the injured party in this case is chinese for a brain damaged disabled person she was educated a disabled person in two thousand and fifteen and the trial court in this  as i say it that's the legal definition of a legal disability you know the evidence in the case of course is it appears that there's a lot of evidence in the case of her brain damage she was diagnosed with morning he's in several apathy which is brain damage there is dr gupta is a treating doctor's letter the doctor who treated her a rush for the diagnosis was made indicating that she was unresponsive at the time and she had a poor prognosis  but what i'm saying is that when the trial court found that johnny's ford was legal i think there was a question of fact regarding her being leverage disabled from two thousand and eight forward had raised the question as to whether there was any what it looks back to to whether the at the moment that she failed the initial complaint which she filed and was trying to take her name whether she was legally disabled at that point so they were there as a look back at that point and what do they say about on whether she has the authority to do that or not in twenty fourteen there was at least a claim that someone was proceeding as the guardian write the words so what a defect no question but such a defect of such prosecuting the case that means we don't count that lawsuit at all well you know i think i think the question there is is is the disabled person probably involved in this case and if the disabled person is not probably involved in this case because of either  ect or because of you know what however we wish to describe it the question is should they have to say will be person a person be paralyzed so you're saying both instances even though they were filed slightly differently we're still back to the same question we have a disabled  person incompetent to assert her own rights and therefore we should not count either of those losses i am saying he should yeah i definitely am saying you shouldn't count the two thousand and ten a lawsuit and the two thousand and fourteen months what about the twenty fifteen twenty fifteen isn't it and then we're dealing who was an employee of family christian health center so we've got a completely different defendant and that's just because you sued you didn't sue the other and that was the choice the plaintiff made i'm not sure why that choice was made but i mean you cou well there is a there's a factual difference at that point at that point in two thousand and sixteen she was the guardian she was a court appointed guardian of the of the estate of johnnie's ford so that's the distinction in two thousand and sixty i don't believe that you know that they that they represented anything other than bad and the truth of two thousand and sixteen pleading they had chinese for it is the guardian of the estate of the japanese for a disabled person and that they had that was an accurate statement at that point in two no there there there it isn't but that got me going to hand if you're suggesting that it was intentional there should be some sprays i think that this was intentional there was a mistake i think i think it was it was a mistake that was made and the question again is should the disabled person suffer from bad to suffer as a result of a mistake when she isn't properly when she doesn't represented in any action she can the actions of an attorney in a prior sailing where the attorneys are not representing the party can those mistake no mistake slow shadow whatever you want to be want to describe it as in two thousand and fourteen johnny blackens could be nothing more than an individual individual at that point she was not a court appointed guardian she was an of chinese for its legal disability was raised in the trial court sure and anything and i think when the trial court found that there was a question of fact as to her legal disability that raised the question at least in my mind as an appellate attorney raised my question in my mind how could somebody file a baby and have filed a lawsuit when they're entirely without capacity and understanding to a communicator make decisions on their behalf how could it happen so consider it here well i think in the interest of justice i think the court should consider and also described as a special duty to protect the rights of any cup and i think that would be another reason for the court to consider it and i just ask you one more there may not be one that's ok if there isn't but you have decided that you know i have not said any case with respect to that but but even even if we do cut out that as a lawsuit that was filed in or me we're still left with the problems with there is no authority holding the lawsuit filed by an incompetent person is knowledge void in fact he played his arguments depends upon pretending that the twenty ten complaint in this case relevant relevance to this case was never filed and didn't even exist there's no authority for that proposition and not only that there's no logical reason for that proposition and more importantly still there's no basis for this court it would be a bad idea dia for this court to adopt that notion  a question about the degree of legal disability in this in this case it's not a question about whether the injury probably miss florida rose so incompetent or so impaired that she should be excused from the requirement of finding a cause of action within two years and it's a cool that question would be entirely out of place in this case where ms for did in fact file a cause of action a legally valid cause of engage the legal system on his or her behalf that's the purpose of a legal disability and it's important to recognise that as as the it's read within the statutory scheme it's part of the statute of limitations it's an exception exception applied to those parties who meet those praise for camps for or for some reason can't engage the legal system on their behalf i traditionally minority and in some cases are today minority has ben a legal disability because it disables a person from being able to use the legal system traditionally incarceration or sometimes overseas persons in the military would count as disability but if those disabled individuals did is that the it's the first to complain when the express say there through an attorney the filing a complaint demonstrates legal capability it's a odds with the concepts of legal disability certainly it's at odds with the purpose of the legal disability bet a person who does have the capacity to