the decision was we're challenging the decision of the pension board to board a one hundred percent of salary line of duty disability pension to music in home or the surviving s object to the introduction of the medical literature correct correct in and their arguments were that on appeal would you agree yes i would and so we cannot really reverse on the basis that the board considered the medical literature because there was no objection to correct correct so how is how is that medical literature at odds with your argument that there was no evidence in the record to it's if you look at the medical literature in the record the question is whether that medical literature caused establishes a causal connection between specific events know those are are you know are you personally explanations of what what's going on the kinds of fires that they responded to but his entire squad responded to but there's no direct evidence of exactly what a firefighter harbored experienced and whether he had any actual exposure to any cars in this toxic smoke and so forth during the course of those calls and that kind of specific evidence of exposure with evidence of each player that that person would do for you what was burning and what personages may have been present because you have your heart your argument in general seems to me to be that if a person succumb they could prove it but you're exactly right your honor and that is why we believe that because of the difficulties of proof the legislature or the legislature adopted the occupational diseases pension statutes and where a firefighter cannot said looks at the occupation disease statute adopted language puts it in his opinion and says there is a correlation there are right in the medical literature and also and also the history shown that it was caused by exposure if there is so how hard it how hard it is how far does an african have to go to show it to the benefit they have as  in every other case reported for line of duty disability where they've been awarded the applicant had to show a tie of their own healthy result to particular acts of d occurred during the course of their firefighting career and the as as sad and unfortunate as the situation is there is a recognition by the legislature and in the medical community is very difficult stablish specific proof of cancerous conditions or what may be triggered a heart attack or a lung condition and so forth and as a result our legislature and the legislatures of twenty some other states have adopted these occupational disease disability sections which say cancer or other the scenes that typically takes a long hike to develop and may not have i don't believe it because because the what what it requires is then evidence of exposure the resulting impact of that exposure on the firefighter that's the human or the facts and then the caus the pension board on a finding for a disability other than one where i think i wrote it where he had three i have means finding him disabled in the board went the other right i mean other than name and i know who are in the same vicinity do not suffer your remarks we also know that just in the general population the people who are exposed to certain substances toxic substances do all cancers various types of cancer and some  throughout his career and there were and that he had a hearing test you know when he started firefighter service and want to levon years later and that there was evidence in the interim of noise induced additional he that that firefighter harbor participated in the one hundred and twenty seven dollars fire falls most of which involved you know the fire was out at the time or it was you know a stone fire or a brush fire or things like that think you always want to reserve there was a garbage can you know place the garbage can you see another case where there was fuel that was burning but we don't know what firefighter harbors actual role was all we know that there was exposure well we know that he was always following the safety protocols and wearing his suit new safety equipment we know that he never asserted that he complained about exposure that bothered him from any of the balls and we know that in other instances moot kevins applications that were pending at the time was done it was within their discretion to do so the question is whether they were clearly erroneous and in doing so and their argument is that they didn't have to move the occupational disease disability application haven't because if you had no impact on the outcome of the case and we think it does have an impact and should have been considered a few because not only does it provide a pre level for the rest of her life the previous death there was not in any week there were all i know but the board acted conducted itself as though it was going to resolve and consider his occupational disease disability pension because they learned from his counsel in august of two thousand and seventeen that he was excusing hospice he was expected to have two weeks to live they conducted a hearing at that time to take his testimony and that before he died because it took a while to get to the eye of the reports here but surely a firefighter who's entitle to the occupational disease disability pension be precluded and his family be looted from receiving ok i would just urge the court to consider that despite all the evidence in the record none of that evidence shows a causal link between of specific actual duty and have harbors resulting cancer and we think the line of duty disability and clearly requires that the occupational disease disability statute is ready made for these kinds of cases since the facts of the evidence perfectly and he points out that knew that the board improperly conflated the statutory standards for occupational disease pension and duty pension how was that not detrimental to the word sign so i think that that is not true that we didn't looking i don't believe so we we we work with the information that we have the information that we're able to obtain from the villages and their information is not going to have the the detail that would presumably mean what the village what her rights could be if the to see was receiving the occupation zis disability benefit at the time that she applied for the enhanced survivor so the focus of this case shouldn't be on the pension funds discretion and whether or not the disease right should have been pursued the question is the widow's rights in a her rights are determined for chef defer to the expertise of the pension board in making a decision when firefighters start their ship i think this is on the same level of being as it may even if the firefighter had completed as it would take it is not true that that the benefit that she would be entitled to would be the seventy five percent provided under under this section the disability pension shall continue to be paid to the firefighters survivors and this is important in the sequence provided in four days one  it is the interpretation that the plaintiff has placed on this group vision is that the benefit under occupations ease continues to be paid to the speech survivor that's not that's not what i said the survivor gets what what aid starts with the number one and then it goes down all the way through i think the last letter is the last letter is dated and you you look to see surviving spouse of a firefighter who dies on or after january one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight as a result of a sickness sickness accident or injury incurred in a resulting from the performance of an active duty for  turn these cases on their head at what because expanse of the proposition is that what what the pension for the pension fund is the trier of fact and if there's evidence to support their decision the court even if a court disagrees with for having the mutation in his system if he only had ten years of service if he had a strong family history of cancer i should i do what i'll end with this the job description i think it's in the record page seventy two the job description of the village itself was written long before kevin homer was diagnosed with colon cancer states and the heart of the duties the essential functions of being a firefighter for the village is exposure to various toxic substances including carcinogenic materials so the fact that the village doesn't record on there i'm there and st reports what chemicals were detected and they probably don't even test for what chemicals are detected they know there are chemicals that are detected and for the board to draw the inference that the job description combined with the running history of the  done but when you consider the magnitude of the evidence the admission and the job description itself i mean the village must must know what they're talking about why would you put that in your job description if you weren't aware that there were carcinogenic materials at structural fire and there's a ton of research you'd see in these studies that the experts relied upon so it is not true that this was not individually sympathetic case and it's really difficult to apply stance you objectively i guess in situations like this but it's clear that we have to distinct statutes really very different standards are different burdens  on our i am he reports in fact findings about the fact that he started as a firefighter healthy and it is a firefighter i'm well let's talk about his health briefly you know he was fifty one years old when he asked for he was otherwise in good cumulative effect right of x but that still requires proof that there was some level of tied to specific events or occurrences during his career in fact she even said the standard for line of duty disability pension is identification of specific disabling of meds those are her words that have to be shown to be on duty and positive of the  they didn't identify what to kill or active duty triggered hughes additional hearing loss but there was evidence that he actually was exposed to that noise level and then over time the hearing  stablished that he had noise induced hearing loss there's none of that sort of evidence tying any particular thing we can hardly went through to any particular physical effects that he had they could have caused his medical arguments on should should we be concerned at all about you know the the argument of these here because of the there were firefighters or retired firefighters on this board that concerned all i that's the way the legislature set off what is this i mean that's so we're not complaining about them you know but i do think though however that mr dude is is taking a literal reading of the statutes and not reading them consistent with their purposes and that hotly the unfortunate timing of the death of the poor firefighter should not clue him and his family from enjoying the benefits they're intended to disease disability pensions that are available out of the article that's an argument that should be made to the general assembly not the score we don't need policy the general simply goes to clear reading of that provision supports the student's argument well we think benefits to be awarded in the line of duty and refers to the above which provides for lesser benefits under certain circumstances and the rest of the article contains other pension provisions providing different amounts of benefits we don't