petition for guardianship of an alleged disabled adult the motion to involuntarily dismiss was granted pursuant to two six nineteen of the code of civil procedure specifically death other affirmative matter existed which the first issue is that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition based on other affirmative matter when no such affirmative matter existed in this case and second that the  order the referral evaluation that was requested by the initial evaluating physician so what we're asking the court to the rule rescue the court to adopt in this case is that the lack of a complete physician's report is not enough itself sufficient matter to that's contemplated ask a question here just as a receiver from a procedural standpoint going forward without another health professionals or that  you could proceed given the state of the record and that that is not an impediment such that the the question should be dismissed pursuant to two six fifty deposition of the initial treating physician if we could not get the referral evaluation but my second point goes right along with that and that said eleven eighty nine of the probate act contemplates the possibility of multiple evaluations being necessary despite the fact that there's not a case law or he sought to be quite honest where i can find the situation we find ourselves in here where one physician for whatever reason declined to make a definitive evaluation as to guardianship but rather referred on his own to another specialist who specializes in iver's and diseases of that kind and so my hope would be the second thing we're asking the court to do is to is to reverse the trial court on the issue of failing to order the referral which would i believe provide us with  deposed in greater detail in attempts to elicit information that was not in his evaluation or so that would be the the process going forward on the issue of other affirmative matter there's no there's no question that dr risk is reported is incomplete but it is not completely irrelevant at the same time we do find ourselves in unusual circumstances like i already alluded to  where a evaluating physician declines to make a specific statement as to the nessus the necessity of a guardianship however dr e'squus report does discuss a litany of  respondents shortcomings in her mental examination although he does not provide any recommendations of any kind he did not state that the guardianship was unnecessary he did not state that the guardianship was necessary  he made no diagnosis he did state based on my examination the nature and type of eileen kirk's disability not known to me after he said a few other things he says i do want to refer to a doctor lando for additional neuro psychometric evaluations and were doing it this way that this referral cannot be disregarded as something that's in significant we feel like it is a significant statement by dr recession and it should be one that the court should at least recognize and consider now the only affirmative matter that has been presented in this case are two documents dr science and in connection with the g a o report to substantiate six one thousand dismissals however further in the order as it was stated in in the statement of facts the truck or here specifically specifically said that she needs she feels like she needs more to hang your hat on that letter but in the end that was the only thing that she had done and that's what she did she relied on dr sayat letter however we have absolutely no information regarding the background of this letter why was it written who was this letter written for there's no split specification in that letter out already and shipped it's not even known if dr siad knew that this letter was produced for the purposes of guardianship matter and as i said the trial court expressly stated on the record that this letter was not an eleven a nine report and then you have the g a o report in the g a o report makes a significant statement that he finds in his opinion that the respondent is a the civil person as defined by the statute but then he goes on to make a very important factual determination believe that despite her legal disability need of a guardianship because everything in his opinion appears to be unbroken and she's just fine the way she is report a physician's evaluation is not necessarily required when the respondent comes forward with a proper eleven a nine report that the court can rely on and that report must state that independent evaluation of the responded and so in that instance i think if the respondent felt like the fishers report was improper they would make the same motion essentially that i made under the next subsection saying we want to get a report that refutes the petitions report and that's contemplated by the statute but are you saying that this missile is never an option where the eleven a nine report is substantially lacking record that it was not will take in that a cause of action had been properly and because of that two six fifteen was not an appropriate dismissal was very correct this was for i think it was probably pled there's no question that we're missing the physician's report to attach to it because it's we're dealing with an involuntary guardianship of this instance and we could not compel the responders to do so without a court order but as far as making a case and again in the the respondents motion to dismiss at the trial level of the estate of cole was also referenced and begin in that case there were two doctors that were submitting reports but they were the respondents reports that were provided to refute the petition that did not contain a report so we're not dealing with silvermoon or hand we were told here the respondent has not  even state on the record it is not eleven in one report and in an affirmative matter can't be the lack of affirmative matter i think under two six one thousand and must be truly affirmative here's a document here's evidence that refutes your defeats the petition to six nineteen isn't say the petition is not sufficient and that's affirmative matter that's a few six fifteen n the patient and the report itself and the report of the statute requires certain things being a coded with the in the report you're indicating that the petition was adequate because it's sufficiently pled  what the report requires in terms of the alleged disabled persons inability to conduct repairs and so forth the report requires that opinion be contain proper physician's evaluation and if the doctor risk in this case had said no guardianship is needed that would have been the end of this case if he had said no a guardianship is needed then we wouldn't be here either but in this case we're in an unusual possibly first impression where a doctor says i make no recommendations whatsoever i would prefer to have this individual who's a specialist  diseases