former strictly capacity up until just those two thousand injuries they told you about so the injury didn't become cash raffled and so he was no longer able to work and we know that at least on the illinois supreme court cases referred to proce where they said cash traffic injury is when it's the it's a career ending injury and that is when the pension work signs that this is a line of duty disability that occurred in two thousand one in about plying a statutory for the line of duty disability at that time the employer told him you're not entitled to it your injury predicts the act then and after his word why would you be disability in two thousand and three his counsel at that time had asked again for the see the benefit setting to the pro certainly puts him i notice that he should have known at that point to file a lawsuit and our contention is that was in twenty eleven when i know a case was decided by as i mentioned everyone admits it that's the first time when the when the fine if it starts was that this was an officer the thought he might be entitled to the benefit they did that they said he wasn't trying to back them so if they didn't want you for they didn't consider that this may be a benefit that they have to pay out that's on them they can't they can't necessarily blame the plaintiff in the time in this particular case between the injury and the pension actually and the lawsuit is twenty one years and it's been thirteen it's been twelve years from the time of the pension awarded to the time that the lawsuit was filed and that that makes this a little bit unusual and the second observation is that the ca but itself is an unusual statute that provides a very large financial benefit to catastrophic injured public servants the court should construe the ambiguity if any in the statute in favor of the employee local government that must pay the benefit and that was one of the principle c issue of the discovery rule and how a court opinion could create an additional right because it is that the courts have addressed that issue but let me turn specifically to the argument of the procedure statute i think that's where we need to start this were the lower court started to look at the statutes very clearly that the word the wording is on or after the effective date suffers a catastrophic injury  everyone i think thought that was fairly clear maybe i'm being a little presumptuous by saying everyone because i'm in no way a case that needed to be some clarification i will talk about that but if you look at the statute in of itself there is no question that the suffering of injury the catastrophic injury was in this instance in one thousand nine hundred two the pension fund made that very clear that they were awarding the line a disability pension base in one thousand nine hundred ninety two injury and so said in the plaintiff's complaint is that it wasn't until he found himself in an emergency situation again to remove his weapon from his holster that he realized that there was a problem with that and so with that he goes back he sees of benefit under ten day and so when we get to the nomad case we're going to understand that the court was actually deciding eight different questions then the and if you suffer an injury a catastrophic injury on or after the state you see both lives and so from the villages perspective there was an injury it was declared catastrophic after a procedure was passed no question about it obligated to pay the entire health insurance premium for the injured officer in his family that that's a direct quote from the supreme court initial analysis that was the question they were presented they were not presented with the question as to whether the officer was entitle to proceed that is a completely different question when we in the in the no way case the parties all understood that section ten eight and section ten b had been met and the officer entitle to it so the course and we need to clarify for people when this benefit should be paid is it when he was actually injured or when is it is it when the pension fund made the determination and the more going into the analysis is that we believe it is appropriate at the time of the catastrophic injury determinations make that's when you have to start paying the benefit now to address justice jorgensen's question it then and now it's this cannot be applied to the intent to the instance in which the legislature is trying to decide when this law is going to imply to an injured officer and in because the pension fund  itself to the point that he could not continue with his activity as a police officer great that's one analysis but how about this that because of the car accident that was the tipping point for the injury to his hand isn't it initial  saying well it's difficult to know exactly when that injury occurred that's one of the problems and no exit let's do it at the time that the that the pension fund decides that it's it's a catastrophic injury because it's too hard to always the term when the actual injury a curse and but in this instance we have a a discrete injury that occurs in one thousand nine hundred two and the two thousand injury from the car accident is not a contributing factor and so we're bound by what the pension fund was well actually that was the subject it was hit hard in the reply brief so you know as a lawyer you sit in your office you get the reply read can you see yourself wow did i did i do something wrong here so i can assure you that i've checked very carefully and i will say quite frankly i was disappointed in counsel's argument because the case that he cites that supports his proposition that i had to cross appeal actually stands for the opposite proposition i think the better dead but could use a colloquial term it was uncool to be the the court as justice per pointed out very clear i received all the relief that i had asked for the case was dismissed the case law says that it would be inappropriate for me to file a cross appeal so i think hopefully the coroner stands and i think that i still have that argument on appeal i pose in a trial sexual abuse case could not be used to revive a case that was previously banned under the statute of limitations and so i would respectfully suggest that the no a decision is not is that the statute of limitations whether it's five years which we think is the appropriate statute of limitations because there was a twelve year delay there is no there is no conceivable statute of limitations that would fact that would have to be looked at i suppose because it is conceivable that there was a phone call it may not have been through a formal letter if you you know with the village realizes in two thousand and one his pension doubt he's no longer with  pensioner and the village denied to perceive a benefits than two years later a lawyer writes a letter and says hey you know what the crow he case was decided we think that you guys should still pay proceed on this i don't know why the village didn't make a formal response and in fact i haven't even checked to see if there possibly was one that wasn't contained in the record we never got to the point never felt that that was an important inquiry for resolution of this matter on the summer yes all the facts were there and i don't think that and i think i and again i tell him if you choose to why the village didn't respond i'm going to suggest that the village didn't really have an obligation to respond to the failed to respond wasn't inappropriate in ordinances and the requirement or the filing of those annual appropriation ordinances and there is a good amount of case law that toxin about municipal obligations in that way this case would have a large retroactively go back and require the payment of health insurance premiums for the last twelve plus years and then for the future obviously the village could budget forward in the future but i'm i'm doing this off the top of my litigation at this point the fire statue of limitations is is done so that you're not going to have anyone coming form saying hey i was injured back in two thousand i think i have read the file the semen up but it's just not going to happen is that it's clear that based on a five or statue of