good morning counsel were ready for our second case today which is four sixteen zero zero six nine and that is the case i must rush you are in we have the present by mr wilson is that correct and you have to leave present by mr great man as well as on this sunny is that how you pronounce it so we hope thank you and have you divided up your time counts related to the informed consent to the counts are the ones that actually went to trial which would have been the big count against christie plenty o all see which was cases you're not required to have expert evidence as to the informed consent we did we had dr fred simon a surgeon of about thirty five years from san diego california mr much pressure needed to have his gallbladder removed and when he first met with dr feinberg he said just open me up and yank it out like you've done in the past dr fineberg previously done six or seven domino dr simon basically indicated that there was no disclosure of the material risk that there's an increase or an augment or possibility of damage to fair with regard to presence because what was presented to the jury after discovery was concluded where both presidents and certain christie were asked the first time you took the surgical board you didn't pass it now no question about it he passed it and he completed and was well obviously and secondly he passed the board for surgery in the position where they object to each and every question hammering it into the jury but this is really important you guys listen to this and emphasize it and the decision in downey goes right on one point even though that case involved disclosing that the defendant's father was a minister but we cited two other cases directly on point saying that it's reversible here to compliment the defense counsel on his wonderful cross examination of dr simon with information that was purposely with held from plaintiffs all the  that the issues of proximate cause and negligence are satisfied the plain so if we've got that all of the summary plaintiff and self testified he was aware of the risk of injury from the same surgery jury heard all the evidence submitted to the jury imagery found that the informed consent was proper what about the fact that  question here your honor dr fineberg apparently according to the testimony of the wife after the injury was discovered about three days after the surgery that can occur during this this type of surgery it's it's something that can occur without negligence even though proper care is given the directed verdict and proximate cause was granted by the trial court either way you do that surgery while injury is one of the recognized complications something that can occur despite proper care the first two issues that were raised by the pla this error and reversible error was court's refusal to enter a judgment on liability against after feinberg crissy clinic because of discovery sanctions work on the basis of the discovery answer that question in two thousand and thirteen body year and a half later in two thousand and fourteen there was a new suit filed against dr fine that suits filed cook county after several months but county was transferred down  champion we were retained to represent dr fineberg and entered our parents in february of two thousand and fifteen with respect to this new case we didn't supplement the answer to the iraq atory which was have you had any the warrant uses discretion it did a very thorough analysis of this issue it found that the new case was a totally different surgery totally different circumstances at the beginning of the case please state all facts known to you relating to dr fred simon that time we had no information we indicated that the investigation continues we later took dr simon step position we did not supplement the answer to the right or to judge jones did comment during the trial when we had arguments on the motion for sanctions that this iraq retore was overly broad if we had made an objection s states that information regarding an opposing witness expert witness opposing parties expert witness does not need to disclose and we're not required to telegraph our punches so speak to give the other side advance notice of what our line of cross examination is going to be what's your position on opposing counsel's representation that the case law stablish is that this was an improper inquiry on your part as to whether or not he had not been admitted to his initial preference for medical school and not pass the test the first time first of all the the plaintiff only objected to the question about whether the doctor had been rejected by a number of medical schools that he initially applied to dr a judge jones commented that this was a highly relevant part of the case the test that doug just on also commented that the areas of cross examination this is a witness who gave incomplete answers on direct examination his his curriculum betake is incomplete he doesn't disclose where he did all straight when he was asked by mr wilson on direct examination where have you been w you worked since getting out of your residency he said i was in new mexico in california when in fact he has practice in eight different states and has licenses in a different state this was a witness that started his residency in one medical school and then didn't complete that residency he then went to the other residency university of massachusetts general surgery where he completed residency but when he was asked about his postgraduate training he only mentioned the university of massachusetts so this was this was a witness that was very invasive and was giving incomplete answers the judge in his discretion felt that these questions were appropriate  so i don't agree with counsel's argument about the question's being improper in the context of this case in any event the argument here by the plaintiff is that this the sanction that he requested and was an entry of a judgment of liability in the case which just shows felt was not one that a large part of judge jones decision was the fact that all of the information in the answers by dr simon on cross examination was that only equally available but more readily available to plaintiffs counsel had he inquired about them  surgeries on a routine basis there was no facts presented to the court on previous surgeries by dr fineberg that would have given christie clinic reason to know that they should be disallowed or not permitted him very serious problem because there was bio leaking from the small intestine and if dr fineberg had clothes that when he repaired or attempted to repair this infection would have set in and  would be a high chance of death so he left open to use a back system procedures after that were to change the dressing on the wound back system as the manufacturer recommends there wasn't seventeen additional surgeries or seventeen additional seizures to change the stressing and institutions that required to interject themselves on a daily basis into the care given by by the doctors again that if the jury verdict as is up held with regard to no proximate cause thereby not finding mr feinberg negligence the claims against her veena are moot in this  appeal and i concur with counsel on the institutional negligence argument certainly the seventeen procedures following the initial  procedure surgery were related to that procedure and they were done in a struggle environment for the care of the patient they weren't separate seekers the main issue as to my client to presence is the issue of the parent the work and we submit that the court properly granted summary judgment on that issue because of the past for this case there is simply no facts that represent despite there is no disputed facts on the question of agency there was a consent form signed by the patient that indicated he understood that most of the physicians at presence were independent contractors and even if or or regardless of that their agency relationship made no marsh rush selected the doctor and hospital which is a key issue on the reliance component of the goldberg test for a parent board and for those reasons i yarborough i'm sorry some of those cases there are the patient went to the hospital for emergent care and there was no issue of selecting a doctor in other cases the doctor was changed at the last minute and most important in those cases the consent one word was different than the one present here so with those points your honor we request that you affirm the be granted summ arms were eventually went and they stopped that sort of continued surgery because i'm very hit by another surgery when they transferred him to barnes who left him alone for about a year then they closed in on with respect to the  question about the right questions about medical schools and passing births in writing gosford right on point right on point they're very in the brief