the eleven years that she was on public aid the department spent over eighty seven one thousand dollars on her medical expenses prior to her injury and over one hundred and twenty four thousand dollars on her care after she was injured as  record reflects the department compromised its one hundred and twenty four thousand dollars lien on the personal injury lawsuit for twenty thousand dollars the estate has never suggested that these amounts were not provided for her medical care the department's claim for the remaining eighty seven thousand dollars for her pre injury here is a valid debt the circuit court's judgment should not stand because it rested on misapprehensions of the law st the circuit court ruled that the only point at which the department could assert a claim for mrs reassess preet injury medical expenses was when it sought reimbursement under section one thousand one hundred and twenty two of the public a code for the amounts involved in caring for her after her spinal injury in fact the department could causes of action for injuries where the injured person may be living or dead sectional of a twenty two dollars allows a lien on a personal injury lawsuit and that lengthy later be negotiated in compromised as it was here section five dollars places a claim on an estate and in that instance there's no provision for negotiation or compromise under section five hundred and thirteen dollars and under the probate code a valid estate claim gets paid in full unless there is not enough money in the estate to satisfy it there is no conflict between these provisions of the code and there so there is no need to choose between them and that's one of the things that makes this case unlike the herning case the that the estate cited where there were two conflicting statutes of limitations one an umbrella for all personal injury claims and one narrow provision for personal injury claims involving construction projects in this case the circuit court's nd mistake was in assigning significance to the source of the funds in the estate because nothing in the statutory framework makes the source of the state funds relevant infact section eighteen dash fourteen of the probate act states that all property in a disinterested is subject to claim without distinction actually uses those terms without distinction and that would seem to indicate that it doesn't matter where the property came from if it's in the estate it is subject to valid claims circuit that the state funds control source of the state funds controls here could be illustrated by the following hypothetical let's assume that the department paid for none of this is reese's medical care until she was injured let's al assume that the department settled its lien on her personal injury lawsuit which means that it was reimbursed for its expenses from date of injury through different coverage of that money if she were still alive when she recovered  the department would continue to pay her medical expenses assuming that she was medicaid eligible and as an aside her settlement could have been structured so that she would continue to be medicaid eligible so let's assume she enjoys you know there is nothing what happened to her but let's assume she survives is able to use some of that money continues to have her medicaid benefits and then she dies upon her death the department would have the right and the duty to seek reimbursement for those posts recovery medical expenses under section five hundred and thirteen with the estate still be able to argue that the department had already settled any claim on those proceeds because by framing it that way that the funds in the estate were traceable to the lawsuit and therefore untouchable logically the answer would have to be yes even though those post recovery medical expenses had not been spent or even calculated by the time of the settlement and that would be absurd valid claims in classes one through five would take priority over the department's claim for example there could be an outstanding claim for mrs reese's funeral expenses as well as the costs of administering her estate both of those are it would simply resume its proper place in the hierarchy of payments under the probate act as a practical matter your honour's the department would be partly but not fully reimbursed given the priority of administration expenses of the state and the fact that the amount in the estate which is about eighty thousand dollars is already less than the department's valid claim and if there's not enough money in the state to play it to to pay all of the claims in full then there necessarily will not be anything left over for the state's heirs unless they qualify for some special statutory protection but that's not unfair public policy favors lessening the burden on taxpayers and enabling the department to assist others who need help with their medical expenses just as mrs i don't believe i've used up all my time but i'm very interested in what the courts concerns may be so i would like to open it up for questioning at this point if i may thank you justice jorgensen you have any questions you know i do you would  exclusion of the other so that a fair statement there each section targets a different factual scenario right in you you suggested that the  as the department could not negotiate away its vibes thirteen claims that your position it no that's it could not have pursued it's five the portion that it was it's five thirteen claim as part of its lien on the lawsuit because that search party wasn't responsible for her mrs reese's routine medical expenses that that predated her injury and get the distinction but  saying just as policy that the department would never or king is precluded not is precluded from say negotiating they were claiming i think a total of one hundred and twenty four thousand give or take and done but there is there's absolutely no evidence in this record that the department did so and yeah but my you seem to indicate that they would be precluded from that and i was wondering oh you hear oh i didn't mean to suggest they would have would have been precluded from simply relinquishing any claim on those proceeds it's just that they couldn't fold it into a lien on the personal injury lawsuit but they could have negotiated and given they the low numbers here anyway there's no way you were ever going to recover the total amount not you know right there was really my question i guess mclaren i have nothing quinn what if anything it documented in writing the agreement relative to the release of the lien on the personal injury  didn't i didn't fully hear that question what documents if any in writing emails releases satisfaction discharge whatever indicated what the agreement was in so far as the nature and extent of the release of whatever liens were in question the only thing in this record this is the probate case there was a whole separate personal injury cases as the court i'm sure understands in this case the only record we have is the letter in the supplementary volume of the record stating that the department was settling its lien on the lawsuit for twenty thousand dollars if there were any