make the specific determination although dr riskin himself is the head of an ology at a very large hospital in champaign and his bio states that he specializes in making  simers and brain related diseases so when we contacted his offices office said absolutely do this is what we do want to regular basis we were constrained by the trial court to find somebody in that geographic location so we know to make those motions until after the report was received that says i make no determination i don't have any way of knowing that that result would come and i anticipated guardianship is needed or recommendation that no guardianship is needed and that would have ended the case down to six one thousand or to six fifteen either way if you search no ship is needed then i think it's fifteen is the proper motion to make because the pleadings are insufficient there's no reporter at that point i would agree i'm not entitle to go here as many doctors as i can get in order to get the report i'm looking for but in this case i'm just asking that the doctor who made the referral should be listen to in grant the referral so that we can obtain the report that we requested drafted in october twenty fifth filed with the court to remember twenty third twenty fifteen which if i recall was the date that we were supposed to come back to court for a status on that physician's report and i have the report was filed november twenty third of twenty we went through a number of a series of motions to dismiss this case before on the basis of dr side's letter that it was an insufficient denied that motion in the first instance and ordered the evaluation to take place and then once we selected the evaluator there was a motion to an objection to that champagne which dr lando as i mentioned in the arguments was not an option for us because he was not within three hospital systems that the court ordered us to select a doctor he's a specialist at the university of illinois  i didn't know about him he wasn't in any of the documentation and because he was a specialist i don't think we could have just gone directly to him anyway without a referral from dr riskin so and then briefly on the multiple evaluations as i said eleven a nine b of the statute states of the court shall order appropriate evaluations plural to be performed by qualified person or persons nineteen motion to dismiss the letter was insufficient hundred eleven eighty nine standards the g a o report as i stated makes a factual determination that despite the legal disability no guardianship is needed in my  which is a factual determination i believe my time's right thank you counsel at the g a o report was filed later after he talked to philip lawson here filed a petition in this matter mr dawson was talking about the fact he's concerned about trust that money was being taken out of an account that there wasn't finances there he thought there was a regularities that he complained about none of which the g a o find any support for that in the documents he went through the documents as a matter fact part of this report he talks about the fact that we went through the documents you found multiple loans during the time when  ip was acting as the power of attorney for his mother that loans were taken out by him and then no proof of any repayment of any of those loan what's well then we had the request for them because they filed the petition without any report  six seven hours ruiz's and round trip or overnight or whatever else she'd have to do those places we've got doctors all over the place in champaign urbana you can pick out one of those doctors that you want to go to i just heard the council say there's another one that he didn't know about out that it didn't exist or anything else we made no selection of the doctor that he picked their doctor rest and that was his choice he gave it to the judge and said that's why i wanted it to be here in this matter we made arrangements to get her over there so she could be interviewed by a report they're not finding that she's a disabled person or needs to have somebody overlooking her the g a o report was already on file for the quarter fair point also that went out did interviews of her found that place was appropriate  answering questions she had some problem with theory and it turned out that are hearing aids needed to be updated and he goes back about six months later and sees that are hearing aids have been redone have been updated she's ninety five at that point and again he makes no finding that she needs to have any guardianship established for everything is fine she's getting meals for houses there are other son john who happen to be her power of attorney for things anyways have been taking her doctor's appointments everything else i don't think there's any dispute th  material that was affirmative matter that would justify dismissal and it would seem that you would have to present material establishing that no guardianship was necessary of need to be of evidence for equality it would need to be an affidavit and you hear the statement and report by the private g a o l that saw her multiple times and dealt with the found that no guardianship was required she did  needed that of it's consistent with a law you don't order guardianship of people just because they get elderly or something like that automatically there was no need for that she was i think he says his report it's not broken doesn't need to be fixing is the way that you phrased that one point  spring of two thousand and fourteen him filing this no later about this saying that she needed guardianship in november of two thousand and fourteen based upon no specifics to show that as to why this needed so i think that there can't be positive things  itself you're looking at the allegations he makes that he has the burden of proof there just because he files it doesn't shift it to the responded he estimates sort of i a case to go forward there in the matter you got to pick the doctor he wanted to pick to have or examin expert didn't say that guardianship is required whatsoever and that's passed before the court the guardian ad litem said no guardianship needed to be done and things were fine you didn't need to have anybody you know a night still that's just the general thing for supper for about if you're still things then it should be the basis of it but we think the judge was correct in a ruling in that particular case to dismiss the case that she did we asked the court to affirm her ruling thank you thank you says i do not have an opinion as to the need for the type and scope of guardianship recommended in no way is he saying no guardianship needed i mean we don't i'm assuming physicians at his level  not refer people for additional evaluations for her oh psychometric analysis when he believes that no guardianship is needed that referral i think speaks volumes and i think the court