straightforward record that deal simply with the grant of summary judgment by the trial judge judge when in april of two thousand and seventeen which was a road to the straightforward ruling in which judge plan after a lot of argument kind of exposed to express concluded that abass majority of the class he had certified because they were medicaid recipients did not actually have an injury that could support or tort for the case to go forward and there were based on that conclusion he granted partial summary judgment now the issue before this court i respect suggest is pretty simple and i phrase it simply as in a tort case where the planet is only claiming a financial injury that's all and that type of tort case with only a financial injury  that they have pled towards that basically is a tort that law is a false advertising case based on the fact that these defendants manufactured lead white pigment that could be hazardous to children and so the so so that so then the question is what is the injury that they claim and it once claim i think is pretty simple also the police claim that they took the kids in to get sprayed for these and when they took them in bait the kids then got screen for minor children got screened for the lead test and they claim that the it spans of having to lead test administered by a medical provider is a is a is a expense that they are claiming as a financial loss injury and this case they have one major problem with that the evidence is without dispute no doubt about it these plaintiffs the two in this case that were forty one dollars as a class were presented just for the class they did not pay for the less screening tests medicate paid for they did not pay for they were not built for it they had no obligation to pay it in fact under illinois law no one can collect that from them because they were accepted as medica patients by the providers and because of that it will all on its face to protect medicaid recipients says no one can command for you after you've been accepted as a no no matter what happens later or there's nobody that can command after you and claim that you have to pay this money back or anything like that and i'll come to some of the plane apartments in a minute but but that that's at the heart rate judge lynn said there's proof things are not based on what i respectfully say is a misapplication of an elderly statute that's called the family expense and then i'm going to have to talk about that a little detail here data because that's that's that the major research think before before the court because the the only record out just misapplied that statute and so i'm going to roll through that so i have three different issues that we have no british but i'm going to start with the family because i think it's the most important one and i actually think it's the only one the school really has to address because if you will green with us about the family expenses i'm not sure you need to get to any other issues in the case but we can talk about back home the family  xpenses is a relatively simple statute itself and it kind of causes spiced common law which basically says that parents are responsible for the expenses of their minor children  if there was actually medical expenses incurred by east parents then clearly under the family expense act on that and they paid for it they they are obligated and they could they have rights of action because they're all the patients but i don't use the word expense there never was an expense that had any reason to apply the statute because there was no i that i just mentioned that are there not i don't think that that that the plainest didn't didn't work bill ford they didn't pay for medicaid paperwork and they had no obligation to pay for it and it and by the way this led screen test is a cover never cake expense and so i don't think the plainest even on even argue that that that  for the medical expenses of their minor children that's what the statute says so then the appellate court just took that language and assumes that these parents are obligated for the medical expenses because there were medical expenses when in fact the record shows that there were no medical expenses of the reste statute i don't think applies is that the court simply made a mistake and interpret it in the s and did not consider that there were never any medical expenses incurred by the plaintiffs ob then there would be nothing to apply to states or to and it would have no application in this particular case and by the way suggested that the family expense act creates a legal obligation occupation i parent just because they took the kid to get medical tests and then they didn't get charged word and they did paperwork but there are four simple because the act uses the word expense we should assume that every time a parent wants a kid into a doctor's office that their whatever happens that day they're obligated for it and that's just not that's not the law that's not what the facts are in this case and i respect we think that's where the i think that's where the court went wrong now they play it makes two arguments to kind of get around this earth to deal with it i want to talk done without medicaid and the test would be done and the doctor would merely will tell and i guess the day you got the bill you had an obligation and if you paid the bill you had to walk into court and say that you had a medical because you covered that book none of that happened this or there's just nothing like that here the facts are exactly the opposite exactly the opposite these children were treated  they were accepted as a medicaid patient i thought it was billed to medicaid no one has come to know the city bills of the plaintiffs and all claiming that you should you have to pay no one no one has if you can actually prove that because of the tort you were actually suffered