Not splitting hairs at all. The term "permanent" in the form in question either has a legal meaning, deliniating a line of expected 45 days of incapacity (that is how I construe it, and supported my construction with citations); or has a meaning that reflects a medical diagnosis and prognosis.
If you insist that this is hair splitting, then I am inclined to conclude my contribution to our dialoge.
If you insist that this is hair splitting, then I am inclined to conclude my contribution to our dialoge.
"Whether dementia or some other cause, both indicated and appear to agree the condition is "permanent."
That's in the documents of both parties as you have seen. Nothing to split, it's right there, both parties.
What the legal interpretation of this may be another matter, but they agreed to the wording.