in particular but a need to call had the right of way but was preceded into an intersection perhaps it was east west and mr holmes he admits that he went through a stop sign and or that agreed that the medical treatment they provided in this call was reasonable and necessary medical treatment also that the other providers involved there were other st john's hospital springfield clinic i believe provided some physical therapy were related were they didn't disagree though bob the the the treatment she received between eight may fifteenth two thousand and thirteen pollution and september two thousand and thirteen when she completed basically completed  were were were reasonable response to the cool closure well you say three thousand spence's you mean advantage award in the amount of three thousand and not that there was three thousand in out of pocket expenses incurred if the made earlier was that this was the collision was due to the negligent conduct of the defendant so any again i don't know of too fine a point on this one aspect of it what was said that in the guards to the defendant's concession about the three thousand dollars you can actually haul that off exactly because it's with quoted i think a reasonable response to this of any any reason that they should not accept it it's a concession from the other side from the defense that they are it at least to that extent liable so what about if the jury hears other evidence that they find questionable or unbelievable as to that other evidence affecting their assessment of this first part  to say i don't i'm sure i'm you know having heard all this i'm not sure i believe really they were that the purpose of why i hope they weren't they didn't become so cynical that they wouldn't accept a concession from the opposing side well now the concession was you know our our issue are our claims on appeal are are not that there if there wasn't some sort of disagreement about the extent of the injury or that the jury couldn't come to various conclusions about how much should be awarded but it is that did the very least this seems to be an arbitrary and unreasonable rejection of of a of a concession made by the defense well what the concession side is it your position that the jury ignored  fifteen thousand thirteen answered number two thousand and thirteen that they were those expenses were reasonable necessary and were incurred due to injury that was that was caused by that x so there is at least that there is that agreement  then we will accept their verdict and we won't be taking an appeal not the other side but i've agreed to it but at least that's one aspect of what you're trying to do the issue about tens of thousands of dollars to be argued to the jury so if i was a judge of thinking well maybe i should give him three thousand bucks but i'm not asked to do that i thought my only relief is to give him a new trial entirely so the reason i bring this up is even if we think the jury's decision with regard to the three thousand is suspect there's really not enough for us to concession closing is i think there's more significance to it than simply whether or not at minimum that they were conceding three thousand dollars that it was it shows that way of a basis to argue that the rejection of anything greater than three thousand was unreasonable yet that's what you'd have us conclude well the relief would be we would be seeking would be a would would be a liability some level liable he's some some degree of damage that is is it is makes the juries which you know are not guilty verdict denying all recovery what arbitrary and on reason it that seems to be well and so you're suggesting that if they returned a verdict for three thousand dollars which the defense asked he wouldn't be here i don't know the the the comment that we're we're highlighting is a concession we're going three thousand dollars is just what i recited earlier that it doesn't go beyond that it's that is the quote i think a reasonable response to this type of motor vehicle accident would be i was a little surprised there was testimony on the on any aspect of the of the the brakes failing that sort of thing however i mean it did have some significance still because of the  the weather this was a significant collision that would that would have some impact on the jury finding as to the believability of the damages that leave ability  copecks many of my points i want to bring up today were brought up in the questions that the panel asked here i just want to point out a couple the key issues that we point out in our brief as was brought up there was a concession of negligence causing the collision but there was no concession in the jury must ultimately decide if the reached the negligent act but the proximate cause of her injuries miscalls injuries so the jury is the one who's their task here and all the evidence and testimony making decisions about credibility and about had testimony as we point out a brief that would have rebut it some of the testimony of plaintiff's doctor such that she didn't suffer a serious injury and suffer a permanent injury there was no medical pain or disc in our back that's the kind of testimony i believe that the jury can take and render necessary in order to recover damages in state of illinois medical testimony that it was either a serious or permanent injury that's not the state of the law they're saying here and the doctors did testify both doctors i believe testify that their in credible evidence sufficient to allow the jury to award nothing jury hears the evidence from plaintiff and defendant and the doctors they're the ones tasked with understand the credibility this is a low speed collision five to ten miles are testif but i think our main contention in this matter is questions regarding proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries are reserved for the trier of fact the jury the jury is the one who's there in person to make these assessments of credibility liability of the witnesses and assessments like what about this issue of the closing argument of what defense counsel say in regards to what the jury should do in the way of an award the as counsel pointed out the jury visit in the first doctor visits are related it's possible for me to say that i'll see how that a jury could under reasonably make that decision i believe jury could reasonably make that decision based on evidence and six simply just identify the evidence that would allow the jury to reach that so you know the position of our the appellate brief in this matter is that the jury ultimately rendered their decision unless there's manifest with the evidence that somehow that was an unreasonable decision or arbitrary i  it seems to me the better that i ask counsel the most weak ready in their trial strategy at that point you know claim that later saying that the jury's decision was arbitrary unreasonable not related to the evidence and i don't believe that to be true with there's enough evidence that the jury could have you one way or the wrong so i have no answer factor for the jury to consider whether or not they take that to the bank and say let's give her that exact amount let me give her some of it's a factor for the jury it was way in the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses to consider it's not a hold up on and they give that exact amount in fact they're asking the were wise acts in an arbitrary way by rejecting socially rejecting a concession of the defense which has the implication that there should be a logical implication that there should be