presently disabled the second application which was brought many years later in two thousand and eleven after ms lee was this condition worsened it was dismissed outright by defendant pension board on the grounds of all they did not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim collateral estoppel and restor to caught this case turns on one point does ms lewis application deal with the same thousand and eleven claim it deals with is she disabled and now after a levin years of suffering from a degenerative back injury is she disabled now after a subsequent diagnosis of lupus which can affect the body's joints including those in her back so with those in mind we are asking today that this court reversed both the board's dismissal of her two thousand and eleven application for a line of duty pensions and the circuit courts affirmation of that decision with respect to the argument the pair had jurisdiction to hear the two thousand and seven application because the board never considered whether her progressively degenerative condition whether to disable at the present time specifically the pension part specifically says you have a case or stingy it says we're supposed to look beyond the application well the fact of the matter is i don't have one that specifically says you look beyond the application i do considered by this borked so the board didn't go outside the application i also know the application consists of about five clients it's not the equivalent of a state court complain where you have to fact leaving you have an infinite number of pages to explain the nature it is expected that would explain the nature of your complaint these are filled out by lay people and i would like to also point out the purpose of the pension code is it's to be construed liberally to favor the applicant's rights it's beneficial in nature and should be construed liberally in favor of the pensioners right pension based on the aggravation of a preexisting physical condition that's also in first the city of wheaton police pension board here you have the board try to read jurists read jurisdiction out that it did not have jurisdiction it's not right it's supposed to be trying to say well do we have we were trying to be liberal and try and see if we have a grounds for jurisdiction here they're trying to conservatively read it in a way that the find the big don't have jurisdiction that it is bar is not by barred by collateral estoppel and i should point out at the in two thousand when this case when the first application was on administrative review the court specifically said that that the board had said that she would not be barred by a judicial of some sort of position in these proceedings that she is at least temporarily disable due to the fact that this position is not inconsistent with a later claim of disability to do light duty work or ability to  arm but it's also not inconsistent with the claim that she was making previously into the country anybody should be a step up from saying that she can she can bring she can bring this claim it should be the boy are we each made it claim in a judicial setting and which derived a benefit from that saying and now is taking the contrary position that they don't that she can't bring this claim because this was decided back then i'd also like to point out that v the fact that she has not presented evidence right now that she is to say like other doctors and stuff is not the other doctors reports is not an issue right now disabled at that time so to the degree that she hasn't presented proof that she is presently disabled that's not that's not relevant the question is has she made a claim has she made that threshold argument that gets filed by the applicant i would try to capture the exhibits and because it was not a formal application we submitted an application to our i believe that that is the the way that it happened so she just filed a letter requesting which week which we but we decided was basically a request for reconsideration of the two thousand we submitted which will be the amended application ask the police thought this form so it you know it so in any event it's our position that there's there's no evidence in this case asking for relief based upon a chronic condition or a change of circumstance and when we talk about the lupus in this case the reference to that and i pointed out to the record page seventy five to seventy six it's very clear when that question was asked of her do you want to proceed on the lupus issue that you've talked about she said no she's basically standing on the application and  yes but that position is never change she had every opportunity which we agreed to extend it she was provided notice of hearing due process at that time mr moray and was representing her but he could not be present she elected to proceed to go ahead with that th lisa got to address something and identify something and she's basically dissatisfied with the boys or social back in two thousand that's all she's addressed i think she's made that very clear on the record there was nothing lou and the reference to the reference to the light duty as counsel it and talked about in the circuit courts a previous decision like judy was never an issue in this particular case back in two thousand it is an issue now in two thousand she was determined not to say vote which means that she had the ability all done prior to the ultimate board decision was correct and prior to her having mr rand represent or submit a detail memorandum setting forth his position that she has a condition currently that is rendering her in her good on able to perform or duties notice and she says it affects her back and she has  amend your application or question alternative non doing in this case i think she made it very clear she was proceeding on the due date she was proceeding on the basis session was dissatisfied with the previous decision of the board back in two thousand and that's yes and that's because there was nothing new or before the board at that time even though it wasn't as i say when we threw in everything there was nothing more before the board so when we get into the issue of saying let's send off for examination what are we setting off an examination to determine what the injury was back in two thousand there's nothing that indicates that that particular time that she is now suffering from a chronic condition except for the lupus which is very clearly stated she's not looking for that now if she's looking for a sure fire  currently disabled or currently requesting a claim for chronic disability i don't yes to be some more stated so that the board can set the matter rolling which is basically the application and there was no corys it was yes and there's nothing in the  that's why it was raised when she was before the board are you requesting the lupus and she says no i'm not a file in the application on that with the memorandum obviously gave her an opportunity to have the counsel present at the hearing he filed a memorandum after considering the memorandum the board