four seventeen zero six seven two and is that name pronounced ha right and you also have counsel joining you was responsible for the management of the shunt until the eighteenth when he left for vacation and then with another one of the defendants dr mcgregor took over him for four days and then dr russell took over again when he got back from spinal fluid but we don't reason in a constant stream socially sneeze if you're angry bruce more there are certain situations reproduce less but there is no room for a difference in terms of dr russell's work if you pressure in ties had that eventually led to her to have these terrible seizures which led to a brain death which led to her death her there were the allegations this were not that they clamping or the order itself was negligence that the woman said you'd seen that down in the suv men the standard of care the allegations were that there was a failure to monitor and throughout her hospitalization there were physical symptoms of increased pressure in her head shift fevers intermittent here debility she had neurological symptoms ideation and perhaps most importantly she had  a six six pages long and three or four of those was on introduction he just said that i was caused by her seizures you know essentially the same thing the plaintiff experts were saying separate slightly different  his ruling thought anything was waived in terms of their quest for additional relief we're not suggesting the truck were aired in the initial strike i think that's what we asked for after there was another mention of the striking  and sort of just having a little bit more time to think about it mr kelly plans counsel move for the additional relief that we believe is that issue in this case and the additional relief would be in line i think what we're actually getting at and i'll read you correctly from judge have an office comments and obviously he's he's defending his ruling and says the only issue i perceive at this time is whether or not once the bell has been rung so speed whether or not the jury can strike the testimony in their own mind and not consider it this was an important issue in that case obviously so to cause of death it was a complete bombshell from from our perspective we knew that the defendants were claiming that she  that showed the stroke and that earlier that the brain death and that on c t e doesn't show up and for twenty four to forty eight hours which would put it back at st john's and that was a huge issue in the case i mean you had witnesses going back and forth where the brain death occurred jury was able to disregard the sentence and whether or not they understood in his took to heart his the instruction somehow how how do you satisfy the abuse of discretion  can't go back and see the juries in the trial court didn't make that assessment i don't know all these able to look in the jury's eyes and found that they were able to disregard statement i don't know and  whether or not they can strike the testimony in their own mind and we would argue that the subsequent reference destructing and references in closing argument made by both defense attorneys as to were not saying say something that's inappropriate we're not saying that i think would be putting it into the so it did to the juror's mind that essentially this whole sort of fans just just prevent  an issue into the case that should not have been there and the question is whether or not that that the court without explaining to the jury why it was stricken cure that and i think if i think it would be a clear case if if the court referred refused to strike it would given this court precedent they would say that's a two thirteen violation on a very important matter in the case and should be reversed for a new trial i believe they have a fifty page response brief i think really think it comes down to just given they have no chance to defend themselves in terms of their their conduct and not only that dr engelhard disclosure was actually written by the finance it wasn't a report it's the in the disclosure it engelhard will testify that dr russell integrator managed to shunt in the same way they did at st louis now plaintiffs should have that expectation that there will be no complaints about st louis shot management if the same person who's defending the the standard of care for russell and the greater says that they did it the same way as st louis and in fact mr draper who is the lead trial counsel for  russell when he was cross examining plaintiffs expert dr wallman said you know people do things differently when they when they manage a shot you know even said in his questions he said he said you know dr russell did it the same way they did in st louis and you do it a different way so people do it different ways and even said so they were trying to highlight that they were similar and here they have their expert come later and say well that was the wrong way to do it and that actually cause  never been an issue in the case are we this is were all gone there was no i mean we had nobody to rebut that that testimony at that time so do the fact that that issue was put into the case  rule that removes the trial courts discretion in addressing it to thirteen objection that if in the event the court of court finds a disclosure violation according the plaintiffs the  two thirteen af the way that the testimony came in was on cross examination the question about what led what caused the seizures this is this is a question or an issue that had been documented testified to over and over again that it was the defense position that what happened what went wrong went wrong in st louis so whatever it was it was i'm sorry whatever whatever it was and there and there is not there wasn't and even this very undeveloped hammond which was cut off quickly because of the timely objection and also the court quickly conducting a sidebar was you know the book was not a statement that the that somebody in st louis was improper or negligent or anything of that nature it just wasn't the common it was it wasn't in  out he says they add that there is another part and at that point according to the briefing that we have before us plaintiff's client contends that none of the you know he didn't know that there were he didn't believe that there was another part and then proceeds to invite the witness to elaborate on that so you know i would say it's an academic question i suppose because as to whether there's an actual violation or not because the trial judge treated it as it was a violation and you know from the very from the very get go struck the testimony told the jury to disregard it told the jury to disregard it i think a couple of times even at that very even at the beginning so what we have here