district court erroneous he admitted to striking the jury from the claims that issue this charity was a hardworking competent employee at fiddler's com arena for the navy who resigned when her employer failed to take corrective action regarding a sexually hostile work environment yours i'll try to separate but i'm proximate cause for damages was the basis for bringing in her mental health treatment back in ninety eight beak and the removal of her children her the user of her children away from her was that based upon the idea that she was upset with her current treatment and would express to her current treater that she by the the judge for proximate cause of damages i can't speak to your honor no no nothing in the record to say the basis yes well here's the here's the situation that i think makes it tricky that obviously yes it's prejudicial yes some of it's remote but your client wants to be compensated for well number one there's that there's a couple i guess of primary she claims that people were calling her name she claims that a supervisor exposed himself which he denies and then she claims and incident where she overheard something where she thinks that there was some sort of plot to rape her which the other employees said it that they completely dispute that so you have a client that essentially as back and ninety's was with bipolar has had problems who then later even after that yes a schizo paranoid schizophrenia diagnosis and and i think in her recent treatment she does mention several times to her psychiatrist that she does look back and so she wants to be she wants to say that everything that happened number one she wants to be believed but she has diseases that affect her ability to perceive reality i mean that there she's got  diseases and then she wants to say that everything is a result of what the employees did to her as opposed to general situation and you want to present her like she has no mental illness and that there problem openness is one of the factors you consider it's not the only one right right but isn't there also testimony that these type of mental health things that she has don't they they don't generally go what was for damages though right it was to show that she had hand declined right the client then the doctor's testimony what was the purpose of the testimony to say that he was  answer that question may repeat the question you're out of what was the purpose of putting the doctor on in the first place to discuss her current mental health diagnosis and navy to discuss her emotional harm and damages those are secondary considerations that the jury was not even allowed to get to because they were confused and distracted as to the issue of her ability to perceive events and her you know lurid delusion was a little bit she has no corroboration to that there's that there's quite a few other people that say otherwise what you know there are people that have delusions that hear things like people are trying to kill them people are trying to solve them you know any number of things why isn't if you have to lucian's why shouldn't the jury know that your honour's they should be aware of that information however dark it was are correctly testified good and bad to miss aggie's characteristics dr  were arguing that dr police could not go into evidence of her current mental state what were simply arguing is that the evidence from to the ninety seven and ninety eight is too remote there aren't plenty of that and you didn't challenge on appeal the issue that your own is highly prejudicial i'd like to just briefly say that the motion does represent a definitive ruling because the creature imo it was fully briefed thoroughly argued and was was a definitive as to first the evidence relating to a ninety seven charge and confinement being admitted inadmissible secondarily evidence of her mental state being ad miscible the language from the order saying that you know with leave to object to specific questions at trial add nothing to the substance of that decision which is that the evidence is admissible it may always be the case during trial that you know evidence otherwise admissible may be ruled inadmissible on other grounds the same grounds were challenging on appeal where the grounds of that pretrial motion think that the mean time for about oh thank you causation opinions and so he went to the element of causation he a kind that her emotional distress or her most mental health state at that time that the events and figures could have contributed to that so let me ask about that so the the causation link for the one nine hundred ninety eight removal of her children the only link there was because the doctor said her treating doctor said at times she would expressed sadness and she had her children taken away right stressors in her life the answer was yes she has other stressors there was a question then there's another stressor that she lost custody of her children the question was what that precluded by the court's order no it was not your honor the motion to limit he did not express we addressed any the kids taken away because of this conviction i have no idea if that's true your honor appellant have tried to make that link and i understand that she lost custody of her children after those ninety ninety seven charges but there is nothing there was nothing introduced in here is them in one thousand nine hundred ninety eight i actually i don't know your honor quite frankly because that issue was not raised and there was no evidence introduced to the jury i'm sure they did i might have put more evidence in if something that was so prejudicial stressor after doctors are indicated that he had other stressors when he said it was not another stressor there was a sidebar conducted by the trial judge at that point we made in a proffer in the proffer was as follows her his medical notes of her  treating her in the last three and a half years of two thousand and twelve to two thousand and fifty and indicated that this was still an issue for her he had raised this issue mention it to him in the course of her treatment but in order for it to be a stressor that links into the causation of her damages and her emotional state currently you would have to have it be a current activity that is causing the stress right so this is this occurred eight or nine years before the trial and her sentiment that she's sad that she lost her children is different from saying i'm battling to get my children back in court and that's a stressor or i'm i don't have attorney's fees i to pay for an