it please the court in this case the trial court abused its discretion by airing in three major respects st and not affording plaintiffs diminished deference is a nonsense point this too in its analysis of the private interest factor of the convenience of the parties by affording undue weight to peterson health quality l l c and peterson healthcare management l l c as peoria corporate office and registered agent address now for ease of reference will refer to the two entities as the peterson entities the rd source of error was in the trial court's public interest analysis by not affording sufficient weight counties interest in adjudicating a medical negligence matter locally which involves a pipe county facility at pike county medical staff going to the st source of error it was error for the trial court to fail to analyze whether plaintiffs should have been afforded to manage deference and it was error not to provide such diminished deference in its analysis of the public and private in factors so the issue of whether to afford plaintiff diminished deference was skipped over entirely by the trial court and it should have been addressed in the may th two thousand and twenty order or in the accompanying transcript setting forth the trial court's rationale it was error for the trial court to not address this factor at all and to not afford plaintiff diminished deference as a non side plaintiffs to litigation where the alleged injuries did not occur it's especially relevant here because the court found that the public and private interest factors were essentially tied so this would have been a tiebreaker by the court's own analysis that's record eighteen lines six to eleven plaintiff may accordingly be characterized as a non scientist plaintive for filing suit in peoria which little deference is owed for purpose of anon a forum non convenes analysis which examines more than the venue factors the illinois supreme court in the case of doughty v union pacific railroad code noted when plaintiff is foreign to the form chosen and the action given gives rise to the litigation did not occur in the chosen forum this is some sort of convenience is no longer reasonable instead it's reasonable to conclude that plaintiff engaged in forum shopping to suit her individual interests a strategy contrary to the purposes behind the venue rules that was in addition in this case the alleged negligence occurred entirely within pike county the complaint does not explicitly allege any occurrences within peoria count age sixteen of the pelleas response brief alleges that acts of negligence also likely took place in peoria county but no such acts are specified within the complaint now to be fair the complaint makes allegations such as  lure to allocate sufficient resources to adequately staffed the facility and the failure to allocate sufficient resources to provide medical supplies but these allegations pertain to staffing resources and supplies at the facility  county nd plaintiff does not reside in peoria county rd the basis of the negligence alleged in this complaint is the care and treatment rendered to the student dole williams and pike county more specifically the focus is on a pressure when developed  the mental health care facility is located in pi county and conducting a trial in peoria county would imposed burdens on the health care on in terms of staffing and costs while transferring the case to pi it would minimize caretakers time away from patients this is an especially important consideration amidst the pandemic where there's a heightened need for medical staff while discovery depositions may indeed be taken by zoom it's important to note illinois supreme court rule t codified the right to call physicians for live custom any a trial resumed ops are not a substitution for live testimony a trial that's the important factor that should be considered here now accordingly plaintive was entitled to diminish deference as an onside explain to to discourage forum shopping the court and thought he recognized or i'm shopping has been looked on with this favor because of the potential to burden communities with litigation over disputes that arose elsewhere stated where the plaintiff is foreign to the chosen forum the factor of forum choice should be given less deference than if the plaintiffs were a resident of the chosen forum that still some deference so plaintive recognizes that less deference is owed in the trial court did not analyze that factor in the case of bar it's uncontroverted that the circuit court of piat county which is where the student allegedly legibly sustained injuries would be invested with jurisdiction over all the parties and would have the power to try was also cited in general and bruce you have a darrow accordingly plaintiff is entitled to diminish deference and it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court not to occur plaintiff such diminished deference his failure to apply the diminished deference especially important because the trial court found that once the deference afforded to plaintiff in this venue selection was factored in the pot private and public interest factors were tied as i mentioned before so applying the diminished deference would have t find that clearly favors pyatt is the private interest factor of the competing convenience of the parties but then it went on to say that's a relatively small convenience because of it because there's a convenience on the other side to members of the peterson corporate  ok thank you and that's where you are headed in the peterson corporate can be and i'm sorry to interrupt of course such a statement that i just quoted to where the court mentions that private interest factor convenience of the party weighs in favor of it but nonetheless found for peoria because of this unspecified members of peterson corporate now that it's important now this the statement by the court is problematic for a couple reasons st the vast majority of testimonial witnesses here eleven have been a den of fide says seven out of the eleven consisting of treating physicians the wound care physician a dietician nurses in the facility administrator reside in locations closer to work in pike county as opposed to peoria county and that's specifically travis jameson m d we have excuse me the cook county wayne indiana noblesville indiana and then we have three nurse defendants that submitted out the davidson testing to the inconvenience as well so the trial court afforded undue weight to the consideration of unspecified quote members of peterson's corporate when plaintiff and  as only identify a single member of peterson corporate so it was error to waive the single convenience of a single corporate witness against all of the other seven in particular seven health care provider witnesses that would be inconvenienced and their patients disadvantaged by traveling to attend the peoria county trial moreover defang interpreted i have another question for you the court is using the peterson grew as justification for leaving the peoria county but the peterson go so it's not convenient for us to be there we want to go to try it isn't that correct that is correct so can  be a defendant's convenience when the defendant is saying it's not convenient for us we don't want to stay there can you rephrase the question plaintiff is using the location of the corporate defendant to justify staying or keeping the venue in peoria county but the corporate defendant is saying we don't want to peoria county this isn't convenient for us can the trial court then rely on the convenience to the corporate defendant when the corporate defend it is doesn't agree or perhaps my question isn't even logical but i see what you're getting at judge yes it is a bit nonsense of a proposition that saying that the corporate location of curious convenient when the