subsequent motion for attorney's fees secondly even if the court had jurisdiction to review the final merits of the termination it erred by adopting expansive dictionary definitions of the damages provisions in the vaccine act and finally the special master erred by determining that projected future well settled that an unresolved issue of attorney fees will not prevent a judgment on the merits from becoming final that thing that proceedings as in this case are typically resolved in two phases first the special master let me ask this is there any way for these kinds of cost ever to be recoverable or is it your position that absolutely not for the future fees and costs of a garden cities are not recoverable under the act there's no even if they're there put into the damages agreement negotiated this will we disagree that which would seem to imply that at least i would think that the petitioner a partition is counsel that the government understood that there were going to be costs that continue to be occurring and that they were going to be contemplated why put that language in there if you didn't think it was even relevant there understands that the costs are going to be incurred it's just a matter of whether these are compensable under the act it's important to remember that guardianship are not something that are unique to the vaccine at any normal tort plaintiff in status under which her daughter charge her legal for which she used whom she is legally responsible as guardian would actually get the annuity payments that are part of the judgment oh these are from these are incur the liability to maintain the ability for her legal charge to receive the judgments benefits well there's no anything about liability there's no way anyone can make a claim against her for not paying this at this point there's if she just decided for example i'm just going to give up the benefits i'm not absolutely required to to get them so even though the whatever the that would be a liability that attach in the future she would have to make that decision sometime don't use it she's currently liable for and under her guardianship probation to make the payments to carry out her from action as guardian to provide her daughter the money that's part of the judgment she becomes liable in the future to make those payments and to file all of this requirements under state under florida state law she's not currently required to do any of those she becomes liable as time it has to be something that isn't heard of something that's incurred in the past if there's a commitment to pay something in the future there's no liability that attaches until you don't until you have to pay that that feat or that cost well this difference is the liability and that are being brought in proceedings and so the current the court has decided virtually the same question in black and that case dealt with a provision of the this it's been repealed but that that provision the repeal provision required fischer's to have incurred greater than one thousand dollars of expenses before filing a vaccine action and the court rejected an argument that would have allowed petitioners to file petitions based on anticipated reliable which black used as a translation of the current includes a legal obligation for making future premium payments let's call them in order to get the benefit of the judgment that is being entered in this case that's not a lot of a big stretch of the congress was aware of guardianships one when it created the act and didn't provide for these incurred cost incurred cost is their past cost that someone is currently liable for and so that's what really what black stands for compensation and the parties resolved damages the secretary father proper on november twenty eighth twenty six and and that day the special master entered a decision in accordance with the proffer stating that the damages accounted for all amounts of compensation available at least agree of the new  master properly awarded these costs to maintain guardianship because these costs were incurred on a proceeding on the petition as you know where section fifteen of the vaccine act allows for compensation to petitioners fifteen allows for compensation as a whole fifteenth he specifically grants the special master the authority to award attorneys fees attorneys costs and other costs the list is not exhaustive other cost as is the phrase used in the present case the respondent does not object to the cost used to establish guardianship respondent can see that that under the proffer they filed and in the special masters decision that the establishment was a already incurred within the meaning of black well i think within the meaning of black first i think it's notable that this court has already interpreted the term incur in the context of the vaccine act in black and they have done so one pays off the debt but when one becomes legally liable but your was legally liable to establish and maintain guardianship for the remainder i am a life in order to give effect to the special masters decision  warding damages and the judgment awarding to damage as they call for an annuity that's being that is making monthly and in your payments to the guardian of am for the rest of am's life in the payments are significant the her guardianship maintained for the remainder of her life exists at the time of judgement it is the only the guardianship is the only vehicle by which a and is able to receive the compensation awarded to her that is what is covered by fifteen reference to curb or whether you actually have to you don't incur the obligation to make each payment until that  supplies am with compensation for her injuries the guardianship must be maintained to give a fact into gives rise to that judgment and remind me of the special masters order here  what did it say about what would happen if the family moved out of florida north carolina out of any state into a place where there were no fees guardian maintenance fees the special measures or is are you speaking of the special master's fee decision or what