told you before i came here i said that like i say to every client that well you can come if you want and to my surprise she said i'd be interested in seeing how it works so so she came and she seated over there  come to the conclusion that summary judgment was a reasonable decision in this case there was some discussion about the candidate reviewing the case which is kind of interesting this particular instance but as i said in my materials no matter what standard you use the facts are all on the side of cynthia hall and here's why i if you're an ass if your arm gets severed your head gets cut off or you get a huge cut on your head you don't need expert testimony from now you might say well that applies to the plaintiff and it only applie have to prove by expert testimony if they think it was a your hip wasn't injured it was all your back all along they have to bring in somebody to say this he thinks can't just surmise this they can speculate this that you can't cross examine your way out of this unless you could get admission from one of the doctors that well yeah i guess it's possible that more likely than not maybe this incident did not aggravate her hip to the point where she needed hip replacement you could do that cost examination you'd have a conflict in the medical testimony and yeah that you did you would have a good position as a defendant winning the case i think you have some original position at least you did have a position where you could possibly win the case only on cross examination the other way would be to get your own doctor to go out and hire a doctor which is done with with some feeling by  whether the accident did or did not aggravated up to the point where she needed hip replacement surgery so so what do we get from the defense well the defense says here years are their is and therefore summary judgment was not properly granted which is argument three why are you bothering with arguments one and two which is if you were defending the grant for a motion for summary judgment to yourself reasonable basis upon which to the man this claim about the him picture right and they said they had their chance to prove that there was no trial yet the trial court has a trial court cut off all discovery this i suppose anything technically feasible i would i would be chocked if the judge said ok you lost on your arbitration i rule daryl you have no you had you won because there's no material of those issues of material fact i couldn't get people to truck or view that evidence favorable to you but that cumulative even with the evidence in your favor there was no here's their brief stay fine included it's arbitration memorandum with the statement that paul should be compensated for action day medical care treatment for cervical spine carpal tunnel syndrome and for pain and suffering that's  right on page thirteen and fourteen they're pretty all right so they pay that oh they didn't even pay that bill they're saying here in their brief to you that they should have paid they paid fifteen hundred dollar to the reasonableness of that you admit that it was possibly accident but you refused to pay it in fact the defense state farm so hard for me that i sent to randy milligan who frankly he's always hiding the ball or attempting to hide the ball the final game of this report and all other what's standard is that not an unfair claims practice how could that possibly be determined to be reasonable against the company exclusive of all costs or sixty thousand dollars whichever is less or less free speech so you could get you could get sixty thousand as a absolute maximum or sixty percent mean my expert's report that says you know what we don't have any evidence otherwise is not a good policy itself is not something to encourage it's not something to allow someone to get away with and that's medical diagnosis well that's actually our whole point here is that there was no complicated medical diagnosis what we had was to treating physicians if you came forward with a week they had their deposition testimony and they came up with the following proposition before the accident there was no evidence of arthritic your pain after the accident fifteen months after the accident there was a ship there for the accident  serve for whether or not state farm was fixations why doesn't that create a genuine issue of material fact of it's the genuine issue of material fact relates to causation in terms question for a jury to decide based upon all the facts submitted to them because the judge looked at this case saw that we were dealing with a very simple medical diagnosis that had no basis and this was our argument how can the judge in other words the we have every right to go before the arbitrators and say their case makes no sense they have offered no peer reviewed journals they've offered no expert testimony other than the unsupported naked assertion that there was pain but no pain before the action and there was pain fifteen months after the action that makes no sense the judge has every right to judge kavanaugh had every right to look at this fifteen months is just threw up now i was standing the evidence they presented by the physicians i think the judge has every right to do that i think the judge has every right to look at this and say does this invite scrutiny something earlier you said it is discovery still open i suppose at that point we could bring in other well let's assume it isn't and you can't based on just the record before us would be testified at the question of whether this was is there anything about his testimony that effect would be admissible i can't imagine why we would want to bring his that's this is the political response mr adria but not actually responsive to the question and i'd have to examine that your honor i don't know that there's nothing you can say about any of this he'd be testifying to medical pinioned without any basis in that to me testifying as to the opinion of whether or not he also  bring in the affidavit of the third arbitrator really really was greedy who explained her position again you're of course i don't i don't see the relevance here what you do see what i do see is this is that the judge has no right to look at the way the manner in which we tried this case and evaluate are the conduct of our trial attorneys and say did you do a good enough job maybe you should hire an expert maybe should broaden this