school as a tutor for more than twenty years now she had a nice surgery on november seventh of two thousand and two that's actually six days before the accidental injury that she claims in this case there is no claim that anything to do with the work caused or contributed to the need for the knee surgery in the first place now there as and she claims is that when she returned to work actually on the second day back which was november thirteenth two thousand and two a boy raised his accumulated sick leave enough to cover that amount of time off and she received her full salary now we're raising the issue on behalf of the employer that honor section a j to before we get to that are you saying causation is no longer in dispute no i'm not saying that judge i was led into that by saying what is in dispute i thought i'd cover this issue first because i thought it was a more interesting issue if you like  about three four five days before the surgery but the family physician gave her a different blood thinning medication call monarchs and doctor patients to take them out of an x either in the immediate pre or post operative period he just didn't know that the other doctor and given the climate this modern x so it creates a not acceptable risk completing within times which measure the time of parting of the lot and they take you out of measurement called i n r which is a management of the board thinning agent in the blood to determine if the person has an offer through so admitted that it's possible that the bumping of the name was strictly superficial and had absolutely nothing to do with him or throws the him or throws this was probably already present because the petitioner in her report to ross i want to cater to the blood spurted out which wouldn't happen unless there was already internal fluid tension within the knee and our acts were dark your player in his report indicated that due to the due to the surgery due to the x x amount of of blood thinner that she did have after the surgery when she was tested due stuff in december she had about two to three times as much mud thinner in her system as she should have had and her on cross examination we were going over these rockets and i raised a question about a woman is that and you know i think that was his surprise moment to find out that this owner dr have prescribed this medication it doesn't  under section eight j the employer is no credit for payments except compensation under this act but then the second clause of e g two says and where the employee receive payments other than compensation payments te package from a fellow by the name of kerry the sick payments were payable whether or not the climate was injured or work and it looks like the court may haven't heard that the policies or or procedures the t package employees would actually allow a person to collect the salaries surgically and collect the workers compensation if it were awarded by the commission for the very same weeks and we have nothing like that in this case you're saying in the particular case it was confined to its fix to fight confined to his facts may make sense that's what i'm saying yes  the argument well the petitioner said that if she would retire with some unused sick leave credits it would boost term out of agilent credits but i asked her wonder if there is some maximum number of pension credits one can receive in once the person is receive the maximum and any additional credits do not affect the actual mansion the petitioner didn't know the answer of that now that's really relevant because she had worked greater than twenty years for this disaster so her not answering back question whether this one of her having some additional cynically would have really affected her p failed to answer the question well i have a question does the employer know him for probably doesn't know what i don't personally know and didn't have any information the fifty two week sending with the last full pay period before her currents she had armed sixty one thousand four hundred fifty nine dollars during those fifty two weeks she was an employee for the entire fifty two weeks  since she was an annual employee and she had no last time during those fifty two weeks our proposal is to divide the total or the sixty one thousand four hundred fifty nine dollars by fifty two weeks of time from work or disability from work done the salary paid for that specific time should be credited against workers compensation benefits awarded for that very time and that's what we have here we have to claimant being awarded temporary to disability on the grounds she can work for a very specific time which is nov fourteenth zero two march thirtieth oh three inclusive and we have payments to the petitioner over full salary for that same time in this fall salary payments acceded the amount that she would have received under temporary total disability so she made well i don't know how conscious or choice was but the policies of the district allow the claim to receive their full salary if they so desire if they have enough certainly if in a work related situation or not or if they would prefer not to use up their sickly they can notify the district to the h r department at district that they want temporary total disability benefits instead this petitioner admitted she didn't write any such an order ladder or any communication to the h r department to ask for a temporary total disability instead of her salary she just your salary for this entire one thousand and six of this weeks and then after it's all over with and some time has gone by then she's making a claim for temporary totalist villany for the same period so our position on behalf of the district is that such an ha to the second clause grants credit to the district such that the district does not have to pay domo for the same  need not in my opinion at least go much further on the first issue of causation then to look at dr a'sssos opinion in the circuit court lower court did discuss it and said the commission relied on doctors so  opined that the work accident was the eliciting source of the humor of procedures the commission was not persuaded by dr player because his opinion was predicated on the level of commitment in the claimant system which the parties acknowledged was on no commission and wage it was denied and there's an issue with regard to credit this particular person had to take her sick time there's evidence there's no evidence in the record in fact it was rejected properly they had they had a sample letter from some other petitioner who was on worker's compensation and there's a difference that person received worker's comp and the district gave them the choice to either take the out of the sick time or the worker's comp accommodation drama here this particular individual the only testimony in the right and by the way to pick makes clear go burden of proof is not in response to show otherwise in this particular case this teacher took her sick time now that has a very deleterious effect on her right to receive pension benefits forever so that diminution of what she took for that nineteen weeks will now affect her pension forever in fact when she was asked she that i don't know meaning another question but i do know that you can relate in sick days is very important and since i used up so many sick days it reduced the amount that i would have received as my retirement benefits an occupational benefit paid there's no credit if it's in other words if that benefit is available for both occupational an occupational purposes then indeed they they can't get a credit for that so what's the purpose  very well with the lower court said it must obviously consider e g to here's a situation this particular petitioners it's different if they said ok this is a compensable worker's compensation accident we're going to pay t d d you make the well as you i mean clearly courts have you have the right to interpret statutory stats reconstruction it can interpret the way they want to understand in t pak it clearly says it was not credit for not if if these things were available when do you get h you have to pack basically saying another but the fact is that's because and i'm to get back down to the fundamental fairness which you don't see a lot in common but it is it's there here there's a real loss to the petitioner  and it's if it's a factual it if it's the very best it should be a factual analysis case by case but it's the burden of the respondent to prove otherwise here they didn't prove otherwise they didn't attempt to show that the stimulation that this woman claims existe the only evidence extent in the record is that there was a very real loss to this woman's pension because she couldn't use those nine hundred because she had to use sick days for those one thousand weeks and so it's an exception that she'd be grafted into the play link well it can be interpreted you know it's judicial obviously it's judicial interpretation of the statute the plain language is the plain language i'm saying or whether it's an occupational she could receive her sick time and it definitely that is definitely going to there's that is an avid yes take home before you retire then you get a higher pension yes or now if you can't take the sick days and get paid say are you working for the city week it occurs to me that you can't take sick time and get  at the end of the day what you've done is you can deny workers comp from these people make them take their sick time they lose their pension credits forever it's not one of these things they get back she can now if she pays back it's a problem if she retire don't pay that money you campaigning and you also unfortunately and because they represent a few teachers you can't get the credit back if this is a terrible situation even if there is a decision because i've had it happen where there's decisions you can't get that credit