you know out of context without any other testimony in the record sure if i was a lawyer and my staff does something that's wrong i'm responsible no question about that but here we have testimony elsewhere doctors as first examination that number one if you have those tests did not get perform as he had ordered that he would be responsible for them there again he can't let that happen so taken as a whole test he said she of the patient made a medical judgment and other well and then later he says he would be responsible if she later he said she would make it she was making  chart when she got it well it was unclear in the deposition she said one thing and testimony but she said the order was on the chart for the treadmill the next morning the patient wanted to postpone it rather than asking the doctor about whether it's ok to postpone it quietly or for the next morning she asked the patient about the chest pain later in the day as you're saying the doctor offers that she told me about it i said oh that's ok his it wasn't an emergency situation however again the doctor still in that moment saying you know if we believe them and i'm not going to argue whether we do or don't i think you have to  needed the test the next morning how can you later says well it's ok you know after the fact ok maybe he didn't need it the next morning but again at the time he says he ordered it because it was needed he also s so you know the packers saying well you know i okayed it and therefore it's not a violation of charity care he didn't say that though you accept and believe and i suppose would even but you don't want to believe and i think you say if you know we have to accept pleas to pay he's saying essentially i didn't believe it was an emergency and but we don't need to get into that that issue he thought or serious enough that he needed a treadmill for the next day whether he thought it could have been delayed we don't know you know until this after the fact testimony of gratification of what his  but you know he felt it was serious enough obviously because he ordered treadmill and had it done the next day and they happened to be doing it the next day that's that's great that maybe the mayor points down but actually in the questioning by mr lamb the factor so i think in those questions he is indicating a whole wave that this is a merchant enough of a situation that we don't want to live now again after the fact after staff changes his orders without question you know asking the doctor whether it was ok to talk based on the staff's evaluation of patients just you know that he says oh that's ok but again he's already said staff circumstances would have done if you compare that with one of five point one and you know my pattern instructions so the definition rational negligence is say that the language of our proposed special honor architecture is directly drawn longer patterns for option acting on to the specifics of this case you agree that the that this form is appropriate that and that it helps to serve to causation on them the question if there's a question of causation there there could be it could be educational admission of liability but that's not what they're shooting for they're just there they want to judicial mission we live a that question in terms of like several weeks when mark would be ok he answered that question for practical purposes when his point was like she came to him and said afterwards look he didn't want to do it mor and in fact then you go by four and in fact if they were right then the gentleman probably wouldn't have had a heart attack and die well that's true that's why for at the time he took the actions  but for but i also clearly from in terms of there was there was factual dispute factual controversy for the jury to address as to whether it was in fact miss nikolai to reschedule this exam or whether it was in fact mr ellis and of course i don't see how you can get past that causation problem on with regard to the special moraga to his own i would say to the court  the most important case for this court's understanding of that of the out of the truck court's ruling is the northern trust case we cite to the court basically there were two but the problem becomes trying to ensure walk to special iraq tours where you picked that one on to the other and that was the case that that was the reason that those were properly rejected both in the northern trust work together in tandem now the second problem with these two when you talk about working in tandem is that they use language in that inconsistent language that is not language it's inconsistent  first was failed to do something in caring for mr keller and the second was whether professional negligence was a proximate cause the problem with those is that a jury has to be able to communicate those two concepts back and forth and i believe that that was part of the reason that the truck would probably felt a bit confusing but as i say most don't know what they decided the doctor did put her if they were to find for the plaintiff under thirty doctors it is something under that general instruction we don't know what it is that they found he did do but they find that he was it's focusing a man on what they did what they used to consider amongst other things rather than all this general language in the jury instructions that they may not you know they get twenty instructions they may not understand down and you're trying to i mean there are three different completely different thirty so answer and one of them would not have disposed of the other two the court said no that's not appropriate now this court found and it's a case and i actually think  professional negligence of dr murphy a proximate cause of the death of moore all right those are basically the identical instructions that we have here now in that case the defense offered these compound questions i quote if you find that the defendant was negligent and that his negligence was approximate cost that gets confusing for journey it's a compound questions we try to avoid them so we break it up person cases which allow general jury instructions that it's not to look at two of it's not cumulative it's not misleading the focus is a man on what conduct we're talking about which again refer back to