witness was no basis for the doctor's opinion the treating physicians opinions other than the naked assertion unsupported by any peer reviewed journals and personal history and mean their medical opinions were wrong every  suit of genuine issue of the true fact because these are worthy of no basis at all i think that we have a bona fide history we have a we don't have to say that we have a winning dispute we don't have to say that we have suit a dispute that we will prevail upon but we need to show is that we have a substantial bona fide not feigned and in good faith dispute and we prove that you know are arbitrary and brief the fact that we second guess that and say you should have done more you should have got an expert witness you should have asked of what dr chu on the stand your exactly right which is why arguably judge kavanaugh should deny plaintiffs motion for summary judgment but how does that judge care about second guess a how does it possibly account for his granting your motion for summary to his the question before judge him on is very simple did you have a reasonable bona fide dispute we did we litigated it we brought to bear significant argument showing that the treating physicians that plaintiff was relying on their testimony was contradictory and on worthy of belief that is sufficient to create a bonafide dispute now i'd also like to point out this court's decision in morris states that were reasonable proof and per person would believe before trial that in a reasonable dispute regarding coverage a claim under section one fifty five fails the court repeats that a number of times the determination is made before trial now plaintiff is saying that well i don't think you put out a strong enough case and and quite frankly that flies into the record conflict with this court's decision in morris the determination of whether you have a bona fide dispute is made by a reasonable man prior to trial now we have every right to go to call the attention to the to the arbitrators attention the fact that the medical treaters opinions are nothing more than naked baseless assertions  without any basis in medical science and it is up to the arbitrator's whether to believe that in this case two out of the three believe that the medical treaters the system worked that's what that's what it means to say that reasonable ours the arguments that they were bills medical bills that were really not in dispute state farm failed to pay them i'm glad you asked a question i'd prefer the court's attention to the defendant's second request for submitted to us we paid one st john's it's up to them to tell us how much we owe and we paid those bills and we have a list of every single payment that they paid in the total amount  in the end we ended up paying twenty one thousand three hundred fifty seven dollars we paid for doctors to review her lower back pain and her hip pain the only thing we didn't pay for was the hip replacement surgery that's what was left out i think of another aspect of the case was a causal took just a cat task for withholding the id in the report for four months we did send it back for that my recollections he argued for months the form of the leg the if you'll check the dates you'll find that when he made his request we got him the full report within six weeks of his i guess his last request claims that this is a violation of supreme court rules discovery rules so those rules apply when we have a civil case on file in this case there was a civil case some files of the supreme court rules do not govern that regardless the plaintiff made its of demand for arbitration i think it should be noted that it took him ten months before even scheduled the definite the deposition of his treating physician he waited another couple of months before the scheduled the deposition of our i have a physician we have almost a year's worth of the lay that is directly attributable to the plate of to the extent that there was any delay in this case though we submit the natives council is equally responsible for that jurors are not required to leave their common sense at the doorstep and that's what we are dealing with in this case  forward with a very weak case a case which on its face seemed to make no sense we had every right to arbitrate that indisputed we did we lost we paid the policy limits i think one well they took his polygraph and failed it he failed a couple of times when they asked him polygraph were you trying to defraud the insurance company that you know that those that meter went off the scale everybody knew that that car had not been stolen but it's also based on completely inadmissible evidence and for net insurer side to litigate it and they lost an arbitration and then even though they had absolutely no they went and they appealed that arbitrator's decision to the circuit court now in that case the court properly ruled that though that section one fifty five damages were penalties were of appropriate here we're dealing with  completely different situation when you say someone stole my car on its face does that make sense is it a possibility courses here we're dealing with a situation where  my arthritic symptoms were aggravated but they weren't aggravated for a full fifteen months after a minor auto collision anyone would look at that say wait that can't be right is this is my opinion this is what we have two different words from connected here so they could just be this regard well it was in the disregard of those medical opinions or question the reasonableness of it the question for the jury evidence conflicting with their expert testimony showing it was correct counsel has just just conceded that you can win a case by beating up on your opponent's case that's kavanaugh said he said when the when your opponent's case is so weak there's nothing wrong with relying on that weakness and that it's so weak we have two experts who reach this conclusion and as a matter of law we raised a bona fide dispute here we did not make up this claim so if you're going to be permitted the side this in you're just absolutely not your honor it can and should be decided as a matter of law there are no further questions ri report until more after their reduce if they refused to give me until more than that after they had to be done it was four months and that's what i said four months of delay which when you're asking when you're calling and writing