opportunity to review them all but this case comes before you respect to a motion for summary judgment that was granted by the trial court and as much as there were a number of issues that people had reached in their motions for summary judgment the only one that was really are you know things in their briefs but i'm going to focus my remarks today on those issues which pertain to the exclusion of two documents one being the coroner's death certificate and the other being the coroner's investigation  for this ruling for basically two reasons one of the the two documents which i mentioned before mr hall and they should have been deemed admissible for purposes of a summary judgment motion by the trial  at the time the motion was heard and there have been some changes in the law with respect to these types of records since that point but as of the time that this motion was heard by the trial judge they were admissible and they should have been considered for purposes of summary judgment and then the other reason why i think that or should reverse the trial court's ruling is the fact that these particular documents could have also been considered in conjunction with plaintiff expert's opinion plaintiff had an expert that not only looked at the records but was provided the exposure history of free of burden and concluded that not only did she have me civility oma it was caused by its best us and he offered opinions with respect to those two issues and the trial for refused to consider those opinions of the plaintiffs expert dr arthur frey for the simple reason that he said the trial court said the tester to fit in the report of the investigation of the coroner were not reliable documents that can be considered at summary judgment stage under wilson clarke which is the supreme court if i start first of all the two documents they exist in the record at twenty seven thirty one to twenty seven thirty two in their tashan plaintiff's appendix of pages one and two and that's the certificate of death and off the also the physicians report investigation there's a couple things that are of significance with respect to those documents number one there was no on time she performs with respect to to ms pardon and  i expect what you're probably going to hear from the defense is that this somehow makes the documents less credible or less admissible under the statutes that existed at the time those documents number one the report of investigation is one that was sworn and certified by preventing physician dr don this that based on his knowing and knowledge and having treated her with her condition that is what he believes she had and it indicates he had stage four at the time the death certificate also indicates there was no one type c as well and one of the cases which i've cited is people kennedy and it's a case where one of the things that you put forth in that particular case noted is that in an instance where there is no autopsy there is almost greater means given to what the cause of death is in the death certificate for the simple reason that it can be assumed or applied so there is no controversy as to what controversy one of the things that came up in this particular case his players wives are those two particular documents they're both certified copies and one of the things the defendant stated at least some of it anyway was well we c trial court that they had no basis to dispute she didn't have made to feel you know my but they were they were contesting that particular issue the only documents we have are these two documents they both indicate that she had made to feel the oma but yet they were claiming that there was a controversy with respect to that diagnosis and i pointed out in the papers that one of the things that the defendants varied was well you know we don't think she had major feely on one but at the same time with respect to the complaint a number of the defendants had never even denied that allegation itself it was not a good faith basis to deny that fact was in controversy for instance spending some support aeration which is one of the defendants before you i don't believe they're arguing today but they the only thing on the record with respect to her diagnosis was the fact that she made her feel young that was the sole thing in the record and the defendant submitted least one of them did i very pointedly at the trial court court level they had nothing to contest that diagnosis the second statute which is pertinent to the understanding of this particular case is seven twenty five i'll see s five backslash one fifteen dash five point one which is one that essentially states of orders records can be considered public records and can come in as evidence in certain instances and just to give you a bit of a history of pointed out in my papers is it completely the other direction and basically said horner records don't come in in terms of evidence to in order to prove a particular fact cases that's because the way over time and in one thousand eight to the legislature actually put in place supreme court has adopted what has been codified as the only rules of evidence which has taken the whole issue of public records back to where it was priest eagle essentially the only rules of evidence  it's sections eight zero three and then also in the you know two for authentication discuss how in terms of public records records that are mandated to be maintained by a particular agency or public office or when certified the facts that are contained therein and without limitation any doc can be admissible in evidence in order to prove the fact of trial that's the that's the what the rules are as they exist today that's what the federal rules of evidence have been for a number of years and i noted in my papers a number of other jurisdictions that have allowed these two types of records to come in previously in and some were circumstances but predate hundred eighty two in and the coroner's investigation report both of which she say she has made to feel the oma would come in as prima facia evidence of her condition at that particular time and that's an important distinction because to what was her condition if the defendants are still free to argue a trial and they do in our trials we have other respects this case is obviously very seldom in these cases that the defendants actually undo the was the condition of the person that death as opposed to what was the cause of the development of that condition and that was what was being offered we cited the maddux case which is one thirty the person i've been drinking and such before and that was what they were being asked to determine and at the time where force records and death certificates didn't come in as evidence the second district affirmed the decision of the trial court to allow the death certificate to come in that instance for the limited purpose of proving that the person had died as a result of a gunshot wound to the chest and the court noted the distinction the second district didn't say the death certificate was not a offer to show whether it was a suicide or whether it was an accidental death simply the condition that death was that that person had died as a result of the gunshot wound to the chest and that's exactly why we're offering him this and that kind of brings you back to the zach's self right but the cause was correct and i think the distinction with this particular case is as i point zero before there is nothing in the record that points that it was anything other than ms ophelia and i expect that the defendant