opinion how is that fraudulent concealment they had no contact after the date of the settlement after the settlement was signed so there has to be an affirmative there have to be affirmative  alleging here that was a little complaint is the defense repeated assurances that the amount of the settlement was the maximum amount under the law is that correct that's the only fraudulent of the cause of their action and a reasonable period of time remains within which he can file the complaint the two year period he can file the complaint and that's exactly the situation here is not you know being in the week but not cases precisely because of the specificity and the detailing and i believe this in setting forth and claim language the terms of that settlement agreement but the forms that are used in workers compensation he says are designed to be various hospitals who only person could have been had more time to develop those facts again there were two years and six months went by after the plaintiff pertained his legal malpractise counsel in two years and six months whatever facts need to be developed should have been developed already and none of those are in the record none of those are presented to the trial court so i think this would be difficult for this court finds that they're somehow question factor that possibly those facts might exist because they didn't mess so that was designed to prevent the client from discovering that their attorney had allowed that he dismissed prevent the client from seeking independent counsel to find out do i have a cause of action what are my rights going to get you know even if one were to assume that that was sufficient which we don't believe it has but even so the plaintiffs discovered his cause of action february th two thousand and seventeen so he would then have at most two years from that of limitations you still have to abide by the statute that i am as a prospective the legislature back to your time frame this hamilton is the question of whether there was fraudulent concealment europe's actual question  then went to proceed against other tort claims against the employer and when that claim to try to claim fraudulent concealment saying wait my turn he continued to represent me and said i was going to be getting more money the court still rejected that theory and said that's not enough roger concealment that's you kn concealment so certainly in this case i think that it's not a factual issue and and again based on the timeframe because the plaintiff that already retained we don't practice turning it really is a nonstarter no matter which way you look at so it is our position that there are no facts that couldn't cure this situation based on the actual letter at stuff again i would reiterate that it would be that the claims british show that that there were some sort of facts and liability and that's why the courts of interpret it the way that it does project concealment is designed to prevent inequity or situations where an attorney has acted wrongfully so as to prevent the discovery of cause of action and that's were after the so much and that's what constitutes a fraudulent concealment the statements that he made to crow following the settlement that went on for well over a year they had a lot of supreme court of the carson case carson versus fish acknowledge that the attorney client relationship is that they do share a relationship but the supreme court case did not extend its holding d to say we know this was not his legal opinion which is where i started and in the in your opening arguments i mean how do we know this was not his opinion based on the work that he had done his