alleged lie where she claimed of came to her instead are there any plot problems on the unit and she said no the problem and that's all the evidence there is of any improper means the communicated to plenty of if you have eight doing business with the persecution you eat and be doing business with in order for eight interfere with these relationship with he communicate or somehow you know rock that relationship here what we have is a communicating the b and b and c relationship coming to an end there's there's no connection there when is w congar and talk to him about that was frustrated and consequently wrote a letter saying that she'd knowledge the tension on the unit and agreed she would start rounding except on her patients so that's the only that score was their patients came in and said they supported her and they talked talked about communications with different folks that legacy only communication with ms weiss fewer that could even come remotely close to an she didn't meet with the pediatricians vickie enjoyer did and there's no evidence that any of their statements were wrongful have the joy you will both exonerated by the jury so again you have to look at each step  that you don't get to mention together and come up with an answer for means so that's why i hope that answers your question but i think when you look at that record and look at what was said what was done she can just make the credential statement in the abstract correct and that's part of it but the other party is there's no evidence whatsoever in the record that she suffered any damage flowing from any interference with  doing and therefore she acted through by five and i don't think so because there was no evidence that they were acting on behalf of legacy so you'd have to look at and you know they w not going to sponsor her anymore and he terminated the sponsorship and that's really where the image plugs from to the extent there was damage was in her not being able to go into the hospital  second issue that i'd like to talk about briefly is the immunity statute there are going to last and it's our position that the case has to be reversed because this statute makes everything that was said and done in the case communicating with them in good faith it's very nice to be communicating in connection with the grant in her restriction or combination of privileges no it doesn't it goes beyond that that's one of the realms of it but it sort of thing but if it is the legislature has made the decision that once you get past the threshold of good faith whatever goes on in the promotion of health care just i mean that be is just what the record what in the records available for it is going to disregard totally as they seem to have disregarded most of of the things favorable to the point of their argument is there because they're scarborough there's to your client misleading or whatever they might be they don't really matter because they don't kind of trail over to the bright continue to provide services but obviously she could not perform services any longer in the hospital to the people that wanted to see her there statements to the patients in similar statements back to the other providers continue doing what she had done it and what she wanted to do for the patient she still were was entitle to work with the children's clinic for example because she could not go in and sit with them  them even visit them or try to create a relationship by continuing their their social relationship even if it was that much you know hospital so that they would be elite used for services after the and hold the parent or the corporation liable or are there some places that talk about your position which is basically you can take a little bit from each one even if assume that everything she said was false then you've got the fact that in draw me acted on their own investigations there's no evidence that anything she said influenced their actions so in the evidence which i'm contradicted that what they found was exactly what had been reported to them by weiss kapor so you don't have the improper means that's the problem with the conflation of the evidence example improper means violation of a common law rule for statute you could have a violation of a privileged provision for example that would be inadvertent perfectly in good faith rather bizarre but we don't have any of those things here w