go yes it's like the it's like the background is like in front of you ok this is what we're seeing we had the same issue showing that the mentioned front benefits were limited occupation related disability in this case perhaps not thinking clearly they were related to the act didn't occur on the day formulate the basis for the work comp isn't there a loss of occupation in order to get the benefits there has to be a finding that the individual is no longer capable of performing as a police officer they got it because many have worked to doctors  condition or if you look at the notes from dr pinsky or not i could understand your argument if your argument was that in some point in time she was not capable to perform as a police officer and therefore she's not entitle to the awards that you see but i don't understand how the receipt of duty disability pension has anything to do with future earning capacity  in that suitable in some suitable employment and the question is can she work and to what level can she works and has been diminished it occurs to me that why should you be in time some form of a credit for duty disability pension i mean i don't understand that i don't think we're asking for credit rescue need to be considered as so what are you saying that you want us to car an exception for in this governmental employees such as firefighters and policemen to qualify for this you need benefit on this lady in terms of her future earning capacity when you have tax free benefits of sixty five percent with no aust it for future employment she could go out oh let's let's talk about those tax free baptists for a moment they're really not tax free benefits she's not getting one hundred percent she's going sixty some percent which basically is trying to reflect what an after tax i can spend that  partial focuses i'm not the amount of money she receives that is the box in terms of earning capacity in some suitable employment when she knew her what level can she work incapacity that doesn't necessarily fix earning capacity would certainly have an incident well in evidence but but the fact that she's receiving a degree disability pension how does that affect her permanency work if you look at the total benefits your receive played sixty we're talking about over nine hundred thousand dollars in tax free benefits if we look by the time she reaches seventy we're talking about two million dollars with  it and then we also have to look at the fact that if she were to go out and get a job let's use just this whole bridge example and made the difference between what she was earning from a police officer at t that the award and what she's getting by the way up the line of disability and she's actually argued the money and then what if she makes the same amount of money in she receives a licensing disability there's no credit for any employment she gets her future earning capacity you could argue in this case is magnified because of what she's getting tax free in light of the back to what she can to work why and whether she had decided to go out and get other women or not at the time of arbitration it was mary kate that was manic and they can look at the medical here are terms of this lady's disability if you look at the roads brogue are treating orthopedic surgeon of what you are able to earn in some pension is not employment you're suggesting a credit i mean there are all sorts of i mean would you be suggesting then if someone became a permanent total as receive a permanent overall under that statute there'd be a credit so think of it this way she's getting a brand as a whole or already know one hundred and fifty thousand dollars based on a forty percent manners of all the reason she's the reason that that's beneficial prefer in the long run if she avoids these credits and if she would have gone in and said i want a wage differential situation and i think what we're arguing is probably you are making a great argument that should be made to legislate expressed here i mean it's for them to do if they want to set up a credit for a man as a whole is a war they should do it but they haven't done it you know our time is up and you will have time and replied mr snodgrass thank you i appreciate that ok yes bet and i decision of the arbitrator in the commissioner for for the visuals of this case and in the decision and language of the decision they talk about the importance of my client's loss of occupation the arbitrary the commission talks about my police job this is a case we have an officer who was clearly unable to go back to work as a police officer the evidence establishes that the commission did the analysis in awarded under eighty two man as a whole here in in the world that they're not not in she's not getting full salary this is a sixty five percent pay not one hundred percent because of her injury certainly she's not able to do yeah which is it and is a benefit the same as wages no the benefit is based off wages is not the same as wages so a just wages is just a m disability benefit you know believe me my client four thousand three hundred and forty four years although he was a police officer if you're a police department she'd rather be working as a police officer right now as if you really make any difference you keep talking about her ability to work as a police officer but the statute speaks in terms of capacity to earn some suitable you wine not suitable employment i don't think it's a synonym for the employment that you had before you were injured suitable employment speaks in terms of your capacity to work somehow in the it occurs to me that that the award has to be made based upon the commission's determination of her ability to work in whatever capacity after the injury not necessarily we know she can work as a police officer at least the pension or it seems and think she can't because they awarded her the disability pension or what is her ability to work in any capacity you know and then i think that goes  analysis where it's a man that's way to evidence issues parse the commission make that determination and and taking the evidence presented i'm a trial into the analysis that they provided here they looked at the restrictions placed on her and at the time of trial the evidence showed that there were employment the time of trial was that of selling cosmetics it may have been different if you had a different job at the time that you're in but that's not yet been presented to us i think that also goes to what the commission talked about in their decision about these benefits she's getting a pension vote they could be taken away tomorrow that's not within her control she has she is limited to an exam once a year by the pension board to evaluate her work ability working in some capacity that would earn at a certain level and then the benefit is calculated and then there's the vic she can't work as a police officer has to do with her disability but i don't think it has anything to do with her capacity to work in some suitable employment i agree that it's definitely evidence establishes that she's not able to do that occupation  occupation you look at the records of disability and that's what the commission does here and that's why our argument or my arguments case is this is a manifest weight issue they did in the houses and they looked at the evidence and this is what they found in this case the certainly this may be a different case or in front of you in the rest three vocational experts suggest five she could go out of her more money and then but certainly not in this case as the evidence doesn't doesn't present that and i think that it's improper mentioned these benefits as you receiving him and he pointed this out from the arbitrator's decision language that they used is not guaranteed if she's subject to an annual review and if annual annual review it is found that she has somehow recovered significantly enough that she could work full time as a police officer in any other capacity to earn income they can be taken away correct going to what mr snodgrass it's the point it one of her most recent reviews or doctor's visits not reviewed but one of her most recent doctor's visits she reported that her ankle was much much better after the hardware was removed now i don't know i don't recall the timelines here in relation to that doctor's visit and any subsequent internal review but if based on her own report that rankles much better she goes to the next in will review and they find that she's you know one hundred percent better she could she could lose these benefits at that time i mean you review since that last doctor's visit she has been the doctors that in a review found that she was not sufficiently heel to the point of you know away from cracked and if we're getting to have a look at the lenses case and weighing out the facts you know this is a condition that has arthritis she said two surgeries are in harborough she's encouraged by the doctors to go work out and she wants to she's a young ok so let's say next week she has earning capacity that's been improved in some suitable job ok but for good police work  doesn't matter i mean when you get that award was based upon what is she able to erm in some suitable capacity right prime ok i don't know why we're talking about benefits here i'm just asking aren't we if waiting benefits with wages and i think that's a big difference and i think the other difference is that arises out the stain matter that is the basis for her work  we're all they they reviewed her prior to her hardware removal the hardware removal was really significant this late in i am not trying to make arguments that were critical of her being needs or getting the benefits she the reported under the proper stats that's not the point of this she had every right to do what every that's what she did but when you look at the definition or we talk about future earning capacity to say that part of that future earni capacity involves these benefits that would be clearly relevant to her future earning capacity seems significant to me and i will agree with the court there is no case on