other she knew cations about what was being settled those are part of personal injury case and not this estate case and frankly your honor if there were any evidence that the department had ever communicated that it was relinquishing its claim to the pre injury expenses that we might expect to see that in the settlement agreement which was never introduced in this case we might expect to see any writings introduced to the estate might have attached them to at circuit court filings in this case if there were any evidence of that the fact that there is no affidavits written communication no settlement agreement nothing was introduced in this case to indicate that the department ever communicated  intention to relinquish its claim i think suggests that there was no such evidence to offer thank you i have no further questions as the panel have any other questions i do not think you do not thank you eight hundred and nineteen dollars four cents in funds that are currently only a state in our issue in this case are the remainder of the settlement proceeds to the medical malpractise lawsuit it is also under spirited that the department already asserted  result its claim on the floor to proceed for twenty thousand dollars and that that amount has been paid it is also one disputed that the only reason the medical malpractise lawsuit settled meaning the only reason there are currently any funds in the state at all is because the department agreed to results claimed on the last two proceeds had the department not agreed to compromise its claim on the law the proceeds of the lawsuit would not have been settled and because of causation issues there was a very good chance that the medical malpractise case would have been would have ended in a defense verdict and there would have been nothing received by the department not twenty thousand dollars nothing based upon these undisputed facts the trial court's findings that the department is not entitled to a nd bite of the apple by asserting a nd claim on the same settlement proceeds is proper and correct the department argues that the trial court erred because its claim on the estate proceeds is based upon section five hundred and thirteen of the code which allows for claims against an estate and that this is different in section one thousand one hundred and twenty two of the code which allows for claims against the proceeds of a personal injury lawsuit but the sections are part of the same public code in this court must read and interpret them together the trial court properly did this by finding that section one thousand one hundred and twenty two was the more specific statute that applied to personal injury law to proceed and section five deposited into the estate as part of the lawsuit settlement nothing in section five hundred and thirteen indicates that the department is entitled to a nd claim on the same part of money the same lawsuit proceeds in one of the cases cited by the department regarding statutory interpretation this court explained in the dunn the township the department of revenue case from two thousand and one that it is quote presumed that statutes which relate to the same subject department claims that the two statutes are not directly inconsistent because its claim under section one thousand one hundred and twenty two only applies to the charges that were made from the date of the injury that was the subject of the lawsuit only on the sources of the funds and they don't say anything about extinguishing any other claims the department's interpretation in this case effectively disregard section one thousand one hundred and twenty two even though the section clearly addresses the apartment's claims on law to prove a seat the only way to fairly reconcile the two statutes and to give meaning to both is to follow the approach of the truck court and find that section  applies to personal injury law to proceed including those proceeds that were deposited into the estate as part of the lawsuit settlement and that section five hundred and thirteen dollars applies to any other sources of funds this is consistent with the department statement before the court that each section targets a different scenario the scenario before the court in this case is the section that is the targeted by section  because the funds at issue are settlement proceeds from a personal injury lawsuit this interpretation does not conflict in any way with the federal statutes that the party claim it requires required to seek to recover payments because the department did a sort of claim of the law to proceed and receive twenty one thousand dollars from a lawsuit settlement instead of zero which might have happened if the case went to trial it's just that in this case there were no other funds that were recoverable in the estate something that i assume happens a lot for persons who are on public aid the apartments similarly was not forced to abandon any claim because a permit chose to resolve its claim on a lawsuit proceeds so that a settlement could be affected and the department could receive some funds and still had a claim against the get to the estate for all other assets it just so happened that there were no other assets here  the ruling of the trial court was appropriate in fear and did not punish the state in any way it did in their brief they referred to the eighty one thousand dollars it would go to the state to be a windfall and it's important to be clear here that the settlement proceeds represent the compensation for lois reeses injuries which caused her to be quadriplegic for the last four and a half years of her life the state representative and joseph priests witnessed their mother's injuries and prosecutors the medical malpractise lawsuit for years after she died a recovery of eighty thousand dollars to be shared by lois's next of kin as compensation for the pain suffering and disability the last four and a half years of lois's life is not a windfall and honestly does not fully compensate lois or her loved ones for the personal injuries that she suffered unfortunately that was all that was available in her lawsuit apartment recover twenty thousand dollars that otherwise would not have proceed if the lawsuit was not prosecuted and settled similarly if a lawsuit is not settled there is a good chance that apartment would receive zero if anyone received a windfall or benefit in this case it is the department they took no risk with a lawsuit they didn't nothing to prosecute the case they never advised plaintiff counsel during goshi ations that they were going to continue to assert a claim on the lawsuits proceeds if the case was settled they collected twenty thousand dollars but doing nothing to prosecute the case and now want additional eighty one thousand dollars all the money in the state it's not fair before the trial court and you can find it in the on pages sixteen thousand seven hundred and sixteen and seventeen of the record the estate council contacted public aid and said that they needed help to settle the case and that publication needed to reduce it claim on the lawsuit proceeds in order for the case to settle and then as counsel indicated the