the internal bleeding there curt shortly after the surgery but there was the conclusion of the surgery and  instance and maybe this is the most common where something goes wrong during the surgery but nobody knows who did it or what it was and would be the distinguishing piece possibly the most distinguishing case or aspect of those cases that she didn't were somebody hear her you know area by mistake or even the nurse walking up to her bed just enough so that this artery revealing that well i think it would the report of proceedings the just reading the at formulation shows that you know what the court said because the question the court asked is of is a very important one because the is for materiality and that's one of the fish has to be filled in for the theater instruction and is identified as the recovery room or the recovery room care how can how can it be how could it be an instrument is a doctrine that was created good when it can't be determined because of the nature of the circumstances what is the mechanism of the injury was or what the actors did and this anything negligent had occurred in putting this in motion and they asked they have to win the race if the inference becomes appropriate potentially and in this situation the you know they get the other part of th probably some of my earlier question she was fine by all accounts when she left surgery something happened that was not identified in the pa temporarily the other one probe we didn't do much of anything and he's still reluctant or apparently reluctant to get a consultation what's the reluctance well i think i think first of all i have to respectfully disagree with the court calling it a reluctance i mean he's got he's got a surely no time and he's he's trying to determine what are these you know the five possible causes in his differential because of his inability or her inability to get that blood pressure go back up to where it should be and the plaintiff's experts testified or at least dr helgeson testified that there was nothing there was nothing wrong talking about a short period of time and by five fifty one there on the phone to dr coleman and well that's an hour for fifty five to five fifty one that's in our blood but that's reluctance to be how is that not reluctant series of intervention said before four fifty five to the three this came after four fifty five right but there was nothing order in terms of tests a c b c nothing you know nothing no he was ruling on the whole trial motion and what did it tell the jury they had told the jury that this doctor was too young and too inexperienced to handle the situation and so certainly th raise to preserve the record reads it this is your call they action objection your honor so in front of the jury for enough time for him to do for him to say it for the jury to see it is probably longer i'm sure herself had asked the judge to bar emotionalism and i think that what we hear here was a scripted true premeditated attempt to incite the jury so what i think we have here of negligence proven there is no challenge to any one of the allegations that were instructed on we proved a causation associated with it you know i didn't hear a word about there so w ssue because it's really a series of issues a trial judge has a duty by stanchions to make a call about whether race is so is even more nap in the case and i want to talk a little bit more about this  surgery the operation went perfectly fine and she bled to death over three hours in the recovery room while the nursing him the doctor both had a job to monitor her and this is not a stealth bleed to death one of the do know is she was in trenton ellenburg and in plain english you may never know what that means we tilt the person so that their head is really low in order to get the blood down to their head if this is going on the entire time so the point i think i'm trying to make is the recovery room has to recover the normal drill would be to be out of there on a surgery like this and being sent home an hour or two we have to rinse off or if you have a surgical c haitian then you call a surgeon that centrally important and that didn't occur here in a timely fashion in answering one question that came up about race that says well of course there's authority it's the atoms case it involved the from respiratory arrest in the recovery room of a poor thirteen year old girl after she had i think going to abortion procedure there was talk about was too much into seizure use or not there was a big debate about that but recorder for you know where they were going with specific acts oral racier so or both in that case i think the jury answered yes to all but i mean were not offered i don't know what discussion they were talking about may have been on the defense team but there was no point where anybody proposed a need to get the jury to tell us on what basis they were making their decision so what we know here we know via us because dr my fear was not which talks about and i think it's an important principle here that without regard to the merits of the race it's the issue we there was substantial evidence of specific acts of negligence that caused mrs ormonde stephy and conscious pain and suffering what they say shoot it down may not be a complete match with for our purposes i think the evidence has to be taken in the way most favorable to the plaintiff in these circumstances and so dr home isn't testified to a list of things that they should have done but i want to make one preliminary counting too which is no one knows that he got there at four fifty five the nurse charged in that he got there for thirty five minutes and they're continuously for the whole time so there are you know there is conflicting evidence about all sorts of number three he people in this case tell the story the same way and the fourth key person didn't survive to tell the tale so we do hear differences but one thing that i think there's no doubt about is the ads and i there was evidence on every point the family to take timely steps to investigate the possibility of internal bleeding see failing to take two times we request a surgical consultation the failure to timely or her preparation  operating room for her in terms of surgery we had expert evidence admitted without objection every one of those issues we had a causal connection testimony and every one of those issues we had contests associated with it not the case that he found anything materially wrong that occurred he moved on also and strikes and we respected their to the best of our ability in their closing statement has been commented on here if you read the entire closing statement you'll see that the theme behind this was decided the case based on the evidence and based on ball and based not on outside fee actions we talked about that this there is not a punish people caught you will not find  the concept of compensation with a scene of ways of justice and an explanation that if they find fall then it's their job to appropriately compensate the plaintiff within the bounds of the wall and the  seen being bad we didn't make any attempt to there and i have to tell you i'm not a stranger to trying medical practice cases it would be smart to do you do when you don't limit medical malpractise cases by calling people bad yet different periods of time in conflicting in we were not trying to undermine his credentials he's fully licensed in this easy homages but the fact that he was a young brand new doctor is something there the issue of dr testifying as to the standard of care for someone who is the of a different specialty in himself ok so i'm the only instance of this that i am aware cases from other courts in the state as well but the general idea is when doctors and nurses i think it would be the classic example of this could occur in other ways when people are working together really a team fashion want to pro date each other quite familiar with what it is there that is expected by way of communications and information because each is relying on information by the author and so our understanding of this is the new would be permissible for example for dr who bell is a surge of the i think it might be the specific example in this case to comment about what sort of information a general surgeon would principle behind it is when two three four and several people are participating together in a health care endeavor and communication between themselves was an untrue part of the flow of the between doctors and in different specialties although these two doctors are both medical doctors so there's no question that they're in the same school from the govt is it the dole case or something we talk about schools  knows these very well but i don't see the clearest statement about those so we are in the questions of law in this versus where other questions their differences due to the trial judge because most of the issues before you are issues where it's trial because the evidence in the case winds in the statute perfectly and also winds up with dylan case so i actually think that the question was an easy answer and so is the other one which is there is not enough evidence to prove causation of i'm sorry because they're not wrong in either of those questions of law everything else here is a question in there would require the defendant to prove an abuse of discretion and with due respect to the with due in the plaintiff's brief that supports the principle supports the extension of the principle to a doctor criticizing another doctor well there is you know there as i was reading through that section i couldn't help but think of f b i cia there they are doing similar type work but yet they refuse to communicate with each other because they want their own territory so to speak well we should  surgeon stayed out of out of the pack you until such time as he was asked to come back here and i mean what should they tell me each other or what should nurse sweitzer have said well doctor  discussion about the communication the other point that i think it's important to know all along and i'm going to say i'm a switch because i know that my time is quite limited but i think it's important too to know that these this i have to disagree with counsels characterization about these slides this business of the slide is not so i'm not arguing a list words are coming out of my mouth it's not a communication to the jury i think it's exactly the opposite issues a closing argument and said you can hear that so you can consider this and then bring it inappropriate comments that's just not the case and i also he have to take issue and i appreciate the course indulgence with the know the difference between an experienced actor ends and been somebody who who doesn't have much experience don't you don't you feel uncomfortable didn't you wish somebody was there and this is the this was not one comment objection sustained and we're done with it this was