brief so this is nothing new during the first initial go round of this case this is our second time in front of the court's first time having arguments the first opinion that came down from this or was was one of just the briefs but prior to that the attorney general's office and myself entered into both the stipulation of facts as well as this specific issues in the wording of those issues and we went back and forth and there were multiple changes on both sides  argumentative presentation the issues or the facts and for that that was assigned by the attorney general's office and myself and filed by the attorney general's office and as part of the record on appeal for that to suddenly change the response for the first time on the second to feel we are going to be inappropriate so the introduction of medicare was specifically decided and excluded we are not going to fight that fight at this time because that would have opened up a plethora of discovery and there were other issues that went into why both sides agreed that the nursing home care act applied in this case so for the introduction of medicare a warrant to open up the medicare rabbit hole if we're going to go down that  reimbursement program substitute the words blue cross and blue shield for medicare and medicaid that's what it is it does not prevent it is not mandatory it's a voluntary program that's what it is that's what medicare medicaid gets you're not required to take it you're not required to accept it or not required to participate in it if everyone is going to princes of hate it there's separate contracts for which no one has proven he among the other if the state chooses to accept federal funding for medicare medicaid action under medicare or medicaid and this is why this is important because residents soon nursing homes under the nursing home care act because there is no private right of action under medicare medicaid because it's a voluntary reimbursement insurance program if i don't have to follow the nursing home care act yet somehow i have to follow the rules of medicare and medicaid even though those rules have nothing to do with the pretty of the departments in terms of my relationship with accepting a reduced r for patients for medicare medicaid i'm so does it ensued with the collection of attorneys figures which is why the nursing home care act is somewhat very very staunch in the state of illinois one of the few statutes that allows for the collection of attorney medicare medicaid they don't license homes it's a voluntary insurance reimbursement program cross blue shield so the nursing home care act which is what the department of public health has the statutory right  that the state was required to publish a set of guidelines for the hearings it's never happened i don't know how to have a hearing under the medicare medicaid guidelines if there are that's definitely a problem for the state because in their brief although we didn't address it in their reply brief and it wasn't brought up earlier they indicate to this court see there's a whole lot of differences between what medicare blue cross blue shield requires  state so this is not a made up science fiction figure that we face in terms of the cause of action being brought into the nursing home for a wrongful discharge or failing to comply with a nursing home at guidelines related to discharge so that is why we believe that the medicare medicaid it doesn't pretend this is a maritime law this is not a health lab of the government has come in and said similar to the f d a or something we're preempting this is national health we're taking care of it there is no preemption with medicare medicaid no such provision was cited in the brief that you have from the department of public health there is no preemption it's a voluntary insurance program i can run the nursing home and not have medicare medicaid it doesn't preempt anything your honor nor that they set forth any of the guidelines for their contractual relationship to hold the hearing that way or how i'm obligated to do it or how the president those arguments which were included in this case additional discovery we didn't take we both decided to agree to limit it to the nursing home care act and that's why that little decision was made now i understand i don't believe that they're trying to pull a fast one on this court i believe that the attorney general's my personal opinion who handled this case doesn't work there anymore on the first one and maybe a new attorney came in and didn't understand the background i'll speculate that that's why they did what they did but the agreement set  included the issues and the choice of law over a job because they were negotiated over a long period of time including our first appeal but there was very issues i don't think that maybe the department wanted to go down or deal with or do additionally at the time this occurred quite frankly she was in a medicare medicaid percipient anyway she's fine it may still be even if this voluntary insurance program somehow preempted state law and took over the state's wall which i don't know how it can do because it's mandated that the state agency do it until it this way into the nursing home care act it would have applied to this resident anyway and she was a medicare medicaid keep that license and operate my business so what is the timeframe and when directly asked by the court i do ph that when all you know it's more than ten more than fourteen but maybe the legislature should deal with that well they did they then use those words in other places under the act but as it relates to discharge and transfers the state came up with the thirty four day formula i'm speculating does i'm not a legislature but the argument i'm going to make to you is because that balance the constitutionality of the state mandating that i feed clothe and provide for resident who isn't paying against the cost of doing business and thirty four probably seems most reasonable infinity there's no way happens that that's not a fair expeditious hearing under in the statute much less the woman on front of us so we believe that that the language of the wall should be applied because there is a public interest exception in having the statute follow lead that it's necessary for there to be an onset in the not set in terms of where we got this formula from because again you're dealing with the state mandating and not reimbursing facilities for keeping residents for in the teen amount of time and that's not appropriate so we're asking that that interpretation additionally we're also hopefully nine months comes and i think that hearing will miss out those are the three reasons for discharge so to say that the resident has a protected right