verdict for the defendant because of the errors in the lower court and i'd like to start out my argument by emphasizing to the court that this was an issue that that went to the jury only on the basis of informed consent the first basis of our motion the first error that we reclaim is that the defendants in this case were allowed to introduce host occurrence literature under the guise of causation and admittedly they we're aware and case is whether or not the surgery clause of her problems and that was undisputed defendants testified to that well i'm not sure what point you mean by that but i will point out that the informed speed not hold back because in fact be the evidence was admitted for purposes of probable cause to me for cause the sion and not for standard of care and that was your understanding and that's the court's ruling and then council goes beyond that ruling during the course of oral during the course of argument then i think a more it's an objection to keep it within the constraints of the court's order through answers to their number one we did this for the jury i mean that is a matter within the discretion of the trial court she could have a an opinion and eyes with your opinion and we have to give deference to that trial court's terminations yes and in order for us to say that that determination was an error reversible error we would i have to conclude that the eat ignition of this testimony resulted in substantial prejudice to your client which reached leads us back to just m jury is sitting here assuming it's a closed case any of these things can tip the balance and now we're hearing specifically that you don't have to measure anymore that there is not an association anymore and that all think why should we hold a response to responsible to date for something that longer than normal under a time it was absolutely there's no question that i missed a good minute you may want to spend a little more time on your second point my second point is with foundations and the testimony that my client had medications the medications that cause her pupils to become large in the first instance the doctors that no education they had no training and had never been involved with a situation like this with one exception and that was from one medication called the ri demonstrating the videotape to the jury testified that the videotape shows he that lead to people being no more than six factor shall mourn also testifies similarly so we have that testimony and what he and then we have the hope ophthalmologist i for them on the other hand saying that her pupils at the time of trial dilated to eight or nine millimeters so he will have conflicting factual evidence and the back to just the scales point yes that was all before the jury and the jury had all that information i agree but the judge the judge in this case has to be a gatekeeper i mean there's cases of cases and cases were concern is the point brought up by the defendant regarding what kind of specialist did you whine for doctors who prescribe medication that these doctors are not allowed to testify as to the effect medication that they prescribe might gap on the pupils of a patient that's a different question than what happened here these doctors didn't prescribe this specific drug and in the family and the specific dosages and how much time none of that was ever done and it was every drug in the world isn't this what they did there was no foundation laid for that readings if that too for a physician or a pharmacist already have you to make the to draw the conclusion that the drug may have been a specific drug may have been a fact and the jury certainly was heard mr fish hours testimony that he didn't think that the the tax should be interpreted in that way and of course i witness is thought otherwise and i would also common they at the hearing on the po is there a difference between a drug that made the testimony that a drug made coffee and a testimony elicited here that think that the drug that the enlarged people at the time of trial where was in fact the result of this context of the closing argument that comment came in as counsel was addressing the causation this issue that was raised and framed by the plaintiff by the players two experts that were not  time the thinking at that point in time was we have to we have to look at these facts and see if they have normally latch pupils he conceded that for and over and over again and  whatever the testimony i think was overwhelming that they did and it comes to the issue that i think you're out a race at the beginning of the argument and they had it was do we even have to reach these other issues and you know that in the context of this case the the expert issues were there these this testimony that we've been discussing certainly was presented to the jury but in the context of this case as the trial judge hammond to it at the hearing in the past from motion by medication or medication right but that but for those purposes and the other overwhelming thing about that evidence prez we have i don't know this i've never had a medical malpractise case like this before these videotapes of the surger concert was of caused reader concern for the results of this type of vision at night problem vision at night starbursts and everything else that i'm using the right term item but the i think point was that ok you have to say you're at a slightly increased risk and that's what that's how the that's really the case is for when you hear a sense what i was surprised i did see a case from you cited of what you know when you have such a detailed informed consent form an experimental surgery the patient knows it's experimental knows the f d a hasn't approved yet and the possible consequences run from everything from minor problems to blindness and they  acknowledged how as a doctor ever going to expand and do research in medicine if they're going to get sued for every experimental case where they get informed consent i think that's an interesting policy question well i was just wondering whether you had a case that pertaining to the plaintiff yet and she goes south contradictory testimonies were out that she she would tolerate no risk that she would tell all right no increased risk that even though she she understood that that the form said you might lose and she couldn't tolerate a very small increased risk of night vision complaints so i think that that is a subject object of standard their testimony went in and  the the plaintiffs credibility was considered in conjunction with that issue and i think that was that probably was quite favorable to the defense in the view of the jury i must degree and unfortunately could have to wrap up you did address the second issue that was very briefly if i can address just escape holes remark about the informed consent the actual facts of it said that you may have temporary night fission problems as opposed to the permanent problems that my client yes and that's why it's so important to tell of the increased risks but all of them points out to the fact that we do have and there were some highly contested factual issues in this case  there are in every case which makes up the language in the forms that she signed not not not a bottle of that was clear it sad may have experienced temporary problems for a couple of months not permanent problems and that increased risk if you  and nothing at all about the increased risk zero and that's why dr kraft admitted that the standard of care was to inform the patient to that end we say end he admits in his testimony that he never informed her of anything other than a normal risk but this points out to the fact that if all of these factual statements are true why do they need to bring in them all nice post occurrence literature to list that standard of care why did they need to up crying that she had large pupils which there was a picture that was one refuted taken before this occurred that was measured in showed what her pupil size to be which was not no studies that supported them i will thank you very much thank the justice