directions from the st appeal and as a result of those legal errors the district court reinstated its conclusion from its vacated the pinion the mr clinton was you're a person contributory negligence even though he repeatedly failed to follow clear and simple medical instructions to protect his own health you were the providers instructions were as simple as they can be take your medications and come back in a week mr clinton did neither when he flunked this the st his st the the physical in june two thousand and eight they're stored and treated them and told him to return the week he didn't return for two more than two years a couple of months after his st visit to this in august two thousand and eight mr clinton went to the emergency room on his with what he called the worst headache of my life he was treated there and the emergency room medical personnel told him follow up with your provider within two days he didn't do that either even though he had taken no medication and tak medications in the previous two and a half months when he flung this nd employment physical two years later he finally returns and there is jordan but he hadn't taken any medications during that whole period there is no illinois case law certainly none cited by the district or by mr clanton here that supports the notion that the patient would just be guards is providers advice is iraq percent contributory negligence unless the provider st educates the patient in detail about his condition the potential harms a court could do the objective reasonable person analysis under illinois law and the court said clinton was in the position of a person whose caregiver had failed to provide information about the severity of condition but there  actually a nd i'm not quoting anymore there is a nd aspect to mr clinton's position that this report was supposed to take into account andrine that nd thing from this court's opinion yet he also had a few external clues that he was seriously unwell for example two employment related physicals show that he dangerously high blood pressure so the case goes back to just report the district court says you know what the court of appeals the th circuit is wrong to say that mr clinton had any any clues external clues that he was seriously unwell and did not take that into account when it did its analysis so that's the basic problem here and just to be clear about this if you look at page seven of the district court's opinion on every man of the sentence there that exam meaning the one in in june two thousand and eight did not suggest any other medical problems certainly nothing that would have told him he was seriously ill well that contradicts s that clanton should have known he was seriously unwell based on the high blood pressure reading to work physicals two years apart as those are the precise examples that this court gave in its opinion in the st in the st appeal and you know i mean they had rejected those those statements and therefore didn't do the appropriate in the house i mean that now and go on from there but it does basically it just report did not do with this court directed it to do and as a result  that the government introduced from the law in the case law that show that if you if a patient fails to file to follow the medical providers advice the patient can be held contributory  told the father bring him back if the pain gets worse the father promised that was by the way that was on the friday the following monday after that two day weekend following monday they brought him back to the emergency room and basically was too late at that point the son died and when the case was tried the jury in the in the on the wrongful death portion of the case the parents wrongful death portion held that there were no damages because the parents for contributory negligence for failing to follow the negligent e r doctors advice to come back over the weekend not just you know sometime in the next week over the weekend so i think between those two cases have a pretty good idea of what illinois law supports and what it doesn't course no questions i'd like to reserve the balance of my time acted reasonably or was not negligent was right or wrong it was simply let it was at thirty thousand dollars foot view of whether or not she applied the appropriate standard as it was determined it wasn't clear or there is court wasn't and she had and they to point something out at that sort of the beginning of my time it is important here i think he can focus is what the government feel about is about whether or not the court of why the reasonable person and if if the court  mr clinton acted on reason and that's not the issue here but what they're doing is trying to flood this court with the fact that taking a nice away each and or context sound on their face like mr clinton act that he's not it and there's no question that we should take up her opinion and read it in black and white houses what she's going to do and she goes ahead and does she acknowledges this court career mandate by the opinion that i'm reading from thus the court must analyze what a reasonably careful person would have done or not and at that reason we careful person found himself certain standards that were given when she tells us what she's going to do what would be a in light of that common knowledge she considered the she considered the specific circumstances that might be external to mr clinton or to a reasonable person that he was seriously unwell she considered the two answers or in other words mr clinton's conduct was reasonable therefore he's not it if this isn't reasonable person analysis as the government claims it isn't i don't know how you know he has walked us through ordered to do to analyze what a reasonable person would do and mr clinton's stances compare their behavior she did it in black and white he can read it and it is what it is that he was seriously unwell there's no question he was seriously unwell and there were things clues out there that would indicate he was seriously unwell the question is should measure clinton have understood that he was seriously unwelcome these clues so if the government's position in this case or on this appeal is right but their position is that the district court relied on either a subjective understanding of mr clinton or some new novel per se rule of information in a reasonable person such as the field work physical laws the two thousand and eight is that searing those those in this court realize that even though nurse jordan didn't educate mr clinton he could still be negative his conduct could still be unreasonable because there's other factors other circumstances the rich are no clues that could have told hammer the reasonable person that i have a problem i need to change my behavior and  lies all of the other conditions all of those circumstances in her answers and made her conclusions and then finally other what if the government is right think about what that means is that means that the district court judge in our ok thank you i hope not to the i just want go back briefly to what this court said that what the district court was supposed to do i mean that there were two aspects of somebody a reasonable person the mr clinton's position to aspects of his position the  he'd know he didn't have a few external clues that what that what this court said this seven circuit said where is external clues i disagree with that so that this report was not doing what this court directed to do is basically not complying with this court's instructions and you know the government obviously has an interest in this case because of the money involved and because the court's decision on contributory negligence affects the amount the money paying mr clandon but