is a situation where there is an objection there's there's a you know there's the elaboration of that's part of it very short i think six words or something that nature and the judge in no uncertain terms says to the jury with regard to attributing cause he is in my eyes that last answer is stricken you're not to consider it the last response you can't consider and you'll receive instruction on that later and the and as as the record bears out the in addition that they had by then the instruction that the jury received later was it gets you to the end zone on proximate cause so it seems to me dead that the only way that the court could send this back for a new trial would be to make an assumption that the jury didn't pay any attention or disregarded the banishment that came right after the testimony and then also disregarded the definition of fifteen zero one and the i p i instruction there's that's contrary to illinois and maybe and counsel mentions we had a long grief we had all we had a lot of places to show where the conduct and what what happened in st louis was a big part of this trial so that's why those comments  i'm i'm in the same bone as this court i wasn't there and it's a well settled principle of illinois law that that's why we have a deferential soon of review for this type of thing because the the trial judge and the trial judge went out of his way to articulate this that he and i and i think the trial judge gave it some serious fog and said all right at the post you know even initially but then at the post at the very first of all we have the first side bar and then we have a lunchtime discussion at the lunch time discussion the judge makes a comment that he thinks that the jury is paying attention and giving heed to his instruction and then at the post trial phase after the judge had all of the briefs all of the transcripts and had a good think about it he said you know i looked at those folks and i could see that they were paying attention they were very hardworking diligent jury was and that was relied upon by trouble for we have a sole practitioner and even to the extent of the stricken testimony it was part so you know again i have to i have to emphasize the instruction that the jury heard sition testimony correctly there there was some discussion of st louis but not of i don't think that it drilled into that much detail are there any jury know what they saw i mean i i i think probably from there were there was enough testimony on that that the jury would respect because they talked about in terms of her be responsive to relatives and her peoples and so they didn't just say based on no he was there wasn't dealing with the it would be that given the fact that everybody we did see she's seriously here all right that she's out of level that you would expect or hope going to be given her condition something and they have a point or that she wasn't that there i mean and i think what the part of the plane of siri was to point to a radiology report from a scan taken in st louis and then there was a dispute about all of this testimony all of these you know the nuances and the outright conflicts and you know that's not how i read it yes this is how i read it that all went to the jury but but it seems to me that again  you know there are the the jury had a lot to hear about the defense of my client which was you know it wasn't high station was a big issue stared after was a huge issue and there quite a bit of testimony that pertain to the standard of care and there was extensive argument and closing by plaintiff's counsel as well as defense about compliance with the standard of care and you know dr russell was on the stand for i don't know over the day passably it's a it's a lot of pages of the transcript just going through everything to explain the complicated situation yet he and dr mcgregor were addressing court cannot reach a conclusion that that the trial court uses discretion even under you know the standards that are set forth by the supreme court and rulings this court's politically your rulings are well known mr draper counsel even reference after mr kelly was finished with his exam he said in the interest of full disclosure i'll make sure i disclose everything even something to be like geez referring to something happened there that is significant that i don't understand the discovery deposition of possessing the word discovery how you look at that subject of all this what was part of it the banishment of the shot that might be the event that doctoring aren't referring to anyone asked them to clarify but no one did when i had read this every deposition i did not take the discovery deficient and i did it to be complete when i when i or reviewed it i do not know specifically what he's referring to the events of st louis i'm not denying that that's part of step one of your something else then what is testimony is in the deposition the events in st louis why i'm a little trouble saying yes or no is that saint louis was brought up so many times just in terms of her course assuming that phrase appears doesn't that suggest that maybe the testimony that is the entire subject of this appeal may not be all that inconsistent that it depends on what which part of this this court puts the burden on and i would like based on your own precedent i would claim that it's the party with the expert that has the burden of getting out all the necessary opinions they chose not to have dr engelhard author an opinion it was just a disclosure written by counsel and then they offered a discovery deposition mr kelley question him on that and then as i mentioned mr drake had felt the need to make sure they had everything out there as he said we want to make sure we've got everything out there and so you know well whether certain questions could've been review and mr kelley i believe in the it's part of the record but it i believe in the first break even before lunch provided doctoring the hardest disclosure into the innocent into the record i believe mr bizzle and soon after strieber deposition so the court could review that if i remember correctly and i'll just say there's a big difference between saying something happened and saying someone was at fault because we know that the defense argument was that she had her big brain death the in part in st louis that's what they were arguing tarif time there's a difference between saying that if someone at fault and saying listen that's what we're claiming that they were playing  empty chair we have a rebuttal ready for something happened based on c t results that went back forty eight hours that's how our experts read them that showed that the brain death occurred between twenty four forty eight hours prior to when the c t s were taken