michael wall on behalf of dr who syrian we thank you for the opportunity of addressing this court today on the issues in this case which are very important especially to dr and siri there are two really serious issues in this case that need to be addressed and they're closely related there because the one causes the other there's no expert testimony to disturb the amount of the damages in this case and because there's no expert testimony to establish the amount of the damages in this case  or there was testimony by a nonscientific expert so what's you know i'm not sure i understand your point there were there was there was expert testimony no whether or not he should be subject to those other cases is another matter but whether or not testimony that was very specific with respect to the there was testimony your honor in that testimony was rank speculation that's all that it was the expert who testified to this mr patterson had no experience whatsoever or expertise to do to testify in the manner that he did the defense that all state had the burden a trial to prove their damages by some method that is somewhat reasonable this guy patterson was an all state investigator to correctly employ of all state he was a he was a an adjuster for ten years and then he was in there fraud division for two years and that's the only experience that is based on my experience at all state this is what these cases would have settled for i mean i don't know why that wouldn't be admissible and you could argue well you would every of the lacky whatever but you know don't give it much weight the formula  state took medicals the formula and that's what the case workers that's not what they did that's not what patterson said they did when they decided what a settlement was that's what patterson said they did when they decided after a settlement was over and when they were apply the formula and that's what the cases were and it's a case of above that it's because the medicals have been kerry and the story question them with all due respect that's not exactly what happened at all he testified that there were thousands of things that they would have taken into consideration the first time around but the second time around he's just applying a formula i gave very specific examples in my brief of how absurd the application of this formula wise and the response that i got was very generic damages don't have to be specific and they can be estimated i agree with that the problem is it's one thing if you have a jury who is given that some testimony about this is what how you should have a value at these things and then they come up with a number which is may or may not be specific because of the circumstances it's a completely different thing to put a person on the stand who has no expertise and have him say here are some dumbass for example fifty of the cases were decided based on these were policy limits cases in policy limits cases there decided for the policy limits cases quickly for a reason because of the seriousness of the accident here we ate take a policy limit case that settles for twenty thousand dollars not because the cases only were twenty thousand dollars but because that's the policy limit and mr patterson takes that case and in fifty of these cases he arbitrarily says we should have settled this he didn't even apply a formula here he just arbitrarily says i've looked at the case and i think it would have settled for seven thousand nine hundred dollars the plaintiffs in that case would not have settled for seven thousand one hundred dollars they w that the problem with saying that's an argument for the jury is that the jury is given this what looks like a spreadsheet which is nothing more than dr little looked at these things and said some of these cases should have been five hundred some of them should have been six hundred some of them should have been nine hundred ninety pigeonhole them and then mr patterson took those cases and he wrote them up or push them down depending on what the lawyers told him to do and we have no idea what those numbers are at all and then he took some of them an the but the record demonstrates the opposite that's why i went painstakingly through the way that they developed this spreadsheet the spreadsheet that was presented to the jury was never seen until trial it wasn't seen before trial made what was specifically a gas six hundred thousand dollars then it was up to one point four million dollars and it was higher than that and then it filed they came in with a completely different spreadsheet and the spreadsheet is one point two million dollars the jury doesn't know what to do with that but it's all they have it's not junk science it's just junk testimony they could have put on an expert who could have addressed the the factors that go into deciding  how to settle a case they could have put on a an expert who could have said you know one of the things is how much it is and here's some evidence that we have of what we think or what or what the the numbers were and some credible evidence of some sort as to what the number should have been and what dr little did to pigeonhole all of these cases under a thousand dollars is absurd on its face they certainly beat them if them bitches are completely speculative they can be upheld they could have put on that kind of evidence and they could have left it to the jury after they put on an expert to explain how they go about this process to come up with a number that might have been to damages number but that's not what they did m the i'm sorry the statute of limitations is it your limitations argument i'm sorry your honor i didn't hear you on the statue of limitations argument i believe that there is plenty of evidence in this record to show that they knew long before they brought this action years before they brought this action they say out of one side of their face that it's painted on the documents themselves dr moved to syria is building too much and is grossing up there whether you look at it as the good as the district judge should never have allowed this is a matter of law to go to the jury or you look at it and say the jury didn't buy the statute of limitations defense that the the result is the same the problem is quandary as to what you mean there is no evidence in the record except for the evidence which i pointed out in my brief which is that these witnesses point out any evidence of prior knowledge of  that was present did was simply though the witness is saying that well we couldn't have known there was fraud because we look at this and even though it's all wrong we can't figure out that it's fraud so they were