way to think of it and if those veins believe or burst it's a life threatening condition and that's undisputed by any of the witnesses or either side of the case that it's an urgent and life threatening condition if those ferris's leave my client went into decatur memorial hospital on november twenty sixth at eleven o'clock pm and she was cared for by the defendant in this case dr lloyd and at that point in time there was evidence that those various cities had blood one of the allegations of negligence was that he did not check to see whether they were currently leaving but because they had complied to schedule the surgery for the following morning at prevent that obviously stops the bleeding and prevent somebody bleeding further the schedule that treatment for a kind of back the next morning my client never made it to surgery the next morning because she died in the interim she literally bled to death while a patient of the defendants there at decatur memorial hospital she was pronounced dead at twenty one am the following morning by dr duncan who was another physician there who came to the hospital and pronounced her dad one of the issues on appeal in this case is the cause of her death and i started off the trial in what i considered to be a pretty favorable position because i had the defendant in the case actually disagreeing with his own expert the defendant's deposition was taken it was the first deposition i took in the case and i had him hold that it was his opinion testimony the defendant had been given dr who's there is testimony and the defendant dr changed his testimony and changed his opinion as to the cause of my client's death while on the stand and he  that was never disclosed to me clear rule two thirteen violation rule two thirteen i do to supplement i had no idea that number one you can see in the testimony but number two that he was going to change his testimony to comport with happened something happened in the around two o'clock in the morning and she had astro intestinal event something happened that she agreed to goes reverbs doctor it was her son who doesn't know what happened i think it was extremely prejudicial because and as in why they were able to impeach as well so that's not it you know i mean you can always impeach but what happened in this case that compound it that that the jury was left with the impression based on the tactics of defense counsel that i was trying to do something wrong and i had my impeaching the witness and that i was the only presenting half the story and that gets to another allegation of error in this case which is a violation in addition to rule two thirteen and some other boy rules i violation of rule two twelve defense counsel i got up and handed the and counsels like rule of completeness your honor i should be able to complete this there was never an objection that i had only bad part of an answer or that i had read the complete documents no objection to rule completeness when i was impeaching the witness can object and say the rule of completeness to clarify you need to finish the answer or she only read the first two questions the next turn fourth question should be should be read as value ar yes it's an exception and that you have to show that the testimony was misrepresenting the record that there is a limited exception that you have to clarify or explain how to do that and it has to be necessary to explain to prevent distortion off the record and what counsel said was stood there and read the discovery deposition of the doctor to the jury leaving the jury with the impression that he was being complete and i was incomplete and that with respect to how that occurred he knew lab grade a little bit i mean if we have a situation where the question was posed to the doctor doctor during this definition were you also and the doctor and said you know can you read these questions and answers and the doctor just started reading and it was literally i mean pages of his deposition and i think and then when i objected and then i said there's not even a question pat there was not even a question pending that you would have him read and say now that i accurately read what you testified to in the one point he said now is this consistent with what and made me look bad and i love such little use one of my favorites i just use hardest to stock it indicator i'm in front of him all the time i don't think he invents it to be that way but that's certainly the way it came across when i objected again he sat and this is all in front of the jury i'm confused you don't like it when the witness was reading the deposition and now you don't like it when mr chooses reading it you know what do you want kind of like what do you want me to do and i i didn't know what to do because i knew what he was doing was wrong i have practiced enough and have enough trial experience i had never seen anything like this before but this was all in front of the jury and he was clearly going to allow the witness to do this and mr hughes to do that so i stopped objecting after that point when i you know after he said those things in front of the jury to me about that and said you can read all day  enough to clarify or to explain the earlier testimony and there was no determination that by the trial court so we have the rule two thirteen violation then we have the rule to trial violation we also had hearsay testimony that was new to me that came out during the trial when the defense put on the defense dr testified in his own case in chief one of the issues in this case was that the defendant should have done something to stop this bleeding it was the plaintiff's position that he should have done something that night at eleven o'clock but the dr was getting phone calls throughout the early morning hours at two o'clock in the morning and again there was a five o'clock am phone call and at that point in time when the defense expert agreed the surgery had to be done and had to be done right away and the defendant pachter agree it was really important to do the surgery as soon as possible so i could get to the ho saying by the way i've now i've provided this opinion with this with this new testimony and he's going to say or be in the role requires that route with thirteen is very strict and it's strictly interpret it requires that i got none of that i have no idea i can see that sometimes so i think they are showing because they don't want to reproduce them first second