their second language of the exclusion is same us regarding its application to magic all benefits if for no reason other than the term present value or worker's compensation laws have changed and the injured party is no longer liable for medical pelz since every case we consider in our  under workers compensation what does that term president how's mean and means just what you think it means i looked up the definition the value of an expected income stream determined as of the date of valuation another definition of the current worth of a stream of cash flow there's even a formula well i won't demonstrate the formula here it's a way of valuing an income stream like laurie runs weekly workers compensation benefits and that provision has two sentences and is used again in the second sentence when we talk about social security as the ability to invent so why do workers compensation disability nowhere in that language is there mention of medical else nowhere in that language does it say medical benefits or even as he exclusion in c justices i would postulate that the only reading of that language that doesn't render the use of the words present value superfluous twice is to see that it applies to an income stream let's talk about applying the city's pollution to the medical bills though under the worker's compensation laws it exists today not as it existed when server and allman and co were decided when i first started practicing law there was a term commonly used among workers compensation practitioners and that term was balance filling and balance billing occur when medical providers billed workers comp insurance and then bill be injured worker for the balance of  this was a big problem because these people were off or they didn't have the money to pay the bells and for anyone who represented them we have small claims suits to defend  to so when the legislature finally took up workers compensation reform this was one of the things they addressed another one of the things they addressed was to make sure that medical providers would be paid and would be paid in a predict the ball amount of course we understand that virtually every thing they do a process of the street is a compromise or a balance something for the injured worker something for the doctors and frankly most doctors don't take very kindly to being told how much they can charge per procedure so what th the other side of balance billing was this predictable medical ease edge wall with which came with the promise you will get a statute was when i say those bills are owed by the employer i'm not exaggerating or overstating if a provider susan injured worker her of balance phil it's an affirmative defense you say and if we were only looking at the benefit to the employee that would be a more difficult proposition but the policy exclusion speaks of the present value of the benefit and that income split and also the medical benefits are paid on path if it said that i wouldn't be here if it said and medical benefits justice if i said  what was the present value of what you paid for lunch today you'd think i didn't know what that term at them harmless insurers them against their awful lori grown bought off whole different policy of insurance that had to do with her car it had nothing to do with her it's very important now that we look at the stuff i know case because this is the distinction they made if you don't have the disk the site it's just a final vs farmers insurance twenty that a young woman was struck by a rural letter carrier with policy limits of twenty five thousand she herself had on in under insured portman's of one hundred thousand the five thousand because the united states government was just charging it's all a lie that we're not discharging the liability of the uninsured motorists or what's  the importance of the case clearly or decision in this case the united states government was discharging its own liability when it paid the forty nine thousand dollars was not discharging the liability of the uninsured motorists just as an haugland decided by the supreme court where an uninsured motorcycle had a passenger on it was hit by a liable party the liable party paid their limits the passenger proceeded against the under insurer under her own an insurance or the liability of the uninsured motorcycle and the uninsured motorists well discounting the that excluded the words present value if you just take the words all the amounts paid under any worker of a settled issue i'm saying you can't divorce the words present value from this six solution ok i understand that but then i don't understand the relevance of the fifth district case if you don't have a policy l cincinnati ensure and what's not to start doing the viability of an uninsured motorists they are not discharging the liability of laurie grown by statute they were just charging the viability only and that should not be off set against uninsured motorists coverage purchased by lorry grown and that is consistent with one and it is consistent with just a front up it's third party liability it's not a liability of the uninsured motorist it's not a liability ron if lori grown had been hit by a fully insured vehicle had received two hundred fifty thousand dollars she'd have seventy five thousand dollars in her pocket right now sure cincinnati would have gotten some money but she'd have seventy five thousand and  so in summary by using the term present value i think this is near the end of the string or groans receiving three hundred dollars a week it's been three years and a week so she's gotten about fifty thousand dollars that's what she has received she didn't receive any magic bells she hasn't put anything in her pocket except an income str when she's not received any those medical bills have to be paid by statute on behalf of the insurer and i kind of lost track of saying this  uses that term repeatedly on behalf who were who was the money paid on behalf and they say it was paid on half of the united states government that wasn't paid on the half the rural letter carrier who was under insured was paid on behalf of the united states government who is alleged to have been liable as well just as the uninsured motorcycle driver  was uninsured was paid on be half of the other driver on half of the uninsured motorists so i would ask you to find the offset against uninsured motorists coverage she purchase little different soul searching the current country language insults or is the present value of almost payable under any worker's compensation disability benefits or similar law in the country policy it says value of course means obviously money today is worth more than money in the future so normally in a case many times there is a resolution of the case but so security or workers compensation payments might be paid into the future so you have to calculate what is today present value of a future income stream which would only increase the amount the saw as it relates to medical payments having them pay out in the words present it can only increase the present value if you're going to the payment in ten years or so security of twenty five hundred dollars you take it in taken earlier a sixteen tube or sixty five you get lesser amount because they the money received today the future so there is no time period present value and if you paid a dollar for day the pun paid with your dollar the present value would be a dollar you paid or tomorrow it would be maybe ninety nine cents a gallon as of today you only had to pay to morrow so the present value we can determine by town time is the difference in present value as well and that but for medical benefits have already pay of present value doesn't have and that's your job is going to creative arguments to aventura position but because and i course i represent insurance companies who are ordinary lists every day of my life but are you  and it gets back to all the cases that say we win it by just looks at what are we trying to do we're trying to put the same make the person to say if they were uninsured or insured the same limits were looking to put them in the same below or for some of the arguments here that are not supported by any authority other than citing sort of cases for a general proposition is a law like a contract can be a big list and i don't know this to file but i think the trial court was correct in following the consistent illinois law that the same over the years or talked about the legislature why the legislature when they regret reenacted be uninsured uninsured motor statutes and work comp they would change this result although they are aware obviously because this is a longstanding law under the same policies and it fits their purpose the result in this case is the purpose that hadn't been working there would have been two hundred thousand short of forty thousand under forty percent under the medical statute thirty percent under the attorney's fees statute if she had attorney fees and she looked at seventy five thousand let go but she was working and that's really what we should look at so she gets to fifty the any motorists who had two hundred fifty thousand in insurance would have said here you go here's two fifty to laurie grown she would have kept twenty five percent would have sixty two that's how she's worse off and i would like to finally say interpret in this language is a question of first impression ok thanks to both cases in the