justice mcbride is on this mic kind of panel but she won't be able to be heard today but she will listen to the tapes and she'll be involved in the decision making process ok evidence is insufficient to support even a three million six hundred and fifty thousand dollars future medical expense award what do you think the remainder should be we think it should be down to a maximum of one hundred thousand dollars which was the highest amount that the plaintiff requested from the jury in his closing argument and we believe that the evidence and read what case law ever said that a jury has to hear can't give a plaintiff more money than they case of another forty nine years of lives at risk that's correct so if you took if you took the figure of seventy five thousand dollars or even the if you say that's a little high any figure and multiply it by forty nine years you're going to come out to exactly what this judge did that's true but you have to look if we didn't know about the past and the future medical treatment you could do exactly that calculation we have a perry easy case but here plaintiff's medical witnesses testified to her prior medical treatment which involved all sorts of procedures that were trying to be done going into the future her medical treaters three of them very one here let me stop you and then yes there was evidence that in the information so if she's going to have pain pills for the rest of her life yes we agree on that and these are the same things basically that comprise the three hundred thousand don't know if they're not you have to recall before she had stimulator to see if it would be helpful when it was and she actually had the permanent implantation those things are not going to happen again once she has the device implanted no more nerve block injections no more nerve  not going to do a trial again because the device it's already at her and you're not going to do an implantation again because it's already in her so we have got a very different future medical expense of course and we did for past medical expense for we have here is a record that shows the past medical expenses for her pain medication which is one of the categories or treaters that she would need into the future that was approximately five hundred dollars per year which would translate twenty five thousand dollars over her life expectancy we know that she needed pain management doctor visits going in the future that's what her own traders and experts said she would require though those costs were between one hundred and thirty eight dollars and three hundred and thirty nine dollars per visit again that evidence is in the record and has cited in our brief if you multiply that out times for lifespan you'd be looking at a low end of about six thousand seven hundred dollars on high end of about sixteen thousand nine hundred dollars so you've got very small future medical expenses then i mean you've got the wild card of the spinal cord battery replacements and maintenance which even if you took need five or six barry changes and you say they're going to cost as much as the complete implantation you'd be looking at about five hundred thousand dollars plus twenty five thousand dollars plus will give her the high end of sixteen thousand  appropriately or not appropriately i believe you are entitled to look at that evidence as well but you're referring to those that cost that there were too many to the jury and that wasn't submitted to the jury and it is genes position that that implanted and then there is evidence from her own witnesses she's not going to need those procedures again she's going to need future pain medication future pain medications doctor visits and just battery changes and maintenance on the implanted  you've got two different categories pass treatment future treatment plaintiffs have the application to come in and show what the cost of that future treatment was because by his by their own witnesses it was different if it was the same i agree to just use the stipulation say well we had that before we happen in the future there's your evidence but her treaters define a completely different course of treatment going forward than what had happened in the past and there was extensive testimony walking the jury through all these things that have been done these nerve block injections these the place since a trial implantation the permanent implantation so th well aware they perceived all of that evidence and then they heard what will mr miyagi need in the future pain medication pain management doctor visits battery changes and maintenance for the implanted device those two things are not the same ok so it was the plaintiff's obligation to parse out how much for the future because it didn't match what was in the past and i believe if you look at the primitive church pieces that we've cited in our brief most importantly richardson dollars richardson and there was evidence that she was going to need some items that they didn't provide a medical cost for hospitalizations a model a modified van for transportation wheelchair the court said  evidence that still has a basis while of courting the jury some leeway in making that type of determination and if you apply that same reasoning here as i think we must for we have no evidence regarding these number of visits how much they cost it's not like pain and suffering and disability if you can't put a price tag on it so that you should have claimed if you should have put in that evidence if you wanted to collect for it and they were minute thirty four thousand dollars i'm not saying that they needed to be that exact if they said she needs pain medication i think that's enough even though they didn't put in the dollar amount but it's not enough to get three million six hundred and fifty thousand dollars or seven two hundred thousand dollars there are very small amounts both in comparison to the prior medical expenses and just in general when compared to this award we don't have any illinois case say that on this type of evidence where you don't introduce dollar amounts that you've got narrowly defined categories of future medical expenses that the treaters have attested to which you can have a multimillion dollar award stand that is far beyond the a present evidence the present cash value teacher of medical services they don't have to present the evidence the case law says they don't however as a practical matter normally when you have a multimillion dollar future medical expenses or you're probably going to have some sort of a life care plan a fury detail numbers provided to substantiate that you usually will have an economist of some type come in to reduce it to actual cash value to assist the jury if you're working with those kind of numbers frankly we weren't working with those kind of numbers here that's why the plaintiff only request twenty five million one hundred thousand and four future medical walk of this case was about nine economic damages we firmly believe that if this was a multimillion dollar future medical expense case there would have been to tell the item ization of the dollar amounts and an economist would have committed it's not required i will concede but that is as a practical matter what would have this award to and that was found to be proper mind you that when the jury looks at the infer based on the nature of the injury this is a devastating devastating medical condition this is lady who lives with burning pain in her legs every day never gets less than a five basically confined to her bedroom this is a lady who was very active she can't ever sheets cover touching her legs she vomits because of the pain a lot in future medical right to do so not that it didn't justify it but that he thought that the case was more about that there wasn't a cure but mind you the doctor migrate they can move what happens when happens all that has to be done so there the jury could definitely see new surgeries there were six depleted amount as to what this would be it  and when you look at her conditioning progress the fact that it's expanding out her body is moving by the way and it's continually being progressive these juries looking at a future that when they decide she's go it can't be a choice but obviously they decided to put everything that they felt solution for her in into the medical and they could do that with some is going to have a devastating future with nothing but progressive in m so you have just changed the argument that there really is surgery that she could be forced to trial you know a part of the case that you know i think you can't do what plaintiff just suggested you cannot put noneconomic damages for disability and pain and suffering into the future medical expense bucket if that's what they did out we know that ok you also can't infer future medical expenses different than what the evidence show we weren't writing on a plank sleep here the jury was not writing on a blank slate with the medical treaters who are well aware they're the ones who testif this is a progressive injury she has her image spread from her right side to her left leg and foot they said even with all that taken into account this is their evidence their testimony here's what she's going to need three categories we've done as much as we can with the spinal cord stimulator in going forward she needs more pain medication and i have the medical bills so far i'm coming up with five hundred a year that isn't off the top of my head that's so we added all those numbers up we didn't pull a number out of thin it louis there was a let me ask you this yes i understand what you're saying i read the record if i was the judge in this case i might have done something absolutely different than this judge but my job here his jab margaret our job is to decide whether this judge abuses discretion other words he did something that no other judge would do that's worth the problem we have to say that he did something that no other  do i mean i look at these cases i defended cases for eighteen years and if i was on the other side here i'd be screaming ok i'd be screwed if they also said about cher but the question is can we say that no other judge would limited categories of injury and that's where we submit that that difference comes into play i do respect this the standard of review and i understand and respect your concerns with that i just want to finish with one statement which is that he did or whether some more money needs to come off and we leave that to your determination so even though we may have the specific amounts or costs presented to them to the jury during the trial there was clearly guys are giving us a very interesting case said the briefs are very well done the arguments were very well done and we'll take the case under advisement and give you a order or an opinion very short