so i don't interrupt you certain there are allegations or there are issues about if it was the i was pure and off it should have been finished with it by the eighteenth of october because this  that had she taken her medication during the timeframe between when was first ordered in august and when she was hospitalized and i took her eighteen as prescribed she would have run out of medication and therefore could not ahead of the medication when she was discharge eighteenth and therefore so one of our emissivity positive is that either she was not complying with the doctor's orders which is certainly relevant to the jury's determination as to whether the doctor comes to your doctor behaves could have told her anything that would have caused her to comply with the doctor's orders or she did which case something other than the allopurinol caused the challenge reaction after she was discharged from the hospital now does does the county elation of october eighteenth also take into account the aren't really good i think in this case we believe it goes to foundations as well but there are other bases upon which we we feel that his foundation is lacking so the second issue to be as he's never seen this reaction to the most important issue is dr bennett was asked to articulate the standard of care political in this case and here for you is the standard of care vs the minimum level the treatment that the physician should be able to give to the patients based upon the standard in the careful physician do more than the circumstances he was never asked that question did your instruction set up correct standard of care the jury instruction did which i believe is part of the reason why it was so important and we'll get to this you know when you look at a criminal case for instance no defendant wants to hear the judge said he doesn't have to get on the stand and prove this case because that's essentially saying he doesn't want to get the stand and prove his case in the jury  proper instruction and i am now looking at what you just read and i am a juror and i'm listening to it for the very first time and i have a pad of paper and pencil in my hand and i'm trying to contemplate what you're saying i can't i mean i can't write that let alone remember that necessarily at the same time you're saying it but they have the written the proper written instruction in america and the fact that he said something that was in accurate but later that identified what he felt were the issues that led to the at violation of the standard of care how can you say that his definition creates such a problem with the expert opinion was testifying to a standard that is in the law i don't know but i guess my point is i can remember the first two words break their first three the minimum requirement that's all i can remember and i've read it probably fifteen times in the last five days i don't i think i just don't understand how you think that the jury was confused or somehow misled by that i think there are two things one is not just that the truth was misled but the doctor was junior minimum requirement that he said so his testimony was based upon his standard not based upon the statement that was read to the jury so there may be confusion to the jury but it's also invalidates his testimony because he's talking about standards that him standing that you think about is required here we don't know how he would be answer that question because he wasn't asked that question so they have a jury apply a different standard in alter his testimony to meet the standard read to them i think it changes it's flawed you take into account that the problem place counsel we have talked about his commentary of his speaking objections were he volunteered with every doctor who treated her after she left ca supposedly knew even though they were being called to testify instructions i've heard many things said this morning the jury instructions improper jury instruction jury instructions that didn't manage the evidence the jury instructions were not issued for this they were not raised in the post from motion they are not  that is the proper steer clear of the law all right but when he and i even if for the record i even got his definition wrong i said it's the minimum level of treatment so i got the first five that's all i can remember in a sense that i fretted fifteen times in the last couple days why didn't somebody deal with that at the time and that is the issue right now because as i've looked at this the first time i was quite frankly life and this is the part i wasn't recognizing perhaps there was never an issue in this case but that the student here was a national standard this was a national standard it was uniform throughout calm down and she's released we have two doctors who testified dr mcdonnell dr graham who testified that in their view it was a virtual certainty that she also good to wait it's an expert oh they're qualified although they've had a lot of experience they've had a lot of training your resume out and so forth to be designated an expert witness but if and when they get to beyond even dr baker's testimony sufficient for the jury to consider this issue insufficient for the jews to resolve the issue and certainly not in the realm of taking that mean you're still in the case what does that mean you're just curious well because you've never seen anything like this scene there right  i apologize for moving everybody but i want to mr griffin not the only physician but unlike dr cozily and many others his first contact with the seed and was on the eighteenth of october he had no knowledge of her prior use of that appearing on he said he took a history from the patient he looked at even earlier before dr pinsky was called in some recommendation somewhere that there should be a complete drug survey taking my she it you've already brought out the training issues and in this the lack of specificity i mean there was nobody to this day i don't think we know who he is that could come in and lay the foundation you know as the button pusher or the person who so confusing and where the issues were so close and difficult to kind of make this personal attack and cozy in closing or even the last things injuring her certainly could influence the jury when the central factual issue in the case was whether or on a regular basis that they are listening and that they know that we dissents did this with this ex did this with this and you know can we get some benefit of the sure that we can give them something to the doubt that they didn't hear from these come in here and ask us to reverse the jury for the guess what standard issue for us to reverse the jury's verdict it is whether or not the jury the jury's verdict was a reasonable one of the facts of the case assuming that the evidence that they heard was admissible and appropriate evidence which we've argued was not and i think there's that big issue out there regarding smith cause the real issues that were in the issues instruction didn't get to the proximate cause the one that would have arguably was needed to that what i'm saying your honour's they've reached in on reasonable verdict given the instructions that they were given they must've reached a conclusion that they were asked to reach which is different from saying instruction wasn't there if they did they decide a case you know you really think dr cosey should have told the patient never tell take this drug again and that's the act of negligence to rely upon they were not asked to make that decision issues instructions so the instruction was fine what they did with the instruction was improper know he certainly gave this testimony that you know i wasn't aware of it it would have made a difference i just hope for the infectious disease and that standard and consistent with what is expert testified of the primary care physician him if there was no infection ultimately found are this where it should have been done just as he walked in the door into the dr mcdonald testified that he was part of the team just as much as part of the jury to resolve this properly if these and when he says i don't really have any recollection of it he thought about six and a half years earlier this trial this trial did not commence until almost six and a half years after she died correct or he hasn't been in any other trials he isn't seen any other situations i mean that's maybe not reasonable now the jury's going to hear well wait a minute you actually did see it on november second and he's going to say i did and i was no absolutely last resort for a trial court charge you know as mr is mr black argues this was an important piece of evidence that really wasn't a violation of two thirty seven we were right on the cusp there is it is i throughout the case but he believe that's true and he recommended to the team that they do that in his view they did that they didn't get it all just as you suggested but they did bring in a dermatologist and so that