ramifications of this case and i have that heated this case and i welcome the opportunity to convince the court why jails the parks was incorrectly cited and although we have some spectators this morning my only regret is that i couldn't invite my by his legal representative in the third question is we have to answer what is the relationship between section thirteen to eleven and section thirteen tonight section thirteen two eleven tolls the statutes of limitations  time of his death not time had run at that particular time so at the time of his that his legal representative had two years from the time of his death to file the claim which he did because m turn to section thirteen tonight which says that at the time of that history your representative can do one of two things either he can look to the time that was left in the statute of limitations that would apply to the individual or one year after his disability it's really and in this case the defendant actively and everyone in the giles percs case may have been focusing on the latter part of the of the clause which says or one year after that but no one has really paid attention around allies the last before which specifically says that we need to look at the time remaining in the statute of limitations to the term in what statute applies in this case thirteen the precedent but the child's court me two fundamental mistakes the first one is that the court justice simon incorrectly characterized the action being brought on behalf of the seat and as the longing to the people represent paragraph of that giles the court decision and in that particular case justice simon commented in fact he revoke their attorneys in that case but he said that the minor and so the board said that the miner was entitle to the tolling provision but the parents werent and the reason the parents werent entitled to that tolling provision is because they were competent to bring their own claims this is a all right to that the administrator was appointed leader time in most importantly the defense case involved there i believe actions were yes in this case the administrator is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of the state she's no bring in and there has been a lot of discussion of the two pronouns he or she and interpret ing thirteen to eleven that only the individual who is suffering from this ability may bring about a lawsuit after this ability is removed but that work week wouldn't you be asking us to add language then doesn't he and she are you suggesting that that refers in addition to the person to a personal representative we're not asking the court to add any language we're asking the court to start the analysis with thirteen tonight and then that directs the court to see what remaining time was left in the statute of limitations in your honor by common sense and logic an individual who is suffering from a legal decision that he will never be able to bring his or her claim on her own she will have to rely on an eagle representative and if you look through the statutes from section thirteen to one through se that only temporary individual temporarily disabled individuals who regain their capacity can bring that lawsuits but individuals who are permanently disabled would lose any of their rights and so the fended of the in this case really go there today and you're right your honor and so i will i will leave it at this it will create two classes of the same old individuals and so individuals who are suffering from permanent disability would be unable to bring lawsuits and we can see this already happening in the lower courts as we mentioned in our brief there's a current case ending in the circuit court the head this case where an individual suffering from a permanent disability brought a clean  three years after the injury action guardian was appointed three years after the injury the individual has been the see it was a simple example when you mentioned your group yes you're right here now i mean in another division far as i know i don't provision to bring that course of action of course that is illogical there's no legislative support for that they're still textural support for that and when the statutes are reading context it's very clear that that's what was intended when the that the appointment of a guardian that's in trigger the running of the statute of limitations for personal injury actions in other words the statute of limitations runs against against the cost of action against a person who has the right to bring the can be transferred by operation of law to another individual and that individual can continue to prosecute those cases in this particular case because mr ziad was disabled up until the time of of his death their cause of action was transferred to his legal representative but the statute of limitations began to run at the time that he died and one important thing to note from section thirteen to nine is that create a new statute of limitations for survival actions even though nowhere in section two hundred nine this it say that a new statute of limitations applies in other words section thirteen to one simply directs the court to look to the statute of disability payments at the end of that and it doesn't continue indefinitely for individual suffering from permanent disability the only way that this ability is removed is by death and so at that time that when the statute of limitations legislature drafted it stated if the person entitle to bring an action specified in sections thirteen two zero one three thirty two ten of this code at the time the cause of action accrued is under the age of eighteen up person under her title but is the title is minors and persons under legal disability correct two things that the court looks to who does it apply to it applies to first a person entitle to bring an action that person has to have been a minor or under a legal disability those other requirements it's not talking about a person representatives talking about a minor or disabled person and only that if a difference in language is used by the legislature they intended that different meanings apply and the meaning from thirteen to eleven is clear that they only intended to apply to a disabled individual and the purpose for that is to distinction between temporary versus permanent if the person is alive and is still under a disability thirty two eleven applies once they die thirteen to a nine kicks in and and gives them the the year from the day to death or that the regular statute to apply which in this case from a traumatic injury would have been true years from the date of the history so they do get additional time they get a year from the date of death and in this case the plaintiff had that right they didn't exercise it they had an additional i believe six months to bring the action from the data death they didn't avail themselves of that additional time and they waited months later to file the action on thirteen two or nine would have served its purpose in giving additional time for them to bring the action they simply didn't have bail absolves of that on and plaintiff is trying to push right now by say no that's not what applies here thirteen to eleven applies under their reading of the it is clear here that the difference in language was intended by the legislature courts have interpreted especially in statutes of limitation cases that they've stated that courts are to apply this plain language and in situations of session limitations they are not to imply extensions to statue of limitations that is something that they would leave to the legislature if plaintiff has an issue with how the statutes are drafted in this disabled as a result of rules it's actually correct it absolutely and we're not disputing that the problem is that's a distinction without a difference nowhere in the child's case or in do they look to what was the capacity prior to the  that they don't explain they don't explain why that would matter that in our case there was civil prior and in trials they were settled after one but in the earlier cases there was an adult that was already disabled that puts them in a better position to be able to avail themselves of the additional year from the date of death because they would have already had a person in place on the court in thirteen to in thirteen to a nine does not say does not make an issue of whether you have a person representative or not it's like prior but the fact that plaintiff in our case was disabled prior it works against their argument again it puts them in a more likely to have someone already in place to exercise their rights and avail themselves of their rights lastly plaintiff argues that this is an issue of first impression it's not the statute has been in place with the same language for a long time i'm the for the case the feste case they will the child support relies upon states back in one thousand eighty three on what it would have tons down to is start position at the giles court correctly applied the plain language of the statute and found that thirteen to eleven did not apply and we would ask that this court uphold the r if that person is injured six months before that and i think after six months then that person would have one and a half years from the statute of from that for magic injury to file the complaint counsel is suggesting that you should ignore that and instead simply shorten their statute of limitations to one year that is simply not what the legislature intended the savings provision was created because the legislature recognized that there was a disruptive event and that people may need additional time to file th nor less additionally as stated previously that would mean that people with herman and disability would never be able to buy all their claims if they're injured after two years and it doesn't mean that just because you have a permanent disability that someone is automatically appointed who's going to protect your rights that's just not how it happens in the practical work in this particular piece of what the defendants are asking us to shorten misters a heads statute of