your honour's pleased court counsel i am not a of hell attorney by trade i am a trial attorney and i have been one for nearly thirty years now and there are cases that you know you will take your grade on this is this is a medical malpractise case that involves a what should have been a very simple straightforward all right or an early repair that went horribly sites were what was causing her pain if you remember with a letter scott the case you're talking about very small holes close by some of the only band aid some with with just a few stitches  spent much of her time sitting on the toilet she was in the clinic she went through all the doctors in peoria nobody could discover the cause of this unremitting battery eventually she ended up the cleveland clinic where a world renowned gastro surgeon opened her up and found that she had approximately half of the normal amount of small bowel that should that then there are this result in something called short bowel syndrome w complex case mr smith and i have spent we realize has been basically a third of our respective legal careers working on this case  i want to focus on two points primarily to start with and if we have time we'll go to the other sold well dressed whatever questions you all might have might point number five i think is one of the mind that means the burden of proof is not been met i objected the court did not sustain sustain my objection and mr smith went on to repeat so i would propose to you that if you get the other end you have uncertainty for surprising to me there was all wrong in this field came in the criminal context at least that i was able to find  everything that they look at causation negligence damages everything goes through backplane his burden for by stating that burden of put that's one of the last things that the jury correct and if you look at the transcript i did not mistake the burner for mr smith did not object to anything when i was arguing with regard to the instruction on burden of proof he had an objection later on when i was going over the instruction for skinner here and he objected to how i was characterizing that but never objected to my my argument about burger proof because he couldn't because i was that the issue that i wanted to spend my time on your honors is number four with regard to the informed consent issue we objected to cross examination and presentation to the jerk president a mission of the plaintiff and presentation to the jury in the form of showing during cross examination the informed consent form  the seat he ordered this a c t scan at that time to know what he was getting into it was only after that c t stand back that showed that she had a small hundred that  two thousand and four thank you when the court said it was reversible error for a circuit court refused to grant a motion in limine to exclude that evidence the delaware supreme court in two thousand and thirteen said evidence is counsel spent a fair amount of time at the beginning of this argument discussing and arguing the facts of this case all argument that the jury her and her extensively prior to coming to a decision that dr anderson was not liable either under the plaintiff failure to prove negligence or the plaintiff failure to prove causation of those facts because that was all for the juror and notably the plaintiffs have not presented this court with an argument that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence so the purpose testimony in defense of the defense addressed this issue but it there was no there was never in the argument about informed consent or that this consent exonerated discernible group in any way shape or form and helpful he has argued about cases from other jurisdiction and including cases that were never cited in the reason that we didn't have the most important issue this case the closing argument of course the single common that council study has to be considered not only in the context of the verdict from the plate and you can have doubt so that's where counsel and there were objections there were interposed during the closing argument of the plaintiff and in a very even handed fashion as law from me and there is no more argument that there was anything wrong with the jury instructions in this case and the burden of proof so adamant about the law from the attorneys with a grain of salt but i'm going to tell you this and that was very even handed it was very appropriate and there were statements made in the heat of arguing there's any specific thing that we're likely to address that through would be happy to do that i will say on the issues so proximate cause there is quite that environment there is this issues fully briefed and i believe that the record fully supports the trial towards discretionary rulings and introducing evidence and not instructing the jury but that issue which seemed to be by the briefs to be the the play isn't very clear about what causation argument evidence he's arguing about but the plaintiff cites a case jones versus back and says that the exact situation that was in the case love and decision on promoting the instruction but it would be the absolute speculation to say that the instruction was prejudicial because clearly the jury could have very possibly resolved the issue and there was no negligence there was no breach of the standard of care and even reach the issue they should and i submit that it's equally true maybe counsel raised as it is is chief issue for the court that's a as a standard of care issue and he's talking about standard here defense counsel mr object contemporaneously to much of that testimony so without the plaintiff being more specific very easy and think it's a problem with the court is certainly difficult for counsel to want to discern exactly what testimony he's he's talking about and plainest counsel at the time said well it was down within twenty seconds you know i'm not going to count out twenty seconds and make you wait but that's a long period of time even ten seconds is a long period of time  which was not to say that this was done over my instruction and not to say draw a negative inference but the sched said well i don't will she to pay any attention to the questioning on the specific mr smith being from your area may have been aware of that going on throughout the trial i was not we've actually been informed that in a side more or in a way just truly before the judge made that statement no discussion about rest no question about informed consent nothing at all in that regard that when the door to the issue does not change the fact that introducing the issue is about informed consent that claim was not here we did not make a claim it's simply introduce as a fact that i says that an informed consent is legally in effect and to release the medical group in the hospital from one ability and the possibility of confusing and prejudice in the jury exists on the issue did said that informed consent form was not being introduced for it itself for some reason that i can't figure out from the case it was being introduced as an exemplar of a point of signature how that was an issue i don't know what i wasn't didn't fully understand why that would have been an issue but every state court that has worked on this issue has ruled that it's prejudicial