least the court house means pretty nicely to represent the city of charleston the palace in this case actually in these two appeals that are consolidated before you a quickly summarize both cases  both cases deal with the issues under the public safety employee benefit act the first case deals with the city's ordinance that creates and the hearing process to determine eligibility by police officers and  declaratory judgment from his second case with holes county circuit court ruling on ruling on his eligibility for perceive a benefits we argue that he should have exhausted his remedies and the city of charleston going through the city's hearing process and so this declaratory judgment action was simply not right the second appeal deals with that declaratory judgment action in the alternative if this court finds against the city in the first court acted against the manifest weight of the evidence in ruling that angle him suffered a catastrophic injury while responding to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency this prize say just as a matter of state or based on my  order on both cases what we're asking for is that the essential and specially the motion to dismiss brought by the city in the complaint for injunctive relief be granted and that that complaint be dismissed altogether so that's the relief we're asking for in the in dispersed appeal dealing with the with the ordinance by the city of charleston  in that first case regarding the cities to see the ordinance for police officers there's no automatic we know that there's no automatic entitlement to benefits u other situations where our municipal clients don't get a request from a police officer or a firefighter asking for to see the benefits usually after they've been granted a line of duty pension it's sort of an in sufficient and ineffective response to just send back back a letter saying you've been granted perceive a benefits or you've been denied the benefits we find that it's  have and and under due process provisions to enact the type of ordinance that was enacted here and the procedure statute is silent on the application of procedures and who determines powers that are implied by the grant of general powers under the illinois municipal code giving it a non home rule unisa palen e the power to create such an ordinance to create hearings and it does so in other situations for example revocation of liquor license hearings there is no such there is no state statute that describes how a hearing should be set up to either grant a liquor license or take it away from someone or pre term a nation hearings for a person who might be getting a warning for unemployment reason and may ultimately be be have his employment terminated e the power to either grants or deny the cib about this ordinance thirteen over thirty seven that's the ordinance we're talking about here provides the due process protections within its ordinance  process protections such as sworn testimony at the hearing cross examination of witnesses a retired judge to rule on objections during the hearing and also a record on appeal so if the police officer firefighter doesn't get the result he wants he or she wants in the c b hearing it can be appealed to the circuit court and under the administrative review act can be reviewed by a circuit court judge and finally this hearing process is already used by halliday's such as the village of hoffman estates in the village of vernon hills we've cited to those ordinances in our in our brief so for england to argue that the use of such a hearing is unconstitutional a manner that is inconsistent with the see this statute so in conclusion on this first appeal we would ask that this court reversed the circuit court's denial of the city's motion to the extent that any matters remain pending importing c h six this opinion is intended to represent a final ruling in regard there to that's not disposing of fourteen  eligibility for health insurance benefits under the ceiba we're arguing it's against the manifest we did the evidence for coles county circuit court and that action to have found an angle and was injured in response to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency that gives the elements of what constitutes an emergency in these to see the cases and the circuit court didn't cite to that case and it's in its final order gaffney defines an emergency for as being first an unforeseen circumstance involving to an eminent danger to a person or property requiring three an urgent response here and one perhaps meets the first of the three elements in other words the unforeseen circumstance of not finding his police chief during his investigation the police chief that allegedly made the call in the nine one one or made the call for a dispatch to be made but he fails the other two  there's no imminent danger to a person or property in this case not in casey's general store that he goes to first nor to the police station he goes to second and there's no urgent response that was required by  of there are no facts here which prove that angle was responding to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency so that's why it's against the man it was for the evidence for schools county to have decided otherwise also in gaffney a firefighter in that case stuck in a burning building with smoke the court notes in gaffney that that firefighter had no option of ending his participation in such an emergency situation once it because once it became an emergency hearing them did have the option of ending his investigation and he did in fact ended up going back to the police station when he found no problems at casey's general store i also use the examples in my brief of the two police officers and springboard versus the village of sugar grove officer springboard observing a field of asphalt debris in the highway activating his emergency lights and then parked behind the asphalt he says in the road to protect against the traffic running into this asphalt feel ultimately he hurt his back and springboard felt that the asphalt chunks created an emergency situation and an immediate safety hazard and so did the second appellate court in that case again citing gaffney saying that there was an unforeseen circumstance being that field of asphalt debris involving an eminent danger to personal property that being the danger to the oncoming traffic and an urgent response was needed and that urgent response was given by officer springboard so here all three elements were were found and ultimately  the second district appellate court found that there was he was responding to what he reasonably believed was an emergency but for england by contrast on that day that he had this dispatch on december seventh two thousand and eight england testified that from the c com call there was no indication that there was a crime or an emergency in progress once you arrive at casey's general store there were no circumstances involving imminent danger to a person or property and once he left casey's and went to the police department still there were no circumstances of eminent danger to a person or property and will never activated his patrol car lights or his siren during the call although that's not necessarily an indication of an emergency it certainly shows that england didn't feel it was