engage legal counsel perhaps with the help of parents or friends or or others but someone doesn't gauge legal counsel and is is able to file a complaint through council  if i may it's something that is it's related to the question our legal capability or not a legal capability specifically it's more geared toward the issues of physical or mental competence  the rest are several cases of course it speak to the difference between legal disability and actual education of physical or mental impairment and one is not necessarily synonymous with the other but the question actually does have the capacity and demonstrates the capacity to file a cause of action by doing so does not fit the definition or better on the purpose or intention of the legal disability exception to the statute of limitations rights but certainly given that that she was considering the question of how disabled the miss florida might have banned what the evidence was of what her parents might have been the questions that are stripped aside by the filing of the cause of action that disability as we think about it in ordinarily ordinary life someone being physically or mentally disabled but being legally disabled being disabled from the use of the court system is the purpose of that exception to the statute  on in ability if there is one specific gun point i'm not aware of it your honor but the fact that the cases have so consistently discussed access to the court system and the ability to pursue one's legal rights  in the twenty ten complaint was not fully authorized to do so i that's important because the legal presumption that exists in the state of illinois is that a complaint filed on behalf of an individual is filed by an attorney who represents that party that's a and the plaintiff has presented no evidence whatsoever to rebell that presumption apart from the notion that a complaint filed by a person who is mentally impaired in some fashion is now in court at an issue and there's simply  no no evidence to support that and no authority in the law to suggest that the twenty ten complaint must be treated as if it never even existed for that reason failure to file within the limitations period but it depends upon the lack of legal capability to do so five twenty ten complaint in this case demonstrated a legal capability it is utterly at odds and inconsistent affairs or that she was totally unable to communicate her desires frightening most of the brothers lack any sort of reference to the time element of when that alleged impairment was in existence is entirely without capacity to file a complaint on her own behalf or at least to pursue counsel who would do best on her brain on her behalf there is a nurse describe exactly what the record reflects a person who behalf to be a part of that river system to be capable to use that legal system in a way that again is and writes with the concept of legal disability not entirely a complaint doesn't  both essential limitations and a narrow exception that does not apply to her and so for those reasons we would ask the court to affirm the judgments in favor of the time it's thank you  adapt the arguments in the brief bed that might could have sent as a file and i'm not going to reiterate the arguments that mr howard has presented to the court today i will say that just looking at the big picture of this case the second circuit said has never come to us with any evidence that there's something that wasn't right about this relationship yet you know that there could be an attorney and to do that foreseeable i never spoke to  definition it can't be a legal disability because a lawsuit was filed so you're obviously legally able to get but what if it came out ok this person is in a home how does the law treat that loss and they say you know we'll just keep going or do we say you know there has to be a guardian and if it does have to be guarde initiation of of legal action or beat the now was false and let's go back and take another see a bit of this and the attorneys say nothing in the priest to take responsibility for this contact or much less to account for it it just really doesn't matter did in this case just landed in sherman that there was a question of facts but as my co counsel has mentioned previously and as a seven circuit mentioned in their opinion we do not believe that that it needs to be addressed because it's not a question of fact that's why i raised as a shield how can you be legally disabled in five of us if that was an issue once the judge made that finding it raises the question how can some how can somebody in their position have the capacity to enter into an attorney client relationship with them if the person isn't legally disabled because the definition seems to cover pretty much everything entirely unable to or entirely without capacity or understanding and and totally unable to manage one's affairs well since there so if it were that it does raise the question how can somebody enter into an attorney client relationship committing such a mr grant judicial a kind of me versus the rights of a legally disabled person how should the court come out on that issue the problem with live with with what the attorneys did in this case the mistakes they made in this case should be penalize in this case the defense or the legally disabled person i think he has a pretty clear and it's it should be a legally disabled person the federal district court which again was a twelve b six proceeding also in federal court fees if the question of timing is it is an open question as to whether a  in terms of equitable sample of them is direct quote can you have equitable use stab a disabled person for conduct made by an attorney who was not representing her plain language of thirteen dash two seventeen of the cold which seems to have to move the plaintiffs in me jennie's for the rights of the file a new election and that wasn't done here until two thousand and sixteen when a person who had been court appointed as a guardian somebody appointed to step in for the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit and it was the first me filing assuming we don't consider the two thousand and ten pleading to be an outlet so you know mistakes are made in this case but but but but the question is whether there was an objection when a gesture objectionably reasonable argument made trial court finds an argument to be incorrect there's no basis for the word sanctions so respectfully we asked the court to withdraw the trial court's decision denying the video the motion for sanctions and