i'll just make them no doubt suffered different injuries different damages over a period of different times over a period of five years or more and and where the class is defined as people who have quote no permanent that is that the plants in the defendant i do agree on one thing in this case and that is that the class members have suffered no principle i think have no emotional damage has no physical damages the only injury that they've suffered members to people who have different injuries and different damages outside of that nominal damages that's a real problem in this case the class definition in this case is all persons who during the limitations period established individual damage should be referenced by a mathematical or formulaic calculation so there is no individual proofs proximate cause or damage or of injuries it's just simply submitting your damages in this case that does not exist because the definition is for no permanent injury or loss no permanent injury could mean anything as far as address your concerns yes your honor if the class definition is modified to limit the class to only people you can who can recover only nominal damages then i think that  issues of want fact may predominate then over the individual issues that would get rid of proximate cause that would get rid of the damages in the different injuries among us members that would take care of them or if we were to do so  but that's going to be really hard to handle in this case and i'm not sure the class definition really takes care of it because if claims going to lead back five years two thousand and five you know the idea is that i don't think it does that that would not take that particular problem out in the statute of limitations may very well destroy predominance of gether anyway but if we're trying to get as many common facts and legal theories to plants as possible in order to try to get this into a manageable class then the first step have to take is all the problem is that when we sin this definition out to potential class members on notice that's required of the process was what people will see this definition and say yeah i was examined i sat in that chair  so as a class currently defined were people have or are defined as people who have been examined were treated and we've found that problematic and as people who have suffered no permanent injury of walk or loss we find that problematic the predominance issues abound we find that they could have suffered different injuries we find that they're probably on totally different amounts of damages that we find the proximate cause issues  class certification my personal view of this case is that the damages in a class have to be downplayed so therefore they have to be one type of damage that fits each and every intra party and that's to the nice thing about being a judge  was the director of facilities in the control group and he's directing all these activities and i just want to point something out to this one in the press but since council brought up the fact that there was a guilty plea entered in behalf of the two defendants there's also a stipulation i don't ever expect that to happen to a governmental entity and the iceberg piece of people who came to me because of the publicity that this case generated i was on television a couple of times and good if you look at the numbers i have spoken with entirely likely that women could easily have treated one hundred of the eight hundred people every month they're going through that dental clinic for the past five or six years that makes this class potentially large i mean it's large if you could pick each subclass and you do what counsel suggests you say this is a classic pose of those people who've had an injection overcame and no other damage whatsoever other than the battery that is associated with injecting ok or this is a class of people who had an injection ok and instruction and no other damage other than that which is associated with that so what you have is you have distinct sub classes with  in this class and those cases are going to we're going to have to go forward individually so you can and you should in this instance frame a remedy for these people who are who have been damaged and abused by the system which allowed a bunch of people on public aid and indigents you don't know any better to go in to it to to to a dental clinic and have a flood from representation made to them that dr younger who is really nothing more or less than a dental  i mean there are systems under statutes can develop x rays but i take them if they have sufficient training which we don't know whether she had they can clean the grounds of peace but not the margins and other than that they get the chart the walk the patient and the s is probably requiring macon county to do an audit of all the treatments that they charge the rates for that camera hocker actually perform so the county is placed in a position where we place a position where they have pretty much cause is this really clear because she should have been there she didn't have to consent to be there she didn't have the right to be there and nobody would even have the least educated person the world said given the option would you want to be treated by a dentist would you like this woman who has no experience or training to come in and mess around with your mouth it's very obvious what what what people would say in that instance is that oh no i want to have a better street when i went to a dental clinic for that purpose so we have proximate cause for everyone because they have the defendants the two principal defense have pled guilty to conduct which gives rise to proximate cause for some battery is is happy with but the proof of any particular individual claim is the proof of all the individual's claims because  that is because the statute suggested even if there isn't complete predominance if there's identical issues that can be determined on a class wide basis then you can certify the class for that as well now i'm not recommending that because i think physically do something that a dentist would do as a part of a medical treatment plan so i believe that even though this is a very different the case for a class action that falls within the pretoria the legislature set forth class action in this this case in my view based upon the facts and the way that we construct a classification sets forth the absolute type of case that religiously intended part of this whole most of these people who are members this pastel don't even know what the problem is is the people that are representing very often do not read the paper very often do not find anything in the nightly news of any interest to them so they still think they're be every person that i have interviewed in my hundred sixty some cases thought that chemical was a dentist they had no idea until they saw the news article or my my interviews on television that she wasn't so i think that the statue limitations issue is really  will end up aren't them from raising the statute of limitations issue because when we've got an actively flooded and leave misrepresent the status of someone who's performing dental procedures you're not going to come back and say well everybody knew this nobody knew so and there's coworkers and all sorts of people that need to be deposed who are going to talk about what was actually going on and that dental clinical picture and the fraudulent misrepresentation to simply individualized as well you know there's an argument that well we have to certify the class because we need a more efficient beautician of all those very small claims and that's true and maybe they assert that as to each classroom and because each classroom may have known or may should have known about the tort or the crewman's of the tours then each class members individual issues are going to