right wrist at work september first two thousand he undergoes a fusion with retained hardware and january twenty fifth two thousand and five i have a trainer williams under is a decision awarding forty percent loss of use of the right hand and medical expenses no is not about one thousand each this case is about section eight nowhere in the act is there a time limit ime to be availability of temporary total disability benefits there are specific limits on compensation provided in section eight before is precisely within this area of section eight that the prior sixty four week limitation existed prior to july first one nine hundred seventy five this is removed by the legislature with the intention that t t benefits be available without time determine whether physical or mental disability has changed temporary total incapacity cannot change in this manner it cannot increase it cannot diminish it can only begin or end the disability the term disability is used in  where the most i think i just wanted to stand for the proposition that this interpretation is out there that i'm the only one that thinks this way i think more importantly it nineteen age doesn't apply to t t benefits because of the definition of installment if you look at the act nine hundred eighty it applies to compensation paid in installments if you look at the dictionary definition of installments in both miriam webster and the oxford dictionary and installment is a song or a sued i think if you look at the howard case that says the purpose is to determine a change in physical or mental disability if i get back to the argument on installments of permanent partial disability award is exactly what an installment award it is it's based on a final summits based on a percentage loss of use as a whole but then broken down into weekly had retained hardware in his wrist from a fusion surgery the fusion the hardware in his wrist becomes unstable he messed necessitates a surgery to remove this hardware from his wrist there's no dispute that that's costly related the respondent village of lansing pays for this medical treatment agrees that he was unable to work as a result of that surgery for eighteen weeks following surgery my argument is that he has crewmen underworld statutory interpretation appropriate here i do not agree that nine hundred eighty is unambiguous if it were miserable court would not have considered these interpretive canons were very legitimate legislative intent when they decided world color and for the purpose of the act was examined in both of those cases i also respectfully disagree with my opponent that somewhere in these cases it says that temporary told disability is only compensable in one thousand inches filed nowhere in world does the court come out and say this specifically say specifically in world color this court states that the commission increased permanent partial disability recover for the t t d that is that is my argument judge and the reason that's my argument is because i think it would fly straight the purposes of the advice to allow that medical treatment to occur without a temporary total disability benefits why should claimant end up on the years and they're going to end up i mean while it renders the eight provision with open medical completely moot because who could only go so i'm going to treatment if they cannot be financially protected which is the sole purpose of the worker's compensation act and that's exactly what the legislative history tells us when the time limitation of sixty four weeks was removed back in one nine hundred seventy five the supreme court tells us time and time again in shell oil and o'brien and employers mutual all cited in my reply that the financial burden of medical treatment should be borne by the employer temari total disability well undergoing this medical treatment is part of that financial burden and it's for these reasons that i would respectfully request that you look to the group to interpolate the actual liberally to effectuate this purpose and provide financial protection for a worker who does need to undergo this medical treatment i would request that you were first the decision of the legislature not right i mean this is a creature of statute they say what they're going to work with they don't award people can disagree you used to be sixty weeks risk all fracture now it's six you know the right man as a whole they do all different things a week or whatever the length of the disability is whether it's eighteen weeks or two hundred weeks you know that's what that's what it covers then i think is the difference a day there was nothing one thousand age there is i just want to make sure that it is very clear to the court that we did proceed under both sections eight and eight b i do think it was improper for the commission to render its just as that decision just denying a p titian and not even considering any petition person went to section eight feet justice you did raise the point that the commission just looked at it and said we're denying your ape titian and that's not what was and five what was the relief sought solely under eight was not what this was  it on its face with no objection by council so a b is there and the commission completely ignored that fact in their decision and i i also think that was that was error on their part as well  d finally i just want to again look back at my argument that nine hundred eighty applies to instalment awards and t t d is not an installment award when it is awarded that and in a paid in any instalments there is no situation where an arbitrator is you know working temporary total disability installment payments that time period is already accrued it's going to be paid out as a lump sum it's not an installment benefit think that if you look towards the legislative intent in her moving time limitations with regards to t t d and the language that is actually used it's been interpreted by this court to prefer to physical and mental disability permanen