an actual financer out of pocket loss that's what you got to prove you could actually walk into court and prove they were actually had an actual out of pocket laws where you're going  and they have no financial loss and so that's right because the nature of this case i think the claim is very very weak they make one other order though and i want to address it the the repealed as having cost that injury that the state paid for the state under some limited circumstances can do something to recruit but what they can do has nothing to do with going after the parents so the parent has nothing to do with this what medicate can do based on that statute it could sue the twenty's or directly for the medical expenses it could have if the state paper that they could put this judge when talked about this extensively in this summary judgment ruling then the state could get a lien and they could only recover the bike in this case they could recover the amount of these re rs but they could never go after the parents and so the parent would never have a financial loss the parent under no circumstances would the parent might lose part of the judgment but the parent would never have a financial last name that the parent ever the issue in this case is did the parents have a financial loss because odds those medical tests and the answer is no suggest when anticipated this argument and said that only just doesn't apply because it doesn't create a financial loss through or are up for these parents also i mentioned past that statute that we could just as i'm talking about only applies to physical sale and injury that arises out of the tort right and that's why we kind of think we have to know what is the nature of the story now consumer fraud well not so let me explain so they promoted  rest their products are now prevalent in our community certain communities and the legislature said well because of the problems risky products in the communities we now are going to we're wired and it's medically necessary you're claiming is economic here so my question to you is was there any economic laws show yes your honor and let me explain so we agree with and they made this point that you had there's a difference between injury and damages as a restatement sac and says injury is an invasion of a right they meet this is the amount of money the here's what is the injury the injury was i didn't have liability my clients did not have a liability for the leg what led screening of their children until point my clients ask and i obligated a liability for the cost of their children's lives because under under the family expense this court said you grovel at his right to recover for that depends on his liability for those expenses in other words if he was liable to pay those expenses he could sue the underlying court person to call  their parent has a separate cause of action or expenses medical expenses of their children if they were liable for those expenses in order purses children's memorial the issue was becomes ok if we say that damages are what the amount necessary to satisfy in this case the cost of the medical bills made clear that if there  but in the cases where the parents are suing for the recovery of the matter let's say it has nothing to do with the underlying injury the parent's right to recover medical expenses has to do with their question of why ability in the st instance then you go to the question of damages again which should be said damages are simply the amount necessary to discharge that likability that we all of a sudden have because of the defendant just a couple of the questions about what the tories by the way so i said that judge player said it was it was false advertising claim he said he said that in a shorthand friend to be firm this is a financial loss case it is they don't deny it it is a financial loss case eleanor hall says two things if you're going to deal with the financial loss certainty you're going to have and without that you cannot proceed on an injury theory a financial loss and on the nd point counsel said we don't have that either so i believe those answers that were given by  blood testing i don't know how he's using the word incur because there was no that is the emma's just overwhelmed they did not incur the expenses and then counsel said well if we went to a free clinic and eight services for free we would have still had an injury as a counselor just said so i don't understand the weather power council i actually don't understand that or i don't understand the argument that they have incurred calculate damages and it has not a method to create an injury and so here they are misusing the chloral source will which council didn't really get into but in their brief what they're arguing is that they are all arguing that the cardinal source rule should actually be used as a nice to calculate it injury there is no case in the united states that has ever held that none at all that i can find at all now recently is not held  actually had a financial loss so they have no injury so there is nothing for the chloral source rule to apply to because we're not going to get to damages based on this record because you don't get to damages until you actually suffered an injury that supports the tort and that's what just windsor ring was now an interesting question which i don't believe probably i don't think this court needs to get to the cotterell source rule at all  and that they don't they have not suffered any injury you don't even need to talk about the collateral source rule at all now the one issue i would respectfully ask if you could address his our standing argument not because it has to be decided but ju said our standing issue was interesting but then didn't rule on it in the paula court didn't rule on it and that standing issue is important we think because it's the same reason under illinois law for