believed that there was nothing in the world that shed any light on that that we believe that the first time that this was actually raised as far as changing circumstances identifying what those might be was raised before the circuit court and from that standpoint the belief is that she yes rick a corking retirement benefit now yes retirement in other words if the if this court ruled that the word was wrong that they should here given her a hearing permit these issues it was remanded back to the board are you saying that the war has nothing to do because she's no longer with the no no that the no that would not be the case if the bread would be reversed or if the court would reverse this and remained it back to the board and we would have to assume that that application is still effective and proceed on it accordingly what ever the board might conclude or determine after a thoughtful hearing on the on the matter of the evidence already the medical whether that can be done at this stage but now it would revert back to that period of time so would be a viable application even though she's no longer with the guesser yes or theoretically her benefits theoretically if you prove her case your benefits would be more than what she's getting now well you know this so it's somewhat of a convoluted so it's not and would you agree or disagree if if it's remained to the board and i'm not saying it would be but i will say is that it's not a moot issue i would have to soon as a law it's only state set if it's remanded you'd have to look at that application which was filed before the effective date if it was filed before the effective date of retirement which i'm presuming it was attempts this particular state without being held to that but yes in fact be the case then it's the effective date of the application being filed duty was never a consideration and at one point she says she's been working light duty and there's no permanent light duty to get she's been working supposedly that position for twelve years the board determined in two thousand light duty was not an issue and it can't be  was determined to be able to perform full service for that it probably whether the whether the municipality put her on light duty or were a desk job we don't really know the situation that's not the board's concerned the board determines disability i just only read off just basically saying that it i believe that if we allow these applications to stand to reclaim what has basically been determined by a board and affirmed by the circuit court over ten twelve years ago to to refile these based claims are going to come come back to haunt him from that standpoint it supports position in this case your honour's that there's been no change of circumstances in this particular matter with the exception of the evolution of time here not it is not premised upon specific facts but my understanding is that she would make more money if this pension were boarded than she's currently getting now but that's my that's my understanding so if the if the retired officially it may be an effective retirement a constructive retirement i don't know and i that's outside the record i don't i just don't know it  letters to the board reflect back she was dissatisfied with the two thousand ruling that's irrelevant as to whether or not she's disabled our whether she's asserting a disability at the present you can be unhappy with that and still  certain new claim and he has indicated and that that sort of raises this interesting point he's claimed that this would prove to be an impediment to port solvency because you never knew when one of these things was going to flare up again the issue here is they don't dispute that if she's disabled now she could have brought a claim his claim his complaint is well she never actually said or has presented any kind of evidence that she is disabled now we say that she has that that doesn't change the dynamic about whether or not the board would be able to first see this because as long as somebody had the ability to say disable now they would be able to do this and that's not going to affect the board sullivan see they have that inherent power now  look at so she's he was claiming that the issue with regard to she there was no evidence in the record that there's anything new or anything any evidence of the lupus issue first off at the affected this is called a lower back lupus internal disease so we see she's referencing the lupus we see just above it pretty please state the date and time of the occurrence of the injuries or illnesses for which you claim a disability march twenty eighth one thousand nine hundred eight which is when exacerbates mike is because he is the exacerbation of my current injury she's identifying she's not saying i'm this is my my claim she's saying this is an aspect of it it's exacerbated by the claim i'm making now there was some question with regard to when these interactive tories were submitted my understanding which may be wrong was that they were submitted at the same time as the amended application i should point out your respective of that the board considered that when they made their november eighteenth the ruling on this on whether or not they had jurisdiction so i mean these were considered irrespective of when they were presented to the board they were considered as irrespective of other factors from seeking a non duty pension based on the lupus a low council for defendant stated as much and c one twenty eight one twenty nine which i think would be a thirty i would render this and that is if there was a credit request for disability based on lupus or something of that nature then certainly as long as you are a police officer it would not preclude you from filing such an application then the board would proceed based upon the statute three physicians etc on that so she was free to argue it's a contributing factor and she did so she's free irrespective of other factors she would be free to argue what is the basis for a separate claim for non duty disability pension or for line of duty claim was denied and in the end we basically feel that the bird should try to do to the degree that the there is evidence that this is not simply asking for a rehash of the nine hundred ninety nine claims that she's saying things have changed there's been eleven years of degeneration in my condition that has bended me presently disabled even if i wasn't disabled back in two thousand there are other factors that contribute to me being presently disable like i wasn't in two thousand the border should read those in such a way to give itself jurisdiction here it should not try to d it should not look for a way to apply residue because a collateral is stop again it's and because we feel it's not the same claim but again the ball presumes that you will give the of the two thousand and eleven application for the line of duty pension and the circuit courts affirmation of that decision thank you all right mr seasick mr and will i want to thank you the two for your arguments and for the briefs this matter will