the worker’s marriage for injuries received during the marriage are the separate property of the worker after the dissolution. The judgment and findings of the trial court are affirmed. EUBANK, P. J. and HAIRE, J., concurring. 1 . 118 Ariz. at 580-82, 578 P.2d at 1009-11. Judge Jacobson reaches the conclusion that “pure disability” benefits, such as workmen’s compensation, after divorce, are the separate property of the disabled party. However, he reasoned that after divorce the benefits are acquired by lucrative title (or gift) and are therefore separate property. We disagree with his reasoning. Since the facts of Flowers involved civil service disability payments, reference to workmen’s compensation is only dictum. 2 . See Flowers v. Flowers, 118 Ariz. 577, 578 P.2d 1006 (App.1978) (<HOLDING>); Provinzano v. Provinzano, 116 Ariz. 571, 570
holding that disability benefits are not retirementtype benefits holding railroad retirement benefits are not community property by congressional action holding disability benefits from us civil service are community property holding military service disability payments are community property holding that disability pension benefits could be offset against both temporary and total permanent disability compensation benefits