yes so the special master actually addressed respondents concerns of a windfall coming to the petitioner should something like that happen and you propose certain mechanistic tools to you know kind of award or ward off that from happening there is the proposal that an annuity could be purchased for the government on the contingency the court a federal claims judgment a law addressing respondents concerns of a wind farm there's there's also no indication that petitioner intends to move out of state i understand that is a large that is a possibility and actually something that was recently addressed in a special master is decision martin versus secretary of health and human services understand the special master there it's on point with  award of fees to maintain of guardianship the special master there understood respondents concerns but the balance that with the giving rise in effect to the judgment to a fact effect of the analysis and would be more right in his opinion he did say that the costs are better awarded under fifteen but ultimately he did not vacate the special masters decision and the judgment issue i do not know how many states other than florida have this issue which kind of pops up when a petitioner comes to us from different states and different states change but there has been some states in b or some case law that different states do have filing requirements bond requirements similar to what we see here and then there's some case law to suggest that other states do not i think what's important here is and what makes this case a little bit different than some of the other cases in the past is the extent of the injuries suffered by am in the past year for the remainder of her life so a lot of the decisions involving this specific point really discuss when the until such time if it ever occurred that the family out of the state where maids fees were required to keep a guardianship the special master allowed for the respondent to pay out these costs of the purchase of an longer in the state in a state requiring him then so would the governments of the nation too for under the fees opinion the special master trees award would also come to me so i am not very pretty to the ways in which the respondent purchases nudie and what's required i'd have to defer to my colleague on a matter but i do i'm not being clear i'm not asking about what the government will choose to do what it does in other cases i'm asking only about what the order from the special master permits of the government to do the government is concerned about this windfall about what if week from now or here from now or four years from now we move our of florida and into a state where there are no make and she's required we don't want to keep pay those the special masters order on this subject that permit happens i don't think it excludes the possibility it does specifically permit for them to provide or purchase an annuity for the remainder of her life so should she passed away there would be manner the special master bases decision on section fifteen and i think again it's worth repeating that i responded to proffer requires guardianship the nineteenth in order for the petitioner to receive her annuity payments in her damages or vaccine injuries from the requirement to maintain the guardianship again guardianship is the only vehicle through which and they receive compensation in terms of the jurisdiction arguments raised by the respondent and the court of federal claims decision it's worth noting that the court of federal claims which the same conclusion of the special master in a from the decision to not take it at response argument is that in damages decision according to midges certainly that that that case was not appealed and i don't believe that the court of federal claims in april two thousand and eighteen decision actually works in a fact or overtly to appeal that  and again the practice of having multiple cost me multiple decisions and judgments awarding different types of compensation in this program as well recognized maintained i don't think that they're necessarily mutually exclusive i think the holdings in each arm of al and i think these cost can be brought under fifteen and or fifteen it's customary in this program just by routine practice of the parties that they are handled under fifteen and that is something that's also alluded to address and in the recent martin decision as well he said so you're saying as a matter of general practice from your knowledge these i just briefly two points judgment on the merits in this case what sort of compensation that would be orrible under fifteen by awarding further compensation under fifteen on the attorneys fees issue the court of federal claims  actively over all your earlier five hours judgment and to the second point the special master proposal like contingent annuity only it didn't take care of the possibility that petitioner would move out of the state it didn't account for any other potential case where they've been awarded other than in this case and taddeo the same special master on the top of your case as was mentioned in the court of federal claims decision i believe on the next page seven and he quote focus explicitly disagreed with that under fifteen the only the only special master i know of has found that these costs are about as of under fifteen he is the special master in this case and he is the same special master and taught  court of federal claims i concluded that these costs would be awarded a lot of case management services or residential into studio care and services but in doing so he took he took them out of the secretary of health and human services adopted the correct definition of case management services and that case the court correctly concluded that the term unconscious is the coordination of social and medical services from various sources rejecting the argument that the term can be re saying that the guardianship fees couldn't fall under the welfare of the person right so it couldn't be awarded as case management services or residential char