about architectural defects in one does with two different people that answer your question regarding certainly that is true but once again i think you have to look very carefully at the testimony  cardiologist and he'll take care of things if he remains very involved in the care and treatment there was provided to his patients when that river for the world was made a cardiologist at times he would recommend treatment because he has a different than a case where as a general practitioner a primary care physician the further somebody did get the general practitioner to expert because he monitored the reaction of the treatment provided by a medical oncologist the expert was found to be qualified to give causation tests and even well even if your physician is correct number one this is different in many family practitioner type situations because he didn't follow up with cardiologist and number two he roof he said it did they should or that the doctor should incorrect causation for the plaintiff in the last chance case you know loss of chance case the plaintiff must show that there are available elements of treatment which could have made a difference in the outcome that's the burden so the question treatment now again he couldn't say what what treatment a particular cardiologist would have selected but he didn't need to do to say that he said these are the available treatments these this is everything that is possible that could have been done by a still placement or a little bit lowering medications one of those for all of those four and then we'll have more into his life he also mentioned some some additional testing i think there was a stress test and  compliance with any discovery deadline or order in this case what occurred in this case was of course the trial court ruled it was just as the court did on the motion and on me and instruct the causation testimony it was after they had a voluntary dismissal mistake so that was the basis for the voluntary dismissal was another attempt to avoid compliance and all the cases that i've seen that are out there that that are out simply didn't apply to this situation and maybe two nineteen as a sanction didn't apply but isn't there some authority that indicates that upon refiling the court has an obligation to look at what occurred if in the first manner and then usually not all the time but usually in malls looking into all previous orders importing them into the independent of two nineteen need when there is really filing to look at what happened in the first case absolutely absolutely and so why would it have been any different if the court followed that particular process as opposed to his evidence deposition and he disclosed even more opinions they get so big so he's not entitled to expand his opinions or he's not entitled to attempt to find his testifying he was going to give the opinions of a general practitioner as to what dr gray's reasonably should have done as a general practitioner when she saw mr freeman just but there's only two treatments for this radiation and chemo and they ask the standard and if you look at you know the american cancer society and others to sticks that will tell you i'm not referring to that he was going to be allowed to testify that yes but he couldn't say that if you can't tell us what's going to happen to mr freeman i don't know how he's going to be treated i would never make that decision and in appropriate appropriate we seized upon is that mr freeman he couldn't say dr brown could say whether or not any particular treatment or combination of treatments would have helped mr fr scope of dr brown's alot of all causation testimony would be a gag order had not been definitively and true before that time had it never been this is what you're not going to go there there had been was a right to have the voluntary dismissal i don't think there's anything in the rule that says because you didn't ask for sanctions you need to ask for sanctions before you can get tense cause they were here this is why i'm having that you entered which included in this case extending extending and extending the deadlines for dr brown to supplement his opinions you need to look at all that and then you with this was done for the sole purpose of avoiding the consequences of my orders and one was you know with this discovery deadlines that have been in the first case ask for lee to have a new axe her but they just decided to do whatever around the first case and and you know start from scratch in the second case which i don't think i think actually in the  two times in the evidence deposition and you know the prejudice to dr crazy as she is she's a case for five years and still can't get a resolution so i negligence dr brown was not the person in this case who could establish any chance of survival because you didn't know how a cardiologist would treat mr freeman s the trial court found here is just not good enough it's feculent action for a doctor to say he should have had some treatment trimix sooner is better than treatment and later that is not appropriate causation testimony that as that is a fatal causation gaffe that's what we had here summary judgment we believe it was proper and we request that prior to the jury trial i can't answer that question or i don't i mean was we're talking five years there was it in the first one or two years that your client was made aware that maybe this doctor