expanded the definition of what a catastrophic injury is under section of the state of our supreme court has previously ruled that the term catastrophic injury and or perceive section four desh one ten point one of the pension is the occupational disease disability pension can be satisfied through rebuttal causation a standard first for instance the first paragraph of that provision talks about the types of activities that firefighters are engaged it and makes the presumption that any firefighter who has served for at least five years in that capacity for  is then entitle potentially to an occupational disease disability pension provided that he or she suffers from the different types of disability that are listed with then the rest causing the problem my reading of the statute is i don't even think the head and firefighter really has to claim much causation whatsoever unless there's something that something that re has a heart condition and each of the independent evaluations ruled as such in terms of the second question about ha's an issue that each of these individual value there is were asked i don't think any of  well as the brief i'm not going to repeat it here put each of them use terms like fairly unlikely mean related in some small degree may very well cause i would believe that this could have contributed very i'm honestly not clear in increased risk these aren't any sort of statements from a medical provider saying yes in fact mr grammars heart disease was caused by a service of this firefighter there speculating as to in some small degree this is intentional and some of the things that he did could have been related to his service as a fire now i think in terms of session and that's relevant because i think the trial mean i think that are the supreme court case incredibly there's no it's definitely clear that any sort of line of duty pension under section four gets one turn of the pension future employment and that precludes future employment and obviously payment for insurance premiums would make some logical sense so when you say program i suggest you go back and read it again and see exactly what it says and what it doesn't say and don't assume that it says something when it doesn't even address the issue there's nothing prorated presses your right as attorney for a city or village or in a school corporation or fire protection district to contest whether or not proof has been established to establish a catastrophic act now maybe in the appropriate circumstances would not be an abuse of discretion for a trial for a judge to say i will allow three expert opinions i will offer the testimony of several but it doesn't say what you since it and i just wanted to clarify what i  case was what the definition of catastrophic injury was and based off of the legislative history in which three members of the legislature made statements on the floor essentially said i've got one of them in front of me they're all put in my brief the crowing court made the determination that no matter what the dictionary said no matter what anyone says about what a cache catastrophic injury is in this case i don't know what evidence could possibly be reviewed by a jury which would show any sort of causation of it with respect to whether the injury the disease that mr brymer suffered was in response to an emergency situation and the war investigated some sort of criminal wrongdoing you know than the legislature at my  it provides an extra horrible for an applicant to jump through per se in the sense that the first fire fighter clearly was responding to an emergency fire suffered only injury can no longer work that person title to  see how someone who's not in one of these categories which is anonymous with catastrophic injury i understand logic i understand the fairness argument i understand all humans as to why it might might have made sense back at the time in one nine seven for occupational diseases to be included within the statutory definition but that didn't happen here and it's not in the legislature that to amend the stash and to include that within section and if when it when i legislators are standing up talking about light of duty was wholly of his or her mind discounting a patient which is a permanent disability because of service there or we would agree that the accident duty i will answer your point here i'm not so certain that the legislators would have come to this conclusion again we're not talking about people who necessarily have injuries here we're also talking about people who are catastrophic leave injured in the sense  floor scene to insinuate this make sure that the spouse and family are provided with health insurance after someone has departed i think that's the name that is towards this particular piece of legislation i really strongly just agree that if anything i think if they were mistaken about anything that would be expanded to the point that a task like  of one ten point one it doesn't use the word presumption it's the these are the types of things the firefighters are exposed to heat fumes gases and then to insurance plans from the date of the entry of the declaratory judgment which is the first time upon which the city was a party to a proceeding personal jurisdiction was obtained over th presumption that is serious as a firefighter may have contributed to contributed to his his disease not because of any sort of factual inquiry into the things he did as a firefighter but just the fact that he worked there for five years just because he worked there for five years he might be entitled to an occupational disease disability culture in the city i think that's the right decision under the the attorneys fees issue i think novak is binding on this score he's essentially saying that there's a pardon for exchange where the city in consideration w with respect to the the other cross i feel on the health insurance it's not based on any sort of statute any sort of precedent that i could find the court's precedent that within this briefs which i don't think are directly on point there's no sort of court holding that ever has said