The court cites the Coleman case. That was a Chapter $13$ proceeding. Here were the facts: Debtor had not yet completed her payments under her five$-$year repayment plan, and no discharge order had yet been entered; one year into the plan, she was laid off work. She had been trying to repay her student loans for several years, and she claimed she would suffer hardship in committing to the five$-$year repayment plan without any guarantee that her student loan obligations would be discharged, since she was required to commit all of her disposable income to payments under the plan and would likely be forced to pursue undue hardship issue pro se upon completion of the plan. In Coleman, the court held that Debtor could, postfiling but predischargeone year into the five$-$year planbring up the hardship issue.Now, in the case here, after the auto accident, the petitioner subsists on Social Security disability payments, and she has almost $$150,000$ in debt, yet the court prohibited her from claiming a hardship discharge of student loans. Does this result really make sense? Is the courts concern that allowing this postdischarge relief would mean that a bankruptcy discharge is a perpetual license to discharge student loans based on events that occur years after the bankruptcy discharge is granted well founded? Suppose it is scheduled to take thirty years to pay off student loans; in year $4,$ the student$-$borrower, now Debtor, declares Chapter $7$ bankruptcy, student loans not being discharged; in year $6,$ the person is rendered disabled. What public policy is offended if the person is allowed to reopen the bankruptcy and use the postbankruptcy event as a basis for claiming a hardship discharge of student loans?