clerk please call the next case was denied the plaintiff will agree with the defendant and that is there are two issues and those two issues are a violation of the whistleblower act and count two which is retaliatory discharge count the first issue could be phrase wherever defendant the cook county department of public health violated the illinois whistleblower ack because dr lucas was dismissed in retaliation for refusing to participate in an activity that were result in a violation of the law and that worries america he was there what was the exact violation exact violation we're referring to the medical practices act which requires because physicians like attorneys are regulated regulated by spring courts are regulated by the department of professional regulation that particular section which is sixteen twenty two five choir's that physicians are to be competent and they are not to engage in the unprofessional and ethical conduct and it is unprofessional and ethical to take our responsibility for to specialize to perform the highest level of care to their patients and also in order to be board certified and doctor lucas is board certified in fact every physician in the count is poor certified she had to go undergo special training is special examination that pertains to being an obstetrician and i got an ecologist and that by definition movies providing services to women august twenty fourth of two thousand and eight she had to complete the training next couple of months or she'd be terminated for this correction and then the first time she brought this problem to anybody's attention that the board would be on september fourth some ten or eleven days training or you will be disciplined up into terminations where that can be a suspension will suspend you until you go get the training but when she come to eleanor it's apartment up human and say no department of employees to do but she's not a member of the union but as a physician and she's in a different category than the plumber or the teacher as a physician she is required and balogna not to co well let me distinguish this from taylor yes the allegations of a violation of public policy is totally different in this case in fact the public policy for physicians and is really caught if i in the medical does right and just goes to the collective rights of society of the citizens of the state and i would say collectively the citizens of the state are entitled to competent health care where we here the trial court got it wrong the there is a public policy under the medical practices act the subject we're talking about here are sexually transmitted disease correct sexually transmitted absolutely kind so what is was there any other conscious or consciousness conscious objection because of the nature of the refuse the ten days of instruction to be able to treat she could do that she could go to for the ten days see what it is because if you don't go you've no idea what it is well she was insufficient effort going for ten days and then signed up for more classes to learn about males and sexually transmitted disease she could have done that right contained in it and a well can i expand upon that if we can like in europe to we can liken it to the training for an attorney you go through ross school and she went through med school is she replicate the attention and the detail and the dedication that's needed to become a competent physician or an attorney in an area that is there level of training him has been said before if you wanted more she could have taken more it's her if it wasn't offered to her that she could take more it says pretty clearly in the letter from the cook county department of public health this is the meaning we're providing you take it or be disappointed if you're right she refused to co put my three points in that this there was a violation of the milk a malpractise act that there was a retaliation because she reported just violation to the department of public regulations and that decision below should be  morning more like to just start by addressing one of the issues that justice simon ray raised in regards to whether or not there is anything in the medical practice act or in the administrative it's basically the same principle in the court pointed out that an employer should not impose too for liability where the public policy standard is too general or true or too vague and doesn't provide specific public health as to what the training might consist of and so we have this whole idea of this blank area here and as was pointed out we don't know what would have happened to him dr lucas had attended the ten days of training and then department that it was sufficient was insufficient but at least they would have had it in their hands would be tight at that point and they would have had the opportunity to provide further training for she was a long term employee there and they were trying to get rid of her on any basis this was a economic and medically require combination of these two different departments it was really going on back from april of zero seven and that's document and the record there's an e mail from doc lucas as early as april of zero seven complaining about the fact that the issues come up now that these two adult the male and a female s t d clinics are going to be combined so she may try to work with her through this whole period of time over almost a year and a half to get her to attend the training and to concede that the two meet the requirements but the county had in the department of health had in that regards in regards to dr thread i think it's already been pointed out never even made an inquiry as to what the training would be he never trained he never taught s t d in any regards he testified to that in his deposition so i don't even think he's an expert in any regard both of the  reason for the combination of the two different clinics and that goes back to there were three different issues that were raised one is it was economic that they could have one practitioner tree both the male and female patients secondly they could treat partners at the same time which had a benefit in the regards to s t d and they couldn't for the third reason that could also teach the family planning or provide them with them at the same time to both of the partners so they were both economic and practical medical reasons to combine money so we're going on them briefly i just want to talk about the timeline i've already mentioned this was going on since april of zero seven and there's an email from dr lucas addressing that issue and her concerns about it which is in the supplemental record it see twenty four twenty six and forty eight and then in may there was a staff meeting in august twenty ninth there was another staff meeting in zero eight and then  come there was a letter of twenty fourth of the twenty nine excuse me offering the training again and then but that's the letter where she was advice she must complete it by october thirty first and september twenty second and this is the after she wrote to the p r and it was a letter from dr murray who was head of that department explaining that the training they were required to be only focused in a couple of areas and shouldn't be very complicated and it would be made available and she so this case can be distinguished turner from what happened in this case in the turner case we had a respiratory therapist who complained that that particular hospital which was a private hospital wasn't meeting the commission's joint commission standards and this case which is just totally different we have a public entity and the public policy that's being mandated once again is the competency of physicians under the medical malpractise act i'd also like to correct a reading of the record that suggests that the cook a department of public health really tried to work with a close reading of the record will reflect that they did not they told her you take this training and in the first letter it said you will be disciplined and after she reported it is very clear she she should have been told and when she told should be disciplined i didn't see terminations at this point so maybe she thought she just be suspended don't think you have to be just as direct as the words say we will hire you if you don't take this train what's unfair about