yes yes christine hospital that day she indeed was having a heart attack no dispute about that at that hospital that day no doubt those three people dissipated in their treatment then usually she was transported and that was it fo thirty five years and transported to christian brothers northeast seven twenty five just shy of one hundred ninety minutes three hours she died later on there as a result of that the heart got to do a heart cath within ninety minutes presentation for thirty five that would have been six o five and she's still not transferred till seven twenty five and therefore that's that's you know the only testimony about the cause of de completely basket the writing process recently had to transfer that hospital all moral did not do the hard cap of that so that what they had to do and what the question is that minister t p a there at the hospital and so that's that's the decision made to transfer number two why was she still there in seven her transfer not till seven twenty five that's well past the ninety minute deadline so you've got to give the t p s that was not done in this case and the question in fact did the nurses play in causing your contributing because they don't have to be the sole cause of it dr christy it can be a combination of things that have to be a cause and certainly here there's a question of fact about that at least for the trial that the jury to decide for the trial just take completely out of the trees and from that testimony there the time and the delay in getting that process completed is the question  being the key here that's where it's tied in there's nurse there's testimony regarding deviation from the standard of care about nurses the hospitals own nurse nurse came a nasty testified as well about policy and procedures and guidelines and transfer in i don't think it has been that many words i think it has to be it's a question again causation being a question of fact whether it's done christie said that the e r doctor or the nurses both together playing a role so i don't specifically think in so many words he made that hey these nurses you know that this is a cause of the of the of the of the death of the patient when the doctor says the only doctor i'd be different maybe if there was another doctor saying that this is presented dr danis testimony and judge down the other way at that point in time but in there that there were there were actually four separate allegations of duty and breach of that duty basically that they addressed a motion was on causation nurse had recommended t p a the doctor one down and that's part of the question process dr christie will testify or did in a deposition that it was being considered but and that's that's a big you go up the chain of command because the patient as if that's what happened here dies that's the time frame that you have to do that so whether or not they've got a they've got to make sure number one the doctor is aware of the they know that fact and they still don't talk about t p a or go up the chain of command and know that the process can be completed in that ninety minute timeframe you're talking six o five or thirty five and here we are at seven twenty five once again before that transfer i want to address the questions that that you ask but i think it's important to take a look at it and recognize that in this case i do represent two individual nurses right the hospital is not in question this appeal to solely with respect to these two nurses who were added to this case in two thousand and four right at least a year after the initial case was started in the original complaint there was a laundry list of all of the problems the plaintiff had with area of claims to their case dr madani was never offered for deposition never given additional opinions never tendered any more the only expert they tendered with respect to these new allegations and with respect to  procedures was there be our expert dr frank baker i'm going to talk about that in a minute so the point is this is it these two individual nurses who have been part of this case for seven years six years at the time d r judgment tosi and a granted summary judgment the issue is is is did the plaintiffs demonstrate evidence and all of the requirements necessary to make a case against each of those two individuals against a nurse in a hospital setting and that applies to this case both of those cases and in fact the in those cases the argument was made similar to the one they've just m that is that we have this question of time all right the question how long should have taken to properly diagnose and treat a patient and they try to drag individual nurses into this question of time and argue that well if they participated in the process somehow that they then are responsible alternately for contributing to the condition of the plaintiff that was rejected by answers yes the comment was made not in so many words the answer is yes they do that is required by both of these illinois supreme court cases now in this case for example they talk about t considered it she rejected it because t p a p p is a very complicated decision making process it involves many factors in it's a very dangerous drug so if you it's like putting a drain  the vessel it can kill the patient that's why it's so dangerous right now the question comes in very very early on what the doctor is faced with is is the the earliest time for benefit is is it really early on they don't even want to give it six hours after symptoms are undertaken the point is is she has to evaluate a patient who comes in and in this case this this patient hit the emergency room at like sixte indications for administering t p a in addition they just to get some information about what is the history with the medical history on this woman she has to know when did the symptoms start when did you start having these