and his relationship with the city is fraught at best i think that is shown in these planes and also the police from his pension case his disability case his work comp case  c why that matters is this there are two areas really that we are hear about that are sort of a st impression for the court whether or not the city has a duty to pay a if you think that the legislature intended that this was a statute that created extra rights on the part of the city as a sort of slap on the back good for years leading up to his injury the loaded up the claim he paid extra for that plan as part of his daily duties then he gets injured in the line of duty and the city although admitting  although there's a making his disability retirement income as it's called into the union contract and asking him to pay for something that he was already accustomed to as we heard in our st arguments about the problem is he is now injured he is now making substantively less money because that's what happens when you go on pension disability retirement it's a different income standard which i mean make makes sense for h they want to leave him with less than say well he already paid into it before somebody does pay for where's that extra money coming from he can't work bonuses he can't get extra hours he can't do all the things necessary his benefit plan is already existing at the time this injury he is in this plan he's in the local place he's paying that extra out and he's making ends meet necessary to do sell but he doesn't have those options once he gets retire or once he gets disabled essentially so then where does that extra funding come from and why does the city suddenly not have to pay even though he was disabled doing the job that he does for them to see but says he's supposed to be protected then there's the added nd part whether or not they can discriminate against him in favor of someone else the city's argument is that officer folk who has suffered a tragic tragic death and who is in no way in the same circumstances protected in either of in this case for office of governor they don't they make a distinction for him which i don't think they can do because the statute  under the wall even if they are factually dissimilar in terms of what happened to them under the law under b c but they are factually similar they are to be treated the same and that cities as well we don't have to pay if this is something we do on our own out of our own generosity the problem is did the legislature in ten that the city could do something extra for one another for the other officer a rubs a lot of people the wrong way he's running a lot of grass a long way if he had been killed in the line of duty they don't want him they might still be here or you know may have his family and they'll individual officer and their insurance plan by hand by what they're doing that's why i think it would be not a very sick point for him if you tried to switch itself out if you tried to better himself by way of the plan if you tried to use two policies at any given time and that's they're kind of universal throughout that the union and retirees or in this case medical tyreese so i think that while there is a an argument to be made that yes this is a bas people's extra benefit the difficulty is there not an extra benefit to these people who are injured in line of duty and that's what this evil is supposed to protect his ego i suppose protect these guys from having to worry about do i cut my life in line because when i get sacrifice to us in terms of what they do for their living we should be protecting them from these kinds of issues we shouldn't have to reassert get injured in the line of duty rank up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills because your work case by the way no one guy the medical anymore so it's not like they're going to medical open for him to treat forever and if he has a substantive illness that will come back again again they can do a set aside under you know and make your set aside or something to that end or trust the problem is all for anything that leads up to it anything that's not considered precisely related anything as a subsequent secular consul a consequence of the original injury when we cover so i think the real question is not about the facts or the law in this case because i will be honest with you there's not a lot on either of our sides i think it is the intent of the legislature did the legislature when passing this statute requiring the cit nothing in there about the faulkner in the in the different treatment that was given to officer faulkner scene where with five children that's not part of what was in the pleading in  to perceive a benefit if this if there was such an economist's here if you read the record the city agreed to allow him to go forward to get them to see the benefit without any hearing there was an agreement on so there's this big group that all these are represented on and they do that outside the green men and then what they do is they look in terms of what is the paid in and set those figures and it can vary from year to year depending on experience of based on the losses or the medical claims experience but the point i was going to try to get to was for that loaded up to the point if you look at the record if you're notice of this but that's a sixty five percent non taxable benefit that he gets per year and then there's three percent increases when they reach sixty and there's no set off if they receive supplemental work elsewhere so there is there are these other benefits out there that mr s or was entitle to that are part of the record i want to only mention because  that it's an unfunded mandate that was passed by the legislature in regards to municipalities to fund those things but we have to look at how some the case law in regards to how the liabilities or and derogation of the common law there'd be an strictly construed in favor of the parties subject to the operation while the party subject to the rubber recent years the city of peoria that's nowhere there's also  there is no reference made as to this disparate treatment with officer faulkner in mind this is an afterthought that keenan after the clear court judgment action was filed there's no reference in there and when we look at the other individuals that are on that list everyone has that as an election to me it gets back to you know can we if i want to go with a high deductible because maybe i'm healthy you know i want to pay a lower premium that's an individual decision working family decision that you make if you're looking at i may have a lot more claims or i've had a history of illness then i'm going to go with the loaded up to mr esther had that same election and if you look at his the basic premiums from these officers and what the city's contributions is if they don't cover what the stop loss policy is there may be a stop loss policy involved with this insurance here that's an obligation of the stop stop loss or whatnot but really what we're talking about here is the election by officer  have and i think that's what drives this i also think if you look at the instance  he ended up happening when he went in stayed with a loaded gun when his premium brought it dropped from five hundred dollars some one dollar to one hundred and ninety six dollars so we're talking about two hundred dollars amount that he's pain versus what he was  needs but that's where you have the management committee that's with the management committees to say that all were going to go to one hundred thousand documents to give hypotheticals like that i don't think is relevant to this question here as to is the one that was offered here by the city  choice of two polic respected there and he was killed in tragic circumstances and this city i'm not here argued city should begin bending over backwards for him they should be you know they should be doing everything for the family and i support their decision to do so the difficulty is the law says they should be doing the same for terry answer because he was injured in the light duty not they should take away from officer parker but they're under perceive the officer answer who gave his power to the line of duty should also be snodgrass couldn't even tell you how the city pays officer faulkner's famous premiums because they're going to pay them regardless it's not about the burden to them it's about doing the right thing and i can appreciate that their visit he's trying to do the right thing i just think of his t v set you also mandates they do the right thing for everyone that's the whole point to see what was inactive was because the legislature did not intrust that these officers will be taken care of the way they're supposed to because there's a lot of fract relationships in small towns and you can't always rely on one have to do what for the other half when they are you know been fighting for the last thirty years of their careers i did not make the difference that the disparate argument are disabled as a result of your job city is supposed to take care of your perceive and the legislature clearly enacted that for precisely this purpose because you cannot always trust that everyone is to be treated fairly you cannot always trust that everyone who has given themselves and sacrifice to the city or the state or the government is going to take care fairly and legislature of illinois said we want to make sure that if we ask our officers to go out and put themselves on the line that at the end of the day we will have their back and while it may just be the difference between a high and low deductible premium to you or i it is not that serious or it is a show that he has actually