with all due respect to judge rudolph it no simpler counting he sees them on that particular aspect of the case and to the exclusion of other elements of this case it is shoes which  center in marion county and see mary's hospital except for some treatment that was received in st louis it both wash the university and secure his hospital none of her care has been received in say player count specific case of professional negligence and i think when you look at the history of these cases that dress for my convenience they all seem to focus on where the conduct took place the gives rise to the claim and in this case the cond that is it issue in the case the alleged member medical malpractise all took place in marion county in the shah case the conduct that is issue is the is the pushing of the shopping cart into the vestibule of the grocery store and whether or not the resources available to them and i think that's one of the things that the court can do with this court could do the whole ballots that were both ballots the convenience and justice factors in these cases from have a new public interest under the balancing of the of the test of you know are you are you considering the the public interest factors the justice factors those are the votes to be decided as disputes because those are the folks that are the neighbors of discretion would be in this case my point would be get everything centered back on well one of the defendants one of the three defendants whizzing where county there where everything has to fall back there that's not what the law's the law is you have to look at all the alleged negligence is soley fixed in marion county various county has the resources to handle this case very county residents should be the ones deciding what the medical care of the state of curious of what their medical  providers how they behave what their conduct is there should be the ones judging whether or not they will be the standard of care not someone three counties over walsall have a situation where all of our defendants in this case parties after the briefing had taken place which lasted nearly an hour he took some time and put together a sixteen page order in which he very thoroughly and carefully went through every single public and private interests factor and he was very mindful and stated this order that he was required to do so and he was required to consider them all equally and together and to determine whether taken as a whole all of those public and private sector sectors strongly favored moving the case transfer in the case to another county he found that they didn't and in reviewing the public and private interests factors it's clear that they do no this court has ruled in the past in roberts that this court will only reverse the trial court's decision on a motion for four and convenes if where there's a clear case an abuse of discretion where the lower court failed to employ conscientious judgement in reviewing all of the evidence before eight were ignored principles of law and bring no reasonable person would take the same view that the trial court took that standard that burden has not been met here by the defendant the issue is whether in fact defendant has met his burden to show that all of the private and public or the majority of the private and public interest factors strongly favor the defendant's choice unfortunately for the defendants none of the case law actually says that the case law says very clearly we have to consider everything where the conduct occurred is actually a veneer issue the plaintiff can only bring suit where the conduct occurred where the defendant can be it be transferred and in addition is the transfer for a more convenient for all parties i understand that the defendant wants the case to be over there and we talked about the issue of forum shopping all the time in these cases that this motion wouldn't even brown would be here if the defendant didn't consider that a more favorable for the private and public interest factors are clearly not favoring the defendants transfer the convenience of the parties if it the doctors they're saying that it's inconvenient for the doctors because they work in marin county but of course it's hard production per view that it's going to be inconvenient for him to get out of bed in the morning to trial and drag much further to go asking for them and they're not housed in the attorney's offices the defendant has made an issue of where the plaintiff's witnesses reside when they sent discovery and ask who are who are some people who would know about your injury your conditions and the facts of your case of course no one really knows about the medical facts of the case you know i would say with their friends and family who can talk about what she was like before and after kind of has not made any decision on which of any of those witnesses would be called to trial but we can assume that the plaintiff's witnesses are will not find it inconvenient to come and help her testify on her behalf regardless of where she asks them to do so opted to return to marion county for some follow well came out and radiation but no major doctors from there it's not likely that their depositions would be taken or that they would be asked to come to trial the doctors that the treating doubters whose evidence will be most necessary are in st louis it would be impossible to get them to agree to come to marion county it would be easier to get them to agree to cross the river and come to st clair county oftentimes demos are taken by videotape evidence to positions just the practicality of that but we do try to get them to come in life because we think it's better and and given the opportunity to be a little closer we have a better chance b we have to look at the cost we look at the cost of getting the experts out to marion county and i will tell you as a practical experience they are come three dollars members kind of can find experts in state to testify against local doctors we have to bring them in from out of town and if i have to then get them to a further away county and back you're paying for two days of time instead of one when you can get them out and back in the same thing and this court has found him and no way that the   the court rooms we have all of the technology that has been provided with the elmos and projectors in a way to show me you know us and screens and everything that we need that makes it easier to present for both of us to present county jersey just along for sophisticated cases and mounted in marion county the jurors i capable of deciding but it certainly is a convenience to the parties to be able to present their evidence in a county where you have the technology defendant issue but the defendant lives in the county and the county has an interest in the our negligence or the behavior of its citizens he pays taxes they're here feels himself with all of the privileges of the county until it becomes more convenient to and that was the case in which the quote discussed among many things where the act the incident did not occur in the county chosen that it would be inappropriate to thwart the parties ability to bring in like witnesses due to costs due to other issues you've got to sharkey's that they were they just came out after we street and you've given permission for us to consider the case that case was very very localized in that case we had almost everything happening in monroe county the plan of trade relations worked in sync or county that turned out but it's a that case not only was it extremely localized in every other witness and every other thing happened in our member of county but it was also a distinguishing between our corporate defendant a individual defendant and corporate defendant might have many places where they could be found all over the state which could require the defendant to travel hundreds of miles from where the witnesses were and and that sort of thing but an individual only has ff where it was indeed the home of one of the defendants this hour again clearly the court is required by the supreme court in its own prayer opinions to find that there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court and when you read the trial court's order and certainly you've done that it's very very clear that he was taking great pains to look at each of these individually the the defendant would have you categories and they all have to be mentioned if you're going to consider them thoroughly so where they're going to ship and it's there has to do with the convenience for him it has to do with where he is his taxes has to do with whether it's localized or not has a lot of it falls under several categories and he didn't mention it  that would have been an issue the alan case which is a supreme court case is stated that in the absence of an abuse of discretion a ruling will now be disturbed that the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trial court and the test is not localized we have a doctor in sick the county we have a plaintiff in marion county everything else is scattered everywhere else the other defendants live somewhere else some of the witnesses live there some of the doctors live there most of the treatment  was none of the experts will be from marion county none of the factors here strongly favor transfer him to marion county let alone all of the factors so there is no the abuse of medical malpractise cases and i can tell you oftentimes doctors even during a trial have to do doctor work these cases usually table we are bored to try so if they're not actually seeing patients they are going back to their offices and burden on these defendants to have to travel to go to trial sing for a county in the travel back to see mary's hospital to read read cases so i think there is a bit of a burden placed on the defense that would be inconvenient also she received her chemotherapy and radiation oncology at st mary's hospital and my understanding from her deposition she still treated with those folks in marion county so she's not treating actively in st louis