way but the jury on that particular issue this was a summary judgment position which is either genuine issues of material fact and all we're going to show is the disease of death there was nothing competing with that saying it was something different that's what she was diagnosed with the family's understanding of what she had which was probably more layman's terms a description of what the doctor told her mom than anything was that it was a character of the lung or cancer of the lining a lot of the lung which essentially ma online but they had they didn't know that word of course but i mean the truth is is that all sort of links together and they all support each other with respect to what the diagnosis was the word for it is in your defendants will make an opportunity speak say the same thing is there are other things other than especially us they can cause mesothelioma and i think the scientific and medical literature says anywhere from about seventy to about ninety percent are caused by time that she ultimately succumbed to it i don't think that was the case back in the eighty's and in fact i think most of the literature that discusses the knowledge of people with respect to stress this disease would say the other thing which is most people don't even start learning  evidence and that's one of the things that the trial court looked at and if you look at that particular statute there's basically three paragraphs and where the court came out was number one there was no autopsy so apparently his  the time or dr downs who was very trigger at the time placed into those two documents the death certificate and the investigation of course that was also really the conclusion reached by the court and i think it was there and the reason is that if you look at the third paragraph of section one fifteen there five point one he says right in there that another individual that has the responsibilities of maintaining keeping the public records of the coroner's office can testify to the contents of you have a right to cross examine people if you wish to under that particular statute but it doesn't violate the right of confrontation if that person isn't alive and isn't able to actually testify as to those facts in the case on those people be for which is a case that explicitly stated it doesn't violate the confrontation clause by not having the actual certifying coroner testified of the results of if i remember it was a murder case where they talked to both the fact that in an assistant deputy coroner enough to get past summary judgment those two documents supported just what her condition was at the time that we had an expert dr arthur frey who looked at the certificates looked at the documents and establish an opinion that people are says the experts can rely on all kinds of records that are related to the medical history of the individual even if not evidence and can always answer hypothetical questions with respect to those types of re has provided those records they are reliable and we actually provided some information with respect to some depositions taken in other cases where doctors in this community were stating that they relied on desperate because as part of their  practice also goes to the very fact that you know these are the kinds of records that even under the common law were considered reliable because of their inherent trustworthiness and if we get back to the only rules of evidence we're back in a position where these records are considered to be trustworthy court may be aware of so called modifications that's not one of the modifications and the general can in the pacific controls the general here we've got a statute says that a doctor swore under oath he could have had a good faith honest belief that that's what she had and we have no idea what has he performed we have no idea what the biopsy results were course we know there was a biopsy at least by inference from this letter that how how do you grapple with this with this conclusion restatement very difficult to grapple with on cross examination because what are you going to say well look at this document well where the test properly run could you didn't the state if you do the things that you would have done an autopsy we know from the legislature that can't come in as long as you have somebody testify that yes it was kept in the ordinary course of business so we've got this particular record on an expert to look at that and say that looks to us like it was a mistake no since that looks to us like you know they were there it wasn't because the proper or she lived too long or various other things for this particular diagnosis the reasoning i've actually i limitations is there to prohibit the prosecution of stale claims where as here the documents are no longer viable evidence has disappeared that is classically the reason for is well known to be related to asbestos the information was available to the family of the time and you certainly know so there's no we just this is not a situation where no one knew anything about this jail and then the other thing that was stated was that from a plane county courts have been fine we're incorrectly on the one thing i'll just say this which is the core is something that is considered by every single trial judge in central illinois where we have a special this case is not just a plain county and the record upon which they're considering those cases is vastly different from what was considered in the quarter vastly different i think justice you noted that as well in your duke's case as well so i'm not going to go into details but there were some in accuracies the one thing that was was raised i think in the larger subject area of fighting off three people that our view was the statute of limitations issue and i think you were told a number of things that i think i heard something about the class this is the classic reason evidence has disappeared way should not apply this discovery rule this case as a simple matter the discovery rule does apply to run for their cases and it's been applied to run for death cases in fact if you just look at abe x s brief page thirty five effects list of the six cases where the wrongful death claims in that case have the discovery will fight first district cases second based on fact issues where it's a political will to an individual where the well they're living it makes sense to by somebody after their family is trying to raise a case after they are deceased and they didn't have any knowledge of respect to  trying to get information with respect to what she could expect in terms of bills damages and stuff there was no indication of those festus we don't know what the the basis for that letter was whether she was trying to get social security or what have you but there's nothing in there that gives  it was right in the letter correct but it's a fact issue and i think if we look at cases like knox college these are all packed issues for a jury to determine and in twenty five years in some cases maybe far too long based on what the knowledge is but in illinois we don't have cash of the limitations or discovered all i should say that's based on you can only apply it up to a certain number of years and there's obviously some cases where two years the on the on time of the statutes to line or two days  it's a fact issue it's for a jury to determine whether or not one of you lied and number two if it's reasonable to have five given the circumstances then this is one of those cases where i think the evidence that's before the court in the