although i admit i have some connection to the court from a standpoint i used to practice law when i did hear an illinois with bill while mocker who was a justice here for approximately five or six years from nineteen eighty four two thousand and nine my mother a passed away at the hospital on may twenty ninth of that year subsequent to that i was appointed as executor of the estate and in malpractise action against the two surgeons in may tenth of two thousand and eleven having received a report from a medical doctor and subsequently filed suit in this case on march eighteenth of two thousand and thirteen  situation doesn't commence to run until the party has received an indication from the doctor that there has been negligent conduct now they realize that the  language of the statute i believe talks about nest this type this is a situation that is it's not a traumatic injury because what she did and what she what happened to her as she was now the defense really don't address those three cases in their brief the only action on the young one under the facts is under the rule has to be decided in the favor of the not moving party in this case myself but and the only facts that the court had when they made the decision was i'm a lawyer in my capacity as executor of the estate i requested the medical records the hospital  and that i testified in my deposition march eighth of two thousand and twelve in the suit against the two surgeons in response to a question  the statute of limitations should run at some just because i'm a lawyer the fact that i testified in a deposition more than two years after my mother's death that i didn't think she got good care in the hospital to me can be a basis for saying that i knew at the time or for gas that she didn't get good care i don't see how on what basis the court could infer from what was before it that there was anything that i knew anything about what happened to or at the time of her  is not applicable to this case that issue because beazley was decided by a jury after a separate trial on the issue of the statute of limitations defense the principle issue for the jury was rather within the meaning of section thirteen dash two one to the plaintiff's new or through the use of reason reasonable diligence shut them down by nov twenty eighth ninety eighty one that darlene had been injured by the defendant's negligent treatment filed a complaint against two physicians involved with her medical care of his counsel testified that the of as of the time of her down to earth he suspected that she had received inadequate medical care and treatment now to me that right there are triggers the statute of limitations no consulate just finished referencing the beazley case and it's true there was a jury trial in that case but the fundamental principles that are enunciated in beazley remain the same regardless of the circumstances they were brought out of being easily rely on the almost supreme court's decision underlying all of these things these cases is that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows that an injury was wrongfully caused well that's pretty vague and the courts have struggled with of action is not necessary for the for that limitation street room and the courts have also interpreted that statute to state that it does not mean that the claimant must have knowledge that a specific defendant conduct was negligence the courts have been uniform in or in the intro putting that statute to mean the plaintiffs need not have knowledge then an actionable wrong has been committed also opposing counsel bases his case on the notion that he had no idea that the limitations period began to run when the consulting firms gave him a verbal report over the phone saying we think there's been some negligence here and arca that that lies in direct contrast with the every court decision that has interpreted the statute that you're you just mentioned i think it's also important to point out limitations pre boot begin and force me to investigate further and they found hiring an attorney is sufficient grounds for establishing that the limitations period has begun to run because at that point when you go to hire an attorney clearly you suspect that something is going wrong and i'll be easily i'm sorry beasley urkel the holy cross decision in that case the court said that the limitations screen begins to run one plaintiff became aware of the possibility that something was afoot and that's were the ties right in with hiring an attorney why would you hire an attorney unless you  suspected there was a possibility someone who was at fault not also was acting as his own attorney or the so if you do need to hire a shoddy book he did exactly what every attorney would have done had he received a call from as i understand it it was during the prosecution of that during the discovery that oh i think a year year and a half into that case the deposition was taken to one or more of the defendant consulting firm that reviewed his medical records or of the disease medical records because why didn't they precious why did you have to wait but i don't see how that has any relation to our case at all we submit that even if the court finds that the that is decoration that he suspected something was wrong upon her death if that's not sufficient then taking the first steps in latour litigation asking for those medical records that's sort of a clear indication that the route ations period had begun to run at that point he must have known of the possibility that there'd been a problem it eight or nine months it was a significant delay before he even sent these records to the consulting firm so i think we have a serious problem with lack of diligence here opposing counsel's argument is based on the notion that the limitations period did not begin until he received that phone call from the consulting firm ask yourself what would have happened if instead of waiting nine months to obtain the medical records what if you waited three years and sort of waiting fourteen months to obtain to send those records forward into a consulting firm would beat waited three years not six years under the plainest of the theory of the case that's entirely appropriate there's no problem with that but there's a point in my brief of it and i really struggle trying to find the right word for get to decide when the limitation period begins to run because they can wait as long as they want to obtain medical records and wait a little bit longer some goes to a consulting firm  control over the limitations period in the hands of the claimant and that's that that's true were we have an argument with that would be you know i don't know it ensure that the court understands that i am not to any extent all suggesting that he is that opposing counsel as acted unethically here however under the statute we do have a requirement of due diligence i don't think that was basically i want to address the issue of the what the what the council is trying to do is he's trying to say that i knew at the time of my mother's death that there was negligence done and that's not the fact and i never said that and the i don't know where you got the six years how i would get to be six years but to me got a chance to actually limitation the for your statute riposte you know the outside one of these four years you don't do something within four years you're out wrong then so you see in the first two years just to give it no it's not a given but that's but but but that's what the law provides i mean that's what they said the statue of limitations is two years well in  to try to say i did something nefarious i mean one of your buddies i know i understand that that's what they're implying because if if i hadn't sent the stuff every time i mean you have to hire six experts to go through all the medical records if you think that there's a problem i don't know so we're just fortuitous thank you