studies act as a matter of law but before i get to that i would like to address ever so briefly if i can to rather poor minority points in any analysis of the medical studies that requires a two prong analysis first is this the state should as a matter of law apply which will get to in the second prong is whether the matters being claimed as privilege fell within the four corners of the statute ineffectual committee and other case didn't know what they were supposed to do that then it's hard for them together information i think that's quite logical but more instructive on that point is roche first the springfield clinic illinois supreme court in the one nine hundred ninety s was faced with a quite frankly situation quite on point where memorial hospital in that case claimed a privilege under the medical  quote briefly memorial steering also fails because a presupposes a doctor that draper's investigation was tantamount to an investigation by a committee the term committee is never specifically defined in the statute so we much must give it its ordinary and popularly understood me as generally understood a committee is comprised of a body or group of persons not just a single individual became public but who carson all well we have a doctor in that we developed we took a deposition of a doctor in louisiana who was aware of what went on in the college the the complainant for seven months of investigation complaint was filed in october of zero six zero formal charges of unprofessional conduct i was retained in december of zero six i wrote a lengthy letter to college i may have a dr campbell guard on i believe at the end of december of zero six or first week in january we received notice that the hearing which was scheduled for february of zero seven was going to be stayed or d i'm not even sure whether i could if counsel attend as well so we can get to that point i certainly don't know what it would be like discloses who sits on their peer review committee so we knew the five numbers one was from washington california new york pennsylvania and texas i believe it's in the record that the record of three to the three eighty eight  hearing i'm paraphrasing the words but and that was it in terms of timeline and factual background so to me the complaint was dropped well it wasn't officially it dropped because the housekeeper case she was me from butchering the first name of that case but that case had before it its state statute and the california supreme court said that that statute was for the benefit of the residents and citizens of the same california i just use that as an example there are and i will tell you that every case and or every state that has a peer review statute and  all of them has the very same purpose the words to achieve that purpose differ of certainly illinois is no different in its purpose of the institute of medicine which i'm sure sure we're all aware of in the indian state supreme court over the last one hundred fifty years have said that health care is a matter of little concern for the citizens of the particular state we know that construed as opposed to looking to some other states tetrick but every state has a statute and we and the pick and the purpose of that's of it states states is the same as for the citizens of the state now if you know that our general assembly when it created our own state statute in one thousand nine hundred eighty one wanted to make it a national story the statute of could have said so the problem of course is as we put forth reply brief is that there is no history upon the enactment of the one nine hundred sixty one version of the illinois medical studies that and it has been in it in existence for forty nine years now so we need to look at the statute as a whole its objectives and its nature because the job geographical remit is are not stated in the  find to cheryl that the illinois state should pertains to illinois and pertains to the benefit and welfare of the citizens of the state of illinois now i'll try to crunch because of x but that's mere conjecture the only medical society is found in the first and third sections if we looked at the third section of the statute we find that there are fo did for the only department of health and the only state not for society it says that those agencies or any of these are for the benefit of the people of the state of illinois and i'm paraphrasing the roads but it's right there the only sa a credit committees well we know from the roche case that committee is defined by group or body and we know from to hand over material in this case it was the joint commission and at the time was great commission accreditation of health care organizations in order to license story only supreme court said the first section really has to do with a pre committees of the hospitals it also has an entity called insurance companies and prior to that time it was the end he was entering surance exchanges and i'm using net as an example it said on our preferred well we know from the legislative history which we have put in our appendix that the only state medical society in amicus in this in our case went to the legislature and says well we change under insurance exchanges through our insurance companies and that's the reason we have the phrase insurance company now i took three other amendments to the medical studies say by way of example but and they all focus back to illinois illinois i guard as we know a number repeating the facts testified in new york as a medical expert regarding patient care provided by new york doctor to new jersey patient those are the facts and nobody disagrees with that that does not impact on health care for an illinois president or the only citizen and he has proof of that not because i say so or logic may dictate that who somehow cooked up a media piece from the state of new york who covered dr cameras testimony and the only citizen would tell his or her doctor i don't want to find all what you're telling me to eight and those cases say that the medical studies act is related to the benefits of the citizens of the state of illinois so we have case law and can affect three out of the for appell