year two thousand and eight so it's been hanging for quite some time the the truck court to dismiss this case on the basis of limitations  denied it we appealed to the sub the circuit court of appeals and judge based that was reversed but that really has nothing to do with this case the reversal but in the meantime while the case was on appeal we filed this case in state court as a protective action alleging that the state law of claims that we had and also the violation of the illinois  eavesdropping and the we find out the this case the state case and judge albrecht granted on my motion a state of the proceedings pending we decided and dr liber decided to not proceed in federal court and we took a dismissal of d w p actually it was a dismissal with prejudice rather that as that and she grants the motions are dismissed out by the defendants on the basis that we did not file a timely we exceeded the year as a period of time from when judge from the original dismissal so the principal at this point in time the principal issue in this case was when was the final decision rather by the fir district court and how and that was there is no doubt who will lay of the statute of limitations when a case or appeal but bowers versus the village appellate time indicates that when there is a his ruling on august twenty five two thousand and eight so the one year statute of limitations started running from that date filed when he denied that we filed this complaint in the state court on december twenty three two thousand they will within the one year period from from the dismissal now the defendant in this no i think that's right and and we i will admit that subsequently long after this we made a statement to the fact that we did not want state claims reinstated and that was after we had procedure the court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the federal court and she admitted that when she wrote her memorandum opinion upon my motion to reconsider what she decided this case without giving us an opportunity for hearing she cited the authority to to argue the case and she did that based upon a letter that she received from from the the defense firm so we were deprived of not only the opportunity to argue about the statute of yet this morning to ted i think if if the court is interested in that not a review issue but but i think we're here mostly just for the statute of limitations  presented a couple of arguments for worse will be for you to meet tonight you know none of these arguments for presented to the truck court before it dismissed the complaint some arguments were presented in a motion to reconsider some they took a wait and see approach they wanted to see wanted wait and see how that was fair federal court and for that reason they didn't present any written arguments to the trial court with respect to our motions dismiss one on november fifteenth two thousand and ten and another on january twelfth two thousand and eleven plaintiffs appeared at both of these hearings after having received notice they filed no oppositions before either hearing excuse they offer is without merit they argue that the matter was stated and nothing happened after defendant's father a motion to dismiss on april sixth two thousand and nine the record however in the back is clearly indicates otherwise it is true that the matter  stayed while the drug court was pending appeal before the seventh circuit but after the second circuit while there was no reason any longer for the stay and so after the defendants set the motions for hearing that that notice arguments heard on a motion to dismiss and motion to continue and for a stay of proceedings cases continued to one twelve eleven at one thirty pm and then underneath that it says motion to snus set for january tw thousand and eleven at one thirty so it's clear that the judge albrecht believe that we're going to hear here those motions to dismiss on january twelfth two thousand and eleven and also why i wasn't present at the hearing september advisement so clear that she was considering the motion to dismiss at that point in time so this is not a case where the where the plaintiffs were not given due process and in fact when they filed a motion to reconsider they had yet another opportunity to raise arguments so they did happen opportunity both in the two arguments before the motion to dismiss and in their motion to reconsider going to the statue limitations issue i think there are other reasons for it permits not just the statue of limitations issue but jumping to that issue first  was dismissed by the federal court on the super eighteenth two thousand and seven and there is a judgment entered there were separate judgments in or there was one judgment on the summary judgment entered and it was one judgment on the state court claiming they were separate judgment federal not all of them there were some tortious interference claim that kind of went beyond the federal wiretap claim there is an invasion of privacy claim as well but irrespective no actually was ever taken point a little bit further assuming that's the case when it was remaining from the seventh circuit excepting plaintiff's argument would mean that the state law claims would have been reinstated that time and they weren't and claims counsel argue they were  so nothing was ever done and i do believe that if they want to requests that those state law claims being received reinstated something had to be done before the third circuit and nothing was done and so on reading and it was points position that they weren't reinstated and it was the court's position as well so i think to say that it's automatically grandstand i don't think is entirely accurate it's not how it was treated in this and i gree and the reason that we didn't raise that as to count one is because there are two federal claims there are two fertile wasim one was an antitrust action and this tortious interference claim in this case was from the antitrust you could affirm the dismissal of count one because there is no cause of action under the rule of not review and maybe i didn't understand your question to you did you know me but i believe i believe that the court even if judge another he ologists at the hospital and ask others in the hospital to refer to that other radiologist but the rule of not review provides an efficient has no cause of monday actually under such allegations and holds that internal positions by hospital administrators are not subject to judicial rule because the hospital has the inherent right to tell staff what resources and products to use without fear of liability and the rationale for this rule is that the courts are not willing to substitute their judgment for those hospital ministry years there is a limit to the exceptions but i don't believe that that applies here and i don't think claimants are arguing that it applies here plans argue two reasons why they think this rule should apply  they claim that it doesn't apply when acts are directed at physicians and patients but clearly that position has been considered rejected by the only supreme court and barrow's versus northwestern and i've cited that court court that he's for the court and i'm going to detail they also argue that the rule not refuse one to the denial and granting approvals again this particular argument was considered and rejected by the court was addressed in the federal antitrust case that involved doctors at lindbergh and was against the hospital in the federal court said lost income from loss of girls is speculative and would be difficult to determine so i think they're also foreclosed by until the opening brief in this court therefore they had a chance both in the motions to dismiss the motion to reconsider they didn't raise it the motion to reconsider so we think it's been waived and they argue that are from your point of view i think there were arguments made on the motion to reconsider and those arguments were those that were set forth and mr boyers brief on the motion to reconsider with respect to hearings on the motion to dismiss twin i was present i was never left there's nothing in the record in the minutes of the docket ever indicated that that state was ever lifted and the the judge itself and i've said this three times before and the risk of boring raised it in my brief because counsel in the defendant's brief had said well we're we've waived all of our arguments because we never presented to the crowd court and the reason that we didn't present any briefs arguments review of course is designed to keep the courts out of hospitals staffing decisions and as you can only review to make sure if someone is dismissed from the hospital or denied stepping privileges you can only review to see that this hospital has all his own rules and regulations regarding the decision that they may that's what that is all about