court relied upon an illinois supreme court case which if you delve into it in turn relied upon georgia indiana and virginia the substance of the law not wisconsin law well most  wash i agree that's what i'm asking for certification right but i'm asking you what about wisconsin law would make it different from all of the other states that have adopted the learned intermediary doctrine you don't really have to have a reason to suspect that wisconsin would go another direction before we would certify i disagree your honor my i'm i'm advocating for the status quo they're advocating for a sweeping change of common law principles so are you might want to ask my adversary w that the court would do something different because all the pattern jury instructions all the history of wisconsin law as you know it doesn't address this issue so what about wisconsin law of strict products liability failure to warn doctrine suggests that it would go in a different direction your honor this was not going to take a different view of failure to warn cases no products liability i'm not advocating for that your honor what i'm saying is that products liability law that would cause us to think that there is a real serious question here about whether wisconsin would follow that the clear trend in every other jurisdiction that is addressed this question i'm not actually i don't have a concern but the history of wisconsin substantive law as you know well certainly provides that a manufacturer has a duty to to do so i also submit that it was error or to me that it was ever for the district court to dismiss our failure to warrant claim in insofar as it related to dr dearborn said if you told me that i had to do it it being used one bad to cement i would quote unquote say go find another surgeon zimmer's surgical technique died at the time said absolutely nothing about out there was an initially and trial a trial set up for september of two thousand and sixteen that i believe settled and so in june two thousand and sixteen be offered this up as the next so that the court you know would have it and other trials that we did factual discovery thirty five days so you know this is what you know lead us up to this point and while we're here there's there's a certain amount of latitude that i would say but who would undergo a total knee replacement if they said in four years and six months we've got to do it all over again so that's how it would benefit my of my client roger you don't think the information to the surgeon is the critical think they both are obviously i mean so absurd the surgeon should make that decision does absolutely not i mean on the ultimate decision to have the surgery and i'm talking about the procedure how it's carried you your honor may i please the court as a gesture court recognized the plaintiff's case here failed for simply lack of evidence most basically in the issue that that counsel did not mention was the lack of any expert testimony at all concerning what failed at four and a half years no i don't think that that's the causation and you know that they're relying on number one it's not dr drew when saying what he's saying it's what saying what he's not saying it's not expressed to a reasonable medical certainty one like other testimony that plaintiff's asking about and that doesn't say anything about what actually did cause the need to fail so even if even if you accept that it's just not not there what dr dearborn said doesn't give cause for the failure of the need what was he asked whether it was inconsistent with the design of the implant to use anything less than two bags of cement no he was not asked if it was a violation of the standard of care at to use one instead of two yes if you look at page i believe his eighty one through eighty three of the supplemental appendix plaintiff's counsel asked him that very question did dr larson's use of only one bag violate the standard medical care and dr horn says no he says i can't say that he goes through a list of what he would do what his preferences are what his technique is and if he saw that doctor larson was only using one bag he could make that statement he'd have to observe multiple surgeries it looked at looked at he'd have to look at post operative x rays and even then he doesn't say he would have found it to be violating the standard of care he just says i would have to talk with him and say maybe you want to consider using two bags so he does not have pine the doctor larson's use of one bag violated the standard medical care and i take it he wasn't asked a variation of that question within the framework of a duty to warn cause of action he was not ok moreover even if you accepted dr dearborn's testimony as sufficient to create suppression of causation you still can't get to play this failure to warn claim which is the only claim they have left because of three additional reasons number one there's no evidence supporting the idea that a manufacturer has a duty to instruct surgeons on so many things to me there's no evidence whatever from any effort that says that in effect the only evidence is from dr dearborn and dr larson both of  say no that's not something we get from manufacturers that's something we learned in medical school and in our residency in our college that's not something that we look to manufacturers to tell us second there is no evidence that the instructions that gave were actually inadequate again the only evidence here is dr during his testimony that the instructions given by zimmer were fully adequate and told surgeons enough information about the risks of the product and third there's no evidence the different structure would have actually changed what dr larsen did during the surgery dr larson said i don't get my surgical technique from manufacturers brochures or instructions i think  on my medical training and my sixteen years of experience in planning thousands of nice there's simply nothing there at the supports the idea that there is a if either a duty to warn or about the supposedly rapid discovery period here this covering the case in the m d l he described has been going on for months and years and plaintiffs as a whole have had many many months to develop their experts and to find the testimony that was needed in this case also i would note that there was no objection made to the summary judgment on the basis of any inadequate discovery or any lack of material that was needed that should have been provided would not likewise adopt it the district court correctly adopted it predicted that yes well wisconsin does take a different view of duty in negligence cases you know apart from the strict product liability for  context the general view of duty in wisconsin is different from other states that have an impact on how this doctrine may or may not be viewed by the state courts i don't see how your honor and place of certainly have a suggestion in your reason that it would be different the fact remains that in a case like this subside pharmaceuticals for a moment in a medical device case the patient has to go through the doctor there's no way that a patient can select so the cases that have been cited are older traditional negligence cases involving consumer products i didn't see one that involved highly technical medical product the only case plan of cited that involved a medical product at all was the westfall case and that involved the suit against manufacture of teflon and the issue there did not go off on who the warning was to be to product didn't address the question of who the who the warning is out to