defendants are saying in these affidavit submitted establish it is not convenient for defendants so no to the fact that these business locations are in peoria county is does not establish them being and that's just for establishing venue but not for which form is more convenient and the location of the corporate if and that was that the only factor that the court considered to support  analysis on the record it appears that that was the case on there was discussion of driving you know admittedly the witnesses here they're not they're not all in one county or another they are spread out so the court was saying well because they're spread out it doesn't you know weigh in favor so there was consideration in that respect otherwise it was very limited by the trial court thank you sure that the three affidavit submitted by  you know this facility as many others and they have chosen to place their corporate headquarters and colleagues is there an interest in educating the management of all these facilities including some facilities that  you know this is more analysis here is more than venue factors on that needs to go to the convenience of the parties and at issue here is the care provided a single facility to a single resident and you know the alleged negligence related there to make it to so therefore the trial court abused its discretion by improperly analyzing the private interest factors in affording unto weight to peterson entities peoria corporate presence the trial court rd abused its discretion in the public interest analysis by not getting sufficient weight to the deciding controversies the most was a factor not waste in strongly in favor of counting by the trial court submission trial court found that the public interest factor in deciding controversies locally clearly favor a county yet the trial court ultimately ruled against a record fourteen lines twenty four to record fifteen lines one to two the rationale of the trial court provided for peoria county deciding the business of another county where the injury occurred was quote the fairness of another county deciding another county's business well as you know since petersen is located here with their corporate office you can't really say that that strongly favors pyatt there is no further analysis or discussion of the issue by the trial court so here in conclusion the case comes down to recognizing the importance of deciding controversies locally and avoiding the unfair burdening of pie county based health care staff amidst a pandemic requiring all hands on deck here the trial cou number one the private interest factor the can being to the parties quote clearly favored by county and to the public interest factor in deciding controversies locally quote clearly favored by county as well but confusingly went on to hold that the private and public interest factors were tied and then ruled in favor of the a poly the trial court's holding as the fed odds with its own rationale contrary to law and accordingly constituted an abuse of discretion accordingly appellant respectfully request the spite although williams the injured in this case receiving medical treatment in multiple counts and most importantly the spite the trial court having had an opportunity to review this issue not once but twice this court should factors the defendants cannot show that they strongly favor transfer by your understanding to my st point the question here is not whether this annual increase with the actions taken by the trial court but whether the that for the trial court's decision to be overturned no one can think that the result was responsible that is the law and that it's a that's an extremely high the appellate court also has stated on numerous properly understood what the private interest factors where as well as the public interest factors and the court also properly applied the law to the facts of this case in some situations it's counsel pointed out that certain circumstances the factors ultimately the trial court agreed with the plaintiffs the peoria county is an appropriate account me to hear this case in that it is convenient so the defendants may disagree with the trial court's decision they cannot here played a significant role in this case there are two counts against this management company independent of the registered agent it is incorrect and accurate to say that the only connection to purity accounting is the registering agent that's paragraphs total and they're identical in meter up and paste from one to the next the only difference is they changed the name of the affiant in the county where that hamper sites but as these three and the court also consider the public interest factors in that they consider that peoria county this not have congested courts and the trial court is in the best position to the treatment congestion is that sort of core and the incentivise is people to understand their rights both nursing home residents of the day so that these nursing home city managers are encouraged to provide better treatment to the stations they are to nursing homes that the management company ha occurring in other counties that was completely irrelevant for this lawsuit the allegations of the complaint again they focus on piet county only one facility is involved here in providing care and treatment to the defendants all relate to the  second counsel attempts to draw a distinguished make going through the different witnesses the eleven witnesses noting that only three live in or near pi county but that's a disingenuous analysis out of the eleven identified seven of those individuals streeter witnesses all live closer in proximity to pi county and that was in the party's briefs where there's google maps and whatnot to identify the different mchenry county the court quoted that we concur in defendant's arguments that the court and deed given due weight to the fact that the sherman hospital was a resident of cook county as defendants maintain while the existence of the additional facilities in cook county render sherman hospital resident of cook county for purposes of venue under section two thousand one hundred and two of the illinois code of civil procedure the inquiry in a forum on convenes analysis requires a court to look beyond the statutory criteria for venue and to determine the relative convenience of the competing forms it is appellants position that the trial courts analysis was limited to bend it did not consider the convenience of the parties as it could but more importantly here i think it's really important to emphasize that the trial court found in favor the convenience of the parties for pi it and very confusing leave them held a different way similarly for the private interest factors that did the same recognizing that hiatt has an interest in deciding matters  locally so just by limited to the trial court's own analysis it aired it doesn't stink up with the reasoning provided in the hearing transcript additionally there's been no allegation no evidence more importantly to suggest that any misdoings occurred in peoria county with respect to the management company in particular for all we know all of the negligence occurred in pike county there been no evidence to the contrary the trial court had nothing in front of it other than the physical locations in peoria on the component of the negligence that was alleged but there's there's no evidence to suggest that these decisions allege that pertain to the management company with respect to staffing and budgetary concerns there's there's no evidence saying that that did in fact occur in peoria so that doesn't weigh in favor of  we thank you very much for your arguments this afternoon we'll take the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision this quickly if possible the court will stand in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning