judge was talking about the darkness that we have seen everybody else and our attorney said we don't need the documents we need the historical information and we don't i don't know what we've gotten but i think the statistical information we want documents relating to our son are not privileged what is your response to every other aspect of the complaint that they moved to dismiss for failure to comply with six to two what is your response getting an expert as far as to other allegations of negligence in all honesty i believe this important person remember because i'm probably going to drop out because i don't think we have any expert that's going to be able to rely on those i think it seemed like the judge was in agreement with the position of the point it's that this kind of information is here lee statistical clout seeking patient information just knowing how many cases there were what changed suddenly that she planned from a to because i haven't seen the fact that the question really is whether the information that you wanted keim by way of those privileged documents and that's the only form that information could have come i if it could have come in by way of other information that wasn't privileged then the issue then perhaps the judge didn't see what could have been discovered and and i think that that sounds almost possible to me because you just clearly know what we want she said the count the numbers and give it to them and the hospital said no we will not do that as a direct response and then if the younger judge in the very last ruling the judge said no that failure to comply with two six two without question at all has been what she was before her and that's the basis on which she will but are you arguing then that her dismissal was based out of agreement with you that big claims that they could get a six to two if they had the requested information and that's what the trial judge says we're not getting there you're not entitled to this information therefore you're not going to get it and therefore you  someone else are they going to get this information from the egg how else could they ever attain the information that they're seeking that perhaps during the six month period there were treatment they could postpone their treatment how else can they ever get this information and they are not looking for patient names they're not looking for the treatment they want to know simply the number of  infections from a specific period of time the number worsen actions from any given period of time that number does not exist yet you cannot have a hospital and look at a document that was given for example in the ordinary course of business or by some other method and come up with that number that does not exist the only reason that it might mean with you that the way to get the information would perhaps require a review of patient  information but that doesn't require disclosure of that same information you're on just to put some perspective on the task at hand every price that center is that the silly that has six hundred  with what the hospital resisted in turning over in that particular case which was simply a pretty harsh statistics for a specific day correct and they eventually turned you're saying that for the from this committee eat information that was being generated i mean if they're the plane is the information that they have it contracted mers up must exist and if it  patient information but that information had to be disclosed nonetheless and this information exists and i mean how to exist independently but it exists and you and  distinct that they know which of the many patients that may have been at the hospital during this time period contract emersed up i don't understand why that information can be  want the time that the patient contracted mercy let's say you just want the time the date that the patient was treated for are just big data data information as opposed to any other against them got pushed in with the cause of action are the really the crux of the complaint against advocate that's correct and they've sort of been drawn up into this dispute that really the hospital primary has with the plaintiff as to whether the hospitals agree that he needed to say was that if he had certain information it would be likely he could say the cause of action against the defendants and what he says after saying that i can't provide the necessary opinion as to the individual event as he goes on to say in the very next meant that they did not say in the first at david anything about the doctors and corrected affidavit in this amended to say for the first time that without the aforementioned data that's referring to the information they're seeking it is impossible to determine whether the individual defendants deviated from any standard of care in their treatment of plaintiff while a patient advocate christ and in the next paragraph he simply says it is likely that there would be a meritorious cause of action against advocate christ medical center paragraph does it does it suggest that the standard of care would the doctors would turn on whether or not they were aware of some sort of the hospital and and and is that a standard of care that is similar to any standard of care that your family i mean that's what that's to me that's the sig that's th by this unknown perhaps mercy i'll pay to these doctors and maybe the standard of care would impose upon them there are an obligation to find out we surveyed engage in surgery and that together of course what if he doesn't get that information if he doesn't get that information he performs the surgery to the best of his ability within the city and it appears that another doctor would be have to follow as well as every other doctor would have to follow as well why should it matter that the nurse didn't provide that information even though it may have been through i mean i i think there are serious standard care questions raised by whether this  regarding africa the sixty's the absence of a sixty two i don't know that the the the trial judge linked it to the doctor and did your position ever link the question is whether there that is an excusable omission or something that can be remedied and i think that the plaintiff has acknowledged that given the limitations placed on him by the circuit court it cannot be right and so the question then boils down even more narrowly to the question of whether th limitations are important or are valid it's and it's important to recognize that that question has no bearing on certain aspects of the plainest complaint and i think the questions that just an upright posed to the plaintiff and two of my co sort of in light of our that hypothetical ruling by this court how does that impact your client's case that has a significant impact on the case against the doctor defendants and even against part of the hospital and we know unless we know it has an impact against the hospital i think that in fact your client if it's as to all offense it means it still means that there are certain aspects of the of the complaint that could very well have been supported by a sixty two affidavit even in the absence of the privileged material there are aspects of this complaint is just mcbride i do believe yourself to have observed i'm just thinking out loud how how are how with this information about actors whether they and we don't know at all whether there so there are aspects of the complaint that concern what the doctors allegedly did after the plaintiff contracted or so and those treatment allegations as opposed to the initial contraction allegations are unaffected by the rates at which  it if for example there was a sudden spike and they had information that i still had that information but not necessarily it wasn't necessarily disseminate that's my question really there's no reason at all your honor why you if you were to find this material not to be privileged that you could not remain and as to the hospital alone and a from the dismissal of the doctor if it's because the doctor yours the defendant or respond in some discovery and maybe file an action against the doctors only and then try to get that the information and then if they have information regarding a spike then you bring in the hospital and so why should we you know  you know sort of adopt your approach to this case and use it to expand what you might otherwise have gotten to work been able to demonstrate a little stronger had you let's say we think that there's still a question regarding whether the data or the information being sought was discoverable what do we do with the doctors from my perspective and i think this is logical would be t support the company with the six tips which it did not except that one said that would have stopped at that point without recognizing that there's a more to the rule than what the defense counsel cited to the trial court and the rest of the rule says  without leave of court and we got leave of court to get this information and so that's never been an issue there's nobody has said that the trial court here did not have authority to give us more time i don't understand no citation for that other than were changed and that was that was not based the basis for the ruling her final ruling was specifically the documents are privileged we said we don't need to die since we did the statistics and she said my ruling is the same as statistics that's the oral ruling that's her explanation this order is simply a shorthand for what she said and i don't quarrel with the order that that's that's how i would have entered the order but we know why she did it i had to advise the court i'm going to check with trial counsel if there's any way that we can make the court's task easier by eliminating some charges the next twenty four of christ work within seven days i can't do that without