the nurses and doctors who did the medical review is and made suggestions to quality care which is the insurance company were fraudulent in their actions basically they acted improperly without medical foundation the case was privity with each other and i would like to address the that privity aspect first because i think it's the most clear error in the circuit court's decision the the party of the single party down in plastic county was the insurance company the parties here all right the nurses and doctors who made the decision and their employers in order for the parties here to be in pretty with quality care and the other case that the p case especially suggests what has to happen the parties here the defendants here have to be the virtual representatives of quality care they are not the virtual representative of quality care but if they were the virtual representative of quality care they would have the same legal interests and more importantly they would be affected the parties here would be affected by the judgement in plastique county and the same fashion as quality care was affected by the judgment there and that cannot be the case the judgment and plastic one county was that quality care had to provide a certain number of hours of care to brooke  that's not the relief that side here that decision and plastic county had no effect on nurse york and the effect on doctor told her that they don't provide the care they weren't paid for providing care that has nothing whatsoever to do with them if it doesn't have anything to do with them and they're not in privity with them that's the definition of pretty see the defendants in his case we really only have two cases that they cited in opposition to our privity of party arguments and one of the reasons i went to this argument first was because their cases are not on point they have a banking or a case which is the first point and in that has been tried once before it was a question was whether or not certain assets were charitable assets and should have stayed with the nation his lamp that was lost and then the attorney general came to court and said the same thing charitable assets and are the property of the people who donated them essentially was exactly the same issue the issue that was decided in the first case precluded a different decision in the second case here the decision in the first final decision they've all made that clear in their depositions that were taken in this case the final decision as to quality as to the amount of care to be given is made by quality care called can ship in the record so nurse all call her medical review person and nurse york and they are affiliated in some way with cigna so we have a group of people on this site whose job  and look at the medical records completed they look at medical reviews they look at their medical records and then make a recommendation to prayer the care as to whether or not hours are medically necessary and  affiliate and some way of signal connecticut general they're all tied together some but not of them is the ensure that was that was my point it sure is quality care they wish they paid the money actually did pay the money on behalf of the state of illinois but credit care pays the money the people that we've sued up here cigna and intercourse and york and over though do not pay any money to anybody they do not provide medical care to anybody all they do is give advice and we've alleged that their advice was fraudulent if they're sold as a result their their interests can't be affected by what comes down the road i trek mean if their interests aren't affected then they're not realize it should have been the other group we will step forward and substitute if they recognized in that language i would argue that they are not the same but they really are different if they were the same they would have this need for one t to substitute for the other in case something like that made a mistake they treat they don't have to be the same it does have to be connected with their interests they have to help they have to have their interests adequately my point they don't have the same interest if they had the same interest and that's what promo said this the promise of the nonparty must be affected by the judgement as if he was a party if these people are these people i mean and york and overworked parties down in plastic county they would not be affected by the judgement that was at that argument your time is almost it has to be transactional argument question there becomes is this the same transaction transaction is i just it can be a broad term word merrill term it's still an equitable term and i think the bottom line eric because i know you want to wants me to move on the bottom line with respect to tread the equitable chance but equitable nature of the transactional definition here is is is it fair and is traditionally congress or by having one or two trials and i would suggest if a court trial down there at the clerk tory action bench trial with only a couple of witnesses three depositions is entirely different and separate from the trial that was scheduled what here with thirty depositions many witnesses and a completely different issue if if the two trials had been put together it wasn't going to save anybody any time and if we had filed this case down there they would have to do separate work because the it's the it's the nature of the advice that's been rendered that skete they would have to do the same work down there as they did here it's not a situation where the brief was that he you did you had uncovered these issues of consumer fraud at the time of the pelasgic case that it went you know suspect fraud at the time but factory my question is was not there that consumer fraud present at the time the pelasgian had countersuit and therefore should you not have  that in gives rise to the belief that this should not down there because depositions would be taken and the record reflects that they had some say some thoughts about it but the nature of the fraud that it was really that was that we were going to be able to prove it really came into evidence when they were able to take  made to reduce hours would be based upon a lawyers statement the lawyers advice to the doctors that's a that's and pitch one level of dr york that those questions those issues were relevant and that in the lawsuit down there was made effect if they had trial that i'm supposed to get done in months because the medical care could destroy the school needs to stay alive and well is at issue this is a separate case i there's no doubt that from the file that the attitudes became suspicious about the reasons for it but they really didn't know the reasons for it until totally got counsel separate counsel to take care of this case and pursued it and got to take the step decisions that life that's that's the best answer i can give you and i go back to the fact of the the fact that you can't fi allegations suit existed at the time the last letter because the decision was made be for health care but the hours and they were talking about cutting the hours or so is is it the fact that the claim fry because the fraud and the friday here being not the decision that these doctors made but the reason that they made the decision there's no doubt that they made there's no doubt that we disagreed that the major decision the fact that the doctors made the decision for grounds on related to medical analysis or medical opinions is what the plaintiffs didn't know and there is nothing in this record that clearly showed that to them until basically until they had the boyers look at it for that specific purpose and that process began obviously during that trial thirteen that six or seven month window down state so that  in this lawsuit was filed in between but that should not be what this probe would have to request require them to do it soon as they were in any way suspicious and began to talk to lawyers just expedite everything to get this ready to go to pless attorney for good men from the plastic county case contacted the train home to consult with him about whether there's a direct action against connecticut general and  by the end is covering the plastique any case that they discovered the friday and that and it's telling the lasky county case ended in march or april of two thousand and six that was two months before the case was tri there was just no reason at all two months before trial three months before judgment for the plaintiffs not to bring that fraud claim in the plastique county case they made a conscious decision to split the i'm connected generous chap then was among other things which make the ultimate benefit or since he also had but the best decision right the paying wasn't really making any benefit decisions at all except through connecticut general based on intercourse medical evaluations now also with a plan would decide a case if after the benefits were reduce state so in that sense the state plan would have been the ultimate decider but as far as the decisions were made here they were made by connecticut general acting as agents of the state and i  she had a clear case of pretty in addition to the fact that the state defended the decisions my clients made all the way through trial all the way through appeal  so i don't think there's any question about preventing was there any questions i would like to say something about the friday right this case wasn't getting is the status reducing benefits when they benefit from reduced they took money out of us and they paid for additional nursing care so if they didn't believe the benefits they were certainly doubting anything that we said and the actual benefit decisions there's nothing in this case that's that shows that the representations had anything to do with the reduction of benefits the reduction benefit decisions were made a required element of consumer fraud and if the plaintiffs were not in fact deceived by these representations which i think the evidence shows since they in fact did not write we should have been entitled to  court and not amend the complaint we would have had to add new parties because the interest in that proves my point the interest that we had down there against quality care are not the interests we were talking about here and the one side is the decision to for our decision whether or not to me to care was medically necessary on the other side is lying as part of the input into that decision process where we took care of that and appear we're taking care of this unless the court system for the questions i