are next to each new versus health and services number seven fifty thirty four say she would have been entitled to five hundred fifty six thousand dollars because that's her actual med lost wages and pain and suffering damages up but she went and died while this is pending so she only gets to fifty is that we're coming out her injury the government decided entitled her to five hundred fifty six thousand dollars but because she subsequently died presumably an even worse injury caused by the vaccine because it was causation is not being disputed you're going to therefore reduce the compensation you would give her otherwise all pertains only to death and one and three and four are injury so let's sandwich debts in the middle and then say all these other provisions really only to injury does under the actual reimburse medical expenses does it say that those are did she have a vaccine related injury she did why can't you get a compensation because she died she died or in terms of the case and sixteen x early states clearly where were the clearly stated i keep missing that well if we turn t special masters analysis of the legal points now when you show me where it clearly stated in the statute just said it did it clearly states in the in the in the section the four sections under section fifteen there's only one section know he was alive at the time she filed the petition correct that's correct she filed a petition for injury the government in type determines who can tell the five hundred fifty six thousand dollars then she died and now you want me to say she's not interpreted is that there are cases which say that when a federal statute doesn't address issues of survivorship those issues are to be determined under federal common law and that the federal problem at least in some circumstances and it is does fifteen b by it's clear term provide for damages under one a and two so isn't that giving her medicine death benefit no it wasn't given or in  and suffering lost earnings that are so you're telling me that i should interpret section b as saying she gets death benefits or even though congress used the word and in two places and this is exhibit a and may also include how in the world can i come to the conclusion how do you read those and out of there we recently read them to tell you that the under section fifteen just first do you think that that is the ordinary meaning of the word and the meaning that you're asking me to ascribe to it which is that in the event of a death you get only number two you don't get one day and then the stetson but the subsequent language has and they also include up to thirty thousand do you think that's the ordinary interpretation that you were describing the word and you answer to that question would have been more along the lines of the sovereign immunity argument that the special master proffered in the decision below that is that we're statute where we're the government's interpretation of section fifteen is reasonable plausible  subsection b as providing you sufficiently clear guidance to understand that someone who has got i can get that there died dying can get more than the death and the death benefit plus if we find be sufficiently clear to indicate that is there any reason to believe actual out of pocket medical expenses exceeded two hundred fifty thousand dollars before before they died are you suggesting to me that the statute precludes them from receiving their medical expenses they only get the two hundred fifty thousand dollars a benefit they don't get going the standing provision of eleven lino yes or no and you're going to tell me that there's no standing for the legal representative to bring a claim for the injury if they died unrelated to the act means we're trying to argue that congress make difficult decisions about who recei the use of the word and says that pain related injury or death compensation may include one day two and up to thirty thousand for pain and suffering the answer there is unequivocal so if we apply that back to fifteen day we've now created the ability for consistently petitioners to get their injury competition that they're entitled to and their death compensation that they're entitled to and if we do that then under eleven v if someone dies because they will have the misfortune of walking out in front of a bus there's they can only bring a claim for the death benefit and you think that's really crystal clear based on eleven being on nothing i disagree with you but if we go so that the damned if we do and the damned if we don't is five hundred fifty six thousand dollars if she's injured two hundred fifty thousand dollars if she dies is very difficult   direct to this but the whole statute is a statute of limitations of the administrative provisions that provide for expeditious decisionmaking and re of probably difficulties in proving causation with respect to certain issues and therefore an accumulation of medical expenses over a course of years of thirteen years that perhaps  looking expenses from the date of judge lewis that's correct it's not past expenses but they can get back to master earnings and pain and suffering so they still get  counsel i was correctly redirected to the idea that one a is members medical expenses expenses from the date of judgment going forward how much of it and going forward could also include future medical expenses under the statute how much of the five fifty six address future medical expenses that unfortunately the particular claim it is not to need because she died we need if we do send this back repeat change our mind should she get five fifty six plus two fifty or it was a portion of those medical expenses post it is because otherwise if the person died how could they also get the thirty thousand for pain and suffering because clearly related to the injury or its quest for that implicit acknowledgement of the viper ship in fifteen b are shorts carkeek of limitations here and there for the fact that someone who is broader kind of alchemy of course as we all well will daryn really isn't i mean i'm not sure you that they should receive because they die because they're no longer here but does that mean if they separate injury in advance of that that they shouldn't get pain and suffering for that injury i think your honor of congress wanted this payment for the estate