element of third section of the station with us for any of these as i mentioned of moments ago three of them certainly pertain to illinois the first one is allied medical society where we do know with as a construction that we need consistency across all sections of the statute well there's three in section three pertaining illinois wouldn't the first one have to pertain to the benefit of the citizens in illinois and the answer is certainly so all what we look at in the analysis of this the medical studies act apply as a matter of law at all comes back to the state of illinois whether it's like but the united states supreme court has said illinois supreme court has said that health care is the level and that we have to look to benefiting the citizens of the state you know there are other cases out there that say the same thing about that state statute i mean so it's nothing different you know in that respect so i hope i've addressed just this coming year this isn't on and that here i think you have just won one more question it's the college's position in the trial court seem to have found the same way the information about the peer review processes is camp strictly confidential a huge community your honor it's seventy thousand plus isn't like every doctor now knows just because a complaint was filed well i will put it to you this way we have definitive evidence that at least one doctor anymore but this one doctor from shreveport louisiana knows who's a member of the college and it's not involved in this process but that remains to be developed for discovery in this case but i will tell you that there's that as we set forth in the petition but i mean the fact is that he was charged by three individuals i'm tied not charged she was charged by the committee to me that went to three individuals that that in some sort of investigation one letter as a sudden the committee stays the charges for hearing and then the hearing doesn't proceed yet the documents didn't change one iota that we do know and i believe that letter sent in the in the fi s set standards for expert testimony for its members in malpractise actions dr campbell card voluntarily join the a c s and pledge to abide by its rules regulations the l ike medical society such as the a c c it as use that designation to boost their credibility when they testify and the a c s bylaws require the application of illinois law to any action filed against the a c s in any court now the peer review proceeding initiated by the a c s against dr camel guide was issued out of studies act that that says that the conduct that has to be the subject of the cure of you must occur in l annoy now countless site of a lot of cases that mention not legislative history but mentioned that this will improve health care in illinois well all of those cases deal with hospitals and hospital peer review committees which are necessarily local none of them deal with allied medical societies such as the a c s are they and they have thousands of members across the country and out putting those outside in illinois so if the court were to analysis to figure out what law applies and we suggest that that would just be unworkable the l a medical society in this case has made it clear to its members that they agree to abide by the application of ell as set forth in the bylaws well here the trial court properly determined that the medical studies that protected the information that dr campbell got was seeking in his role to twenty four petition that's the identities charged with violation they can as a professional can you say ok let me defend myself i say i have an expert says who is that i have to question i want to take some depositions i said no no no you don't have to well you provide for an opportunity to know the charge and to respond to it and that's what happened in this case dr campbell guard hired counsel responded to the complaint  the mere finally complaint does not entitle you to discover it that's correct your honor what what what i'm saying is that the information that is considered in the peer review process is privileged and not subject to discovery under the medical studies act so i have to go there who are hearing not knowing who testified against me what these expert said i can't question him and there are all these analysts these experts  not testifying against dr camel guard they're providing an analysis to the c j c to determine whether or not a charge should be brought and then dr campbell guard knowing those charges has an opportunity to produce witnesses that gives evidence challenge the charges in any way he said it's not like he the director of surgeons who are consulted here testifying against him behind a curtain where he doesn't have the right to cross examine them with the pm i can understand if he had no sit there and he said i don't know what it was they call in experts as to what should we do the experts said well we think the standard of care is and so they say ok independent of all that we're brought in to comply what i think the without getting into the substance of what they said the issue here was whether dr campbell guard ha expertise in the area that he gave testimony so testimony was reviewed at from the mel practice trial and then since the members of the committee did not have an expertise they wouldn't be able to assess  that matter so i don't believe this is a situation where as i said these experts were consulted for purposes of testimony against dr campbell god i think it's for a very limited purpose and if you look at the words of the statute and i think interpret in the statute that's where we have to start the n s a first of all has no jury geographic limitation in terms of its applicability doesn't say anything about illinois law and one would wonder as a judge dealing did why would you include medical societies in there that have a diverse membership if the application was limited to illinois it says all information or data of allied medical societies used in the course of internal quality control or of medical study for the purpose of improving patient care and i think what happened here clearly falls within both the letter