benefits for permanent partial disability which accrued during her lifetime she passed away on the due cause not related to her injury on the job just to set the table we and some things this is a matter of st maximum medical recovery and at a point when she was still alive and on deceased after that to a cause unrelated to her injury and the commission found that the benefits which accrued during that time were not a to her estate and we're here today because that complex with them because she didn't have any dependents and in their opinion that's correct on and we're here because there's two cases on point one republic steel which was decided the the employer there brought the same argument that was brought before the commission which is that section eight h and eighteen nineteen superseded republic steel and because of the  not looking for a future on accrued installment payments we are only seeking those benefits that accrue during the lifetime of mismatch and that's exactly what happened and nationwide which is directly on point and age does is it actually expands the rights of a injured worker to recover or their dependents are recovered because they can now go if they have a dependent goal and collect those benefits that would have been paid out had they try to litigate as long as possible wait for them to die and then say we owe that nothing and it's also i think good policy because you have a worker here miss nash who was living and who was she had reached her medical maximum prove meant and she was incurring debt sue was living her life would expectation of course that she would eventually recover on those as i once the amount was was figured at the commission level and now she has an estate which is the payoff of that and the other reason i think that this is good policy is what we have right now it is an absurd result because the complete the commission rule was so i think for most purposes that you know that the commission commission's decision was an error and again we're not asking for those future future on a crude benefits which would have resulted that addressed the specific loss and republic steel the gentleman had a heart attack was awarded permanent total disability which is outside of it's not a specific loss it's awarded under  tough and so the court could not look at eighteen nineteen and indicate that p p d benefits had abated so they were they were they looked at doesn't look at the facts of the case and saw that this the scene was merely that there was a dependent child and decided that the p p d that accrued prior to his death after the arbitration the facts a nationwide were different than that in the public still in nationwide the only benefits that were issued were teaching the a medical expenses there were no permanency benefits issue so eighty i agree with you it is general but i think if you're going to rely on case law you also have to rely on the facts of the case law that generated the opinion and the facts and nationwide are not the facts in this case well you would you would look at the at the at the nature of the injury and it's based on the dollar figure is always based on where you cross it succeed percent of the wages but it's it's not a substitution for wages you know there's there's other sanctions also the court i mean it's the driving of litigation it isn't on one one side there's it's it takes two to litigate so the the they could have specifically ruled that take taken that concern and how to fight it and made sure that that p p d that has accrued up until the down would have been paid they didn't they didn't put that language in the act they kept the language that said compensation can only be paid upon the death of the claimant to certain individuals so you want to read something into that  came down and awarded programs total disability he was still alive when the commission affirmed the arbitration decision he passed away when it was on appeal before the supreme court back facts on you know workers comp a separate and apart from civil so p i cases have a completely different than worker's comp worker's compensation is a statutory animal so to speak and and and while there are similarities i don't think you are still apples and oranges you can apply one concept to the that works for one or the other i think it works vice versa too you can apply common policies to civil litigation but there are very definitely two completely different from but the concept of awarding a benefit or compensation based on something that's accrued there is a sure similarity or there iran and i would just like to point out that there are provisions in the workers compensation act eighty nine hundred eighty eight age that that limits payments of compensation upon the down where those particular statutes are and aren't found in the civil civil rina and under your argument what happens if there is an award of arbitration which the employer feels and then there's and it hasn't been paid is it still all day i would argue that it does even in that case it wouldn't be because the act a legislator the legislature could have easily put in the language that s the spouse or is dependent upon the seton i e child or dependent relatives so that the legislature didn't want to just cut off the p p d they just wanted to make sure that the p p d went to people who who you know that public policy would dictate that says that they should receive it now an adult sister who you know was not the pentagon that the seton did you know public policy while it's great for her and they get some brief the legislative history was was mentioned and it wasn't the the transcript was attached to the circuit court briefs and in the senate they they clearly were the the transcripts they clearly dealt with temporary t t d you could tell by that senator senator now bill i believe was talking about t t t in the house they were talking about p p d they were just talking about they didn't want t regard to a crude benefits and it doesn't make a distinction between t t t and p p d but instead it makes a distinction between those that are paid into silence which would be future expected benefits and those that have accrued over it that are not pa and when he's discussing there is that the benefits that would have accrued over the estate and then he says in keeping with that what we're doing now is we're revoking the old theory that our right to recovery has gone away and what we're allowing our good to see them still collect those future benefits which would have been available if the worker had survived and again we're not asking for those opposed benefits and we agree that age limits that we're only asking for those benefits which accrued during her li