senior vice president became a supervisor in and around that same time a new medical record policy between place when that new medical record electronic medical records system was implemented side project of making the system more well you're out of the way i would answer that is that it was one of her tasks to help implement that but i would say that she had to report to her direct supervisors cheap herself could you know would have to report to her supervisors that you know in this case if she had concerns that policies that were in place were not hearing to proper standards and policies regarding confidentiality of the disclosure of patient records so to answer your question yes she was in a position of responsibility but i would point out that ultimately she had to report her supervisors continuing on she started to express can seriously serious  concerns about the new policy or the new implementation of electronic medical records system at the hospital first she pointed out that there could be under this new system two different patient's medical records that were excessive all by only one medical record number so for example two employees would enter one record number but each would receive different patients medical records she advised her supervisors that this was clearly a concern not only for confidentiality purposes but also for medical care that would be provided she also noted that there were no policies in place regarding electronic signatures to be used in this new system so  in that instance there could be multiple lek trying to get signatures used when that needed to be curtailed to only those people that should have electronic signatures being utilized such as doctors residents there were not proper identifiers nor a policy in place with respect to who would be signing off on the medical records and medical practice there was no policy or procedure in place to check that users were using the signature appropriately not sharing it with anyone or keeping it confidential nor were the policies or procedures and how documents were to be reviewed to make sure that there were no gaps or points in the electronic fields in the new electronic medical records system these were all complaints that the plaintiff made known to preserve her supervisor her new supervisor because these were potential or could lead to potential security violations entry brief would fall under the illinois ministry of code specifically that section two fifty one seven one zero under this bill and administrative code your honor it requires hospitals basically to maintain accurate and complete records system that was being implemented would be violating confidential powerless confidentiality of a patient's medical records which would fall under that administrative code we also cited to ten i'll say yes if i slash six point one five or one seven for protection and confidential access to medical records federal hipaa regulations illinois laws against fraud because one of the other concerns that you raise was that in response to requests for records she was asked to sign off on certifications certifications that records from both true and accurate she boyce concerned that she could not in good conscious sign off on the survey we know a specific instance of where she reserves to do something like that that was not correct while your other cheek she testified in that in her deposition that she was asked to do that and she refused well and that what is it she refused to do she refused to sign off on because of these concerns that she had received from the new electronic medical records system that there's no way that anyone herself or anyone else at the hospital could verify and certify that both records  true and accurate because there were there were gaps in the system that allowed for example what i mentioned earlier one person's medical record could be two people's medical records could be pulled up by just one medical have is that she said under the system under the new electronic medical records system that they did that that very hypothetical that you just posed to me was not only a slim possibility but a very real possibility because they did not have the procedures in place to verify that something like that would not happen and so i think under the the the the facts of this case it's clear your honor that so the c know there was not so it's this vague concern that it might happen but you're i think it's more than a vague concern because what she what she saw was that this could but what she testified to i believe is that she could cheat when implementing this new system solved just that her she herself didn't send out those wrong records that were requested of john doe when they should have been some other patient but what she's what she raised the concern was she saw that these policies that were in place all our war two different patient's medical records to be pulled up by one number and she did observe that but what i'm saying i'm sorry hold up by whom i don't know i don't know the answer to that question was a little personal yes it w the early part of the question so so the internal filing procedures being flawed her judgment were not to violate all these various standards but she herself your honor refused to sign off on the certification and what happened was her supervisor then said well then i'll sign off on certifications and so but at that point in time your honor when that occurred in september of two thousand and five up until this time your honor she had had no negative remarks with regards to any part of this any of it matter but i think it does in this in this circumstance under because she voiced concerns regarding illinois public policy regarding the importance of confidentiality of medical records and the importance of making sure that medical records preparation of those are accurate and she voiced those types of concerns that were because of the new electronic medical records system and at that point we allege that she was retaliated against because all of a sudden now come december just a few months later she revealed she received her her first negative  she calls for me that the plan was then to have a meeting the next day with the appropriate personnel at the hospital to address her or her concerns in place and instead of having that meeting they fire they terminat saying this is that she she did she she did everything within her power to have those issues and question why can't a lawyer say you're doing your best but you can't get it done we're going to have to get somebody else well