court i represent doctor pronto and although this case has a lot of different facets sometimes it seems to be going in every direction there is one common theme common thread that runs through the case that i believe is  but is there any question though that mr piper dr piper the chief of the medical staff was responding on behalf of the that the hospital and the staff i know they're out there were allegations and were calling peron goads three that these were false responses but it's not like he was you know in some frolic and detour of his own writing letters he received requests from other hospitals to verify their credentials and he responded your honor remarkably that's exactly the problem here he didn't get our information is that he did go out on his cell and that's why after he sent these letters are different hospital policy and he tendered these letters to different health care entities and he admitted in the end his subsequent letter that he did not have the authority to send them he's not the proper party to send that not just parents already but he it is not his function now why are the other hospitals who receive these letters supposed to know that i mean you got a letter it's on the right letterhead it's from a person medical practice act in the hospital licensing active requires that that peer review investigation unless it has a and after signing at the end just the mere fact of an investigation can't be disclosed as criminal offen it's a different privilege here it's it's not a discovery privileges it's a privilege to for example a privilege to defeat you know in a peer review proceeding because it's so secret and nothing can missouri at this point which is why diversity system yes he had to move away because of this he had to go far he had to travel very far to find a new job he could not get his privileges verified and that's that's one of the issues here we've got dr piper who actually responded we don't know why he said what he said we have no idea but he did respond to the hospital their actions took place after we attempted to file the initial complaint after d piper went away and said this isn't my responsibility and i didn't contest the falsity of this and in the piper complaint are his respond which complaint are you talking about the  federal court no that was the piper complaint was the one that was filed that's what we're calling three yes i believe that's what some of refer to this three that complaint was brought you know well after the first one was an issue was going to be filed there's nothing in that complaint at all that references peer review that references privity there are references any association with the hospital now although the illinois circuit cour that the hospital is liable vicariously for the actions of its chief of staff who is piper so that brings you squarely within the double filing rule the the problem we we could with the piper letter there was no connection with any peer review at all we did not sue based on anything like that it was just a simple defamation claim because we're got out there and it was false that's well but it's the same core of operative facts so you've got to bring every claim that you've got in a single lawsuit and you know illinois law permits you that second refiling but not more that the issue here though is that we did not plead anything to do with the piper case there's no privity shown between piper and the hospital alleged that it was not filed your r and we they subsequently disclaimed privity in the e mails that we that were attached or motions you alleged in your first complaint in our hospital was i curiously liable for the actions of its chief of staff and we believe that the hospital did participate at that time your honor we believe that the hospital did produce a paid having that letter sent then we got word from the hospital that they did not they affirmatively stated and that's attached to our response to the motion to dismiss the affirmative we told us that piper was on his own he wasn't acting on behalf of the hospital he wasn't inciting the right policy and the problem is that the connection is based on an overall desire to respect the integrity of the peer review process that was how they the court connected the two there was no we don't even know there was a peer review process if there was refiling rule if you have the same claim you only get three phyla what's not quite so and that does not require a permit and well in illinois i understand it at least for purposes of the concept of same claim for the re for who was not in privity who was you know maybe a supplier or you know somebody else a newspaper reporter i don't know surely you can bring a later lawsuit against them but you can bring your own that may not be this case you the medical staff dr piper my client the all have an interest in defending against these allegations so i think you're making a very broad argument which i don't think is supported by illinois law that there is simply no privity requirement at all  requirement that the defendants in all three suits be whatever the same means and i think judge ripple was alluding to the fact that we actually have different rulings from the appellate court of illinois some say the defendant seem to be literally the same of employment departure from our hospital efforts to obtain a new job on and off the responses or lack thereof by the hospital to prospective employers that is the same transaction and again he never organ either to the  previously indicated plus one more there is an allegation here that all of the defendants conspired with each other to do damage to a doctor dr parent gail by definition parties who are allegedly coconspirators or improvement with each law firm who wasn't joint of the first lawsuit but was all the asli in privity with his law court it's no different than the associate in the doctor's office who was not sued in the first lawsuit but obviously wasn't privy because they had a joint interest in defending the clay so you the way if the court has any other questions i'd be glad to answer them apparently not thank you very  counsel's argument with respect to conspiracy creating privity fine it still doesn't create privity between dr piper and the hospital now as we decided in our brief the the issue of privity between a medical staff and a hospital is absolutely a fact question it should not be decided on a twelve b six motion where and if the affirmative defense is raised it's so rare for the court to grant these motions because the allegation would have to be in the piper complain that he was in privity with somehow with the hospital everyone admitted after we tried to file the first complaint that they were not in pretty few other i mean the hospital never tried to intervene in the piper case if their interests were at stake one would think they would have done that but when piper acted on his own as he said he did that just became a defamation claim there's no contract with piper th have to we have to assume that these are connected now the piper letters are not referenced in the complaint we we let that go and i was careful not to touch the piper letter in this complaint but cottage hospital