting that we are like private attorney generals we've thorough the our work helps form the basis for vaccine policy in the united states there is a significant moral hazard created when we are not paid enough to provide services to our clients and and it is a mansion and market bet is the error of a vera and there was never any opportunity to litigate the question of whether or not this is a nation or market there is no room economic rule that says that if you produce a good or a service procedure looked not to a rate based on cheyenne wyoming in this case but a rate based on some national market or or are you saying  what i'm saying is that the federal practice market in washington d c is a single market and the last three matrix expression is the bottom end of the of the market for the national federal practice market in washington d c i have my ph d economist says that the vaccine program is likewise a mansion on market and therefore accept you vera davis county procedural when you look to the home town rate you should not look to what people in cheyenne wyoming generally receive for certain types of cases but could make in these alternative arguments is that well what i'm saying news that it really makes no difference because the only evidence on this record with regard to the value of complex federal litigation and cheyanne shows that it technologies rate validates the testimony of my expert on federal reaching cheyenne who was indeed a man he was a he was the defense liaison in complicated litigation in he knows what the rates are for into this court used to usually gauge and indeed indeed were mission the point what we should be doing is representing these injured people and we can't afford them actually we've run well over public my name is katherine and i represent the secretary of health and human services in this matter i would just like to start out by mentioning it's in a footnote in respondents brief that in the last three fiscal years alone mr moxley has personally received no less than three hundred thirty six thousand three hundred twelve dollars and seven cents in attorney's fees that does not include subsequent attorney's fees awarded recently received in this matter after his demotion per year which was twenty is the amount of fees related to the underlying claim is forty two thousand and sixty five dollars and fifty cents but the rest of those fees are all related to the fees litigation and of request is reasonable for that versus whether any theory request is illegitimate because the position taken was on reasonable do you let me ask the question this way do you ever object to a fee on the ground that the position taken by the party and by extension the attorney was on recently we have raised such objections yes how frequently you know i load star because of the lack of the quality of representation that judge hodges represent referenced in his opinion and order denying motion for review but he did receive fees mr moxey did receive an award that has been paid for  argument was talking about that his his position is that the vaccine market is that it is a national market the only evidence that was presented to support the argument that it's a national market and there's comp in it's complex federal litigation similar to say laugh the laughing case was an affidavit from an attorney named donald scholtz who practiced in a large national firm doing different types of what rate do you use as the benchmark rate in the district of columbia to compare with the cheyenne wyoming or do you use  in each case the special master makes that makes his or her own determination as to what the form rate is there was some evidence submitted in this case the problematic aspect of determining a d c form rate for vaccine program attorney there are not any attorneys that are located in d c that practice in the program regularly other than a professor at the law school who we submitted evidence of the hourly rate that he receives for his cases but because he is salaried he doesn't have overhead he doesn't have an office a law office a private practice the special master would not find that evidence particularly relevant to his determination of what a forum d certainly he or she could if it was justified based on the evidence i mean what happened in this case the special master did a very thorough analysis and explained why he found that the latter matrix did not apply not the least which reason was the fact that the he he he compared the litigation itself that occurred in the latter case which involved thousands of plaintiffs in this protracted proceedings multiple appeals it resolved an issue that affected many many people as opposed to this case it involved one petitioner there was one hearing there were no appeals regarding the underlying claim so we found that the litigation in this case was far simpler than the laffy case but the other distinction that he made was that or the other determination that he made is that the last few matrix has not been adopted universally even within the d c forum there are other types of cases that are heard in the federal courts in d c where attorneys fees have been awarded where it's been as a different matrix for determining attorney's fees and he also cited the mulcher case which was a very straightforward negligence suit in those cases black matrix of rates were not awarded even though they were sought and so it's not unique to this program that the matrix has been rejected as a measure for reasonable attorneys but even i take it that we've talked about previously the if we follow the o  moves up good more applicable davis county county exception correct cracks and it's particularly a political one vaccine at cases as i said because most of the attorneys that appear regularly in the program are not we're only talking about the attorney fees right we're not talking about expert compensation not so very case did not address travel and so but this is just straight our leafy that's right yes sir a high overhead he started talking about the experts so that got me confused well in this particular case there it is true that he was not compensated for a bill that he incurred for one of his experts but that that then becomes the question then becomes whether he was paid to be experts at its own pocket and i want to ask him that i don't know but if we're talking about fees only here then we're talking about something that doesn't vary with