why this the metal product secondly this is a manufacturing defect case and that should make some use of some importance in the analysis just involves just the product and third didn't have as he explained it the proper slip systems that if you had a building with twelve support beams averts to support beams this had to be austin it meaning it would have the twelve support beams and it came out could say precisely how much heat and so forth i thought he didn't even understand that he didn't i think about the manufacturing process well in a strict product liability claim around and this is why the manufacturer the fact this is a manufacturing de private strict liability claim the product is what we look at at the end there's not a negligence claim that dr sastry has to be able to point and say hold they only did it at seven hundred degrees it was because he had hundred degrees the product came out he discovery of that i don't believe there i don't see i don't see where his were his opinion gets you more than five percent of the wrong way down the road to  manufacturing process or the or the he stresses that i think that the price of the manufactured product comes under well i guess i disagree somewhat he he he did have knowledge of manufacturing processes i understand he said he did not necessarily research look at these specific manufacturing records he has studied will now be titanium metals i mean he he he studied the third the third party contractors process is in the pudding if it would have been heated properly it would have been austin had a key would have not have found what he found when he tested the microstructure that's what his back run it but it was not made according the way it was intended that is the defect and then it becomes whether he can explain how that defect relates to what happened and this is what i guess we're at a little bit of a problem that's where he doesn't know anything with the judge should be i don't have to look at any external cause that's in the well i write is that fair summary except that i have and i understand you cannot deny that he testified that he said i did not consider the external biomechanical factors and in my brief says he didn't have to well what we say this is enough notice what you said what i thought he actually did talk about excluding other factors and what he said is when he did his examination of the fracture surface in the fracture findings which included these cleavages like fractures of faceted rock features the slip in compatibility combined with not seeing the things it was a simple statement that he made i think was the most important thing that we would want to one of the district court to focus on if you're starting with a product that is apparently grossly defective to begin with in terms of her damages by the second time when after they had to go in and take out the first one that was a significant procedure where significant damage to the interior of the second product really in a sense didn't have much chance to the way they described her bone in tissue by the time they had to go in and take out the first product with the osteotomy and then try to put in another product it just wasn't a very good situation but i thought the born into she was bad i thought that was waste the i thought the surgeons explanation for what happened was that the it was because the bone and the tissue and all the other factors involved in her health made it  it just never worked i mean it it never it never there was never any growth at the top of the report at the top of the artificial device and there was testimony that effect and my presentation of contrary evidence  would be a way to handle that i mean that that's something that the defendant can present but there doesn't have to be in missouri does it require the exclusion of every plausible cause my question was i don't understand how  an expert to be can be reliable who says i don't have to worry about external causes and doesn't that doesn't look at the second failure to see where that what any of this is is worth and that may be one way i something they come to my mind is you know the patient that presents with a bone sticking out of his arm to the doctor and if they question the doctors they will doctor didn't rule out a strain or you know the ligament problem but no no i all and the lack of other fracture evidence that he would have expected if it was from an external cause essentially ruled them out and i understand he said i didn't consider them but because he pulled them out it was grossly defective material to begin with which in a manufacturing defect case believe the simplest type of product liability case we have and we had a concrete specification it was not a theorize specification it was the defendant's own specification about be in austin that he then dr judge perry found him qualified to discuss the properties and characteristics of metals so if he should then be allowed to explain the properties and characteristics of a nine austin at a step and how that translates to the fracture and i don't think there's such a great analytical gap here between what he's saying the problem was with the metal and what happened was a she was a very small framed lady she was five foot two but she weighed three hundred two pounds and because she had such a small frame dr shah burr was forced ability in biomechanical anatomical and orthopedic issues a council says all you need in the manufacturing defect is the defective product well that's not that's not true your honor that's why  must be shown that something went wrong in the manufacturing process not dr why why well that's right why it why do that why is it not simply enough i have researched to say the products the fact that well in order for the product to be to be handed to and with plus evidence of causation well for a product to be deemed defective from a manufacturing standpoint it has to deviate from the manufacturing specification came up only in the affidavit that was stricken in response to our daughter motion judge perry said it was late it was long after discovery so he didn't even rely on this the specification so how did he how to become of the opinion that if it's not often that it gets to the fact i am read his report i'm sure if you well you won't find it you won't find it in this report here he didn't need to he did not include that in his report his report because he had not he had not reviewed any of the manufacturing records judge logan you asked about did did dr saas to look at the outside contractor of the lake city heat treatment all of the all of the heat treatment for like but those that was all produced to news read and none of that was provided to dr sostra he repeatedly said i'm i'm i know nothing about the process he said something must have happened in the heat treating processes but i don't know what that is so well let me let me i'm not a scientist so let me make this a little simpler  more simple analogy let's say you have a that is supposed to hold up a certain weight and it's certified at one hundred pounds and you lift fifty pounds and it breaks now do you and if it doesn't do that and if there's no other explanation your point is there are other explanations and the expert says well it obviously wasn't you know i found some defects in the metal to conclude that it was not austin ever he had to to separate pieces of the fracture service services and mechanically grind them and in the process examine those filings and at that time concluded after all of those millions of cycles and after the destructive testing would be did that lo and behold it was not often that doesn't prove how it was from the warrant or you know what it was like when it was implanted in misread but with your example judgement boy you know that something that's supposed to bear a certain amount of what you say you know mild because he was he was not all right in any respect to rule out those other factors he readily said he didn't know anything about them but number two he said he didn't i didn't look at those things my focus was on the metal on and that gap between opining that there must have been something in the process that caused this scam to be austin that it and then saying that was the cause of failure taps not permissible under dog he just does not have the qualifications the experience what happened the other thing i'd like to point out is he eighteen months later that longer bulkier smith and nephew stem fracture there's no surprise why because like the pew stem it was well fixed in the bottom of the  growth dr numbly confirmed that he was able to remove the depew stem just with his hands he didn't have to use an instrument he didn't have to use trapped behind it was totally loo your client how does it if it did if it didn't emerge until after that the summary judgment process was well before it becomes the main issue on appeal what's the basis for that your honor if it i with a decent one but i will give you the page number when mr pans eerie is as i say my time is up thank your honor with regard to trigger the metallurgists in that case was going outside of his expertise and criticizing the design when he had no design experience you know in design probably had no experience in manufacturing seems to me they're quite there's quite a parallel there i also be the fact that his report what he found in his report he calls it the age c p phase which means it's not often that the fact that the specification wasn't in front of him when he did his report probably makes his opinion stronger he found it to be not often evict a don't know that the actual specification that was produced by the defendant was in front of him and that he referenced it in his report but his report filed a cheapie fave and all the things that render it not often that he knows what often it is from his training background he doesn't need the defendant's specification to know that the metal has to come out often it is but we have to be able to show that it doesn't comply with implants he's researched the titanium implants in people the titanium products that he used have the same properties as the l a product so he understands the issues he's done research on the desirable characteristics  show you're saying the reason he the specifications is because if it's not awesome to then then it's either a design our manufacturing defect defect and you have to prove which one which of the correct we have to prove is it could have been designed we have to prove that it didn't wind up just throw the pitches out it just page two eight two is the very page of the engineering specification under the heading micro structure that's where you'll find