the protocol that the defendant set set out which if i may before anything is done the medical staff to explain all the things that will happen to prepare for you for your surgery situation there having not been any type of disclosure of the use of the catheter there could never be any consent so there was no consent preclude any other courses of action other than medical malpractise example recently dealing with supreme court has stated that if you could plead negligence of infliction of emotional distress w question for the reason you just mentioned this in this really more a question since a concert was appearing from your client for surgery generally most of this is as you've just pointed out work concerned about how he wasn't as a form fully as he should have been i'm about what the surgery wouldn't tell you that it wouldn't pay off holy catholic kind of big o luck a claim of lack of informed consent supposed to no concern at all which is really the battery claim i mean the batteries say this kerry had no authority to do anything as recently held that where a person went in for treatment for migraine headaches and she got an injection and would not disclose that one of the consequences of that in ion was that she could get gangrene and she did and she lost her time and it seems to me that you can there to six fifteen as part of their motion to dismiss those fifteen as part of a motion to dismiss but i think that under the given situation of the facts of plaid which has been a minute by the defendant that that has that may be an issue but this was before the surgery and the cutting occur and so this is a situation where there is no life and death effect on the patient who is pre operative thank you your honor if it please this court and all my name is karen kendall today i represent carl health care and carl foundation hospital the defendants in this case as the plaintiff this point out to this case is solely before this court on the question of whether the allegations of the first amended complaint can state the cause of action for medical at every the trial court concluded that there were no facts and first option that listed in the lane case and the other decisions which is a total lack of consent so in looking at this case support the hip replacement surgery in other words there can be no contention that it was an independent pursuit your or would have been performed unless there was a hip replacement surgery the trial court's ruling in this case was that the two specific consents which were part of the first amended complaint and part of the original complain own surgically including the fact that he too may be inserted to drain fluids from your bladder it is hard in light of that to see how he could ever maintain that this was subheading is the operating room and that's where you find the information that eight may be inserted into the platter to train one way not as a pre surgical procedure but rather in the operating room and in this case and there's no dispute that this was done under general anesthesia after the surgical procedure had begun i would ask this court to consider how it would benefit either society in general or medical care if we were to make a special rule for mr jasper which talk and to work out his undisclosed and articulated hyper sensitivity to this particular procedure i don't see how it could possibly benefit either society in general or medical care there so asked to decide today was whether the trial court correctly concluded that plaintiffs first and then complain did not and could not state action for medical battery we asked this court to firm