therapy session in june th there is an important distinction there and in some ways i think we'll see that it doesn't fit neatly into the box it is in times used in the idea of fresh  often repression is used in reference to something where as a defense mechanism a victim completely blocks the fact that something happened whatsoever out of their mind and wholly is able to regain  empirically i think there's enough in the records show that's not exactly what happened here and that's not our position but repression is not necessarily the wrong way to look at it either because therefore is the very person who has the ability to each pass things going on here and their life as normal or abnormal was healthy or unhealthy and in this case as romances instead of you establishing that there was a reversible error and i think that relates whether or not your client was aware of the injury at the time she turned eighteen or whether she discovered it some time repression where at and years ago was she aware that she had contact with dr mcmasters yes she was but she was still under the mindset that what had happened was an early  what happened last healthy and good for and again it comes down to the fact that the person has memories and earth person involved in with her is her mental health there is a psychologist the person telling her where to look about this oral contract case for now but the the there to me it from reading your briefs and and the case is that not until three or four months after she entered the oral contract case she realized that this conduct had caused her harm how is it then she she she knows enough to enter into this oral contract case thinking that something wasn't right quite right but she doesn't is something that hasn't been is out there is also the issue if you take everything to be perfectly accurate there and here the fact that dr mcmasters wants to stir paying off the victim of her own sexual abuse we do certainly damaging to dr masters masters own career if it becomes public but certainly occur even if the plaintiff herself does not do yourself an arm and she still thinks of this as if we had a relationship it's a go i guess if you're going to start giving me money that's fine and i don't i don't really think it armed i didn't use it but maybe dr mcmasters was fully aware that she could lose her medical what a nation or that at starting in two pages a one thing we think the court missed focus on entirely was the fact that dr mcmasters did practice medicine in cook county therefore making venue appropriate for the anything so i think residents can be proper in both counties on that basis there and as you'll see in the record very little attention was given also all the focus of or it seemed to come back to where the abuse occur that lasted so sometime within the next year and you know be professional relationship in a sexual relationship ended around so both both relationships ended around the same time consequently the entire action that is alleged which we deny by the way dr matthew theme that took place if at all into page county and when we brought that to the attention  augur county that i don't care that indicates a total disregard for the statute and that was the basis for the judge's awarded sanctions i think under the abuse of discretion standard certainly that should be sustained here have an additional question counsel you're posing counsel seems to be urging us to extend the statute such that if there is a arrests course of sexual abuse that aids is not a barrier why should we not consider that because the childhood sexual abuse relating to mrs presbyterian after she turned eighteen plaintiff knew at all times of the sexual activity was ongoing she knew at all times of the abuse which she now claims twenty two years later auster injury when we look at clay case of our supreme court the state necessity clear illinois presumes an intent to harm in resulting injury from the type of misconduct alleged in that case by his mind until years later that's not what we have you the nd point in horn which i think is appropriate here is that the court found that sexual activity with a minor is the same thing as sexual abuse you can't say i was aware of having sex with a minor but it wasn't abuse because that the two things equate and that's what porn stands for and it also reference i agreed to keep quiet about the abuse and it also says i was injured by the abuse in a unix entropy money now that doesn't say when she became aware of the injury or the abuse it simply says i agreed to all these years later that's all i have to say do justice mclaren so that i understand your argument correctly you agree that harm is an element of this offense but you're suggesting that the conduct itself is the harm and if you are aware of the conduct you your position yes ma'am it is don't think it matters in this particular case because we're not talking about a case where she knew she was abused an arm and out of the extreme pain that she had undergone has a minor she repressed that and didn't have any recollection that ever happened again so some point it could be are going to be abusive if you have a contact between a minor and an adult i mean that's against the law correct i mean most cases but even i mean didn't go has or is it your position that she repressed this harm or that she never understood it to repress it that she never understood it and here's a read i said a couple times i know it doesn't fit in a neat little ox but she she did not understand it to be harmful which might happen in a number of such scenarios where somebody as a minor is abused but it's all but here it's person doing it is the same person who is in a position of telling them how to deal with their feelings what is right what is wrong in normal seventeen year old seen a psychiatri her but yet she doesn't remember the harm well she didn't remember every detail of it end you still not to this day remember every detail i'm not talking about impressions sense but simply the past twenty five years however at the time it was going on she thought this was a person who cared for her and was eating in a positive adult relationship with her as opposed to somebody who's been hurt or highly inappropriate means or an adult of our position to have a sexual of salt if i took seriously every time a potential defendant told me your case has no merit i didn't do what you say i did you can't sue me there if you're legal theory in your actual theory are wrong it would have no case