supplemental record contains a document a written a letter from  the accident so how does that preclude lifetime expenses that the department expended because they the the the letter exists the only reason eighty thousand dollars gets deposited into that account is because there was a settlement of the of the lawsuit all these those funds are just lost it proceeds are proceeds of the lawsuit but that once the money is in an estate it goes by the debtors or creditors it's a class system and it's a very strict hierarchy how do we reconcile that i'm not sure because i don't think you go that  it's if it was i don't know any amount that were in there from a savings account or an investment or whatever was in there you don't divide it out but in this case it's not it's not some speech just a suggestion oh we don't know where all these funds came from we know the tons came exactly they came at the exact same time that the that the department agreed to twenty thousand dollars h you said that the times i get it for example if this money is all from this personal injury suit how do you look at the probate act  and will because it came from the proceeds of a personal injury claim anyone who's involved in that come in later for example what if one of the physicians who had treated her you know i have a late bill i'm to file it against the state would they be precluded they would well it i'm sorry it depends they would not be precluded if it's part of the settlement their client had not been negotiated if their claim handed negotiated they had said i'm get nothing the only reason there were any funds in the state is because public aid agreed to results claimed for twenty thousand dollars and so it received twenty thousand dollars claim on the lawsuit and then are dispersing the funds and all the time public it comes in again and richards says i want more i get more it's going to discourage the settlement of lawsuits and that's sort of the public interest here especially in a case like this where liability was really there was a real causation issue right i mean if that that were the case there have been included in the agreement i mean clearly clearly you were aware there was money on law would be half prior to this injury this horrific injury so if you were aware of that why not include that in in the class excuse me in the agreement conceded that in their argument but absent you pointing the court to an agreement that demonstrates that i'm a hard time understanding why you're proceeds argument should rule the day it seems to me you're just asking for equity to trump the statu itself just talks about claims all claims on personal injury lawsuits so i'm not sure i don't that much i'm missing your question here but there's nothing and twenty two bars those lines i guess that's maybe more of a statement than a question but that's my concern ok and then i would say that then we would have to fall back on equity but how on the lawsuit proceeds and as a result of that there was a settlement which resulted in twenty thousand dollars to the to the to to the department and that if they had not made any type of agreement if if they're not going to agree with there were not in any settlement there be no money at all you know to me through this awful process in your business and we had that in our brief let's let's say that lois did not die and she lived another six year it's drink directly attributable to the personal injury lawsuit that five hundred and thirteen would not apply if she didn't think that's good and things like that and it's really not directly attributable anymore but it's not like this case where the from money was literally dropped in  right away and then they they claimed it right away all right thank you i have not a question thank you council have you ever heard of the term fungible yes  money is considered to be fungible because a dollar can be exchanged for another dollar probably at one time that wasn't true because there were such things is silver certificates but no longer  and the the definition of fungible is that typically money that is raised for one purpose can be easily used for another and it seems like your argument is based upon the  little song about one of these things is not like the other and so my question is how is it that money which i believe was what the settlement was is so unbundle in so far as your argument is concerned that we should affirm the trial court's findings that inherently are implicitly that these funds were not replaceable or could not be used for other purposes because the focus will be let in twenty two is the source of the funds so it's not the money itself but it's the source of the money and that's where  even if there were a rip did you hear my question to ms quinn relative to whether or not there was a release or a satisfaction and discharge or anything like that yes and i agreed with her answer i don't i and i i would not be the attorney in the med mal case so i don't know one hundred percent if there was the satisfaction  of judgment entered so i don't know the answer it's not the most customary thing usually it's just the way they agreed to result the lien claim that is enough and i don't i do not know the answer i apologize but there it but i agree with counsel there is nothing in this record which contains the satisfaction of judgment or something like that akin to justice run  scenario you agree then a release does not release anyone from torts or breaches of contract that happened in the future yes that's the case then why in his scenario wouldn't the department be allowed to collect expenses after the settlement of the litigation and it's also helpful to remember that the action against these medical providers was a personal injury action not a wrongful death action the amount of the settlement may have affected a number of things other than the claims merit it might have reflected for one thing the fact that mrs  longer alive to need a pool of money to help with her expenses that medicaid doesn't typically cover it doesn't mean that the claim against the medical providers was weak a jury hearing about her injuries and how she spent the last five years of real life could well  against public policy actually mrs research septic medical benefits from the state of illinois and the department use taxpayer funds to pay her medical expenses for eleven years for a total of two hundred and twelve thousand five hundred dollars that is money that her adult sons did not have to pay and they were also able to have the peace of mind that comes with knowing that their mother's many medical needs were being paid for the department now has the right and the duty to seek whatever reimbursement is possible so that it doesn't lose its federal funding and so that money will be available in the state coffers to help other medically needy low income people just like m that was pretty much all i had in a bottle unless the panel has questions thank you justice jorgensen you have any questions i do not have anything further thank i thank steve bould counsel for great arguments thank you  justice brennan do you have any other questions i do not thank you very