marshall ensures emphasize that at the time the firefighter took a disability pension he was eligible to retire if it's a matter of the attention of the parties it makes or if it's a matter of the construction of the pension code that fact makes no difference both cases also use the phrase that the firefighter elected to take you to disability pension as a result of those examinations determines that that firefighter is disabled from any service with the fire department it's not a voluntary election it's not automatic there's a  it's not it's not a property interest that's accumulated or disability benefits differ from retirement benefits in that they are intended to replace  not provide a retirement benefit under the pension code disability benefits or stat there is no automatic increase the cost of living increase the duty disability benefit that you are awarded at the time of your pension hearing away as opposed to retirement better return benefits which are taxable due to disability benefits under the code can last a lifetime do you disability benefits under the code can also be terminated when a firefighter recovers from the duty disability or then or has the option to retire to convert it to the disability to their retirement pension lives to that firefighter the option to convert from a disability to a retirement but that's entirely at the discretion of the firefighter can't be forced can't be called workers and doesn't mention the  your stand that but he could at his age he could take retire right that's that's correct but again let's assume that this happened when he was twenty two instead of instead of fifty two he's not eligible to take a retirement pension at age at age twenty two that doesn't impact the analysis in of the pension code and how the pension code and the  where it makes no specific reference to duties of veterans but there is one phrase where the were there is a catchall about any other any other benefits under the code but it does not talk about the station between retirement pensions and the way they're treated and due to disability pensions and the way they're treated in the pension i don't think one overleap reference there will don't doubt be argument here is there was below as there was in marshall and his that was insurers as there wasn't bell that the result of which we maintain is required but it is not fair is not equitable remove the opportunity for the next spouse to get his share of pension and i understand that are but it's the role of this court to interpret the pension code  position where one spouse has the opportunity to pry unilaterally another spouse of oh yeah that's that's a problem in the pension though the vagaries of life may deprive mrs carter good of her opportunity the the unfair us if you will of the position that we assert can be sure but it should not be cured by this court stretching the terms for the trial or stretching the terms of the pension code to reach that fair or equitable result it's the wall of this court the role of the trial court to interpret and apply the terms of the pension  constructed and the terms of the pension code clearly distinct between retirement pensions and the school discipline pensions are not su another case that remedy is directly across the street behind a change in chicago if there is an unfair result an inequitable result an arcane result in person receiving temporary disability was forty one years of age and was not entitled to receive a tire whereas in both the marshall court shirts court the retired person was allowed to really income placement because you know if he had elected to receive the disability or the rate retirement pension then in fact what would happen is that my client would get nothing and any pension benefits generated under said champagne fireman's pension and the pension fund actually received by the respondent upon retirement or under the terms being editions of this plan their for we have the retirement pension and we have a disability pension over our pensions and as a result the rock language of the agreement or the order that was in our case basically she's entitled to either of those and she would be entitled to receive any benefit plan i think those are the two issues that are present and basically i think both the court martial so in the court  court in marshall and we have shows cases are cases that should be prevented but it's not a technicality and i my position is the language even if the court were not finding it was retirement versus no where in the country does it say if you're eligible to if you if you are of an age old well to retire are you denied the opportunity or the right to and let's go back and and if age an old ability to retire is a factor let's go back to my example of the forty one who now has twenty years on the fire department and has to say he under the pension code under the under the arguments presented by yeah police is eligible to retire