symptoms because the longer you get away from the initial symptoms the best benefit there is on this on this basically sliding risk whether the doctor should have been told whether they should have gone up the chain of command this doctor frank baker and what's interesting is that's their expert and in fact one of the lawyers from their office toward the end of that deposition asked said well what about decision what we're talking about there is a question of fact about whether dr christie should have given t p a he asked now the question is is is the issue is it doesn't translate to the nurses should have told the doctor about t p a and should have gone up the chain of command were there a lot is this is the other question we had is is there any evidence about what would have happened after that is there competent expert testimony that ties that issue to the outcome in this case and that is well if they got up the chain of command where would they go they go to a nursing supervisor well from a nursing supervisor what happens is the doctor then brought in is a different doctor come in different doctor make the decision how is it done when is it done they had no testimony what's with it all with respect to any of that and they had no testimony to tie in her criticisms therefore to the outcome and that's exactly but the only testimony in this case the only testimony in this case from dr christie is i knew about t p a i could evaluated t p a i was not giving t p a right which is similar to the other two cases where they said well if the nurse who told the doctor about the complaints write something different would have occurred there is no testimony something different would have occurred here no testimony was where and moreover again you've got to have an expert medical causation time that conduct to the death there isn't and all they can do is rely upon one comment out of madonna's testimony two years before he testified about the procedure how it's done who calls whom how do you get a bed what happens when they call back in have a bed after they have a bed and you confirm that and then make a call or there are the nurses you discuss it with the nurses you give them a report then we call argy bargy comes and picks them up the procedure for doing it and they suggested well nurse long nurse day participated in were there and maybe would have taken one of those steps or whatever it is they never took their deposition they never asked him one question about that there's no testimony on any of that but interestingly despite all these pages they never played it th was never even a part of their thirty minute complaint wasn't even in there so that that whole issue about about the procedure for how you transfer a patient is not even in the case and there's no expert testimony and there's  testimony on that at all moreover factually if you just look at it in this record by the time they call aren't ambulance and it's air and so art sends a helicopter over to pick up miss mi when they got there she crashed again she wasn't even stable then they actually had to command and if you work on her do c p r to try to bring her back with chest compressions for fifteen or twenty minutes before they could even load her there's a whole issue here about the fact that that that this tiny new shoe that they have is really broken up into several parts but the part about the procedure for transfer is not is not in the case the other issue about should they have doctor christie about how much time it would take and that they didn't know how much time it would take to to make a transfer and the doctor christie somehow didn't know how much time it would take to make the transfer and that that would have made a difference interesting observation did they develop any evidence on that the suggested that these people didn't know how long it takes to  hospital no never took their depositions again never asked any questions never asked dr christine they have absolutely no evidence to support that sort of second bucket of allegations there isn't any evidence moreover there isn't any expert evidence expert testimony that suggests what would have happened you know how do you connect any of that so so the issue that they have in the case essentially is this notion of not play a role because of that the question is a single case single question single issue and that is did dr christie exercise appropriate judgment in making this very complex difficult decision to administer   did not belong in this case any longer the plaintiffs had approximately six years to develop testimony who being connecting expert testimony and didn't do it so we believe that the judgment in decision to give it and giving it is a medical medical procedure that there's do not do but when you can't do that heart can't there you've got a person there presenting to the e r for thirty five and the options are the t p a or transfer what happened here and that's the question back once again the nurses were there they knew this was going on they knew the doctor would give them that they were involved in the care and treatment of those men in that hospital emergency room on that day six seventeen they get the call from christian north northeast that the that the bed is a baby when the transfer can take place transfer doesn't happen after that until seven twenty five that's one hundred seventy five minutes from door to the transfer at six seventeen which is outside that ninety minute window that martin yeah patients still sitting in their emergency room and that's the time that the question so they have to give that e p a and the nurses did not follow up on that did not go up that chain of command when they knew that the doctor was not doing it whether or not the doctor and that's the question right there that's part of the question all these questions that we're talking about