are several very important issues presented in this case there are issues presented under section ten of the sea but the section eighty has traffic injury  that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether mr brymer injury or rose out of order in response to what he reasonably believed to be employer is really quite of test for hiv economically he is very vulnerable mr brymer in this case he were thirteen hundred dollars a month which is a lot of money to keep his health insurance cover this disabled could base its construction of the i guess what i'm really asking is is it for this quarter the legislation to expand the definition of catastrophic injury one disability which is a disability that arises from an occupational disease in stopping their counsel there are three types of disability pensions there can be a word right line of duty i can patient disease that you rising from an active duty by the plain length of the statute ends of the this brief of correctly pointed out that the standards between one ten and one ten point one or the same a post terminations benefit they grabbed on to that they use that is the typical point of the site in the wage issue but if you look at six in ten it only applies to employ he's that were full is the same thing as a wage it's just that you're saying he had a vested right yes men and that's the same thing as a wage yeah how do you how do you when you say that because he's a full time employee and if he's before the end of the year and the court found that you know why he was entitle paid this year and both even though he wasn't there and the poor decided that right to be paid the year end bonus is he  it's still a wage because that was part of the deal that they hear this case section ten of perceiver makes this right to be compensated with insurance part of the full time employees deal the pier terms of the statute was it only difficult orleans and it is it by few it was disabled he was full time it's part of his package imposed by law but it's part of the package inhalation of carbon monoxide and other chemical fumes it's not like hurt your shoulder doesn't happen right away it happens over a long career and where his exposure chemicals happen to fires and now you have the other questions otherwise thank you to begin with just going up my nose i think it's absurd to claim that on its face based on the legislative history seba as well as the probity decision as the supreme court just ruled five six months ago bills are burning holes in the court had an opportunity to reexamine probe the city of bloomington the two thousand and three supreme court decision which held based off of the legislative history of the c of a catastrophic injury is synonymous with someone who takes a line of duty disability under section or one time of the bench now as a municipal attorney i have some sort of unspoken obligation i think to encourage you to reexamine to perhaps change the standard for three but the way that these facts have developed it's a pretty straightforward examination mr brymer took an occupation of the occupation of disease disability pension under section four ten point one of the pension is to see the application should be denied because he can't satisfy the catastrophic injury prong of the c above the exclusion of it was actually the supreme court's language in pro e that cited section four ten of the pension  now the way that this litigation has developed at the trial court the trial court ultimately ruled that there's no meaningful distinction between line of duty disability pensions and occupational diseases i think it's very apparent that these two statutes have very different positions in the trial court tended to overlook a somewhat similar case coming out of chicago in the first district posek which analyzed similar provisions under section six of the pension act perceive applies to sections not just section four but section six as follows sections three and five depending on where you serve as a police officer i think  there was a very colorful exchange between the majority and the dissents about this particular issue the majority opinion actually can see that that someone who applies for an occupational disease disability pension may not qualify for a line of duty disability pension and vice versa the majority court also favorably cited to the record circuit coming out of the first district now where does that leave us well in terms of section ten day you might actually have a firefighter who would apply for  a and not qualify for line of duty pension the majority opinion holds that that's a possibility my colleague and i have gone back and forth about whether paramor would have qualified in my opinion the only entity that actually has the ability to make that determination would be the rockford pension board it should have made that determination had he applied for a pension ten eleven twelve years ago however i don't intended to mean occupational disease disability even though they've only said line of duty disability if that's the case again as a municipal attorney i'd be more than happy to allow you to we've gone back and forth in terms of the first paragraph of the occupational disease disability statute clearly there at a minimum there are some legislative finds that the legislator at the same time does that mean that they are i magically satisfy the catastrophic injury problems of the sea that i don't think so i don't think there's anything within the legislative history that's there which perfectly reason to separate out the line of duty versus actual occupational disease that occurred during duty well i mean i think when these statutes were developed in the ninet when this was an act that there was a thought that you know in addition to police officers firefighters who were able to do so that's a duty and want to do that those are usually pretty straightforward analyses for for the purposes of the sea but it's a separate section and it then a line of duty statute it should have been in the same paragraph it should have been all the line of duty statute now i do understand at least didn't in article four there also is not lying which kind of puts the occupation of the disease statute in the however it's up to the legislature to define what's covered by statute if they intended for catastrophic injury to apply to occupational disease disability they probably should have said that be a good segue into the section ten b issue because there is also a fuzzy issue even for firefighters who can show that they were injured in the line of duty they also have to satisfy the four categories which this court just examined at the one vs carbondale case was two months ago here at the trial court level romer actually said that the causation the these different dangerous firefighter activities which at the end of the day i think almost every fighter firefighter could probably make similar allegations essentially what mr graham is trying to do is render all provisions of evidence he can produce which shows any sort of five positions between his activities as a firefighter and responding to an emergency all we have right now in the parties on cross motions for summary judgment essentially stipulated to the pension record the pension award from eleven twelve years ago all we have are excerpts of medical opinions which to speculate tend to speculate that there is no link dissent within its arguments on section ten they noted just what i told you about the parties on cross summary judgment stipulating to pension award with out attaching any of the underlying medical doctor which may or may not support causation from the excerpts that are cited within the pension or i don't think there could possibly be anything there  stated that there is no link that mr brymer told him that he wasn't exposed to those sorts of chemicals that might be related to cardio  that it kicks it that's it puts a kick said after a firefighter has shown that it is permanently disabled able to work i don't know how the way to actually  tends to support his argument is the seventh circuit case which has never been accepted by the state case here the a federal case based on your question earlier the federal case tends to hold that there is a way to attach the wage has to do with some sort of unjust of the richmond argument related to payments for premiums on health insurance that mr brymer never even at some point he actually stopped key language that the code we face looked at was the legislature's kept saying line of duty line of duty line of duty they didn't say one ten they didn't say one ten point one in say thing both catastrophic injury and that's to protect somebody from a line of duty injury that disables them and yes if we if we agree with your argument is everybody that gets the occupation disease disability and automatically  when you have to prove that these the heart conditions already laid it all resulted from a service as a firefighter and you know the there is no material difference  from the service of duty that interpretation by the courts is part of the baggage that goes with the statues it's statute in the legislatures were taking their consideration when they just said line of duty and they said catastrophic a serious injury that disable certain therefore it's a catastrophic injury the circumstances under which it arises is the whether it's an emergency or not or whether the rose of a criminal investigation and pursuant to that so so what i'm talking about now is is just of for the injuries under section one ten point one where the pension board has to determine causation it should be treated exactly same as the one ten if you've got it injury that resulted from your service as a firefighter should be treated just like the croesus one ten should be treated you automatically meet the catastrophic intervene they didn't do anything of the trial for the second thing as it stands now  oh we've got explosion the c e o then they look at driver and they say he was exposed to c e o they drew up that link they can't do their job under section one ten point one unless they show that this just the pension board record but all of the test of all that came with that was all stipulated facts if you look how they did their briefs below and then and then they didn't dispute was asian and under the cases the talk about political position testimony is required they loose because they don't put anything at this you didn't participate at all they do one thing below they started just complaining about well there's no evidence of causation i don't think we need to judges thank you so much of your time with his number one one nine eighty nine one one nine nine one two william bremer at all versus the city law for that all well be it taken under advi