think i stand up to two issues in this appeal which i'd like to discuss this morning the first issue is whether the initial complaint was timed barred because of because of a mistake in the trial orders attorney code number which caused the  office to reject the otherwise timely filed a complaint the attorney the number was corrected and the initial complaint was refiled on january eleventh nineteen days beyond december twenty four twenty sixteen which was the expiration of the statute of limitations there is no dispute that december thirty four is the operative statute of limitation stated if the current holds the complaint was not timely file then there's no jurisdiction in any level in the court doesn't even reach the second issue in this appeal which is where the second amended complaint still didn't cause their action for intentional infliction of emotional distress when it is suitable person treaters namely a therapist and a medical provider sil to inform her legal guardians that she was pregnant wanting to have an abortion and hand one without her guardians knowledge and put her consent i think it was about the process of the readers have been on notice that their patient was a disabled person and that medical decisions about the disabled person should have been made in conjunction with their legal do you find that there was an affirmative duty on the defendants to disclose kind of these medical records as opposed to responding to a request which is what the sta the illinois medical disclosure confidentiality and i have been candid in my briefs that there is no case in illinois and there is no statute which explicitly would have required either defendant activity particularly in the case of alliance where there were counseling sessions with the concert and the guardians and the patient and also the solo sessions with the ward so there was family therapy and then there was individual therapy and one of the arguments i've made is that there was something written communication from alliance that's alleged in the complain we allow their writing that it's imperative that any interventions with kylie and her family be well coordinated and there should be regular open and clear communications between kylie's clinical providers and her it could be stressors for kindy clearly and also stressors for the family they were all being seen by alliance and i argue that that language which came from something that alliance duty to disclose what was going on with their patient well how how do we find from an agreement to openly communicate a voluntary undertaking to disclose all that occurred in treatment how do you ha well being open doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as voluntarily undertaking to disclose everything that went on in treatment i can imagine a situation where kylie this is something in confidence to her therapist and then the fair this was in some fashion relay there's some serious stuff going on with your daughter they don't necessarily have to disclose the substance but i think they had a duty to let the guardians know that there was a situation here you say your proof that the terminations whether or not conduct this extreme or all reduces the subject jacket standard not the subjective standard well i believe that ultimately because judges are human beings anything that is quote unquote objective is really ultimately subject because there is no bright line test for what kind of conduct is outrageous what's outrageous to one person may be outrageous to another person and clearly this is the snap count that that was our a decision up to the  how would they know they wouldn't have known that but i don't think that's the point i think that any kind of momentous procedure such as abortion sterilization a blood transfusion i mean know i agree with you your honor they did not know that these plaintiffs were going to be is susceptible to the abortion issue but my argument is a little broader than that well let's stick to what the war requires  alternately i think there has to be some kind of a value judgment made that if i have to read hers who are on notice that their patient is a disabled person and is seeking some kind of treatment whether it's legal or illegal then and clearly an abortion is legal on face the trigger still have a duty because the patient if you will to your clients so maybe yes you're trying to send a message of positions but you're also trying to get personal injury dollars in cap to be able to comply with the  of the rules that require you to get those damages so i understand what you're saying you're saying two different things you're saying oh we get a second message but you don't have to send a message by saying we were injured as a result because if you're injured as a that that the plaintiffs could have known each other to go out and how did that cause the injuries to your client it was after they had the knowledge that they after they received the knowledge they had not been informed they were damaged and mostly because they allege that the defendant intentionally withheld that knowledge no claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and it's for all of the reasons that each of you has pointed out over the course of this current event none of the elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional of the answer to that but fundamentally what we all need to keep in mind is that this is not the case about these abortion and that is a crucial point to keep in mind this is not a situation where any of the defendant pregnant that's the issue here it's not that i'm sure she was provided by one of these entities and that's important just as should stick to something that you mentioned you were asking about the obligations of one of these providers in exactly the situation you're describing right now would there be another claim did these did the abortion provider have an obligation to inform the parents potentially and there is a statute a parental notification of abortion act but even the parental notification of abortion act includes argument in this case could the parents of them minor or disabled person sue the trial court for intentional infliction of emotional distress it's the same claim it would be failure to inform the parents or guardian pregnancy certainly that's not a viable claim i think we can all agree on that but in this case that's exactly what the plaintiffs are arguing we were not informed about her daughter's pregnancy and so we have an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim would that fall within the category of information knowing that there should be open communication or that open communication was expected by the guardian happy information the fact that she was pregnant and had to make a decision about her person why wouldn't that phone within the category of information that should have been disclosed given these particular facts and the fact that the first of all to the extent that there is some sort of a discussion about an agreement between the parties to communicate they have to go to alliance that's related to allegations on the counseling and i would defer that to mr larson there is no such allegations related to generation claim we would be discussing a different issue it's not really had a pregnancy test in generations it came back positive she was told of her alternatives for moving forward and that was the end of generations involvement under the allegations in the currently requirements for stating a claim any of these this threshold requirement about standing for the three elements that must be alleged to articulate a prima facia claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress the other day it's no good the ball forward today during her commit and there is no allegation a second a minute complaint as you pointed out that generations had any idea that discussing abortion services with this patient would be in any way offensive to the parents there was no allegation in generations understood season of the parents opposition to abortion or their religious principles in that situation how it is generations were sponsible for an intention to cause extreme emotional it could argue that that there is made a bad judgment call in not just was an information in a circumstance where the family agreed to have certain conversations where they were present and certain conversations were kind it was alone with her therapist and whether or not to disclose information in the private conversations that's a tough judgment call given the standing given the standards of mental health care and whether or not to do that and how does  given the fact that generations also treated julie the covariant for her medical illness multiple sclerosis i didn't make the argument that it was certainly reasonable for of the judge to have inferred which he did not because he didn't even reach this issue that particularly with respect to julie her multiple sclerosis could've been exacerbated by this by this chain of events from a reasonable person standard of the subject to the position of everyone seems to take the position that what happened here is kind of like shrugged shrugging his shoulders oh well stuff happens maybe this should have been informed no big deal we're sorry but  plaintiffs are asking the court to cringe now about what happened here and not just shrug off this that the fact that the process which they thought they were really entitle to to wade into issue that being what holding information from the appearance with either not directed at the plane or for not committed within the plaintiff's presence that there is there isn't been a case regarding th forget about going so specific but if you find the case doing any type of search where there was if the issue was not directed at the plaintiffs and it was not within the need would have been recorded to sign some form of consent to sure most private sessions which i don't know what the arrangement was i don't know