under to six one now what we understand happened in the drucker below is that the judge decided that the johnson case required a particular standard which we the standard under two six one nine eighty nine and a situation where there was a complete negation of the integrity of the complaint is whether or not this mess was proper as a matter of law so the cases need to be harmon and whatever the supreme court was trying to st john's it appears that they suggest that multiplicity of twenty is what is required to establish some sort of therapeutic relationship with any other profession and that is not the law and it never has been what i was taught in law school and it's still the case that a one time encounter with a professional putting myself or another birth oddity cannot be the same the supreme court didn't mention what the standard was in johnston but through the process of elimination if we can eliminate the a one time encounter with no intention of ever having another encounter again with what he intended to be involved in history for at least one year so whatever the stand who did this we think it was matter in this and the negligent misrepresentation there is no requirement of the direct statement and that's where we later crude analogy to the termite inspector who who pays for the service is seventh order which he claims should be preserved which is a violation of illinois supreme court rule three forty one which requires that some reference be made regarding obviate all the allegations where the court said that the act is it only applies to people entering a therapeutic relationship with clients and they base that finding and to legislate by looking at the life and the discussions that they had so i think what we can glean from that even though their kids relationship is not defined in the act the courts require that first that they're move that a person meet the seeking treatment in order to be covered under the confidentiality and second that once they have entered treatment those conversations those records are protected under the act in this case there is no indication no allegation that the defendant ever he also furthermore the defendant's prepared a report stating that it did that the plane must seek treatment and that they were not in there's no allegations that they were ten and ministered the fitness for duty evaluation and it was not there to be this their case they were not seeking treatment he was just recognize who saw it as one thing and one thing only and that is for good evaluation and that's one week's johnson important and that's what makes johnson controlling in this case now while the facts are different that makes no difference because the whole thing is clear that there must be a therapeutic relationship with the confidentiality actual there's not one here the difference between the worst hype and breda is the fact that there is that there the defendants there are already involved in any therapeutic relationship those another party to breach of contract and in this case was exactly the same case as turner vs watcher nack ace it looked at they had the same exact situation where a was hired to do in some way you know in a malicious man there was no sort of intention or intention and you know it was completely unjustified there are allegations that he violated  laded section five of the confidentiality act by by bringing forth these statements that it wasn't supposed to prove forth but that's not enough there's nothing here on these allegations that show that somehow that violation this case even assuming that there is somehow some sort of proximate statements that were made if we get to the point of the next three elements then we have to look at where was who was the statement made to the sta it was their actually that allegedly cost the the plaintiffs damages here he tries to put in self in the position of the actor and that no direct statement needs to be made but however his attempt to grant spoils that was not alleged in the complaint but that was squarely before the trial for a while for purposes of the two six one nine but it's the cases are different because of the suit there's a lot of difference between this case and what happened with johnson and we think this is much more like the north park situation about us not alleging damages as a result of the statements about the plaintiff in his record which is the point you have to rely upon yes we did  see the plaintiff had to go seek treatment he did that wasn't true he's still paying the bills we allege those damages you know whether or not he can he's stopped for going after work related damages