here was he a fast i'm determined that this would be a case and and set up a blueprint where there was a team approach to the we try to put on the jury seated this is a  coach and the other specialists were involved and the other specialists somehow and their standards of care and whether they did the appropriate measures for conservative care were appropriate however this is this is not a case where we bolster their case by say that other physicians agree with or went along with the standard of care of the particular physician issue specifically if you look at getting versus lesions gentleman the only way that you can give a verdict for the plaintiffs is if you say that all the people all six of those doctors either grossly you are either grossly incompetent or came up a lie so the court on the use of these other corroborating testimony and used use of the seaview numbers approach the court said the question of at this is a page four thirty five moreover the defense attorney highlighted the defend the plaintiff had an obligation and a burden to show the standard of care for recently well qualified surgeon practicing in peoria we brought forth an expert in that mr regard the defense had its own expert in general surgery as well as the the defendant himself and another surgeon dr tell who it was involved in the case and during the course of his own treatment of the patients bas because the state of the here in testimony respecting the standard carry requires that they lay a foundation that is physicians when you testifying about it is familiar with the surgical in this case aspects of the case methods used in science in the us in other words they're saying that one physician treats one aspect of the patient and another treats as well and they don't necessarily mesh together that's where those foundational requirements from boeing a one of the one of the earliest it's the fact that none of these physicians or your office or surgeons is not a fact whether they are offered to testify or render opinions that's completely false they can render opinions they can render fashion opinions about what they did and how they treated radiological pill there were no treating physicians and by law that's what we have in our case that expert that the dependent chain off of his own hospital consultant with other radiologists on his staff who had nothing to do with the case at hand or unknown by name even then came into trial and said i have a number of people who agree with my interpretation that is nothing like we have here in this case we have five or six people involved in treating a condition a pain korea types that is the medical issue in the case it is not a surgical standard of care it is how you treat a pancreatitis every physician about which he complains was in the case with firsthand knowledge completely different than the ki who were giving their opinions either in the record which records were did a trial without objection there is no hearsay problem with any of this the consultants reports or evidence there is more than ample foundation that all of these specialties deal with pancreatitis all of these specialties internal interventional radiology  in there is differing approaches to how you treat the question i would ask the court is with this record of treating doctors recommending against surgery with lots of testimony that surgery can further aggravate and inflame an already bad situation had dr hayward gone ahead and operated and the patient died with this court say that all of those first hand opinions of treating physicians that surgery is not the way to go but that would be somehow irrelevant or immaterial there is more than adequate foundation in the record from physicians who testified that physicians consider each other's opinions it wasn't just do not operate on the pain reus two of these physicians said i have a better way d a stent is very much like it is in the cardiac area it's an alternative to open heart surgery in this area it is an alternative way to treat the packers it is considered less invasive less harmful to the bankers dr who placed the stand and the patient seemed to get better for about ten days that's very clear so surgical standard of care is not an issue in the strictest sense he didn't do may have been thousands of miles away from me and then we look at a specific radiology film then he comes in and reports what they all said that was a manufactured safety in the safety in numbers and of course we use that are there were so many people from different disciplines that had seen this man had evaluated this man over time now he complains that it's q tip it is not  are different specialties different perspective they are not talking about the same point in time for example dr pan saw the patient for seven days before consistently before dr haywood was even on the another one that testified was dr slagle infectious disease his opinion was he was too sick to have struck another one was the interventional radiologist but they contribute to this is to put a little tubes in much less invasiveness surgery when it gets outside the pancreas outside the gastrointestinal system  never was the standard of care of a surgeon as such in question and if you look at the issue instructions there are two allegations against and they were each says turn it over search interventional radiologist testimony the same thing we do things sometimes we have to turn it over surgery so there's strength in numbers absolute seldom that you see a case where this many people from this many different disciplines said surgery not only the surgeries not the proper course but that in several instances i have a better course sort of hard for me to understand why he even is there pursued dr stan a second his briefs since when he had the record together in this case he didn't even include issues and as he just pointed out in our issues instruction our primary issue as to dr haywood was the failure to timely perform surgery and that's because he what he did was on the the record of the facts that are set up by all parties here that the patient was in the best condition to have their papers address and that was the issue in the case is whether that that hey you should have been addressed on the seventeenth have been eased together and all kinds of problems he's got renal failure he's got sepsis he's got all kinds of problems and as a last ditch effort to try to save him he did what what our expert said was the appropriate thing and took the tail of the paris off and took out the sleep with that's with that that's what the surgical standard of care required and it required it and want to bring in all these other expert witness conservative forces bassed that's where the problem because that's where that's where they blur the distinction between standard here for surgeons and standards of care for other qualified here for research and that's essentially what our what our argument is and our other arguments are so forth in the brief but fundamentally with the with this argument and those set forth in our brief we believe that it was an injustice done here and