I read a little more about it. They are saying that she was entitled to claim workman's comp, but refused to do so. She has thus far refused benefits to which she was/is entitled.

Their theory is that whatever damages are eventually assessed in this case should not include the benefits she is entitled to receive separate and apart from the case. This would be important if she is awarded triple damages, for example. They are effectively arguing that the medical bills shouldn't be tripled, even if every other claim is.

It's a technical point, but likely a solid one.