in the spirit of the n s a the purpose of the n s a is to foster peer review and if these individual physicians  knew that they would be subject to disclose are subject to lawsuit that the chemical that's already on its third lawsuit here who would come forward and participate in the process which the type of medical service judges rely on the testimony of experts to determine the standard of care and so i think elad medical societies ought to be applauded for having clear review committees to make sure that testifying physicians meet those standards let me just respond briefly to the argument that somehow dr choler caught was not a member of the committee and therefore that has some impact here first of all this committee requirement really doesn't pertain to allied medical societies that really pertains to the committees of hospitals surgical authorized to speak on their behalf so i think to suggest that somehow the committee is separate from dr colloquy is form over substance and then finally this is an argument that was never raised in the trial court let alone in the opening brief answer your honor's question on whether anybody made anything public there's nothing in the record that suggests that anybody from the college made anything about this proceeding public in fact it was who filed his rule to twenty four petition that published all the information about the proceeding in fact which maybe is a good segue into the other issue in this case and that is whether or not the trial court properly terminate the rule twenty two twenty four petition and we think she did here because the purposes of rule two twenty four are not in debate here it's really to  identify people responsibility responsible for harm not to build a case for responsibility and here we think that the petitioner has to make some threshold showing of a cause of action and we don't think that one was made in this case if you look at the petition the only allegation is in paragraph fourteen of the petition that a charge was made later dropped and therefore the petitioner was somehow damaged by it and we don't think that meets meets the threshold and in fact if you look at the buell case that says that in determining the permissible scope of discovery under two twenty four the court has to look at the nature of the cause of action alleged well how does this usually come up it usually comes up when you have an accident in the operating room where the plaintiff knows that they're injured right but they don't know who had control the operating room and accident at a construction site right where you don't know who had control of the state of the site here we don't have that situation in fact we had the unusual situation where dr cam guard filed a federal court lawsuit during the pendency of this two twenty four petition alleging defamation and invasion of privacy both of those claims were dismissed under much more liberal federal court pleading rules so when judge duelling determined that he hadn't established a basis any basis to show that someone may be liable to him she was absolutely correct he's entitled to discovery before the hearing of some sort you know your honor i could not say since it never got to that point what what the procedure would be i know he would be entitled to a hearing  a situation where he's taken alternative approaches he filed the t twenty four petition that he filed the federal lawsuit he's acknowledged that any claim he would have for defamation or invasion of privacy the statue of limitations has run and now subsequently he has filed a nother suit in the circuit court alleging breach of contract and then curiously intentional infliction of emotional distress rising out of peer review proceeding that was ultimately drop so it sets up an unusual situation where two twenty four is designed for pre suit discovery and here assuming need have the petition rule to twenty fourth situation as i mentioned to the court has not changed one that from the last time this court had it sets that we are seeking three names but in on page fifteen eighty seven volume seven of the record we set forth the nine paragraphs in a descriptive way the reasons for seeking the discovery that we were seeking and at the bottom of that page problem we used to those causes of actions and subsequent case which has been stated but because judge doing as she did she entered a final word that cleverly a stops us forever unless we get relief from the score from uncovering the names of the three individuals who acted as a consultant i judge justice gordon in the bill case and footnote three and we've noted that in our briefs i have the same in this case have nothing to do with improving health care for the citizens of the state of illinois even though the issue of making sure that the peer review process is maintained ultimately does help the people  process as a general proposition is intended for the state of illinois to improve maintain insure health care for the people of illinois that is a property if you put it to california i don't refer that would be the same proposition but the same purpose but when you testify in new york regarding a patient from new jersey who was treated in new york one is that and terms of the name names of these three individuals you know there was a leak of confidential information and you know believe in reading the misquotes earlier opinion we would be entitled to a source three names were in the documents that were tendered to judge koch in the earlier trial court judge and the indeed were and had to be in tested by respondents counsel to the trial court hints that the documents contain the names of the consulting surgeons comma which petitioner would have been entitled to under rule two twenty four close quote i believe justice moore he wrote the opinion the court at that time the counsel mentioned this is this federal case about being dismissed well he didn't quite complete the sentence he was dismissed without prejudice leave to undertake additional discovery but this matters intervening as far as dr khalid kalakaua not being a committee member although in his affidavit he described what he does the