treatment still is a person who has a set of records which are her own mental health records which are protected by a very important confidentiality statute that has been in place here in illinois for many years known as the mental health confidentiality and developmental disabilities act and on her behalf i filed suit in the county circuit court to redress various violations of that act as well as other wrongs that it was our hands were done in the course of an undermining case in the in that underlying case this duo had brought a suit disputing the validity allegations were among other things that those were done by and do influence on the part of mr sr and who was one of the defendants there was one of the defendants here and it was the attorney for attorneys there's contains no exemption for anyone to violate the act in effect on the contrary the act itself does provide that any person aggrieved by a violation of this act may sue for damages including attorney's fees yes indeed the legislature had contended that the mental health confidential that the confidential you know scuse me confidentiality of mental health records should be super confidentiality sorry mental health confidentiality act violations he absolutely asian applies no there has not been such a case and that's why i made my surgical point but comes to mind when you make that argument is that the legislature  defendants are common law causes of action defamation negligent intentional infliction of emotional distress breach of contract none of those are statutory and that's what makes this di or not the expert head examined the mothers or the daughter is correct that the issue was raised only by think attorney for the defendant would then be used with somebody i don't believe it did because miss still herself had or not provided for them in a home for you is correct correct and in fact at the very end of that have the order there's a provision in this says this order does not excuse compliance with mental health confidentiality and so i believe it indeed lindsey even though there had been no order whatsoever to her and i believe that records were received in response i was not in in the underlying litigation at that point but if that is a good point your honor and i defendants declined to respond to that let's go back to the issue of the privilege yes if if there is a requirement in the act that the order for these records be might not apply i believe it does sound yes i have first of all that is indeed a specific requirement in the mental health confidentiality it is required that when a record subpoena is issued for mental health records the order authorizing such that you need to be issued must be attached to the order in this case as to that first subpoena mr lindsey issued there was no order to the attorney the issue in this unit to first of all do it follow all of those procedures but only after a couple of things have happened to me that the court has made a finding that the recipient herself has placed her mental health  issue and that kind of orders this is a clean authorizing such mental health records to be issued the ins is entered with a notice to the mental health providers who then have the opportunity to come and present objections if me and i'm encouraging people that if not encouraging then at least allowing people to feel free to seek mental health treatment just as we want to encourage people to seek substance abuse treatment exactly for example this deal will she now being likely to file suit for something wrong which she believe has been done to her i think she will be very reticent to do so unless this off with the thought it a party like the plaintiff should not long wait and allow the force of the action to occur in one litigation indeed even if even encouraged the in an alleged violation of the act and the it seems to be counter intuitive that those things would would sit side by side in some way well if you hear the simple answer that is because there are situations that occur where the plane is the person interested in the place to go and consider because that's that's exactly soon was happening here so you know the defendant can't face the chilling effect of being afraid to do something especially when there's a court supervising everything in there that they are working with the other party to get to a point where they can find the truth because that's her with this is all about had had been able to explore this further had to see the final problem is a case where the judge and the parties who are trying to get to this determination i agree it's important to terminate where the vital health has been placed in the issue and the parties were trying to get there but they didn't get there in this case the other cases they did if the legislature wanted to but there is something street say you know callahan that that if i can't remember if that's a defamation or the invasion of privacy but there's history in the law for him in those particular areas it's about what issues are or maybe because other courts are more specific in how they follow it and they abide by the responsibility so i guess the issue is more money my bottom line question is why should we why should i do take issue with several points raised by mr sorenson first of all as i pointed out in my reply if the defendants have misstated the sequence of events the plan if you did not lie in wait and wait to wait until the underlying piece was concluded before filing this suit that we're hearing today instead as i point out on page eight in my reply brief the plaintiff the original complaint was originally filed attempted to seek redress from judge error but recall that mr lindsey attorney lindsay was not a party in that underlying case a logistical question comes up well if it was expected that mr resolve all nowhere in the record indicating so and i think is your honor just as hutchison has has suggested that the mental health act cannot be modified by agreement of the parties or even if it were that does not affidavit which i prepared for her the underlying chase it does indicate that she never gave her then attorney mr would come commission to give her record