opinion with the majority opinion was a very broad opinion basically said that a medically and applies anywhere anytime to any recovery that that injured person can make in this case or any other case we argued against that in this court allowed us to file in my understanding is that the county is not offending the court's broader opinion i believe at this point the county's only argument is that mr medina go was a debtor and that and or are pointless really so simple he's not a debtor to cook county hospital really was not a better to cook county hospital at the time because it better is only reason i'm sorry because a minor can only be responsible for his but to call necessaries and even then this i think medical care would be unnecessary but even that if i'm twelve years old i am only responsible to pay a medical bill if in fact the hospital gave me that care on my o with that is that there's a there's that language an act but that but there's the reality that the law has been that the minor is not responsible for his medical bills so no matter what that no matter what the leon act wanted to do the bottom line is that the a minor is not responsible for his bills and the family expense sack makes the mother responsible for his bill so in that sense if we have to look at it a mother i guess becomes the injured person and that's that's a enact many many years ago nobody thought about adults and minors i suspect it just wasn't in their mind the trail suggesting to this court that we had to follow the case law that you've indicated that says that injured person is the parent whereas and not to follow the statute which is part of this this case i think that is what i'm saying but i think i'm saying it a little different way and that the bottom line is that the lenient can only attach to a debt and there is no debts here for that we have to attach to i don't know what that does to the rest of the rock but the best language bills and you're taking his pain and suffering and you're taking his scar tissue and you're paying it isn't that a violation of the federal constitution the illinois constitution and anything that we've ever had if in that i think that   in with my point that he wasn't the better because he was not a better he didn't recover and he could not recover his medical bills so if we're going to make the minor because he was a minor ok the hospital we're taking money from him that had nothing to do with the hospitals treatment is the same as if they reached into his bank account someplace and say we're going to take that money in the kennedy case the the court was very clear and tell you something that the other cases cited but didn't talk about much they said to quote them since the payment of those expenses was to the benefit of the parents are talking about medical expenses were alive before the expenses rather than for the benefit of the child who w this world and that didn't happen but the bottom line is the one the court made that simple statement it said the child is not liable for the expenses they weren't referring in that phrase i don't think to any arrangement that had been there they were referring to the common right because that paragraph that the paragraph in which that sends us states now was a discussion of subrogation or assignments but it starts with the phrase since the application to pages on the parent the cause of action to recover for the medical medical expenses lies in the parent not of the child and they go on to say that's not the child's if that the child a minor child can't sue that's the bottom line that's what that's what the constitutional argument comes back into the child cannot oh yeah i try to translate what that hold up the paperwork when the hospital sort of just leaning on everybody in the case and they would have had to have been aware of her claim because the circuit court judge said she had a cont for to recover the medical expenses and as this court noted in his opinion if you read the complaint that wasn't there but everybody at the trial level accepted the fact that there was a count for her medical expenses and someplace and there's actually a claim although there's not a separate know i'm sorry i don't know the answer to that i thought that we came before the case went to trial ok and heard and it wasn't so much that a case was dismissed if that becomes relevant the circuit court judge said she did not prove her right to recover those medical bills so she wasn't dismissed or still there's if she was a pretty good appeal there would have saved a great deal of trouble for everybody i i i have my ideas part of the problem i think a little  we're talking about a very small sum of money relative to other things and i think i think everybody just let this sort of head say i mean i don't mean this in a dull way they just didn't give it the attention they thought it would and i don't think anybody saw that this would be the final happens is that if you give medical care you have a lien for the services that you perform but that when only attaches to the money that's recovered for the injury for which the doctor or hospital is treating you if it's not so limited then you're right but you run into a real cost to solve problems and i think i can go recover from any account that bob or mary has any where i don't think even the current version of the act took the common law in any way or the priors intent of the statute all they were doing here was taking all of these medical reasons which were all over the board each medical provider of a different type was having one certainly if you recall the movie the producers there were fifteen people with one third of an awful lot of input from the people who have interest in it not if if they were looking at andersen and somebody actually went to a legislator who said a little boy anderson it looks like it looks like this one has read it that it looks like the minor can be  they said the child is not a better if i'm a legislator in the show me one case with a big i want case with their statement i would think i would go with lives that i thought best way to answer that i understand that it's somewhat muddled i think it's mild because the questions we're raising  first sentences and pulled one out and that's what i was trying to indicate what they did was redo the entire act they they had all these that they redid the momentum together and just redid almost all the language and then there's all kinds of the language in there that wasn't there before no one knows specifically why they dropped out i would argue if if they were going to drop that out intentionally to change a fifty or one hundred years of camelot somebody would have said so and if somebody had said so there would have been an uproar no in the medical care a lot of it throws out the window i think more importantly this could have been handled differently by the county as well if they had just gone into say your honour's we we greet that if we  minors under common law are responsible for their medical expenses their parents are so face of a minor alone two year old a twelve year