are two issues in this appeal the first of which is whether when medical testimony establishes that more probably true than not a single defendant cause and then usual medical result which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence secondly whether those same facts again whether when the medical testimony establishes that more probably true than not a single defendant caused an unusual medical result which warden early does not occur in the absence of dash one one one three eleven thirteen the race ipsa loquitur statue and suddenly both of those issues are reviewed by this court to no end before getting into all of the facts i'd like to discuss on a preliminary basis the section two dash six twenty two of the code of civil procedure mandating a certificate of marriage and a medical case it was in fact used as a sword rather than a shield and that necessarily puts the plaintiffs at a disadvantage because as the case originally  investigate all that the plaintiff has all that the plaintiffs have at their disposal are the medical records themselves and it's typically a press out of what is now an electronic medical record and what the plaintiff gets printed out whether it's a request from the plaintiff herself or whether it's from her law firm yes or get all of the records you just don't get all of the off chronic medical records you don't  means what it says he doesn't know exactly what role each of those two anesthesiologist played in this case and that cannot be discerned from the record it's the only way that that can be discerned is to ultimately take depositions which of course is what was done here and when dr coachy was deposed when dr camera as he was supposed when the nursing staff was to post it became relatively clear bat only doctor coachy was involved in the placement of this epidural cap and the uncontested testimony of every medical witness in th life and carl foundation hospital doctor coach himself and his retained expert dr marcus we're all agreement that the catheter was the cause of this number one number two bad it's very very unusual for the placement of a spinal catheter to result in an abscess it's exceedingly rare is the testimony from virtually all four of those expert witnesses and they were the only for the test and each and every one of those again including the defendant himself and his expert said that it was highly unlikely that any individual into problems was that the initial certificate of merit who sought to two six twenty two which has to be appended to the complaint that a complaint can even be filed court s did indicate that dr dr camera might have been involved and that the nursing staff might have been involved but that true six twenty two certificate of merit concluded that these are preliminary opinions based upon a review of the record and that the plaintiff's expert reserves the right to a man or clarified his opinions once we have access to the witnesses themselves and once they've deposed once that did occur he did change his position and say it's relatively clear that only dr coachy was involved in this abscess and as i say  recalling this incorrectly or now you're recalling that point correctly and i will acknowledge that i wasn't real happy with the flippant nature to a witness  three witness at his deposition but at the paper transcript doesn't wear a flak the intonation of the answer it doesn't reflect any hesitation or  voice what you see is just the printed works in his deposition the plaintiffs and the sad when confronted with well isn't it possible and again the word is possible and that frankly is the focus of this was the focus of attention of cross examination of plaintiff's expert both at his deposition and at trial that six twenty two was presented to the expert cla expert and he was questioned about well when you wrote this certificate of merit you were also pointing the finger at dr cameras in the nursing staff weren't you and he was because that is based exclusively on a after tamar ozzy is the pows and after the nursing staff is the pows and it becomes clear that they're not involved and the placement of the catheter and the formation of the  subsequently during the course of the scope or e you would have discovered the the basis to sue them no longer existed and you could have good faith pursue that and it worked thirty seven that's  the defendants are saying oh how we're not totally responsible and stammers it seems to me this kind of a stretch on a one thirty seven argument you could have soon to begin with the state that i don't see mother is laboring where she requests the catheter to be placed the epidural she's sitting on the edge of the bed slightly hunched over doctor coaches behind her to place the catheter and cases preceding this trial it would've made any difference even if they had been in the case because we would have had to eliminate anybody who was eight even remotely potentially connected to this case the judge ruled that anybody that had any potential contact with that patient so we would have had to name her husband as a defendant we probably would have had to name personnel we would have had to sign one person and take personnel to hospital in tago we would have had to name the circulating nurse in the operating room we would have had to name the scrub nurse you meant that we didn't name all possible in the universe people who have had any role in this then your racist loquitur has to fall but that's not what racists loquitur is your honor because it's all right and that's probably contributed to this and actually a really judge family actually said this and then on the last made ruling that she did when she ruled on this is on page nine of the initial briefs of plaintiffs when the court rules she said and i'm quoting going back to cess the plaintiff muscle lemonade the probable cause by someone other than any defendant she's right she's right and we did the testimony was uncontested from everybody call witness that the only individual that had any probability of causing that abscess was dr croce plaintiff did meet that standard the judge then went on to say your honor what judge just the statement is now say that you've got to name everybody but case law says anybody who had any house ability that contributed into this injury has to be a name that's impossible that's and we'd have to name the janitor who claimed out the o r before that c section case went into the o r so your position is the trial court knew the proper standard that for some reason didn't use it and i guess that brings me to the question of i mean i'll be really dealing with semantics here this is the fact that the trial court senate you need to name everybody who's possibly filed or possibly caused it that that means the tr did not use the correct standard it just stated now look the there is case law that uses the you've got to name all possible contributors as opposed to all probable and t the case law does say what the drug trial but she missed the standard which she started off with the right standard that was the first paragraph that's quoted on page nine of the appellant's brief but then she ends up three paragraphs where you're talking about all possible and i can't reach my question just because she used all possible does that mean she did not follow the appropriate standard we because obviously they found their motion based on the absence of certain parties and the court didn't mention other potential parties that should have been possible contributors and that's the point that plaintiffs are making here in this court race is that's a lot of water doesn't care and on all possible  the expert said oh yeah it's possible that they disconnected the catheter spit on it and reconnected and that's what i was suggesting was facetious you had to be there to understand the inflection it came up with dr cameron too and playing us experts well it's possible that he did something that's completely undocumented in the chart and that was the cos again he was being relatively  flippant it was not a good moment in the deposition i wish he hadn't that but that doesn't detract from the fact that we're in