In Orlak v. Loyola University Health System, 228 Ill. 2d 1, 8, 885 N.E.2d 999, 1004, 319 Ill. Dec. 319 (2007), our supreme court: (1) defined the different events that trigger the enactment of the (a) two-year statute of limitations and (b) four-year statute of repose under section 13-212(a) of the Code (735 ILCS 13-212(a) (West 2006)); (2) noted the effect both have on a plaintiff's medical-malpractice claim as follows: "The statute contains both a two-year period of limitations and a four-year period of repose. The two-year limitations period is triggered by the plaintiff's discovery of the injury; in contrast, the four-year repose period is triggered by the occurrence of the act or omission that caused the injury. The only exception to the four-year statute of repose is the fraudulent-concealment exception contained in section 13-215 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-215 (West 2002)). The statute of repose sometimes bars actions even before the plaintiff has discovered the injury. While this may result in harsh consequences, the legislature enacted the statute of repose for the specific purpose of curtailing the 'long tail' exposure to medical-malpractice claims brought about by the advent of the discovery rule." Orlak, 228 Ill. 2d at 7-8, 885 N.E.2d at 1003.