or event.” (735 ILCS 5/8 — 201(a) (West 1992).) La Salle called no witnesses to testify on its behalf, but the petitioner contends that La Salle opened the door for her testimony about the deceased’s care and physical condition by stipulating to the admissibility of documents she offered that contain references to these matters, such as the guardian accounts. Even assuming that La Salle stipulated to the admissibility of these documents without limitation, it did not waive the protection of the Dead-Man’s Act. We cannot expand the language of the Dead-Man’s Act to provide an exception when the representative merely allows the adverse party to enter exhibits which contain references to an event in the decedent’s presence. Cf. Hoem v. Zia (1992), 239 Ill. App. 3d 601, 606 N.E.2d 818 (<HOLDING>); aff’d (1994), 159 Ill. 2d 193, 636 N.E.2d 479
recognizing exception recognizing such an exception holding that  1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception holding that the deadmans act does not provide an exception when the representative merely introduces notes of a conversation