is a case of a trial that suffered from errors right from the star that really only got worse as a trial law depriving plaintiffs of a fair trial the shifting its rulings on those orders several times midway through the trial which resulted in a lot of confusion number one and also the result that when relevant a lot of  the court can read in the record on page four hundred and twenty seven nd day of jury selection we attempted to clarify that point with the trial court as to whether the sidebars were being recorded meeting on or whether we'd have to make a record after and we were left with the impression that they were on the record and as it turned out we found out many months later they were not and normally if there we received false information you can read it and make up your own mind of course but our position is that the internet the record here is the trial court's fall and as such we should be or  impression that that was all part of the record and it turns out it was and that for thirty years and she had been counting sidebars are not on the record and we didn't know that despite seeking clarification on that point early on so that we would no second issue because the court abuse its discretion in limiting our primary strikes through jury selection  really the issue here is what should be done when a potential juror fails to answer or answers  answer and you find that out pretty soon thereafter that's the issue and the case law for over one hundred and ten years in illinois is that when that happens even if the p the argument from the trial court and from the defendant is well you get to ask her questions you want you had as much time as you wanted you were limited all that way that's all through but that's not what we're saying a direct question to a potential juror and the record reflects that this jury either mr wentworth either said no which was untrue or in answer stayed silent or indicated in some other way maybe nonverbally by the language that he never had hip surgery and then ten minutes later few minutes later if that's a question we find out that that's not true and whether he did that on purpose or on procedure that was taking place because most trials that we've done we get to wait to hear the defense question before we have to use whatever strikes and we objected to not being able to hear the defense question before we were forced to use our inaccurate answer now i'm saying an accurate read and dishonest because i'm it seems to me the record shows that this gentleman was hard of hearing but regardless of that with there it was inadvertent or purposeful on his part soon as you discovered before that panel was sworn wouldn't it have been appropriate to object to mr wentworth by saying judge we'd like to approach the bench perhaps you get an estimate thing that's not recorded but i'm going to ask for your representation whether or not at that point you specifically objected to will separate and apart from the process that you apply them and inconsistently throughout the trial this led to really a cascading of errors and in excluding evidence that was obviously relevant and which in fact this presentation and even if an order meets all those guidelines if a component of the order opens the door to the evidence then you have to think a minute or so i can address get to the testimony of our expert and i cross examine the senate spends as i think a page or two pages of the transcript trying to get our expert to admit that mark didn't have any conservative treatment options fail to get that admission but then before we're able to be direct and rehabilitate our expert witness then move to impose the order barring any you open the door to evidence if you don't object to an order eliminate evidence comes in you can't then reimpose it afterwards on the other side that was the st one not to mention the fact that even without stuff but he doesn't document any discussion of the rest of the circumstantial evidence that the conversation did happen and we want and then during opening statement we're about to say yeah this is going pain something which is a recognized complication of the surgery and it happened to mister wilson now he was questioned afterwards is it interesting to note that if you look at the questioning of mr wentworth what are his answers was i can't hear everything is going on i can't hear the question particularly  but everybody knew somebody had a relative or friend common knowledge among all the jurors was then you somebody there's no s course of the record that i don't find any evidence of dishonesty here it's just a question that jurors do have all the time because forget something and they remember later i'm excepting much pressure not real you know and we move if he was going to complain of a problem for cause it was his obligation to make it the night before before mr wentworth  of the possibility of her recovery or argue anything to the contrary but what you don't have to know when to testify that you do have to do is you don't have to put it in writing you have to give him a hand out you don't have to now this miss corner is also conflated two things which i think need to be made clear and that is conservative treatment conservative treatment does not mean delaying the surgery  their expert and nobody ever said that delaying the surgery had anything to do with this case either you were going to have the surgery or you were there is no relevance whatsoever to delay that's point that they were trying to get in  enough here in wilson two it was mentioned in passing that he could have delayed the surgery but no one ever suggested that delaying the surgery was important issues fact the court said here's the question if he only said we're not going to get into the fact that the charting ferret chart was violation of the standard care that's what he said he couldn't do they did get into the church they had doctor shafer get up and say just  bring up that cancel it would do nothing more than raise another issue that is not relevant to the discussion their argument in their in their brief is well if we don't point out that he didn't get to see  saw we should argue that he never tried to but we did say wanted to say that he could have delayed the surgery and her fifty two will sit to this court the finally the in the last minute here the the issue of bringing up other instances of the complication the jury was told that it was a known complication and that's all they were injury occurs is that a car ninety percent of the time or a th of a percent of time that's an important consideration if you're determining whether a reasonable person would do that if you're a fifty three year old you still active going to the g want to let us ask a me until resulted in an injury that's relevant and he opened the door thank you thank you gentlemen would take this matter under advisement and await the readiness of the next