civil court the standard of proof is what's more probably true true it's an impossible bird to say to a magical plaintive race if the loquitur is off the table unless you name all possible all possible defendants the cause of action if you can't do that and there's no that's an impossible burden and doesn't exist and hits them proper to focus on the race it's a plaintiff and say you've got to have a higher standard of proof you've got a higher burden of proof than any other civil idiot in the state of illinois based upon dicta and certain cases that talks about all possible contributors school but my expectations always been that we learn race if so back in school there was that case of the warehouse where a passer by goes by in a barrel comes up the second floor is a passer by hertz and clearly that was a other thing is plaintiff's lawyers have access to health care providers they can me i can but the fact matter is you have to do some pretty fancy footwork to explain how in one hand you could say at the outset of the case each and every one of but but i don't know how you defend a case like that if you're one of these three people one of these three parties you have all the plaintiff has to do is have is have their experts come in and say i believe that the most likely is  individuals prior to his amended his complaint that january two thousand sixty eight had the plaintiffs named all possible individuals consistent with the file anything prior to january two thousand and sixteen that was the cause of plate of submitting his complaint well i think we did a lot of discovery over the previous two years we also attacked the complaint originally the race account on a motion to dismiss defendant while i'm sure he thought he could get by with it i'm sure he thought he could have raise it was the only explanation i've heard to this point is apparently it's he thought rule one thirty seven required him to withdraw other counts because there were other names him and yet you're saying in spite of their place terry should sue one two three other individuals even though the expert has said now we really don't have a case all what i just said right that what you're saying this place council had an obligation to pursue a case against individuals well when his own expert said i know his own expert allows the possibility that the ows other defendants who were dismissed could have been the cause but highly unlikely without any i don't know that says highly unlikely he uses this example counsel says he was disturbed by well maybe somebody came along a route that happened spit in their will he was the i think what the plaintiff is basically saying in this case is that if his expert says that one of those people is more likely than he can thereby dismiss the others and simply every sips so that i have to come forward with evidence that we didn't do it and under i don't believe that's a lot all i think riley says that he has to name everyone i think your liability smith so c s to name everyone what the policy is only of claims expert dr doctor says i know and he looks at the deposition of my client taken a year or so before the trial and he asked how do you place this thing  argued that the jury he says well basically our point was that that's ambiguous testimony from my client about the order in which he did things counsel argued to the jury well look books are pictures taken that they have all these devices s dr coachy could have explain used seems to kind of explain to me i didn't have until much later after the deposition was over we opened the packages and looked so that now the planet was on healthy any different standard than any other rising early on he said that he would not rule it out but then he said i saw the deposition and i saw it here's what he says i know the way the system works and so i saw that it was struck coach that place this thing on the evening of the first day and even though there's nothing to indicate dr tarazi was in there while he might have been and so i was kind of thinking well maybe he was and so i'm an effort to gain advantage in this case by the plaintiff's lawyer by using races in a case where it's simply not appropriate there would have been no problem with this going forward his expert says it could have been the acts of these other people  culture down in this case it's that we don't know the bacteria that causes the council never raised at any point to this level anything about due process by the way that argument i don't think it adds anything to this case anyway but i i think clearly that the judge ruled correctly on the law i think that if there are these people could have and the only person saying that much more likely than not it was my client is his expert everybody else says we don't know because i didn't own a survey of the cases i was a little surprised about this that is trial court's determination as a matter of law whether  apply reserves of all or not and under what circumstances so is the judge fully certainly within her rights to do it she did the right thing the patient the laboring patient the mother was in the hospital and for a number of days when she was a spinal abscess a bacterial infection in the spinal column it is eight to ten sign of meters inside the patient body there's only one way bacteria can get to that point and it's through the epidural catheter and that's undisputed housel says well everybody who testified said we don't know the cost that testimony was in conjunction with what type of bacteria cause the infection was a clostridium the french incident was that another type of infection they don't know because after the delivery the baby was struggling and had to be air flight it to carl foundation hospital in banda mom's running a fever so she immediately starts getting calf lax which is a broad spectrum antibiotic antibiotics are effective they kill the bacteria you're never going to culture white bacteria cause the actual abscess after the administration of the not so we're not talking about  knew were additional information so it's complete becomes known so that perfect so i infer from that supreme court understands how new information to come to a lawyer and if they wanted to make that requirement at one thirty seven they could've but they in the law and the facts leave clearly was when you found it that wasn't back as we develop the facts because we only have the paper char when we initially investigate that's what our expert looks at so your position one thirty seven places the burden upon you to reconsider the men your complaint if you develop information that suggests maybe there's a problem with what you originally thought absolutely i believe that i would be operating an absolute bad faith if after my expert tells me luck now that i have seen the deposition testimony of tamarod and now that it's been explained and as the was i urge the court to take a look at that and see if you can decipher exactly what that means and yes given the fact that it's a pretty anesthesia worksheet that d dobber could have excluded dr tamarod z at that point he couldn't have but back to just the statements question i think i'd be operate in an utter bad faith if after my retained expert after all he's the expert i don't go to medical school i'm not a board certified anesthesiologist yeah and i see these allergies but after he tells me that there's no credible basis to pursue dr cameron see i think i'm making a mistake ethically to continue to pursue him plus i think i'm also committing malpractise with respect to my client because not dr tamarod z and his attorney is going to be presenting evidence and saying there's no credibility whatsoever on behalf of the plaintiffs because they're offering they're suing my client and their own aspart says my client wasn't at fault with respect to the barrel analogy that analogy as drawn by counsel is incomplete because we've got three barrels up in the hayloft in this case in this case the defendant says it was person number one that per push the barrel while both retained experts say it was person number one that pushed the barrel while and the treating surgeon from clinic says is