has repeatedly held that such nurse suspicions are not enough to trigger the statute of limitations and to confront by medical records or evidence the court because i was a poor health wrong before she was admitted to the hospital but there was absolutely no medical testimony offered in the trial court as to whether her prior medical condition could have caused her death were her mother she had a number of medical conditions which i will refer to and i will time to read them properly she was sixty nine years old she was obese she was on coumadin she was admitted to the hospital with a history of icici make cardio my apathy hypertension hypothyroidism and was found to be have tachycardia should previously ever got better surgery and she had suffered a heart attack and when she was admitted to the hospital she had shortness of breath business indigestion and fatigue and an i v was inserted and her left hand medical negligence at first there's a dispute a question of fact as to whether and if her back many health problems she experienced before entering the hospital could have been a potential cause of dr staff as the my opposing counsel pointed out in their briefs you know there's no medical the mother suffered and she was hospitalized for twenty days with those medical ailments if you express an opinion of believe that your injury was caused by that make which she's of no other whether or hand but at a later point during her deposition she qualified her testimony and she said that she had a feeling that the condition of doctor's hand was related to her death and that she felt that whatever whatever put the i v in her hand might have done something wrong so cited was just young versus nikki and the gay and the but case and i think a very similar for a few reasons in the first case i mean young versus the kid the takeaway that i took from this court and anyone reading the case would say that  a reasonable person of the it for further inquiry to determine whether a little wrong is been committed and what was interesting in that case is that even though the plaintiff certainly had suspicions and young that something was wrong because her husband went in on a routine it was like an ammonia  result of cardiac rights that was not timely recognized and treated by the medical professionals sal again just like in our case i mean she was never told never told dixon anything she ranted and the fire of the death certificate said something completely different just difficult said nothing about gangrene it wasn't until she received the autopsy report that in fact she learned that it was the game ring and that is when the statue of limitations should start ticking and according to the young case likewise the possibility of having as little as thirty months to live there again we have a plaintiff being informed by a doctor that the previous information you were given as was was not true it was not right and therefore that's what should that's what dixon should be charged with knowledge of the cause of that sorrow as i indicated i do believe that there is not only and i braced not only to the court the trial court not if you're too young and i did hear the c but the was another case that we cited called sanders that was a fifth district case and that case also addressed the issue of whether plaintiff became possessed of sufficient information that his injury was wrongfully caused thereby triggering the statue of limitations again i so young the statute of limitations clock did not start to run until the plane to suspicions as to the inappropriate treatment were confirmed by available medical records inquire the trigger was the receipt of the experts reports and saunders the clock to not start taking int and as a matter of law the dixons complaint was made by the statute of limitations based only on a layperson suspicions of wrongdoing rather that and when she became possessed of sufficient information to know that her mother's death was wrongfully cause uncertainty as to when she became aware of the possibility that her mother's death may have been caused by medical negligence there's a similar case we cited called christina versus st james the first district court appellate court case nine hundred seventy eight saying that where the trial court was unable to conclude as a matter of law at which point a patient discovered or should have discovered that she was injured by doctors conduct the trial court in dismissing the case this time barred and remanded the case back to the trial court to allow presentation of that eight was actually both of the injury and that it was wrongfully cause i it would certainly ask the court to keep in mind that supreme court's mandate actually and with are all persons weimer where they basically have said that a court may determine as a matter injured party knew i reasonably should have known of the injury and that it was wrongfully caused early in those situations in which the undisputed facts lead to a single conclusion and then the weather all court went on to say in many if not most cases the time that which injured parting those a reasonably should have known both of his injury and that it was wrongfully cause will be a disputed question to be resolved by the finder of fact so here the finder of fact i mean there was there was it was just concluded as a matter of law there was no finding of fact and based on the unclear testimony of mystics and only her testimony we maintain that that was around us the other part of my brief doubt with something that the trial court did not address at all which was the section conclusion there is no question that that's a knew something was wrong with her mother's hand no question but to acquit that knowledge with knowledge as a matter of law that her mother's death was wrongfully cause is a leak but i don't believe a layperson should be required to make a conclusion that no question just be permitted to drop so we do respectfully request that this court reversed that order answered by the circuit court on january twenty ninth two thousand and ten and enter an ordinary man in the case back to the circuit court so that the us it's my recollection that the motion i don't believe that was attached to the motion to dismiss i believe it was raised in arguments before the course and there's no other questions i thank you for your time  negligent or knowledge of the existence of a cause of action or knowledge of the full extent of the injury or the statute is triggered it means that the plaintiff must have sufficient information concerning the injury and it's cost to put a reasonable person on inquiry to determine whether actionable conduct is involved but your position that even if they were mother eventually passed away that the parts of her hand were entering the bloodstream and that she would have cardiac arrest so she knew she she knew where police to be provided the reasonable notice of inquiry as to whether it was hospital with abdominal pain and left unable to use or read yes sterile patient was told she had no cervical cancer she was fine everything was fine two months rather she was told she was terminal and only have months to live  anyone that i know that the injury was caused so you have basically circumstantial evidence of that in this in this record wouldn't you agree blood stream by the hand was caused by someone's stick now this is what we're talking about my question is you don't have a situation where there is a definitive statement i know that or somebody say this was caused by someone's negligence and so my question is in the absence of that i wouldn't it be appropriate to have a hearing so that they can fully fleshed out exactly what this person thought when when does this i mean besides the fact that we've got two different law firms involved in this manner know where or why the first one wasn't so that's irrelevant here we are dealing with a set of limitations right and more considered by the trial for and led to that thirteen page memorandum opinion i commend the trial court for taking that much time especially worst year this court need not even pay attention to it because it's the no for review s that the facts show that the plaintiff and her deceit knew before that to see just the miners that there was an injury and then may have been wrongfully cause and those two points when they exist together trigger the running of the statute of limitations such that the no reviewing court in illinois has ever held that the statute of limitations runs when the point where a prospective plaintiff is told by medical personnel in an expert opinion or in a written report that you have a injury that's not caused by some form of medical treatment and i case it's all about the medical treatment so those sudden traumatic injury cases i don't think are relevant with respect to the young and the classic cases i believe my present counsel mentioned that there was no statement by a doctor in those cases but in fact there was a valuable medical records that was the trigger when the plane decide the event the medical records and young that was the trigger for the statute of limitations not just her says that her suspicions were that her husband received point is that my client doesn't know anything about the game greenness hand until the autopsy report revealed it and that is what i say is that's why we knew the cause of death at that point that's when she know that going green that was caused by the catheter excuse me by the i v bag is the triggering point for the statute of limitations because there is no information even in the death certificate itself that said anything about again when this happened so the only time she can be charged with bad knowledge is when she read the autopsy