old can't do that again and it will make a difference if it becomes a majority at the time of his case you know the lien act and its predecessor the hospital leave act have been around for seventy five years and in almost seventy five years there's never been a language in either of those statutes that talks about my nurse and the and the fact of the proceeds of a minor cannot be lean and i agree with it in this to this extent yes kill says if it's not you don't have any provisions about minors in the statute according to the statute you become a debtor if you are injured you are treated for your injuries at the hospital you sue the tortfeasor for your injuries and the the the bills are are reasonable and in other words not unreasonably high well this is a sign of a tort law against public policy i don't agree to this with it is outside of public policy i believe that the cases that are that the line of cases that are cited by the sue the fourth user and get an additional pile of money that is what those cases are founded on the purpose of the lien act he says that the lien act itself the will according to the supreme court in cooper the lead act promotes health care for the poor by lessening the financial burden on hospitals who would have to care for people who can't pay well that's a serious here's where i disagree with you the first time we actually had in illinois separate geisha medical expenses and of course it hadn't even been in any other state it was in the early sixty's around one thousand nine hundred sixty because i know i put it in the first insurance policy and they have point in time of the lower court held that that was void as against public policy even though the language said it applied only to medical expense and the argument by the state's attorney at that point in time was they had it was an assignment of a tort than against public policy there's a position now which is different but the question is you know the concept of an assignment of a tort is against public policy and you can't take pain and suffering from a person when you have medical expenses because not only is it went against public policy it's a constitutional deprivation under the fourteenth amendment i respectfully disagree other than sort of lip service as to the constitutional aspect this brief was not this this matter was not briefed as i said i agree with  it doesn't matter if it's a settlement or a judgment it doesn't matter but who the players are arguing dad there is nothing to attach because the judge with that was entered was for pain and suffering from a future in  present and for scarring if there was there was no recovery look for medicals well i think that argument misses the point that the medical bills in this case were stipulated by both parties as being reasonable and related they stipulated as to the there was he denied her compensation for medical bills the record shows that he denied it because she had no expectation of paying the bill on the way good enough it that's what that's where they're arguing that cooper is not a political because in in  simply an alternative remedy we are pursuing this remedy the public policy behind this is to help out hospitals who treat nonpaying accident victims and if you take minors out of the equation then you're not promoting health care for the poor you're taking a step back as to that and that's why the legislature enacted the statute or about the issue about the intervention that was addressed as as we all know in the in the court's opinion i don't i think it was the wend case where the supreme court stated that the that the lien holder has no standing to intervene in the lawsuit of the plaintiff we have no standing and practically speaking we have a state's attorney's office that's the name one we don't know that there's any settlement work or trial going on until the one of the attorneys notifies us that hey a judgment has been a achieved or eight a settlement this is imminent or has has been agreed to that's when we filed me but that's when we send over the notice of lane otherwise we don't know what what cases may or may not going to be going on we don't know if there's a pretty litigation settlement we have to rely on the attorneys to tell cooper case i thought it was the when doing here it's but it was one of the supreme court cases in which the supreme court says that the lien holder has no standing so when the trial judge in this case i didn't hear from the state zero his office we couldn't have intervened in anyway because we don't we don't have the ability to do that we don't have any standing to do that that cases between the plaintiff and the defendant were simply a legal they're fine to get up bills for i must add also that in the area in the in the matter of unjust enrichment there is no one just in richmond coming to us we are simply trying to get our bills paid once and one time only there at most we'll get one recovering we're lucky to get that there's no double recovery issue here as there is with the line of subrogation cases that don't involve involve other law that is not a political with the legislature has had seventy five years to consider the issue of minors with respect to the hospital in act and the health care services we know they have never seen fit  a we have treated the statute as requiring that the that the medical bills that we propound in favor of arlene have to be related to the injuries that the plaintiff sort of against the tortfeasor that's how we've always felt  and that's why we didn't review but the echoes of say that the current that doesn't contain that language the previous act that contained that language very free to current act similarly to the process rightly or wrongly that whether that was inserted rightly or wrongly i've done it i simply did not want to make it appear that the mr michael was a saint who would deserve proceeds simply because he was a minor judge's opinion it was not for his medical bills and yet they want to be paid for something that's not heidi and through his medical care and that's the basic problem underneath all of this as to incentive i did think it might only end doesn't normally take everything away typically in cases plant the seeds or claims for medical bills because some of that money comes to their lawyer which helps them get away and some of the money would still come back to them because there's a cap on millions of them and large cases and my final point simply that animal when it reached  that's correct but i don't know i'd as i'm sitting there i was trying to think you know when you are from justice rez this question a well what does happen i guess what we have here is an incentive to to to actually look for the medical bills and why why would anybody want to go to a trial without putting a medical bills out of it is that's that's legal malpractise if you represent a point and that's why almost all of these cases there's an assignment by the parents to the minor to recover the medical bills and everything is clear in this case never would have been here i don't know what happened here but that