case involves a case of a child and his treatment and then as a man he came to the we fall a lawsuit years later and to give you some background because i think it's very hard to put this down in writing but to give you some background just very two thousand and ten even though you're saying two thousand and nine so correct me if i'm wrong that thirty three pages of handwritten notes were provided there were later so yeah lavishing only mentioned the beginning of it i believe i believe that's the supplement that we got because then i shown that after that a motion was filed asking that those handwritten notes be tied down then your are your correct that's the initial temperature of the medical choking and so that motion was granted correct and those thirty three pages were tacked up forever ok and then in april of two thousand and eleven the records were sample a minute and and they were provided for december two thousand and two through june of two thousand and three so my question is did that original thirty three pages of handwritten notes include disclosure was made of a file we were given typed up transcripts so we were given these original knows these original notes that were the supplement were somehow found and then tendered a year or so later so these were the last six months of treatment which is understand the shorthand but we gave those to our experts and all the doctors who testified about the parent treatment relied on the type transcriptions that were provided by dr paul we were also given a ration of the chart in over twelve hundred pages of medical records kind of buried from s o u medical center in response to a subpoena and the significance of those records wasn't and i will say right now in open court wasn't understood until the middle of jury trial i'm fortunate and i have and what those records were was another complete get a ration of the head written person there were no typed written reports there it was all handwritten and so is i go through this i want your honour's daughter stand that after we got the transcripts that was the whole basis of the nine or eight years of litigation that was the whole basis of expert disclosures that was whole basis of our case and our prosecution and of the defense because nobody could understand d shorthand religious so during the one am the day before the morning of dr paul's testimony at trial it occurred to me that looking at the typewritten transcriptions next to the had written i could actually decipher his notations and i noticed a certain notation for wheezing for instance and it was consistent but before me i noticed that there were alterations there were changes and i go through great detail that display truthfulness of the medical chart is fed up held so much over the last few years that our illinois rules of evidence have that doctor and the fact that these records could be admitted as due course in court without even laying a foundation through a witness and so when we have the veracity of a medical chart we have on top of that the the obligations of not only the parties to answer under oath in britain discovery and in moral discovered but also of the attorneys citing one thirty seven signing documents pursuant to one thirty seven what we have is we have a basis in foundation in our whole civil justice discovery system telling the truth the truth of things and so when we have this system it you're right i've never professed ever in my life that i am a good boy but the fact of matter is maybe another lawyer would have caught it soon but the fact of the matter is just like an individual on the street does not have to assume that somebody is going to commit negligence and run them down a lawyer should have to assume it's somebody else's altered material evidence in a case and i don't think there's a case the illinois supreme court history or will it help or history has ever stood for that proposition in fact it's just the opposite the bar is very low and we've cited all the cases when when experts don't disclose how many cases they've testified in there's a new trial when when very very low standards of discovery when not a political answer when the defendant it was found out had his church policies in his possession and control new trials right and this is the standard this is the standard by which i think this is teleports you judge this material aeration because when we have an eight year litigation and a two week jury trial and of this magnitude in this complexity we find out right or wrong we find out in the middle of it that the record the whole basis and foundation of the case before the jury has been al on trial and they're right because that's all i can as all i that's all i could do but that has our law says he's not suffering that could easily be conflated and confused by a jury things that course with the law is that i do not practice not law so how do i prove how do i how does my client get a fair and just and equitable trial when there are sixty nine alterations admittedly that make the doctor look better every single time or make the plaintiffs look secor than he was or changes the medication administration which is the whole basis of the case these were admitted alterations and the fact that i have them in my possession i submit respectively doesn't make a good disclosure both of them gave opinions over my objection to the standard of care identical both of them help the defense argue that well in this case the defendant d their own defense and just because this defendant calls an expert that's the same as the other defendant doesn't mean it's cumulative and that's the distinction of take in this case we have one defendant calling identical experts to say that  and i'm sure that there's going to be some some argument over parsing exactly how they said it but the fact the matter is is that both experts came in and testified that doctor did not medical practice or the clinic was it just for clarification i keep referring to dr paul the doctor he was a defendant but when it was admitted agency at trial we drop dr paul it would be against the corporation issue number three to thirteen objections and opinions outside the  was the main defense i made up jackson's throughout the course of the trial and i believe that those warrant waived i believe those are at least adequately cited in the record because of the history of two thirteen disclosures and the importance of those i think that those mandate a new trial for allowing the doctors to testify to those sums which then yes i'm going to go directly to issue number four and four ties in with what forget is an abuse of discretion standard for found it was never disclosed in discovery even though it was attached physically to the inside jacket cover of the medical chart was that it was found right before dr zimmerman the very last witness the star expert witness for the defense took the stand he said oprah knowledge yes it was found because justices i decided at that point i better not leave anything else up to chance now that i found the disparagements in the operations of the medical chart and i started looking through these a few moments before trial because the original file was there by so and what i found was was that doc and dr paul's hand in this hasn't been disputed was a list of ages and a pair of weights this is what