case before with the same defended you for the same work before the same judge defending its exact same word for word complaint and we if that was true then there would be a what if if what you just go proposed was true but that wouldn't be purpose of the court because this is what we don't have the answer will stand one of the we said before and clearly that's not the case or it's far as i can tell it would not be the case was challenged about this original health  back at what was in the case because you could make their judgment call unless you had that case in front of you and you look through it to see what was there and that would happen before and she's in this case because if you don't agree you claim you have to valid accurate timely file physician health care report from a licensed physician in the city healing arts and they responded in this case in their position entire time this case when this was challenged was rumors there were two things required in the final movie in any lawsuit one was the health care professional or the other that is being glossed over is that an attorney's certification of record but i right the defendant doesn't even have to respond to it until those two things are filed in this case that attorney's affidavit and health care professionals  obtained by this return was filed sixty seven days maybe sixty seven days after the ninety days expired we're leaving here i think a council with a chance to put the focus on the defendant and we are dealing here with a deadline in the force the ability to force deadlines the legislature when they passed to their six two two said that the report in health care professionals letter shall be filed within ninety days it was not and i am not suggesting to this court that that ninety days has the same absolute and harsh application as a statute of limitations he may be asking that he may be asking you to assure them of the trial or i believe the trial court consider good cause it's the only way that he can extend that ninety day period supreme court rule one eight three and i believe to dash one of those one zero zero seven of the civil practice act kind of inner mash in in tell the court when they can extend the deadline or con clearly mandated by the legislature and by the courts and it was missed and it was ignore for sixty seven days and that is the inquiry why was this ignore and there has been no  at any showing of good faith there are deadlines or harsh statute of limitations or are in the example that comes to mind if you missed by one day the with  deadlines only in the way that is prescribed by a rules this was never found in this case they never asked for now if they never invoke the course discretion which i believe they did when the court found the stanchion the only way to extend a deadline is to exercise discretion as to whether good cars were shown that was never requested that deadline was in place compliance was sixty seven days late in the superficial compliance in this case so it w was on october twenty seventh two thousand that was when we were challenged and whether or not a new one was a team a file and a little bit there of two thousand during the fourteen days fine did you find and say here is your proof the defendant or the responded in this case had reports the entire time there was no question of the hand in your possession the entire time again good cause and good faith again in this case it was even surveyed in papeete of the original complaint is the same complaint with the same allegations against the same defendants with the same pointless before the same court in fact with even the same judge presiding nothing