what's the protected right of the residents a stay in facility and abuse of the residents there is not that's the protected right to stand in a facility are coming from nowhere as opposed to waiting used to do which is following the timelines so what we're asking is for an interpretation because there are you know there is a public interest in whether or not the state can take as long as it takes to do there's been no relief granted it is discharged in these deadlines are nothing compared to what we're experiencing now this was the beginning of what is now happening and what turned into thirty days is turning in now to six months nine months a year o federal law provide context of the framework that applies overall and also provide evidence of legislating infinity and that's not what a metaphor a directory question is looking at mandatory interpretation means bromide supreme court has given us a residents by cutting off their rights to a hearing and saying they can be properly removed based on attenuated possibilities of additional costs down the road so imposed on these types of hearing as well there's a whole remark of steps that occur in the here and that's going to just for others here and with the legislatures also incorporated that into this type of hearing those are going to take some time so we're dealing with considerations into account i don't believe that the legislature intended those considerations to take precedence over the right of residence to not be subject involuntary removal home without a fair hearing because the nursing home care at first and foremost of the case was in a court and this is geared toward the protection of residents there are other that the legislature intended this c sections to have a drudgery construction as well the rights of residence is is a very big part of that  it if the time frames are not strictly complied with than the department's ability to act is cut off for that reason and that reason alone in every case regardless of the reason why the time frame is format that's all you're being asked to decide not about potential cases and other causes of action that could have happened that didn't happen and  i'm saying something more specific than that i'm not saying there's no time limit at all i'm saying that just blackberry reading does one thing only a directory reading says action outside that facilities interests are any legislative concern i don't believe that we can conclude that the legislature intended them to take precedence over the residents right really the department's role in that process because you need a district order from the department and it talks about how the situations to make plans that promote residence health and safety and welfare in this case the president is ninety seven years old he and gerry concluded that initial time would be required for orderly transition and we think  year so there are a lot of factors that go into why a direct reconstruction is worth if they are going over in detail in the briefs i know there is a case from this court that construed a different provision is  mandatory i think there are differences there are there is a more recent illinois supreme court framework there's different provision different district language and ultimately they are in that case the department is being penalized for not acting within existence and then get stuck on with the bill when you don't pay there's nothing to collect as the state doesn't have any assets it's great it's called state planning in illinois now unfortunately and it didn't used to be which is why there's no case law on this issue they used to follow the hours now they don't and i know one of the point i want to make is this court and often rightfully so low that about the facility and who it in essence by the state not acting within the mandates of the legislature and the language was clear not suggesting that in not acting within those time periods the state is requiring a private body to pay and to assume that burden and what right do they have i'll tell y of it it's just you know that this is definitely a pressing issue and there's no potential here there's actual we know what happens in this case we know in this case that's why we had to wait to bring this case with these facts and despite impacting the rights of both the general public in the state not acting within the time period as valid as the rights of a third party whose president who is a party to this option and then by the state not hold a hearing four days under for eleven to issue a final order and ten days to the facility under four thirteen when you are the result you reach the figures thirty four days why is that interesting because surprisingly of the maximum period of time that he should have to maintain a resident your cost and also applied it fairly if someone dot a hearing date sooner than the thirty four days still applies to everyone who is treated equally among the system and nursing man and i should always think that there are various homes in the state of illinois there are certain homes called assisted living where you don't need skilled care there are certain homes that are just retirement homes and they're not licensed by the state at all and then there homes nursing homes and nursing homes are licensed specifically for a set number of bad spies the state you must have a certificate of the state must tell you there's a number of this many beds that are necessary in this  geographic area so once they determine that you're entitled to a certificate and need to get licensed by the state and you can have the facility you can except a resident unless the state says that they have a need which is why one of the reasons for discharge is their need may change and  all active and all the other things that the transcript indicated so this was not a case of a dementia patient or anything else in terms of any of these arguments that the state needs more time  all we can say is that's not a reason to second guess what the legislature said this act in fact was amended the nursing home care act was amended in twenty fourteen at that time that there were more than term care counsel this president the illinois department of public was present and there were a few other individuals that from the community that were selected to meet on this committee to draft the amendments to the nursing home care act to see if they could reach of public consensus for presentation to the legislature well i don't she didn't cite any actual cases for medicare medication said in effect or all cases in every the original argument which is why i'm a little confused was you shouldn't apply it at all get she did naturally give you another test to apply but then the argument became