able to stake take this and continue it for years and years and years one hundred fifty six  four hundred cases in order to show a pattern that's what they did thank you thank you so the time for your side is expired we'll hear from the company good morning your honour's todd baxter if i may please the court on behalf of allstate insurance company allstate property and casualty insurance company and allstate indemnity company did do the speculation on the on the damages your honor when you're talking about the damages in this particular case they're arguing that numbers for thrown about by dr little that he pulled them out of a hat if you look at his report you look at his testimony in his analysis he went through and figured out what the total chiropractic expenses were and then based on his experience of what the reasonable chiropractic expense was that information was provided to mr patterson now when you look at what dr phil testified to dr little with through everything including what he thought were necessary referrals and he analyzed based on his experience that is uncontroverted they didn't come present any witness whatsoever basically algebra when using the formula he he took the for the total the reasonable and legal expenses today he evaluated not just the medical specials that were provided by  but he looked at whether there was emergency room visits any doctors prior to that that got included into the number because we were analyzing that to the extent there was a necessary referral those medical expenses were included in as well so if you if you look at for example the first one on the list dr little had come to the conclusion that there was six hundred ninety five dollars from advance accident in reasonable medical expenses if you're looking at exhibit three seventy six from our and mr patterson found fourteen hundred fifty nine dollars to be the respond medical expenses what it is included those outside expenses when you look through the file we looked at all an claims sometimes two were times three times for what and where is he took the total amount of expenses allowed and then you look at the amount of the settlement that was paid within that is i guess the percentage of pain and suffering it was an equalization that's what the formula did so when you multiply it out based on the formula that they used you had for example for the first one the total a lo expenses at the time of settlement amounted to sixty three percent of the settlement amount that was paid by all states when you work yourself through the formula that he used the fourteen hundred fifty nine dollars of reasonable and legal expenses today the formula simply equalizes that it says that number is sixty three percent of what when you do use the mathematics it comes out to two thousand one hundred thirty nine dollars eighty two cents he said well he didn't necessarily do that what not a non policy limit cases for policy limit cases your honor what he did is he did go back because they are policy limit cases and you looked at property damage she tried to determine don't think he looked at the property damage i don't know that was settled separately by thinking of the mother who didn't move right but he he looked at the property damage and from his assessment his expertise he looked at it from the perspective that that gives him a better gauge of what the pain and suffering might have been in this particular case and so what he was what he was looking for on the policy limits cases because they are a little bit more difficult because their policy limits cases is to determine does this formula that we're using does it accurately reflect what the ultimate amount should be of what allstate paid and he looks at kind of these was looking at the higher end of what pain and suffering would be and that's why they used that ninety day fast track form that's what he was talking about the ninety day fast track form was for policy limits cases they work for the non policy limits cases because you can do the mathematics on that and determine your percentages for purposes of pain and suffering because you know how much you paid you know what the plaintiff's lawyer took in terms of settlement and you applied your mathematical formula to create the most reasonable reliable method of calculating damages let me ask about the statue limitations if i made is that correct you do understand that it's uncontroverted that allstate became suspicious of this guy back in two thousand and two two thousand and three it no it's not uncontroversial started investigation back then they did not well you know when does the investigation begin  looking at all doctors and that's what the testimony is part of the motion for summary judgment said that you when you're there looking at various doctors all the claims representatives who sometimes they send them on to sci you sometimes as i you look at the particular claim they'll say pay it because they can't find anything and they're certainly not finding a pattern at that time because the events accident opened in two thousand and one then you didn't have a digital imaging i think open in two thousand and four and marilyn medical opened in two thousand and five and it wasn't really until this larger pattern was developing that's when they started looking at it in two thousand and six because that's what the testimony was a trial  trial really when you get to the issue of the motion for summary judgment certainly when you had an opportunity to present your entire case at trial present all your evidence make your argument the trial supersedes the supersedes anything that happens the motion for summary judgment in their argument in this in this instance was forget about happen a trial let's go back to two thousand and eleven when we brought the motion for summary judgment and the and the court should look at that the evidence at that time was just a snapshot of evidence and the court at that time property founders tribal issues of material fact is the one state farm knew about it and when are also new about it and when they started investigating so that that aspect of it i thought it goes really to the way that the evidence the jury made that determination they were asked specifically by dr in a series and the other defendants to start with the question of whether the statute of limitations applied the jury answered it didn't and that's based on the testimony at trial that's substantial evidence that supports that aspect of the verdict the court has any other questions of happy answer him on the damages and no further questions the case just argued will be submitted for decision than the court