silly attributing statements to him and a jury hears defense counsel expressing his belief that post statements are being attributed to his client  g i'm going to address that issue which is close to thirty two thirteen i'm sorry to sixteen issue this morning as well as a second issue of the negligence instruction i court was able to avoid responsibility for what his lawyer said for him that he elected not to infuse mcdonnell you serrano with factor nine concentrate before during or after her surgery he was also able to avoid responsibility by reason of our negligence instruction being denied in our count to being stricken would he was able to avoid responsibility for the total breach of communication between himself and his admitted agent an employee miss up right after the beating after hearing almost some more arguments in the last case i go right to the heart of this thing and say wasn't the question ambiguous absolutely not your honor i mean i know you w trial attorney but i could've written a much more specific question i was the trial attorney your own case yes i just i find this question each him to be more o required to seek the human ecology on salt and get her blood tests on factor nine in other words he was required to do some investigating and not ignore it and that's why we argued we were entitled to directed verdict that was the standard of care that doctor to both plaintiffs expert testified to all he knew was actually brought that product had no clue that she may have had a child no answers this question leaves a door for now the denture hearings i mean it leaves you know even next question is this a judicial admission or an you're going to argue it's judicial i'm having trouble with that because mom for one reason we're here for second reason the judge in this case made i thought reasonable well the boxes were labeled everybody here the boxes had labeling they were for but usually a hospital would take those at the door there would be a receipt you would not be allowed to walk into a hospital with about it did he deny the night in your other request with  you know tonight or not answered you know more questions that and i'm only saying as for cases i have done myself that i would him at least five questions in each area and asking the same question and a different format because i never trusted i want one question would do so i'm saying that i i'm still and i normally don't you know come out and say that but i think i do you know i to be honest with you i never thought about t v show admission versus evidentiary nation and i had to go and read cases on that  and it it sure looks like in a evidentiary admission which gets us in the problem your honor our position is that the word elect h are here when i say we are dr ross says where at least he did on the stand and he's bound by that if nothing he's bound by admitting that that statement that he let it not to g and say yes it is clear after her surgery her marching one note setting up the surgery not anything written down about communication so the phone about giving instructions nothing there good afternoon they have faced the court well so there's a lot to cover so all started with the corporate like to direct me in any one direction i'm happy to go there are few things i think that are important to the surgeons there that's not been tested at any point to answer some of the court's questions that were posed to plaintiffs counsel the first being the issue of medication being brought she was surgical cent because what she told me was my son has factor nine i brought this in case of urgent matters so he said based on that i wouldn't even thought she had the condition he further went on to say and i couldn't have given it anyway it's a very unusual  surgery as well as the admitting records from the surgeon said in fact another question that you asked if dr ratner was ever asked whether he was aware of the factor nine being in the surgical the trial that he ever knew that this nut case listen to answer the question as to why this wasn't enough that at the time the request to admit was was given to the doctor i will represent i was not the trial attorney to her and just as he elected we can say to not give her hundreds of other types of medications for which she had no basis to believe she needed he did it in fact if he had denied it it would  him the sense of well he was denying that he didn't elect not to give a child could it have been objected to it's certainly to put up and it doesn't change the fact that it is as this court has seen th in this case was disputed throughout the discovery through trial was that he didn't know two things one that the patient had this condition she can see them and two that she he didn't know that this medication was brought in by i'd like to do something i don't i don't know anything at that time when dr rotton made this statement rather it was going back and forth this had been going on a review the record will show for some time in the proceedings going back and forth whether elected whether he knew and dr wright was basically saying i didn't know was shown to them from closing argument was shown to them it was set up as a exhibit in front of them so they were clearly able to see that the word admitted was there so a stark position that he did not contested or disputed plaintiff i understand that it was their trial strategy at that point and every attorney is entitled to their own strategy the fact that they chose a strategy using and very a quizzical term the trial court error to not instructing the jury on the request to admit first i would point out that in the brief there is no case or argument setting forth th gynecological surgeon and his office the allegations of negligence made by dr de paulo and the opinions offered by dr de bar was related to dr rotman's alleged negligence and whether few complied with standard of care and delegating certain about his opinions and the standard of care to which he was speaking so the first reason the court denied the order negligence struction was nobody testified she was negligent secondly there was no testimony as to what individually and his medical practice the allegations against medical practice for that some not position whether it was a nurse or receptionist it was unknown at the time of trial was negligent in their in their acts in their office the jury came against any non physician and this court reversed and sent it back and said defendant you're right there was no basis for the jury's verdict to find that some non physician was negligent because the jury never had a standard of care or any standard  he was negligent in delegating certain tasks to the c m a if he was negligent in not implementing certain policies for his staff and c m a those were all issues that went to the care to which the jury was given under that issue instruction had the jury been given an ordinary negligence instruction or ten to one it would have been a not supported by any evidence and too terribly confusing almost to what this court has recently gone through with the changing of the professional negligence instruction to make sure the jury doesn't get to tell them it makes you follow your pre surgical instructions it was not routine for them to write it down if there's any other issues that the court feels i haven't addressed the plaintiff has risen i'm happy to address them otherwise defendants would say on their brief i think the the trial court was well within its discretion in its rulings whether ordinary negligence aside from the for future of ever alleging that the issue instruction was erroneous which is significant i believe even assuming we look at that issue instruction it would have required evidence certified by the school and that's all she was so it wasn't a case where we needed a licensed person coming in and talking about a standard of care we had established what her duties were we tendered a negligence instruction we would have been happy to give a court in which is instruction tailor to a certified medical assistant a court that was not courts problem so it would have been useless for us to do so the point is we did not need expert testimony to say to tell the jury that this was a terrorist was negligent that was up to them we had in place in an office received years everyone's expected to follow and with all due respect that is what the country case was about and what was lacking the doctor who testif who gave testimony about the office worker was unfamiliar with the office procedures for reporting a lab test and finally this was not a lab test this was a simple communication the type of and that's what we were deprived of there was no banter with dr rahman on the admission we did not ask him numerous questions about the mission and what know what it is that's not true the job mediately on heels of defense counsel jumping up and saying that's right that's right how would he make such an admission when it came out of his own office court said i know what the record shows move along you just stand there before the jury with egg on your face you ask for a sidebar at that time and risk of coming back out and having more a guy on your face we waited until the first time we were in chambers and immediately raised it that dr bachmann had denied making the admission in open court before the jury and we were put in a terrible position that the judge wrestled with that one he again refused to instruct the jury saying that would take the issue away from from the jury and that's why he didn't do it in new if gave the instruction it would take it away from the jury we have a directive that ultimately during that encounter he became confused and you or me i have some other case here he believed in the strength the nation to get us to that point where you may have been confused on whether we had the standard of