right our final case for today is walk ins against united states and mr lee when you're ready we won't mind if you think you're shouting at us because it probably won't seem that way tonight it's but anyway we understand you represent the mother of jenny's four chinese ford who was a a might my answer to that as i do not know and i do not know from the record in this case what i can say from the record in this case is they are pleading the two thousand and ten playing does indicate that m ford suffered from brain damage that's included in the complaint so if they had could form a basis of good faith basis for saying that she was not aware and then i would think it's within the context of the complaint itself but if you're asking me personally if i do no i do not know but the problem with that is that you know that brain damage describes to many different conditions means somebody could be impaired and yet still able to communicate to a lawyer who would then take things the next step and file a complaint and you know you wouldn't want this person running her own bank account or other things but she could she could communicate enough so so there's this big middle ground and just the fact that there's a reference to two mental impairment doesn't really tell us enough i mean the government has said there is this statute of limitations that applies to federal tort claims act cases and this is so far outside the course there is more within the pleading both the pleading of the action in federal court and the pleading in the cook county action and then that additional information is that she was unable to motion to dismiss or when they ask the district court to take you to you know this of the two thousand and ten filing we responded to that with a series of documents which further described the diminished mental capacity of the chinese for from the moment of the surgery but the obvious question as to twenty ten filing is if whatever arrangements happened to make that come into existence why is it not also possible to notify the department of health and human services and to take the steps to present this the present case it because you're a can't have it both ways mean either she's competent enough or even if she isn't whoever's acting for is until january of two thousand and fifteen so who is bringing this twenty ten susan twenty one on the suit was brought by the trial attorney on behalf of johnny's ford and johnny's ford's minor daughter it was brought itself and there is something contained within the pleading itself would at least raise a question regarding girl where news and at the pleading stage i think that's all we need to do you know if you have to do in fact want to rise and complain and of course it's her burden to establish that the claim was timely filed and to assert that the two documentation shows a continuing diminished mental capacity from the moment of the medical treatment which is which is alleged to be negligent here up until the appointment of  has the guardian we've got letters from the treating doctor in two thousand and eight we've got letters from a case managers in the same year we've got a court records showing that ms watkins was appointed guardian   and then and the absolute poor prognosis of johnnie's for his so but under your theory it sounds like of somebody who's very disabled but there's no guardian formal guardian out there there really is no statute of limitations under the federal tort claims act if the government or for that matter under anything else who will stick with f t c a because it's just always told until some representative disturbing that the court that the district court is relying upon a pleading which had its face indicates that johnny's ford head is suffering from brain damage as a result while she may but the court is also the fact of the filing is not in dispute there is a thing that is filed and these are the words on it and it suggests that however informal it may have been somebody some lawyer is acting on her behalf and that's that's where we i think really run into the problems it is it is troubling but but again we're dealing with a disabled individual here and i think the focus should be on the disabled individual and the right rights of the disabled individual they please the court counsel the decision of the district court here was correct in dismissing this federal tort claims act case as time barred because no it ministre to plame was filed within the two years from the claims of roll as measured even at the attorney to pursue the medical malpractise lawyer if she was on april to oversee the paternity and pursue the case and that had been pled perhaps perhaps so but here there is no allegation plausible or otherwise that that that was the case that ms ford had retained counsel and then could no longer pursue the matter or needed already and none of those things were pled in the complaint none of those have even then said here today as mr lee said he has no good faith basis upon which to state that ms ford didn't actually retain the and consent that retention didn't know about the lawsuit or could pursue the matter but what he's talking about those is a tension at least i'll say between the allegations in the two thousand and ten complaint about her impairments and the conclusion that this was was a knowing and and conscious act of hers that we should find her to and say will that starts to chew you years for the tour claim proceeding as well if she didn't have a clue what was going on and i think that's possible not everybody pays money to lawyers and goes and gets guardians i think a lot of people unfortunately fall between the cracks and they don't do those sorts of things so i mean what do we do with the fact that the allegations themselves don't give you a lot of comfort that this was a knowing act on her part while your honor the fact is that she did hire a lawyer a lawyer did well we don't know it was somebody you may have sent a lawyer her way someone may have sent a lawyer her way but what we do know is that there was a lawsuit filed in her name and asked true and that lawyers knowledge is imputed to the client just like in any other case unless we had some sort of plausible allegation that that wire wasn't really her lawyer wasn't really acting on her behalf hadn't so there is a problem of professional responsibility t bothers me in other circumstances as well we don't always insist for disabled people which will assume she is that there be a guardian even a guardian  litum that the lawyer works with as the client there are very many instances in which the lawyer is in a sense wearing two hats a cio hat and the counsel had so the lawyers asking him or herself well what am i going to do and here's this disabled client over there and it's it's not a very good state of affairs actually that's what you have for perhaps your honor i mean it it appears that there was no guardian appointed for ms ford until twenty fifteen but ms ford did have a lawyer who did file a suit on her behalf to pursue a claim at that time and importantly that claim was filed within the two year window subsequently would would not be time barred for that reason so she voluntarily or somebody or other voluntarily dismisses this twenty ten souse nothing ever really happens in it that's a little disturbing to i think your honor i'm not a state where practitioner of course but i think your honor that that's a typical thing that happens because under state illinois state laws they are stand it and the  the complaint in a in a tort cases is sort of to get their hats in the ring and then they have if they voluntarily dismiss that case they have another year to refile and not the boards they have sort of more time to investigate the allegations so if there are no further questions the united states asked score to work for thank you all right thank you very much mr lee one last word alive it actually was voluntarily dismissed within three ways how the two cases that the district court relied upon were factually distinguished i mean i'm this basis because in each of those cases there was he had had diminished mental capacity participated in this litigation for two years and the plaintive was employed during his two period this at this period there is absolutely nothing in the record of this case indicate any similar capability on the part of chinese for that all we have on the record of this case and what was presented to the district court are the pleadings in this case the the filing that the court took