this is is a non disclosed notation system of weights associated with matthew pooley that are white surpassed the time that he treated with dr paul up until age twenty and why are they significant because the very first weight that he writes back is not the way that isn't about chuck it's not the way it is in the medical chart and wasn't the way that their own endocrinologist use just a starting w ninety four in november and i've got it's part of the powerpoint presentation your honor it's it's a handheld record if you see at the top there are various indications of the types of examinations that will be of been performed at their shop that means that they were performing well the s r u record on that day has no cha had the diagnosis and check this in other words in any evidence was added at some point after that record was disclosed outside the other omissions that we've got one of the big defenses in this case was that matthew's collapsed middle back was caused by a few probes that was that the generator left his parents finally  to another doctor that was their defense and this is record five twelve i believe it was found in the s r u records it was  dated may nineteenth two thousand and three this form has dr paul's writing that acknowledges that he had compression fractures in this bit back her to an x ray that was  another day in the law that he was supposed to come and see but he cancelled but you'll see there check marks of examinations being performed of a date that matthew didn't even appear so good he still missions are important because the zimmerman told me his deposition years before that he had made for notes and they were filled with calculations that he did as an endocrinologist and at his deposition we cited to the record i said will you give those to  yes and i asked for an course they were requested in written discovery they were never tendered to me so the very first day of trial or motions in limine a the day before whenever that was we follow a motion of our doctor him and that motion was kicked down the road for a whole week until the day before her till the day dr zimmerman was going to test and on that day if as counsel was said then drops another stack of brand new notes in front of me not including the calculations i believe that the record and the briefs tender demonstrate that there's a fundamental disagreement between the parties as to what issues were presented and what issues were proven to trial  an affirmative showing of an abuse of discretion by the crowd court with regard to any of these issues and the record demonstrates the judge belvin is careful and deliberate with respect to all of these issues that were presented to the  i could you tell me why you're disputing the allegation that the medical records were altered well what occurred is there are really three sets of records at issue  there's handwritten records and then there's records that were transcribed and said to lead providers mr president referred to as i say you and then there are transferred records that testimony or cross examination regarding the differences in those records and after and may it to changing the records to adding to the records he did not he admitted that there were differences in the  record see for fifty two or fifty three or four is this the way it appeared in court is presented to me of the jury or how it was or exchanged in discovery december sixteenth  r has type on their progress note twelve sixteen zero two now in the briefs and during argument here when reference is made handwritten notes and then transcribe paul yes ok so what we're doing is we're looking at what is handwritten here which arguably the not much written in the handwritten portion here and then  then would it be transcribed into yes so when they asked to have the a legible notes transcribed when they were transcribed you have additional information and that was considered by the junction with praise that was considered by the court both in the presence of the jury and outside the presence of jury and the court exercise these objections that were made in that brief are almost verbatim disclose it either the disclosure or the deposition but that the defendants should not be expected to via the of this no on the day that the witness was offered his testimony was concerned about his president for fact he was concerned about the nature of the evidence that was being presented and went to great lengths to make sure that it didn't have anything to do with the direct examination cross examining doctors are about those notes and the point is the defendant was not allowed to discuss those notes with doctors or not direct witnesses but if they are saying literally the same things it becomes cumulative and it's fairly obvious that two defense experts would both have the opinion that the defendant phrase somewhat of a mis understanding of the use of discretion standard bills engaged in an analysis of the testimony and its prejudice and whether or not it was cumulative and he found extra there was no testimony from anyone that she could not be fair and impartial she was properly retained as a juror and with with no loss of time there was no demonstration of prejudice by the plaintiff for her retention either even issue of roughly taken that she wasn't it didn't make any difference are that followed it with judge bell's was simply to ascertain how long he had those notes when were they when where they discovered all and the record shows that he had had them for months and as the law in illinois is that if you're paid expert the possession of notes of things that need to be turned over you have constructive possession of those and you have to turn them over at the fact that there was a motion to bar him for not producing the notes he never did disclose which were the calculations for almost a week up to that got these new nose and we had this war dire that's what we crossed him on and i did not have time moments before the last witness called to spend going through each and every one of these notations and that of the stack that was given to me to be able to determine and come up with  but a few minutes go by i believe it was five to ten and we're called back and she come back out to talk to her said she wants to be a jerk and that's right all right so in other words she wasn't or we were led to believe there was going to be an o at that point she says she's fair but this is a woman who was emotionally she's emotionally compromised right or wrong because she was accused of saying she was going to be biased and at that point being emotionally compromised to the extent that she didn't follow the court order because as far as the alterations not being raised in trial there's a whole record that was cited to by how judge bells not only had some of the jury but how i was told to disclose to the defense what my intent was about the beach what alterations i was going to bring up how they were going to be brought up the judge does meticulously in the room with through the s r u records and compared to what was disclosed to verify that they look like a copy of the check so i absolutely raises and at that point at the end of the trial all we had was the cell so i would stand on my motions for the remaining portions  thank you counsel will take this matter a hundred times and be in rece