The recent decision in Lasalle Bank, N.A. v. C/HCA Development, No. 1-06-1859 (8/5/08) ruled that although the trial court erred when it substituted the phrase “reasonably well qualified” for “reasonably careful” in the 2006 version of IPI 150.01 in medical malpractice trial, it was not reversible error; because instruction actually given was also an accurate statement of the law. Further the trial court’s refusal to allow deposition testimony of defendant as substantive evidence is not reversible error because of the invited error doctrine; the plaintiff failed to ask the trial court to reverse its ruling on motion in limine before attempting to introduce evidence that plaintiff belonged to HMO; and it did not abuse its discretion when it refused to admit evidence of financial incentive not to refer to a cardiologist because referral was, in fact, made. The higher court affirmed the trial court’s medical malpractice suit decision.