jurisdictional issue that that there may be no jurisdiction in this court the reason being that there was no three or four a language entered as you might recall this is a trial going through defendants any criticisms of those experts his reading of two thirteen is is way too strict there's no case that that he cited where that the defen cited that requires us to list every defendant's employee and identify specifically what each employee each bit wrong what to do two requires the subject matter of what the witness will testify to the conclusions and opinions and the basis for those opinions the qualifications of the report if there is any if you think about in a different context of sake what you know for instance in a public liability case or in a construction negligence case you know we sue welsh construction who say walsh construction was negligent because x y and z we don't have to identify walsh construction superintendent was negligent because he did this it's subform and did this we don't have to identify that you know two thirteen disclosure we just said walsh construction through its employees and agents was negligent because of engineering that x y and z we just say cirrus negligently designed the component part because it failed to have x y and z their position is we don't know you're going to criticize a residence look at their disclosure for the residence the residence disclosure says we complied with the standard of care and all respects then in the disclosure they talk about the decision to g talking about the documents that the hospital created right with the hospital's own employees names on them correct so it's not lying some mystery people know what you're talking about you talk about the people that the hospital knows where they are that the hospital knows that they were there and if you look at the two thirteen the scorchers are experts there littered with references to the residence i mean i went through i was going to tell the court dr lee was mention x number times i stopped counting because there are so many references in the two thirteen disclosures to the different residents with specific allegations or arguments of negligence i mean for instance and page a forty two  this matter it matters because number one on the confront consent issue the residents were the ones that were attempting to obtain informed consent throughout and they were the ones that really had the most contact with the patient so by removing the residence from the case you're essentially removing the informed consent argument because they were the jury would have heard that the residents were the ones that were informing her of the risks in attempting to obtain informed consent and at the end of the day the residents were the ones that were delivering the bait it was dr martin the resident who was involved in the actual delivery so any criticisms that we would have had as to the delivery by dr martin was removed from the case even though again in our disclosure an accelerator the labor the stir it is meant to strengthen the baby and you're supposed to delay the labor and give it a fact so what they did here by essentially for flopping the two drugs made no sense whatsoever so again you know it's a big deal to have removed the residents from the case because that was essentially the case is as to the universe or chicago on the informed consent theory because again they were the ones that were involved and you know trying to obtaining consent and so no case support special can exist reading up to thirteen if you look at the comments to it you know whether there's unfair surprises the whole purpose and the experts just to get the gist of the testimony that's in the commons committee comments and unless they can claim unfair surprise which they can't on this record there's no basis for moving residence from the case either do it immediate c section you know and we think it should have done then if you're not going to do that what you should have done is delayed this labor as long as possible administer the steroids give this baby every chance but you know it's clear in their disclosures that they believe that the religion should have been provided that the story should have been provided the testimony that in the discovery depositions you know we think is not clear but to  extent they believe that it's inconsistent that sort of been something that should been presented to the jury let them decide that's what juries are for you don't take it away from them so we end what the prejudice for removing the religion is that it kind of to instruct the jury on the provision of steroids and you know if it's a very low standard to warrant instruction if there's any evidence in both dr to bone dr schiff and her experts  specifically with the respiratory distress syndrome had they been provided they both testified to that the characterizing them as a standard of care expert or something that the defendants have done but in their disclosures they certainly talk about proximate cause and they were prepared to do so and they did do so in their testimony in a you know for instance doctor sure friend this is on page two zero five one of the record the did the failure of dr fishman to provide steroids result in this trial of not getting adequate storage spread to her birth yes and therefore did it result in the child not receiving the benefits of the steroid said they've been given answers surely yes that space is enough evidence to give the panel and in that appeal there was an issue with regard to the rule two thirteen disclosures and whether or not they included opinions that were adverse as to dr chand this court determined that no out of those disclosures were insufficient so clearly the plaintiff knew the importance of having a good rule to thirteen disclosures so this case moves along and it's two thousand and eleven now we're going to trial a believe disclosure of the certainly knew how to move the first two physicians who know how to refer to have residency know how to refer to the nurses and he specifically reviewed all of the depositions of the resident stuck t you had you controlled you need the hospital records so everything that happened in the care and treatment of this mom and baby you knew who was doing what just from your own records so how was there any surprise about any of that to begin with since they were your records it was no surprise about the records the surprise was what was the theory the plaintiff's case well once they got to this to dr deposed deposition he was talking when they when the b b c the heart rate went down to sixty it was in your records is that correct that's right and that was something that he criticized but he criticized well  right so i'm i guess i'm with my colleague i'm trying to figure out what you were surprised about what was a surprise and the surprise was i think the surprise was appalling element of the trial court approach to this question i was really well the trial court looked at that question they considered it and said well if this was a situation where you know maybe there was only one resident issue my determination might be different but here we've got lots of presidents you knew who they were you could've pla following questions and brought out sufficient opinions if he had them if you held them at that time but she didn't and plain just complicates that you know why is this important her that she was infected and that her child was likely to die that if she had a c section she also could die and that she need to be thinking about her three kids at home the jury heard th no i don't think that's fair either because the basis for the informed consent criticism was based on what lynn know largest she recollected that she was told there wasn't any other evidence on that  indicated that there may have benefits that the child may have received if the story can talk about it said been administered but as i just said a moment ago steroid finally touching on jurisdiction and my preparation for this appeal and i know the stats unfortunately there had not been three or four a language that appeared in any of the orders entered by the trial court before appeal was taken by the informed consent discussion after the fuel distress began there's nothing the medical records indicate that once at two fifteen that one when the first science of futile distress began which is what eighteen hours into after she was admitted to the er was his chicago no  consent discussion about should there be a c section or not at that point you know the issue of the residents what really hurt us was that the jury was never instructed the universe or chicago could be held liable based on the kind of to the residence that's the end of the