the language in their contract specifically calls for attorney's fees if you doesn't call for attorney's fees then usually attorney fees are not allowed and the wester case for this district  when the illinois physicians she schedules applied to that amount to those those services that were provided the deals the figure of eight thousand three hundred fifteen dollars and ninety four cents miss clifton never disputed that she owed the money did that the money be held in escrow before any distribution was made the money continues to be held in escrow by our office she never she never said that she wasn't going to pay the money but events in these insisted on an asylum of ten thousand nine hundred seventy six dollars all along as a matter of fact it's a red herring for them but it's simply not true that they agreed to accept anything less than the one thousand nine hundred seventy six dollars because even in this trial insurers have reviewed the transcript they provided care to her was paid and that she would not become obligated for this at any time in the future any some of the time in the future when she may not have the funds to pay the money decision that was was available to was at the time of this this dispute arose from the fifth district rendered the opinion that the dark room should apply to service providers as well and as i also mentioned in my own experience in my practice we had always applied it and never once had a provider refuse from the supreme court a hundred years ago we have anything that's more than the mirrors until the evidence is adequate for the quarter to make such a fine for the courts finding in a factual matter to be sustained the abuse of discretion without the factual finding which the the trial court clearly main but even when taken into consideration we submit that the the trial court certainly  his his daughter is his bookkeeper and he she told him that he's entitled to eleven thousand dollars a night ten thousand one hundred some so he refused to look at the documents he never looked at the documents this is prior counsel jason mark her told me that he never looked at the documents he trusted his daughter that we could never come to an agreement we told him from before we settled the case exactly what the positions he's scheduling of these bills was it was benign from the beginning we never had a meeting of the minds if you will i don't especially given the context from which this arises your honour's and i believe that you know they're willing to commit a service provider who who refused to engage in any reasonable discourse over their bills her knowledge that these state statutes apply to reduction of their bills to to rewarding them by awarding for a five thousand dollars in attorney fees when the entire bill is you know only a three hundred dollars would seem to be about as far a miscarriage of justice as possible sometimes it costs you know thousand dollars to and then how with only recently and then the supreme court make a decision that no you know men are still prevails and we come from doctor and i think that pushing forward that this town is really he didn't receive correspondence offering the monies at some time prior which he denied once we left the courtroom he said he didn't deny having received it but one way or the other i'm on a date of arbitration we