must say that this case is a little bit unusual because it is not your typical first line from a case where you have someone who claims an injury because something was done to them or not done to them in this particular case developed into this toxic thing where she was having so many side that from that that she had to be placed on alternative drugs and the drugs that they went through dr white went through perspiring for her included human car it's immunosuppressant so we can lead to all kinds of difficult side effects including systemic infections that can be fatal there is nothing good about humira other than it suppresses the immune system to the point where these lesions can get some that only ana should have been awarded damages this because the ability to take that sound with relatively simple confuse side effects was for close to her by this overdose and it cannot be argued otherwise why because in the medical records from washington university it is listed as an allergen and allergen but it is in bold print it is throughout her record and not still why talks about it over it required hospitalization for her it required treatment that required blood gases but the poor girl was on the softball field when the symptoms manifest and she couldn't breathe she turned blue and that nobody has prescribed so even though it could be prescribed but nobody passed because it's an allergen to her the jury for whatever reason did not  lesions on her genitals on her rectum in the mouth they continued to get worse and that the kind of trial had not been under control with anything to a degree in fact the hum right mind would ever make this child pick the smiths them again and i'll be on herself how do you get past the fact that a child of twelve goes through this experience and hadn't expected to what lit don't think they knew what to do and this is counsel points out that it was playing of that offer that instruction in the court took i beg to differ that is absolutely not what happened if i met and which said but in the after we put the language in that the parties agree that playing does not him prove damages and in one think you're aware of what that says and my comment was then you would start first with the first proposition all  let me step there one of the problems i have with the verdict form in relation to the extraction is that the instruction says we agree which to me is an admission for this period of time just like twenty three to july thirty one and then it goes on to say for any damage to sustain after that they have to prove the following and then the verdict form doesn't break out past v and i agree that the problem here and i will tell you that there were things about good burdick reform that i didn't like what mr burke was posing and things about what i proposed that mr burke didn't like in retrospect and i think that's where the confusion came in and i think that could explain why it appears to be a compromised verdict i don't know that it explains why there's a good jury ignore the evidence  future medical damages i can't tell from the burdick whether they intended goals members that they did award for past or future because they were told in the one instruction those damages in the verdict form if that were true i don't understand how they could lead to zero in the future medical bills section but i will tell you that based on the evidence they heard of trial with what we have here i think the jury is absolutely got this case and it is crystal clear despite i had problems with the verdict form because it is separate that out but they broke down those past or future damages secondly the verdict form is inconsistent with the instruction and he didn't consistency does not match the evidence there should have been an award but there  in light of the evidence that was her and the verdict that was given as to future future medicals there was nothing to dispute that she would incur them and she met her burden of proof