time it was trying to this was a mission that it was two six one one motion brought with respect to the city of champagne the city of champagne was arguing that the statute of limitations had expired at that point listening to opinion on the judgment on the grounds of the book about practice let's say you're only going to be able to get one of the scripture i mean are you claiming that they're two separate entities is it you conduct led to those injuries with regard to the underlying facts on july fifteenth the mother of that then thirteen year old boy called nine one one from her ho not arrived the police officer showed up and initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation some stuff he requested through med cat additional how to quote to arrive at the home subsequent there to the or one eight of the tort immunity act generally says that when a public entity is involved the statue of limitations expires in one year however in two thousand and three in an effort to create equality and to create equity the legislature decided that it shouldn't matter whether an individual receives care from a public institution or a private entity the same status of limitations should apply they should not be  penalized because they receive care from one entity as opposed to the other in that year the legislature and act it one a one b which basically stands on the proposition that for any action for damages arise out of the injuries arise out of patient care then the two year step statute of limitation applies in two thousand and eight the illinois supreme court and interpret in the language arising out of as it pertains to this honorable court specifically justice oh roll opinion in two thousand and nine in kaufman the jersey community hospital jersey community hospital was a public and in that opinion this court adopted the reasoning of the illinois supreme court when a time when it articulated this opinion of arising out of as pertaining to thirteen to twelve it adopted it as pertaining to one a one b and the language of head is origin in patient care and as a result it to your status and limitations is involved and one plaintiff filed a minute complaint on october twenty ninth two thousand and thirteen it was within the two year statutory please or counsel that afternoon that katherine metropolitan computer aided dispatch center is located in the van and provides ordination for emergency management personnel to be dispatched throughout the champagne urbana and champaign area city of champagne is involved in the operation of medicare and through medicare is in the butt business of dispatching police firemen emergency management personnel it is dismissal at this point the primary issue regarding the city is why was it dismissed with prejudice why shouldn't she have been given the opportunity  complaint to see whether or not she could allege matters sufficient to raise a question regarding the cup occasion slavish limitations or whether this is treatment arising of a filed to include the city as the defendant you know this we're not thirty four years why should you know the law and dismiss with prejudice or the court decides go subtle effects can be presented that cetera why is this a dismissal of projects you're the plaintiff has sufficient time and opportunity to add other parties including other municipalities such as the city of rantoul when they filed a complaint the first time plaintiffs counsel has a to look into the case to look into the facts of the situation and file when necessary now with the situation alleging medical care as pointed out by justice white there was no two six twenty purposes we have a complaint against the city that's four months oh and dismissed with prejudice on the first hearing that seems to me to be kind of unprecedented but what is frustrating the city of campaigns perspective your honor is the fact that any type of patient care the first time would be to frustrate the purposes of the initial form that you had in the city of champaign or not in the business of providing medical care and i think the plaintiff recognizes that which is why they did not g to begin the cases the plaintiff cites time and again are ones in which should be defendants are physicians hospitals nurses they are not ones such as where the city is providing with prejudice is appropriate and your honor my argument would be that the city of champagnes argument would be that they did have their game court s which is why they were able to sue you rantoul initially and that they did not do their due diligence in recognizing and researching the city of champagne should have been added earlier in the process and that if they are going to come back and say now well we thought you were under the two your stash of limitations because of the medical care allege i'd like to see where in the complaint that you're challenging at the grounds that the statute of the patients is run it is not correct to say no cause of action was alleged you know that are you there was presented to the trial judge and the trial judge may have misled by