to protect but under the department's interpretation is there anything to be said for the facility suffering as a result there might be less facilities to provide care because mandatory interpretation is far more detrimental to residents than any benefit they might receive because a mandatory interpretation eliminates the hearing process outside of the ten days for residents you mentioned that well of the silly has members here as well and i'll talk about those parties but i think the bottom line there is a proper hearing benefits both the residents and the facility but it work the resident wanted to nursing home or resident it isn't there at all taken away by the department if we deem it mandatory just herriman or is within the term compliance with a mandatory provision for ten days would not be in violation with a federal law the right for for the nursing home residents to hear of their individual case look there would not be violated if indeed the department and the result would be a loss and meaningful decision making because there are instances when the president was not able to meaningfully participate in that timeframe and the last week  that there isn't a point in reading and all that i mean we understand the law on marriage but the arguments that somehow the nursing home resident has for her and the federal concluded that having created an entire hearing process for the benefit of residents the legislature would also want to eliminate the very process that it created when that couldn't yours to decide would it be better for the residents to have an unlimited amount of time that's not the issue that's not a legal test and that's not the issue the issue which was avoided completely similar to i guess a law school student you get a question and you're like wow that's a really it's i'm going to change the question and i'm going to answer that question because it's easy what is not that addressed is the test of does this courts have developed in terms of how we look at mandatory directory is whether private writer at stake or not an aspect of that it was the what is the test to determine whether it's mandatory directory and does the fact that an individual rights or operator acted play into that  ordinarily a statute with which specifies the time of performance for an official duty will be considered directory only where the rights of the parties cannot be interesting effected by the failure to act within again which is specified in the perjury in the people of the state of illinois versus four thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars and in that case which is cited page twelve of our brief the court goes through citizens so the question to be decided by ascertaining whether any advantage would be lost or right destroyed or benefit sacrificed either to the public or any individual so indicate that the word not such as in france as happens you have to do it using native language the use of the word not and know who they are mandatory interpretation under the nursing home care act as the nursing home stands i don't think  leaving the facility the whichever later is what if what yes the resident gets a hearing in two days the department doesn't take ten days to hear a request a hearing and it's done within forty eight so whichever list later for the house elation is that every resident is treated equally a good thirty four day cycle which allows them to stay in the nursing home the same exact amount of time whichever is late or everybody gets the same amount of tar depending you because really the resident had applied for medicaid right that is correct and it was a that wasn't how it's this way was not objected to by the facility now legally i don't believe calls for step department of public health believes that we've made a deliberate choice not to appeal that in this case we had not we chose the three issues we wanted to bring forward st i really believe there is a step but we didn't object to it at that level and the provision will be read as mandatory either under two conditions one when there is negative language or here in further action in the case of noncompliance or to win the right the provision is designed to protect would generally be injured under a d recently has said quote when the right the provision is designed to protect would generally be injured and i believe that that was specific to that case and i think that that's a little bit different because in that case the person whose rights were being affected was the person who was seeking something in this case the nursing homes nazi harry i don't care about hearing what i care about is protecting my residence and a force in my contract it department of public health requires under the statute i wrote this isn't a question not what you're interested in but what if the legislature is and what were they trying to do when they chose these language whose rights were they trying to protect in this statute they were trying to protect i would argue about because  problem is that the legislature passed a statute and the statute says the department of public health can take an infinite amount of time is that the nd thing you have heard is it time here's what it should be even though it's been asked a one million times if it isn't ten days what's the amount in fifty so assuming it's infinity had the statute much a slate of intent be the department of public health and have an affinity to have a hearing and during that time period which is exactly what's happening we are compelling you same facility or not pay what right does a resident have to be a danger to himself or others which is the only other reason they can be discharged and what right do they have to stay in a facility with no medical leave and take it or they have a right to a hearing and the flu and that you think they're hearing state of illinois additionally there is no right to stay in a facility or not pay they have a right to a hearing you have on their hearing give it to him in ten day which is exactly what the legislature said should happen otherwise if the statute had said an unfett it does not so i would concede that point however and this also gets back to present rights under the nursing home care act if we're going to interpret the statute to protect president rights resident rights are better protected by getting their hearing timely if in fact the discharge is improper their rights are better served by getting a timely secondly you can protect the resident rights by giving them a ten day hearing but you're not protecting the rights by making it discretionary you're expanding the resident rights and that's not what interpretive guidelines are for so you're expanding the rights of nonpaying customers who are paying customers and that's not proper legislative interpretation of the statute and that's our position on that and that's what we believe but there is no question that there is a public harm that it's targeting a statute to allow the department to take as much time as they want the forces of the silly to become to render compulsory medical care we simply don't have that it's not only torturously interfering with the facilities contract with the president which the act itself requires me to have have you there so what's happening is by rendering this discretionary which you happiness case you have in this case the department of public health is telling you for no reason whatsoever i'm going to take one hundred and twelve days to have my hearing and i will take as long as i want to render my opinion but in the interim you have to house the clothes provide medication therapy services laundry water recreation air conditioning twenty four hour nursing care live is that changes the oil changes doctors don't have to right here against my will because i say i no longer bothers person in here under the act under the provisions that they get because these residents have a right to stay but the exception to that right the state is the involuntary discharge so at that point they no longer have a right to be in the facility because an involuntary discharge petitions and files if the department of defense hearing in ten days is the president has a right to go after the department but why this is a silly we have to pay for that and it would be had an absolute unconstitutional taking of my bet of my services of my compulsory staff members to render care against my will past ten days because the statute is infinity if that's what this works and to pray and despite being asked multiple times if it isn't ten in fourteen days what's the time period the answer operator to no fault of their own thank you  gives rise to some claims in a particular case but that's not the claim being made there's also some reference to well this might lead positive situation they have never pursued or route any constitutional claims they have provided nothing that would suggest circumstances nothing to do with what happened in this case in every case you cut off that hearing process outside and that's what we feel the legislature could not have intended and that  the st protection of rights and again it goes back to my st question this general versus the specific i mean what about the rights of someone who is entitle to a bet that isn't there as a result of i'm not only talking about their rights their rights to get paid i'm talking about nursing home residents generally their rights i think they make reference in their briefs to the fact that you know perhaps if someone is in pain that the