have a case of dylan involve the same law firms that appear before you today in that case todos the jury instructions must state the law fairly correctly distinctly and must not mislead the jury or prejudice a part defendant's instruction number fourteen in this case agent was not sued the agent had been sued but was dismissed from the lawsuit before the start of the trial that was my decision because i didn't want a product against the sure s principle and agent that was taken out that's the so called modification i call it the got it because the word wheel in that instruction makes you're not at the fair guess the only way to find liability against state party is to enter a verdict that could be done here there is no all that's the problem we don't know all well this jury was was thinking how do we find the young people there's no way to find him liable therefore the university of chicago is not asking this court to do and then just agree a new trial based upon this jury being supplied a wall statement of the law that applied in this case salt of course i prejudice a party much show that a reasonable basis supports a conclusion that but for the era the verdict might have been different that's a first district case i keep asking  ball and that they can handle it can't happen under under the facts of this case because there was no way to find him liable and i really i'm emphasizing this twenty three hundred factually isn't a distortion from the facts in this case because then he she was with guys to expres testimony whether or not they had an opportunity to examine the plaintiff in in lambie whereas as here on the record appears that the dependence expert here this question this is page sat seven to twenty seven of the transcript my question to him assume that the transplant surgeon involved in this case believed it doing her shift she knew that her chances of dying not that she was dying that and looking at this the stats and they have comparisons of being on dialysis versus receiving a kidney albeit a kidney that was a chappie in fact from a high risk donor that even that if she had known that the comparing those things that her this this risk of dying which by the way really being talked about in informed consent discussion according to dr t it it had occurred but it didn't is all speculative but the facts are that in which case informed consent plaintiffs instruction number seventeen even without objection the definition of informed and whether or not the standard of care was met by the university of chicago medical center and its transplant surgeon dr thistlethwaite as to the giving of bad form and saying specifically where is the plaintiff's entitled to know whether or not her donor was a homosexual the answer to that question is no buff she was good there was testimony at trial that she was given information that her gone was a homosexual and engaged in a high risk lifestyle job for many many years and it was her practice always to tell the recipient if there was a high risk lifestyle involved that testimony was giving the jury heard that the jury also heard the plaintiff who said that she didn't receive that information so the jury had a fat wish deceased correct answer correct but that's how the case was tried on this question of whether or not i want that from i haven't read the whole i'm going but it seems like what i read that the this way or another way how informed consent works i am trying to answer your question how informed consent worked at the university of chicago medical center and it works at treatment transplant centers throughout the united informed consent is the giving of information associated with the risks and alternatives that with information about the donor was information but it was a discussion about the risks but this question about the risks and alternatives started in the year two thousand august of two thousand when the plaintiff decided that she wanting to enroll in the transplant program so she received that information back information this exhibit five seventeen and then she had one on one discussions with the transplant surgeon with nurses with social workers with psychiatry lists and there is evidence in the record as to that informed consent given by a plaintiff i would point you  tell a transplant recipient that the organ donor wasn't gauging a high risk lifestyle so then whether or not nurse harmon communicated the fact that this was a high risk care is and as of the date of this transplant they had not adopted those c d c guidelines after this incident occurred those guidelines change and then it became necessary according to standard of care after this for his by to communicate that information but that only happened because as of january two thousand and seven out of four hundred twenty five thousand transplants that occurred  on there are thirteen separate references to a reasonable transplant surgeon a reasonable transplant surgeon so that the jury no that its purpose was upon the conduct of dr thistlethwaite and everything that he was responsible for and he testified at trial informed consent is my job it's my responsibility if there was a failure at all on me doesn't fall on nurse time and it doesn't follow a body off the  said so the jury knew that they knew that through the issues instruction they knew that through the burden of proof instruction and they knew that through the informed consent instruction and providing medical treatment to any mason a which are reasonably careful transplant surgeon should disclose under the same or similar circumstance the jury knew of this case was about and they determined that either any mason had received the information about the high risk governor or they then but that the assuming that she had not been looked at the standard of care and the standard of care did not require that that information was communicated to her and that's why they answered the special in an arbitrary the way they did that's waste they and i p i fifty point zero one if it was a simple as the plaintiffs those of one if there was absolutely no way for the hospital to be held liable because there was no way to hold dr fiscal fight liable because he wasn't a party would have been a very easy process for the jury determine what the the correct verdict was it had me know but what did they do they asked questions they want to know whether one consent was all about they asked for this docking during deliberations they wanted to know what informed consent was good and what is included and after there they assessed that information they went to the special hiking or rocketry they went to the verdict and they said no the hospital is not liable i would instructions had actually been handed to the jury well i was still suggest that the objection is the word liable has been waived because that objection was not made before the instructions  this is a case about informed consent not about informing the patient but this is a high risk and what about your partner's argument that the inverse chicago was not required to