good afternoon your owners they please the court this is my nd zoom oral argument to say that i don't know if i'll ever become accustomed to this but it is necessary under the circumstances this court is called upon to decide whether the circuit court can properly assert special jurisdiction over a wisconsin corporation in the business of recruiting physicians for permanent or loc tenens placement in hospitals across the nation not to remain consistent with due process the court may only exercise specific jurisdiction where it finds a substantial connection with the for of action arose out of or relates to the defendant's conduct conduct contact with the foreign state as one court explained this is the sum or a decision specific jurisdiction  confined to adjudication of issues deriving from or connected with the very controversi the the critical question in this case is the manner in which our courts determine whether a cause of action arises out of or it relates to the defendant's contact with  in russell b s n f a the illinois supreme court addressed this issue head on holding that if the defendant's contacts with the form states are related to the operative facts of the are devoted entirely and limited to actual practice of medicine no it's undisputed that erling can have no knowledge of dr  nor did it have any supervisory control over his medical decisions burlington plays no role whatsoever in the actual medical treatment provided by the physicians it offers replacement is it q brought to say well they are the reason this doctor was that this hospital practicing medicine and they're the reason this doctor had the opportunity to work on  but that the contract was on it's his but evaluation final approval in credential ng that's left ringback this and then then we have the the independent fact is burlington would be paid a portion of dr choudhry hourly wage regardless of whether he even seems of age because of this burlington is not in the practice in the business o sion the samples were analyzed diagnostic reports were made and those diagnostic reports were sent to the physician who relied upon those reports in his treatment of the  patient in other words the cost of decision describes a medical malpractise case where the out of state direct defendant was directly involved in the provision of medical care the trust of division as the cause of  sion is being exactly the opposite of what d we have in the case of bar where the out of state defendant had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in the actual practice of medicine that the physicians it refers are independent contractors that the final decision as to whether he should be hired and what he should do what his duties will be in the hospital what paragraph regarding medical malpractise insurance and under the contract the burlington states that if the doctor choudhry or blessing hospital if they are only able to provide medical malpractise of rich burlington can arrange for that coverage and then in the following sentence it says and any twenty of the negligent treatment should be reported to them and i believe that that should be read in conjunction with the option of scening medical malpractise insurance through burlington burlington can provide that you know they're not seeking your progression of malpracti if there has been a claim we'd like to know about it and i think the vent only makes sense if you're in the business for referring to the physicians placement we've already said in the opening paragraph of the contract that we were performing preliminary check references and credentials i think that this would fall right into place with  so under the circumstances of this case where we have established ready to my mind without question the fact that we have an independent contractor it was simply an forseeable that we would be hailed into court to defend playing for medical malpractise when we had absolutely no presentation of facts that warrant personal jurisdiction and that it is fair to require a wisconsin company to defend a claim here when that defendant profits from the provision of illinois doctors the reason that the doctor was present to treat the patient the answer to that question is absolutely yes it is burlington's entire business model to place doctors into illinois hospitals to treat only patients and then accept a portion of the hourly wage that doctor earns treating illinois patients and counsels examples that  these arguments about perhaps an equipment company that is present in the hospital might also be found liable i respectfully would suggest that you'd be unlikely under the circumstances that counsel presented to see an agency claim like we have here and i think the agency issue is one that i'd like to address in a few moments but i also where you're gone mr gates you can i ask  doctor lessee best case scenario for you and you just as cavanagh that's that's an excellent question because even without the benefit of agency discovery in this case i'm the limited jurisdictional discovery that we conducted there is evidence of control we have a contract that obligates burlington to pay the doctor directly we have a doctor who has to submit his availability to burlington so that burlington can relay it to the hospital we have evidence of representatives of burlington negotiating rates with the hospital for the work that dr charger would ultimately be performing at this hospital and we have evidence that there is an executive assistant at burlington that is assisting in the ass bacillus any information for the credentialing of dr choudhry at us and hospital and why is this important because every step along the way we have generated as a result of that treatment ok so you've answered my question and with regards to what control over the taint now link that if you can to the operative facts  i think i can your honor thank you for that question i think it can be it can be put very simply very starkly with the understanding that counsel admitted at the hearing on the motion to dismiss at the trial court stage that this was consequently had contacts with illinois there is no doubt about the connection arising out of this to burlington early time sent those hours to the hospital received payment for the time that dr choudhry spent treating ginger hasbrook and that treatment is what is alleged d to be negligent here as a result of care provided by early tends alleged age and that's how we tie these contacts back to the operative facts of plaintiff's complaint and i think if i if i might your honour's address the argument that this doctor was an independent contractor i think illinois case law is very clear that the determination of agency is not made based on the parties private designations of their relationship and in fact if i might read from fifty point one of the only pattern jury instructions where it jury in an agency case which is classically a question of fact the issue of agency would be instructive here under these circumstances that the term agent is broader than either servants or employee a servant or employee is an agent but one may be an agent although he is neither servant or employee and we have seen in in countless cases and state of illinois folks who have been privately designated independent contractors found to be agents we can look at the york decision the gilbert decision in true beef with clients complaint here which is that it would appear from the papers that it's their impression that plaintiff can't prove an agency case under these circumstances i would submit respectfully that that's not true given the evidence of agency saying whether or not it's fair and reasonable to ask this wisconsin company to be held into court here and i think if we framed the inquiry correctly the question is is it fair to require it health care providers and a business relationship with a blessing hospital that dates back to two thousand and nine is it fair to ask that defendant to to answer for alleged torture the answer is yes i don't think there's any question about it there is little to no burden on a defendant to have to answer answer defend a claim in a state where it conducts substantial business as this record has demonstrated there are  there is the notion that burlington made money in it was what come into play and are now things i think it does your honor i think it does because we have very strong evidence in this record that burlington has failed itself purposely of the privileges of doing business in this state and if you look at the supreme court's language in  which was a decision where a french company was held in a court no more that court wrote that by engaging a business entity in illinois it's clear that the french manufacture defend benefited from illinois laws infrastructure and business and here we've had evidence that's demonstrated in this case that this was constant defendant is attempting to benefit from the illinois market for health care services which necessarily means they make money performing services well let me rephrase my question does the fact that they made money does that go to you whether or not  because i wonder if you can't demonstrate that it's part of the opportune facts do we even get to read your argument if i think we i think you can find if i'm understanding  as holder what your question correctly when we're conducting the the analysis to determine whether these contacts are related to the operative facts we have a lot of language you know in our case record as the court pointed out at the beginning of this argument this doctor wouldn't have and they're treating this patient but for burlington's placement of this doctor in this hospital this is a this is a business that is predicated entirely upon obtaining obtaining payment for treatment services provided by the doctors is placed in an eye medical facilities and because of that placement this patient point you're familiar with the united states supreme court case of russia in context of this matter and essentially paraphrased but the issue there was an insurance policy you seem to be or you seem to be arguing the terms of the contract between senate ospital and we're not talking as much about the underlying facts of the counts so in sort of context that holding can speak to that because we do seem to be talking about the agreement more than we are the underlying facts that make up the counts in this matter so i certainly believe that the agreement there's there's there's no question that he's the medical jargon that was provided is related to this stance information's relationship with blessing hospital in addition to the contract under agency given the contract says that the doctor was an independent contractor i don't think it's necessary for this court to determine and make a ruling point the fact that we are contracting labels to an independent contractor the controlling issue here is is control supervisory control could we