is the first time that the public think the employee benefits act statute has been considered by this court the purpose of section ten and his to protect public safety officers who have been catastrophic injury in the line of duty having to issues that have never been contemplated by any other district in the state nor in this business district and the first one of those that get plaintive is entitle to the p n p v a benefits because he is satisfied the statutory change in circumstance when he became medicare eligible the plan that mr pile would now receive through the fireman's continuance privilege is a supplemental medicare supplement to the medicare is not a primary your honor that is not the position of the defendant defendants here it is our position that prior to the medicare eligibility being a tease that he that there was a reduction by that ration of what was paid  it actually defines the health insurance plan within the statute and state that it does not include any supplemental that once a person can as a teen to medicare eligibility at that point there is no employer previously to say that meet want to make sure that these persons who are injured who have a reduced earning capacity happen access to this what they demand and would ask for to consider here however is that on reaching that they are still allowed in as has occurred with mr kyle thus far to continue the supplemental point but it is a supplement mentally and in addition to what the medicare covers as the primary coverage what actually occurred in this act involved that the person was injured while responding to an emergency mr pio was responding to an emergency at the time he was injured that's never been disputed and does not come into play in these arguments so why what was repor came to arrive at the final he will decision in october two thousand and eleven which is before the  an initial issue i'd like to explain their minds the defendants are appealing this issue with respect to the croaky decision with regard to what the meaning of a catastrophic injury is because it's an issue of state for interpretation the defendant have acknowledged since being before the trial court that this is a decision that was entered into in two thousand and three by the supreme court we understand the principles of stari decisis and that th he'll have preserved it in the brief here below and just like to briefly touch on the fact that the defendants are not in any way suggesting that there are not circumstances where employees qualify decisive one of the concerns that the board him looking at is whether in fact the supreme court needs to go back and reconsider prior decision based on new issues new circumstances public interest public outcry and how the defendants are able to present that to the board is through the second your sources that indicate discussions issues newsgroup boards i mean studies that have addressed the concerns of the public safety employee benefit he had made inappropriate it had to supplement the record on a deal that is very distinguishable from the types of information that were attached to the brief of the appellate here in the levy case you had individuals who for the first time on a were raising an affirmative defense that they had no financial capacity to satisfy a judge below so they were attempting to attach their personal financial statements records documents things that were personal to them that very well could have been presented subsequently dies the municipality shall continue to provide bridge for eighty nine married spouse for dependent children this has to be ready conjunction with the next lines of the stampede that go on to inspection anyone is american reference which indicate that these benefits are reduced by any benefits available through any other stores given that a person who has been catastrophic lee injured or killed that's what the original  and so dependents would submit that the language of it injured employees subsequently dies recognizes that and spread within the confines of the statute referencing that the employee actually could have been killed as a result of the injury and therefore we want to ensure that those spouses and no i would also like the court to again consider with respect to this determination of a lifetime benefit that the plan does particularly state at the employer's health insurance and which cannot be defined as a supplemental coordinated medica some paragraph a requires a reduction in benefits for benefits fable from any other source that happens in a number of ways and the defendant will acknowledge here that that is already actually occurred one way that the obligation has been reduced here is by operation of the benefits available the city's brief and i listened to their argument because i thought my counsel started right here when she conceded that this court has no power to reverse the interpretation of the word catastrophic injury made by the only supreme court reaches the magnitude of of one hundred forty five million dollars for one particular municipality right that's a basic question of fact i will tell you i'm virtually every firefighter case against mom prospect are these are political texts that are provided to legislators in the course of advancing an agenda and it was not to be part of the record in this case they would have been rejected by judges and below and they and he's the law the city is obligated to continue paying his health insurance premiums it does it again when he turns sixty five it does it again because he five is here well on the application of section ten so the final question is medicare and there are two parts of the medicare argument that i find somewhat entertaining the first the state to focus on supplement is dental and vision many cities used to provide all sorts of supplemental benefits to their basic health insurance they provided dental her argument said if he does then these other potential claimants will receive the money but if he doesn't die they still make him and from judge justice so  going with in that it does and what it says it be personal liking continued coverage under the section becomes eligible for medicare coverage and i'm reading directly out of the statute benefit under the group policy ma stuff but what we know is that as your honor has already posed the question is when she leaves age sixty five regardless of your prior status if you have paid medicare taxes in this country you're eligible for medicare so it that point everyone is somewhat on here well planned fill in the defendants a bit that the p c b yes in fact was to make sure that these persons who are injured left with no cover and that's what it does from the time period that you are the benefit of the g s t being it says we're not going to leave you without coverage and because your earning capacity has been reduced will mean that payment for that period of time but age sixty five when everyone comes medicare eligible and in person spouse with an age difference that difference of ten fifteen years whatever the situation would be that it would be and i don't just thinking of medicare eligible eligibility there are private companies in private employers throughout this country who supplemental medicare or needed money it's a requirement it's from the department of health and human services that if you're age sixty five and you're not employed medicare is it becomes primary which supplants the requirement of the employer's health