because a large chain of dialysis facilities divvied up which had a dialysis facility in dickson was pulling out but it didn't do the profitable enough for whatever reason the patients this caused the chaos be administration in the because point of totally failed to prove any competition what so what the evidence was uncontested that the only way that the only way it than a prodigy practice would get impatient sense was through referral source and the evidence dixon once accused in a whole lot of dicks and one hundred percent of their paroles came from a s b positions so there was no overlap no competition whatsoever or referral sources for patients found to patients at least two patients were transferred from the one group to the younger what the trial court with trial court found was that there were two patients the plaintiff identified that he thought had left the stopped receiving dialysis in twaddle in the quad cities and went out to fix it and that was correct there were those two patients and there were two patients out of three thousand patients but the what the evidence was contradicted on was that those patients did not treat did not go out there by virtue of doctor i was reputation of or any reason there were intervening circumstances there is no causal there's no causal connection between any sort of competition by dr oliver and jean where they transferred from one group him in jail right they transferred dialysis silesian they were the they were the easiest are the patients that were on dialysis and there was one the one that was a a nursing home patient was essentially on her deathbed regard to compete no because there was no there was no competition there was no struggle there was no active any activity because those two patients to move it was purely the one was on a deathbed the other was a gambler who lost his ability to dr had he would drive to the quad cities so he could go on the on the boats the evidence was i've been tested about that he would drive he actually lived near dixon he would drive to the quad cities to gamble on the on the boats in that area then when he was the ultimate lost money lost his licen it could be struggle for the referral sources for all sources is typically how they get the patients and there is no who have a referral sources but these people by virtue of just totally intervening circumstances have switched and i also facilities and when they switched  declared tory judgement courts across the state and numerous decisions by this court including the galesburg clegg vs west pacific and it came out of his car just as kohler nine hundred ninety nine indicate the review because they are historically viewed as fact what we call fact if it is and as a consequence the nafis weight of the evidence standard is what normal would be used and was used by this court in the gaels for leads you very directly to a body of law that is really well recognised by the gallows for clinic case versus west nine hundred ninety nine and more recently the two thousand and six decision that dr oz attempted to compete and compete and i would put an emphasis it's hard to do it when you're speaking orally obviously under the counter to compete but i would urge the court if there was no midwest we wouldn't be here and i think that as in large part of a very specific basis of the holding and the evidence he goes on to say i don't know whether to care whether they could travel in the quad cities or and i thank you judge messages capsulize the summary and the essence of the case extremely well in those conclusion that is exactly what happened here and that is the attempt to of the way for issues i think and i'm getting low on time i just wanted to mention labor again wavering the stock will vary disputed evidence by both parties as person to demand strict compliance does not bar any other stuff like act as being a great as a consequence if you read fourteen literally aate the parties agreed when they entered into this agreement you'll see these various other sections of the operating agreement not really enough time these were issues that were addressed in counts two and three of the complaint which were dropped by fine of prior to trial these were not time to in the sufficient time to houston a plaintiff was asked point blank whether or not he knew how much time dr of spent with hughson and whether he spent enough time and he had that was and he had no it was at his request at his behest because of lifestyle reasons because of other reasons that he said or in his letters that doctor all hold out and then put an injury in its place under the circumstances point of can not be this morning in this matter we will be taken under advisement and written