adjured and he never encountered hazards in the roadway like the officers and springboard engelman fact testified on cross examination that he never saw anyone having an emergency when he approached casey's and once he arrived at the police station he said he still had no indication of an emergency so here for england it's the it's again against all manifest weight of the evidence for coles county to have found that angle was responding to what would be reasonably believed was an emergency in progress there are no facts of an eminent danger to person or property as gaffney requires and there are no facts for a need for an urgent response as gab requires because the september sixth two thousand and sixteen holds county circuit court order is against the made up this way to the evidence the city prays in this case for reversal of that order finding he's finding his not  dismiss what would be happening is the case would refer back to the trial court for hearing or for one referred to the crowd or there would be i suppose the issue relating to the complaint for injun and what would be the rationale for not allowing city of charleston to an african ordinance relative to the procedures to be employed in noting this determination yet the statute asylum lets  it would it would it definitely would and that's why we turn the legal aspect over the same well where the statute in naples where did legislator or legislature authorized him to create such statute and i can't find it they they say it's  announcing that it's decision but the defendant didn't argue that it's written argument in this first time or this court that it's maybe sorry about that definition but regardless the definition proceeded to casey's general store which was a short drive up now at that time he reason to believe that there's something wrong he's a journalist and his actions show that in effect across the street now with sirens his personal vehicle in see the chief so they say they won't maybe there's something going on inside a k c so he's cautiously looks inside of cases nothing is going on there we goes in and clears the way sure no one is in distress and the ones who are checks bathrooms i call it a heightened degree of anxiety or heightened he he becomes more concerned that there is an emergency not less because there's nothing so then he tries to call this all is superior officer office sergeant peterson back at the precinct take it all and he did testify that sometimes receptions in the basement of the police station is disrupted so it could have been that but he wasn't sure that's what he tells the dispatch officer that we are going i'm going to relocate back to the police station that's when he suffers catastrophic injury when he was taken off the call we still don't know exactly what the call was about one hundred address the two words preceding that in the definition that reasonably believe somebody can reasonably believe that there's an emergency and it turns out the few mercy this is for instance if i walk into a neighbor's house and i see a kid playing by the pool a neighbor kid playing by the pool and i walk in at your splash and i hear someone call for help i recently believe that he felt cool itself so i raced out there but i find the kid just threw something into the water it was plain that he was alive i was given the wrong address you know they they they sent me to taste the general store when they were going to rob the gas station in the west side  just simply walk away when he came to case nobody's their families in distress this just holiday doesn't make any sense this is what we want our public safety police to do if my mother or somebody called nine one one of president button on her urgency necklace and they gave the wrong address bird sees shows up that address nobody's here  thank you thank you know from his previous and in fact from the circuit court's decision that there was in order to show there was an emergency here proof of an emergency they they cite to him being cautiously active in other words cautiously approaching cases cautiously looking inside cases having a heightened awareness because especially since there wasn't anything there having a heightened awareness that something else might be going on somewhere else in the village again all of these don't rise to the level of an emergency as gappy requires gaffney again requires that you know here heighten your was it the last information and given him that he doesn't have time to give that information just got to be there now that something's going on but there is a certain amount of speculation that has to occur in order to determine  took oneself well there is there is a danger there's a hazard going on i mean he's got to speculate that and in this case he would have needed to do that because once he went to cases he found that nothing was going  on and um and there was also you know there was not a reason for an urgent response and i go back to spring warning and those officers that were found to have responded to what they reasonably believe was an emergency one officer who sees you know a field of asphalt debris that he's got to that he's got either clear or or protect oncoming traffic from another officer in the same case that finds a downed utility pole in the middle of the street is still has live wires going on and he's got to clear out of the roadway to protect the traffic and these are these are clear he's aren't speculative these are clear hazards involving imminent danger so high i guess i does the court really want to go so far as to such a broad reading of what's reasonably considered to be an emergency to be a person speculation of what's there or not and whether and springboard actually goes into whether or not the the officer or police the police officer or the firefighters believe was reasonable that there was an emergency and i simply don't believe that there was a reasonable  belief in this case also i'd like to note that his counsel mentioned you know angle was dispatched by nine one one call center but we know from the city of rockford case that just because you're dispatched by a nine one one call center doesn't make the call automatically an emergency whether an event is an emergency can changes the circumstances change so person can be called out for any number of things that aren't necessarily emergencies and we had a witness from the c com nine one one call center say that sometimes people are called out for false alarms and it turns out that there is no real reason for the for the call s to rise so yes you're out of time unless you complete the thought here yes ok thank you i'll try to make it brief as the council's argument about whether our city has powers to create such an ordinance we have the implied powers given it given to it by the municipal code that allows it to decide other cases municipalities in other hearings and i should i should note that the fire protection district case only gave authority through the fire protection perfection act an act that's different then the and gives fewer rights fewer powers than the municipal code  so so the municipality is given more powers here in the midst both than it and then are given to the fire protection district under the fire protection act up conclude with that thank you thank you thank you both they will be