statute sections you six one six b because of she could preserve cause of action from the effect of the statute even if those cause of action had not proved before being extinguished by those that conclusion is at odds with the law relation back stache years and things language that reveals its limited legislative purpose and is not broad enough to have  public policy and there are very few statutes certainly very few sections of the good civil procedure with such a well documented history behind it and this court is frequently turn this court has repeatedly reckoned that the general assembly was looking into the medical malpractise crisis of the one nine hundred seventy s an attempt to solve what he perceived as a crisis in the provision of health care in the state and it is certainly conceivable in in this instance with this statute or with other statutes of that is that such a statute might extinguish a cause of action before a potential plaintiff has discovered it even in some as as the session says preserve a cause of action if that cause of action has already been extinguished even before your group that's in the nature of simply what the meaning of preserve is in the word  concept of preservation or preserve it has to begin with the understanding of there being a valid and existing claim to be in none of the facts of this case there never was a valid existing cross bac did not occur at the same time that the plaintiffs original cause of action because of her death more than four years later there was never a time really for the purpose of allowing and that is not only that armed with the language of the relation back stage but also it was with the purposes that the general assembly was attempting to achieve in a that is not the situation in the seventy's when the legislature looked at what the landscape of the liability landscape of the state was and determined that it poses a threat to the continue availability of quality healthcare within the state based with that situation the general assembly had a number of difficult offers for the one that it shows the legislative scheme that it chose to enact was one in frequently ready contexts that statutes of repose may very well have that back as a consequence that is sometimes unfortunate to a potential client but  terminations as to whether a particular case involves notice or whether a particular individual player might suffer detriment or take or individual defendant might be benefit public benefit to protect the availability of quality healthcare within the state and the possibility that some cost of action might be extinguished before the group has the necessary some case law that discusses what this all means and some of that language is that the defendant's attorney attention was directed within the the period of time prescribed a limited of the basis of the claims against them that the original compla now little puzzle because i thought i heard the argument from counsel with all respect that the the statutory poses an absolute bar the actions after a certain point time with no discussion i think those were taken out of context of the entire statutory scheme in the case law if you look at a lot of these cases are cited in both briefs there are causes of action that is not exist at the time  isolated case that happened i guess anything's possible as a practical matter i don't see that as a problem i can also say anecdotally that i've had a number of cases with this exactly that aaron that i've presented where there's been no motion this is the first time proposition but that has nothing to do with what we have here both were initially filed their party and dummy actions where there was a party now suing a party who was already in the case but their part of the never sued them before so it wasn't a relation back issue it was a dino face if we had filed this case five years after the incident for the first time both case would lie but they don't apply this case they don't have anything to do with the evanston case very interesting case after i read about three times a little light going out in a case that was really a case bill whether the c s repos for attorneys of lights or allegations made against someone there was an discussion about some other things what's say which one is more general which is more specific or which one was passed first of which one was passed second they work in tandem all the fine oh courts have been doing there for years this court has been doing that for years one does not wrong the other there's a new cause of action when you allege some different acts of negligence that occurred back from the original complaint but those things relate back all the time you can call those new an amended complaint you can call but i don't think in  exist at the time the original complaint was filed and that's not a stupid idea what's relevant is not whether the cause of action in this is wrong that this is a time initial complaint was filed it can still be laid back under other circumstances even wrongful death claim may have accrued during good through during the time of the four years following the medical care issue it may not have existed at the time the initial complaint was filed but as long as it existed in some and what the statute proposed is intended to do by its long recognized well documented purpose this is this is the only result of what one of the lesser used rules  this this would provide better cause of action can't be preserved unless he exists in some fashion to be preserved and that is critical because that involves one of the endo that session sets out the purpose of this session in in words that are that couldn't be more clear and are remarkable in their limiting fashion this statute is meant for the purpose of preserving and i quote for the purpose of preserving the cause of action across claymore the event set up in the human being and for that purpose only so preservation is is the key term it is for the purpose of preserving because of that or claim that term compress a ration is something awful didn't discuss other than the preservation of claims that may or may not have existed at the time that the original complain but the key point in time is not the file your original complaint for purposes of understanding relation back and whether because this was actually can be preserved it's whether it existed at all whether existential but that's what preserve means something that doesn't exist can't be far as the wrongful death claims here could not have been filed at any time during  can't be preserved by something that comes after that this is a case of first impression it's not affected or influenced by those cases in which was factional claims