you're right well for instance they honor is that they're trying to make sure that they're there guarding against and in our party for an employee's interest in turning a likelihood and society's interest in seeing that it's public policies are carried out but those are the demonstrate to d public policy to guard the confidentiality of patients medical records and i believe that in addition to that we we have a circumstance where she's complaining about a new procedure a new medical record policy that's implemented that clearly allows for medical records that believe that we have in the record established that but i when i was answering your earlier question again i don't believe that we have a circumstance in the record where then that was both records were actually sent out i'm not aware of that actually happening but she discovered and we cited this in our brief said the plaintiff's refusal to certify medical records was an eye opener she was too focused on policies the plaintiff was always bringing it up concerns about the electronic medical records if you have discussed early on in my argument she herself was the manager of the department but she had it was not her job or it cheap she could not enough herself make the changes to the electronic different apartments within the hospital and so if she couldn't just herself ok get in and change the electronic medical records system on myers off to make sure that all of these changes came into  place and it's it's you know she would need the assistance and the approval from her supervisors to have other departments work with her in order to make these these types of changes ok your terms of being if not turn to address  that's hard think breath understand too because really the world has not changed in the sense that all she's being asked to do was to tell subpoenaing parties outside third party world that this is what the hospital record is and so her if she did have to work a measure that's that's a correct point there was computer personnel had to chime in on how this process works there are other folks on the medical staff who have to sign off on things so she was not a one person correction process but it was her job to forward the policy statement itself to go through the chain of command she told her supervisor i'm having problems getting all the stuff done they hire consultants to help the record reflects a particular group was hi she continued to say all these policies are done why didn't you use a consultancy we hired for you she had no answer so she did have capabilities who surprise did not stand her in fact they tried to help her do her job to run this depart case and because that doesn't exist they have no public policy to hang their head up the court has in the past addressed the issue of this whole context of cases arising out of medical reno the whole general concern about must he be able to cite the specific instance where she was called upon to certify records that she knew of the hospital knew to be wrong i believe she does otherwise is there anything in this record sport that i know from other instances where they were either incomplete or inaccurate i think it's you can be different but i think her her position is my understanding if i read her deposition transcript again and al is just not good i how to what extent does she could that ever work i mean was she for instance a personal experience of the last twenty five law you have to have that public policy and the discharge self must impact that public policy you cite in europe and in so i cite the turner case for the position that that is still the law of the state raises issues again in june on june twentieth but the record doesn't like that by june fifteenth decision was made to let her go so her june twentieth activity has no relevance in this case the  know i think there can be and it should be emphasized that she gives i believe in the record that supports this specific examples of what she believes the failures of the new electronic medical records is and then how those raise concerns with regards to public policies concerning accuracy of medical records confidentiality of medical and i think what we have here is policies regulations that are in place here in the state that she believes were being violated and that as a result of this new electronic medical records system however in one of the cases that we cite to your honor that's the panzer case versus the art institute of chicago case and that was a case to send it back in two thousand and three and that was  a northern district federal court decision in that case your honor what it happened was the retaliatory discharge claim that was filed by the plaintiff was upheld even though there was not one specific law or rule or regulation that was cited to have been by only what the court thought was that just the plaintiff's good faith belief that she believed that she would be committing fraud by doing the actions that were proposed by the defendant in that case was grounds enough to support a retaliatory charge and in this case i think analogous to that point your honor is that here she thought that she would be committing a fraud if she were to certify the records that would be sent out as being true and accurate also that it was significant enough for the legislature to believe that there would be a fine in place if certifications were falsely made in addition you're right about the  what was her obligation to ensure that nothing was in her only included and nothing was inadvertently excluded well presumably your honor her the plaintiff and or anyone in an in her department would wind copyin those records do their best to make sure that the records were accurate complete and that the response was made for the correct patient in this case what i think will you mean they go through the stack of fifty pages make sure that they were all jo saw that were going to be something now records on john smith and there was some time brown records electronically to be included and then it exploded but your honor i think that i think the plaintiff would have done everything that she could to do that but what happened in this case is that her supervisor said oh my if you're not going to certify these i'm going to all just sign off on the certification and i think that's different and i think what rice is here is a nothing of a specific they should have been able to address her concerns and fix the problem or alternatively your honor they could have sent the the records but they don't have to sign off on this on the certification verify