to testify to the standard here now as to the first issue we have four different allegations of post operative care with a failure to exclude you're told injury when tests despite an abnormal ultrasound oh numerous testimony of the witnesses that said that there was nothing have normal that test there's another allegation that he assumed that there was no your theory that's true he took out her her flank pain performed a shock injury on the side of graeme he was concerned about this this is a known risk of a cold hysterectomy and finally we have injury in this case and and i think it's important to identify that ultimate injury the ultimate injury here is that she was forced to go back for a second surgery to resect the you're richer to her bladder and the primary issue in this to surgery and let's see if we can clear that but when asked if he had any specific knowledge of this he said well i'm a little bit out of my league here it's of this i'm not a urologist so his causation testimony is  completely insufficient the only other testimony we have is from the uncontrolled expert that dr early he actually performed the resection amy said in a general sense of fixing a was in the way associated with the hysterectomy but the type did he say that it was caused by and he could never identify the mechanism now a directed verdict is appropriate where the causal connection between remove these allegations of post operative negligence from the jury instructions now in a close case like this this is telegraphing to the jury that the really is some evidence out there when there was opposing counsel points out that of our trial attorney did not mention the word use the word direct or phrase directed verdict and use absolutely correct what  e did say was there was a complete failure of proof on the side of the issue of post operative care therefore this should not go to the jury and i submit that there's absolutely no distinction between what he said and asking for a directed verdict of also and i wonder about that because i guess you say that your counsel being out of the words directed verdict can see that's true but doesn't a trial separated this and so that court erred in failing to direct a verdict and the court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of a case that the road for which there was no supporting evidence i combined the two no this is not some attempt to mislead the court what i'm saying here is that they really are the same thing when he said ask the court remove these allegations from the jury instruction what you say is i close case like this that was essential now another argument that counsel raised and quite frankly i was very concerned about this was the separate verdict issue that  i understand you think that's a proper instruction but we're proposing the special right doris which will make it clear when the jury reaches a verdict whether it's general negligence or they rely upon the stuff that we all think they should  as they should not consider in my response to that is that i have to question whether we are required to take that step and then ask where you require you know i'm talking about best practices best practice  would be to convince the court that there has been no evidence on this issue of i cannot say that the issue of special in iraq true would have been best practice because it would serve to refocus the jury's attention on post operative care and again that was wholly unwarranted there are many times where due to contractual issues for insurance supreme court precedent to the fact is that the jury has a right to be instructed as to all issues that are supported by evidence and that's not only the supreme court precedent but it's actually in the i p i instruction cells i think it's a close case because you have but frankly even in most cases like this i would have included a manifest weight or because the evidence was so clearly to my mind heavily favoring the defendant dr who the only reason i did not is that the standard is so high we have an expert retainer actually for the plaintiff who sudden no uncertain terms that there was negligence here and  i don't know that i can overcome that with the manifest weight argument before this court i guess that's the only reason so really this seems to be exactly the reason they need that special you you have to one would argue you have to show prejudice because it's clear that there is an expert and there is testimony to satisfy a general and you already know and that's that's chances are that's not going to be allowed we can't use that special in iraq atory to focus the jury's attention on the failure of evidence but we have to do is put this up as a neutral you will do you answer a very specific quest and if your answer to that question is you and i and i see that the this serves only the interest of the plaintiff in that these form of the special iraq tour that would likely be approved would not be one that it ta players expert witness more more than likely it would be do you find anything so any evidence supporting the post operative care and here we get back again to the illinois supreme court holding is that laymen are not trained to of separate irrelevant evidence again i think that the only favors plate of food to offer special in the circumstances the best result is to prove the court to rule properly in the first place and not put these sort of these issues before the jury at all and i don't even know if a special iraq jury would cure that i think that the suggestion there is if the court is no further questions on that particular should like to move on to the expert testimony of dr peterson i find this this issue of highly disturbing that a witness was allowed to testify that he had no opinion whatsoever as to whether my client provided good care to spatial he had no opinion as to whether he injured the plaintiff and yet he was allowed to testify that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty he ran a suture through this patient your curve which caused all sorts of injuries here i don't see how we can allow experts to talk out of both sides of the aisle like this if you are incompetent to testify as to the standard of care that you have no business getting up there and talking about causation no the reason for that is that medical malpractise of litigation it suits are not resolved by determining whether mistakes were  only on the basis of whether there was a breach of the standard of care somebody is going to talk about of causation you made a mistake you ran a search of suture through that you were and that's what caused all of her problems that issue i beg to differ there were three different witnesses who testified to that  that was clearly before the jury there was evidence supporting those allegations and it would be an error to take those allegations away from the jury what was the evidence that the urologist trained by doctors who are all over in indianapolis but those two are more qualified to testify on the issue of oz ation than anybody else that will reside on the case the table or he was not of didn't follow certain hospital procedures he gave an opinion as to the central issue in the case which is what happened here how did this injury occur  and he gave causation evidence saying that he's convinced that a suture was placed through the earth either through or around and that's what cost this this whole problem here oh because also mentioned the this is of the admission of expert testimony is within the discretion of the court i agree with that entirely i agree that it's also very that it's a very high standard to meet but in this case i think the court clearly abused its discretion if the expert is incompetent to testify to show as to how his opinions relate to the standard of care and i don't see how it's relevant have to say that you can't tell a jury what i have no opinion as to whether or not good care was given to this patient however they clearly made a huge mistake all standards of care for expert testimony in medical malpractise cases we cannot allow a witness to criticize the actual conduct of medical treatment and hide behind the disclaimer that but i'm not going to say that it was wrong just going to say that they made a state we're going to let you decide whether that