no thank you ah so we have kept you waiting a little bit this morning so i did want to apologize on behalf of the court and indicate to you that you saw that we had a ministry matter that we had to deal with another case he also hit to take a couple  right well why don't we start off indicating that will take ten minutes for the yeah for the two first two presentations and ten minutes for the last one and we'll see uncle's back to the ten minutes for mr graham ten minutes first for the attorney for not only his fees but the costs that he or she had to put forth in order to present and successfully argue when the case at whatever le then you would be able to divide what's remaining from a settlement or verdict or whatever so that you'll always have thirty thirty forty is not an issue in this case but transferred to the medical providers by the method that was used in the same court and him improperly so costs e act and that access that whenever the medical either professionals or providers lanes are more than forty percent then that instance the attorney minimal insurance who proceeding file suit in spite of the fact that there are some medical bills that would like to be answered with this because jim will will limit that the medical providers will in that very public policy that informs the act we have to have a sufficient number of attorneys and clients who are going to get something or there is going to be no benefit to the health care providers because the  our only gets about fifty wins about fifty two percent of the cases so the calculus of risk here is very real so if you include in that the opportunity wherein they get nothing i think it is regarding the limitations the providers the argument was the argument was made by structure and i don't call them the defendant because they're not a defendant th the broad scope when the meaning this created it does not implicate as i think the court was getting yeah as far as the attorneys leah can forgive me if i'm being presumptuous here is that somehow the attorney's costs and the intent of the lead yes in situations where medical sixty forty percent yes was to limit the attorney leads to thirty percent the plaintiff would always have in recovery a thirty percent depending on how you interpret what is included in the notion of an attorney do you have any that if the asking the county has suggested that the attorney  judgment after might the point being that when you have liens that are going to be greater than forty percent the attorney lien will be limited to thirty percent right and you're seeing him stanton had as i put it my grave those costs and expenses in the calculation of the attorneys to be within the ambit of the thirty percent limitation would make it virtually impossible for the place attorney unless there were no rules to get thirty percent to thirty percent fifty and if we deduct them and then do the calculus we're talking about maybe getting well i don't think it is anything more than that the first one is to get the lawyers ahead of the health care provider yes absolutely i think that all that that section by says that the first heat of the money the first lien and other and expense yes so the plus has to be an addition to what the attorneys collecting for to speak and i absolutely agree and that's what i carry with them and i was just getting that j absolutely agree i know but i'm taking a long time to get that i'm sorry but it oh that's the way it's been historically before you were born that is doubtless the true it's been that way for the twenty seven years i on to the medically or not and the and your position is that you might guess the way you do it you hand him in my position is that you if you are going to protect sufficiently protective tourney's interesting prosecuting the case in the first place you have to attorney interpret it that way that's why in my portion of the brief where i lay out the alternatives to stanton they are so deadly for the plaint in all deference to my my colleague this is why i personally after thinking about this over and over again there should be some i mean admit something there should be some not imposing an equitable all the near obvious because i think that the act the competing interest here is ensuring that people have legal representation a good are entitled to it and b that will create a even if the costs work in my case they were about fifteen to twenty percent of the saddle all right and if we do it and i specify this in my numbers i mean this statute is worse than a paradigm of clarity but homo's going to ask you was you make a very compelling hackable argument but my question is where do you find support for your argument in the language  is certainly it's an you're making an argument that he has to do with what the end results are and how it's the end results are not desirable because it would it would discourage attorneys from bringing cases the attorneys leading judge was in in my view chess problem to ensure that attorneys are that it was also probably going to ensure that there is legal representation for people and those are co extensive else you can hear well without so my mum my position would be certainly nothing nothing situation maybe not that extreme i pointed out to the court i understand the court's construction of it but my construction of the civic broader them and it allows for those costs to be attributed in the manner that i have suggested so the answer to my b s the answer to my question ok my question is is it your position is that the language of the we improve the language of the attorneys lenient that speaks to the attorneys priority is where you find support in your position to y i believe some judge and i think that both the legislative history that was floated by the by structure extensively shows oh how important incentive was to the problem patient of this of this act let's just lay here have literally set out exactly what you're suggesting that the attorney leans and costs shelby ducted first to do that i mean the converse argument is also true they certainly could have specified that the cross through to be attributable ahead of the attorneys lane or just behind it or just behind the health care provider say you can do that either that i would ask you at this time just to reserve some time for me after and the republican that i counsel may have maybe four minutes or so i'll give you two thank you touch the  and that's the problem judge with respect the priority of liens the health care services and the next takes the one hundred percent recovery they divide death with a maximum of forty i finely tuned balancing by the legislature which actually was an enactment of the agreement by all the interested parties and based on all the competing power will see that first of all of these parties agreed to by the bar the first two of those situations where attorneys liens may have priority it does not refer to the situation involving the health care services lien ends and the health care services in act evidently attorneys lean that neither one you're taking it from a perfect judgment compromise settlement after first deducting you turning the talk and i mean that language can easily be put into the stay if you're not there so really it's i don't see these cases interested party gets and there's no claim language in the statute in talking about a gross recovery or and that recovery or reduction of fees or reduction of costs there's absolutely no language and they have statu liens which are limited to the grass which is the whatever the recovery as it's coming in that are creditors are to have a different kind of relationship where the creditor can see come back through all of the able mornings they can get some to get your part of that i can still pull back try to get rest that those reasonable medical expenses from the individual that you were treated yes and the legislature made that clear in section twenty three slash forty  so that there's going to be a maximum forty percent are out there you know there's a maximum of thirty percent for a chinese liens which include fees and costs and thirty percent minimum for playing us now if the attorneys run up costs and costs are to two a percentage so what we have here is the standard court basically legislating their own formula which doesn't even and doesn't even do what they intended to do which was to make sure the plaintiff receives thirty percent brought up by judge mcbride the language that has been quoted to you about this agreement i think it is a fair construction to say there was a reference to an agreement that doesn't mean that the trial they were a workers comp attorney for a civil litigation case the other thing i want to emphasize to you is the fact that there is a cap has nothing whatsoever to do with priority as far as incentive goes now as far as the beverly case goes i really have to say anything more she's distinguish the case really the case is no bearing on the allocation of costs in this case and has no bearing on how the legislative construct or how the construction of this act should be applied to the facts of my case purpose of the act which is to get funds is going to be completely undermined and half the plate aspire and anyone that knows about any adverse decision that's contrary to pretty much of what i put proposed here is simply going to be not take these cases it's just not going to happen which means that the toughest cases the cases where there is a the most contentious and there are several days in most need of representation is great to be for naught that's all i have to say thank you creditors all of them and in all of them they all stated that they disallow shifting attorneys fees from a debtor plaintiff to a creditor hospital it's not the method or the formula used to shift the fees to a creditor it's they were coming from cases but again they it's not really what's at issue it's the fact that they all thought disallow fees shifting to a creditor was already limited by statute to a percentage of the recovery well  into a debtor creditor relationship without being able to ascertain the patient's ability to pay and health care services liens promote health care for the poor of the state so we would ask this court moreover one other quick thing is that