earlier with those cases those cases talk about firefighters and emergency service personnel who were injured on multiple occasions however that is the key difference between those cases in the case of it here is that there was at least one identifiable time that those injuries were either aggravated or occurred there were able to pinpoint during an emergency response and we don't have that here we don't have so that the role you're seeing the role of a firefighter and responding to a c determines whether or not they're responding to an emergency i'm saying that under the gappy definition the supreme court has indicated that there needs to be from and you know let's take for example the dumpster fire you referred to is there any proof or indication that there was as fast as and that dumped dumpster bedad it in any way exposed mr carney to aggravated or caused this and you can go down that entire list and you'll have the same responses there's no medical from any of these doctors that say that any of these calls and repeated or  and he has an occupational doctor own i mean many of the doctors indicated that you know there is there is now a lot in evidence of occupational you know he can't we're not saying that they didn't say it was caused or or contributed during his his career as a firefighter what we're saying is which one which c y had in mind when it came up with to see that what they had in mind was selfless firefighters helpless emergency first responders who were at ran into the burning building or ran after it hit the crowd and were injured in some way responding to an emergency responding to train saves you know person or property they are not and they were not intending that this you mention several times during your responses to my colleagues that there is no other of us from any doctor as to cause or opinion as to emergency and it would seem to me is no expert testimony as to whether or not this is an emergency and how it was august the fact that there are certain events minute made or may not establish a premise that there were  that the issue of required or the best answers are supported by expert opinions most likely from doctors district that would indicate when or how or why i call this disease was aggravated or progressed and without even really no deposition mission is there was no evidence submitted and therefore if there is no evidence i think that second wrong we are entitled to summary judgment back ruling had come down i cannot imagine that the district would not have taken that up on administrative review particularly the part about there it was an emergent error whether it be opinion and made some type of determination that a specific emergency had caused this mess up the leo my then it then i guess we would have been having a different discussion here today  but first of all if it is beyond their jurisdiction their to their determination is whether or not that pensioner is entitled to accusation of disease disability pension benefits or line of language right out of the forty inch one ten and asked the doctors to comment dr morrison answered on equivocally yes you can see five ninety five dr samuel answered unequivocally yes  see six o five the question here though is the inner play between acts of duty in emergency situations and you would agree that those are two two different things yes it is to difference the sections of the structure of the head a to talk about right of duty which should in my opinion if you read the if you read the decision of the patient more closely i do think that the pension board indicated that the particular calls were submitted to the doctors more emergencies but i'm going to assume that there were no on the subpoenaed as far as i can tell did not include a request for medical halls for patient assist calls these were strictly fire halls and hazmat calls and i perceived that response to mine where the district british the question were these exhibits that begin on page c two sixty four of these warhol emergencies is where i submitted these to my client and i had him go through th get to with exhaust his own personal recollection and that's what that's why we filed his affidavit certifying those incidents that he might  ordinarily there would not have been an emergency because in any point he could stop that he could stop it and then it would have the courts and then because as the training evolved he was confronted with an unforeseen circa stances what started is routine became an emergency but really but answering a fire alarm and putting out a fire is clearly an emergency and what could happen at a fire scene is unforeseen i meet either i view this as a benefit to provide health insurance to firefighters and their families who because of their disability which a rise out of the actually doing that they perform lose their jobs the lose their health insurance and they now suffer from preexisting conditions that will make substitute health insurance difficult to get a salary war it's a it's a safety  based than on what the pension board decided on in the healing case there's there's nothing to be tried the pension board has already considered the call a particular date a particular time at a particular city was a disease happens over time of the basically drawing a distinction for instance of the crow case where the court looked at the  the firefighter reasonably perceive that it was an emergency even if in fact it wasn't an emergency but that's neither here nor there the point is under forty one ten the statute provides for payment for he specific injur heads three years that ultimately resulted in his giving perceive of benefits to the more shoulder injuries they were specific injuries and given the time and place but one of the bases of conferring benefits on town sation commission which was alternately settled so the meet the need to prove it on an april third twenty eighteen town due to was exposed to ten parts per million of a specialist in the court room in elgin illinois and a doctor saying they had exposure contributed to his cancer i don't pension fund to retain one of the pension fund it myself became aware of these three reports the i moved to amend it on the basis that i wanted the evidence  the theory to conform to the proof and before that i didn't realize that there was such evidence of discrete exposures in the three back to school ease of use discrete exposure to fluid are you saying that there actually finally both occurred unless there is some other injuries of i'm not aware of and there is only the disease isn't the pension board's decision internally inconsistent contradicts it three i don't think so because the terms injury in disease in my opinion are terms of large and matters of statutory interpretation in my opinion the broke horse distinction between conferring benefits under forty one ten and nine and wonder for dish one ten point well is that for day one ten point one has a completely different burden of proof for diseases meaning not a disease in the dictionary sense but disease in the sense of statutory interpretation and with respect to cancer for this one ten point one has a re presumption which would have produced a lighter burden of proof for the for the african than the burden of proof under under bush even and that's why you are in my opinion it was it was the existence of a different burden of proof under forty one ten point one rather than the word disease that was the foundation of  items that are on the list are clearly not emergency cars and there was think i'm talking about the list of the fire incidents and the hazmat incidents that the pension funds provided that are that's in the record here now i'm not talking about context of the factual structure that is true and if and if there might have been a situation where a firefighter on the scene was it in and i'm first seen circumstance but we don't know that getting at is the unforseen circumstances i mean this is the first show that i got here in the us the unforseen circumstances or is it done nothing you're doing something that could result of unforseen circumstance i believe you have you were called to an emergency on paper under the never system that that means that it is an automatic emergency under ten b i'm not sure but i don't want to put words in her mouth that you were responding to an emergency and i know of course now i believe that the legislature intended from you know the lowest firefighter to the highest cheap to be covered by this but that doesn't alleviate your need to establish uniform it may not only cause harm to the particular firefighter but anybody in the the house the fire house and where many policies like that in fact what i am aware of  a firefighters it's almost a badge of honor if your turn outs are particularly study in dirty in a day they almost intentionally don't clean them because you know point and said is that says the action they had out in the