that because if you do show the witness new materials most trial court will say well you did another deposition of that person you didn't want me obviously to have problem with the patient but this would explain why the doctor wasn't near or didn't get there sooner his own statements show that that's not her i mean if you read just closing argument that's where he argued exactly think there were mistakes that were made and i don't think my client got a fair trial did you ask to call the nurse who the doctor's who was the person who contacted him now who misspoke now even if it's in the middle of trial every deposition transcript that was taken i was focusing on the errors that i think occurred there was the rule two thirteen violation there's a violation of rule two twelve there is that here's the testimony harman there  multiple patrol violations in the case so that's present in the discharge summary in terms of gives differential diagnosis he gave at least three of these five different cultural causes forget that time it was present in this consultation it was present answered yes to your question right but throughout the governor's issue he clearly maintain you know throughout as i say throughout the course of the medical records maintained that there were other causes present for this and like to note by the way i think it was just a side note during the course of this there was no objection to the testimony under two thirty two thirteen objection in fact what she did is conduct what i consider to be a pretty examination which she carried out for quite some time i thought it was a sidebar on the record i don't believe that this time around there were there were numerous conferences throughout this i don't know that in the context of the way that this was asked that she has entitle to that same reason taisha remember she practiced this with the material whether or die here and we mean it when i said counsel should be able to rely on well your honor i don't believe that i think they have what she got was the answer to the question that she asked and i think it able to rely upon the same question and the same answer from the expert now to make clear misty here is if you watch it choose to go ahead with your examination of your client say but you also explain later that  throughout the deposition dr award made it clear and i mean this didn't just start in the deposition also it was also in that throughout medical records that he did not have a solid opinion i'll be not there was no there was an autopsy that is the question really is did she get the same the answer he answer is no so why should we know the birth well among other things i don't believe that this is that prejudicial smoothly everything very capably into the impeachment and use that very well this quarter correct that you were asked your client should testimony today consistent with your deposition this has two specific testimony yes this having sat through that cross examination my client what counsel tried to suggest is that because doctoral boy went to school in mexico he was not the qualify physician how did you suggest you're out of the reason that it was all rules because judge little recognize that based on them a nation and form this is now relatives in a very limited i limited my inquiry to how is we're gone i could've testified here so you're telling me you have no idea what your client the doctor this medical malpractise case is going to say in response to these questions you ask because you never asked them in of rulings on two thirty many of which were on both sides many of which sustained objections others of which overruled objections because he was able to see that transcript yeah and we the question just lawyers asked us was something where does this appear in the there were other causes which were pertinent to this what he didn't do was he didn't answer that question directly but it's a good question and i well i think your honor he should have told the score that he had with any reason that surgery was that everything else was we have these other factors to look at and that was again that was our what was clear early cards of explained other factors and he could always say this is what i meant he was invited to do you can see from the transfer after this happened eighty eight signs three through fifteen he was specifically asked what is your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to the cause of lower staff he responded by saying he was not exactly sure and that something happened to laura around two o'clock in the morning that changed the clinical picture entirely and he was not privy to what i heard that change wise that is totally different than answering yes to the question that he was asked at his deposition and this testimony if you read dr is there is testimony is completely consistent this idea that something unknown neither you nor doctor could say what it was but just something undertone happened to her at two o'clock in the morning he changed his testimony to comport with that of his expert because he was in the position i did the trial where we had a witness x code witness for a defendant that was actually offering inconsistent testimony with the defendant in the ca getting flipped on me and my impeachment of him actually and counsel you can argue this in closing argument that i was a cutter in paste or and i was just relying on statements he made at times in his deposition but i wasn't relying on the whole thing and then he was allowed to stand there and tell the jury i just want to complete this i just want to clarify she has misrepresented this to the jury and have the witness read page after page of his deposition with the judge saying you can read all day if you want to i don't end up on top on mean he's a good lawyer but you found even though he was able to impeach the doctor that there still was a new trial should be awarded and justice cycle in your decision you say where the jury hears improper evidence the court always has babysitter i mean there was six different instances here where rules were broken whether it be pretrial or whether it be ruled to twelve other if you will two thirteen whether it be arguing in hearsay and the other thing i have which the court about closing arguments this is in my reply brief at page ten he told the jury she was stable that stating a fact and arguing that that is a fact that the jury and that said volume seven forty nine forty