attorney to help my children get back these are kind of current stressors versus this ancient eight nine year old stressor right understood your honor but she's continuing to talk about it and obviously in the course of her treatment she's continuing to reference it and in fact she was referencing it more than she was talking to dr was our kulish let me ask you another question so bipolar disorder is a very controlled disorder and so when an individual is not in a break they can operate normally around the world and in their jobs right so to link back to bipolar disorder to show that it was linked to delusion would need another kind of expert wouldn't it in order to do that that's the first part of my question and the second part is taking children away going to the jury has an emperor mater of a court saying you are unfit and so we've taken your children and so it has a more prejudicial impact than just saying she told me she was upset about her children but it actually is sending the message to the jury don't worry another court's already made a determination she's not fit and so that's where the prejudice my come at so addressing that i think your first question about whether or not you need another because we have continuing symptoms and so while the diagnoses may have changed we had bipolar disorder we had paranoid delusional disorder we had paranoid schizophrenia but it's when we had to doctor it was our the symptoms were continuing in the doctor kulish a lot you know talked a little bit about that had we continued to she continued to experience delusions she continued to experience tangential thinking or loose associations except those based upon the the paranoid schizophrenia which they entered into willingly but not be spun bipolar right you know she she continued to have those delusions based upon the bipolar diagnosis in one thousand nine hundred eighty i don't know if it's based upon the five hearts and these are all different kinds of mental disease it's understood that as dr distress her mental health issues were caused in part by the events well her psychologist dr lists are testified that twenty five percent of her distress the basis for her seeking emotional distress damages was due to the events that occurred at fetlar sky he testified that there was an existing concession that worsened so your argument i'm understanding is that dr lists are open the door to testimony about her pre existing mental health state to explore whether they had fence it felt fiddlers cove contributed to her mental health condition at all correct and exact and whether or not so why does that allow oh i mean it just seems to me not treated for this thing and got you know had trouble and seemed to have gotten herself into a position where she could actually hold down a job i mean what i'm thinking about is that if this kind of evidence is she freely testifies about and she's not claiming all our problems derive from the incidence that that occurred when she was working for the navy but it is sort of this like those rape and sexual assault cases where you know past history of twenty years ago if you could bring that in for every woman who's claiming that then no woman can bring a one of those cases that had had ever suffered some kind of  mental illness in the past because it would always be with her they'd be like open season if you found out someone had a problem twenty years ago would be open season you could sexually harass them because this stuff would be allowed in  trial to diminish but diminish the credibility which is what happened here obviously when the jury took it is diminishing their credibility and to get off the hook for whatever might have happened i'm not saying it happened if for all we know you know maybe it didn't happen and but what makes me unsure about saying that it didn't happen is that this other evidence came in that seems so prejudicial that how could you make it is a clear determination of whether it happened and whether it caused injury your are just one point do you talking about this evidence being twenty years old over a decade old let's be clear about the timing she testified that her sexual harassment talk started in two thousand and four so these diagnoses and these delusions the symptoms she's experienced were diagnosed six to seven years prior to that dr lazareff she was suffering other things she was suffering from delusions and there is evidence from two thousand and ten which is during the time that she was employed with the second with the navy and she's continued to get this treatment for delusions and so we're talking about a condition and or simply i think that quitting was not the sexual harassment it was she cited on her resignation form that it was all right you have a great argument below and if you hadn't gotten in all this extraneous information i would feel confident about the jury this jury's verdict well you honor and the brings me to the harmless error i think i think i believe that the admission of the evidence was proper under the use of discretion standard certainly but even if we don't if you don't agree with that i think there was the error was harmless i think there is sufficient evidence here to support the jury's verdict it's more probable than not that they would have reached the same outcome we have dr lazareff own testimony so her own witness saying she is infused historian that she suffers from delusions with means that she has a difficult time right so my concern is that it's not just the evidence but the evidence of taking my children is that there is another court that has to do that and so there's an order that is essential a sense of the jury saying she's unfit she's not she's not well enough to be a mother and so they follow suit about her threat in the congressman right now ok the only issue whether it was ongoing chronic and lifelong as this court already discussed the earlier diagnoses for bipolar in fact the her first doctor said she didn't have major inconsistent but they were contradictory like the plaintiff in hodges eakins that we cited to in our brief furthermore there are no records between one thousand nine hundred and two thousand and twelve so that they might have evidence before and they have evidence after there certainly no when cancer is a breakdown or flare up and but you're clearly not dealing with a woman here that i mean even if you get some of it you keep some of the evidence out threatening the congressman is starting back then and then and these days and then she's got and she has continued mental illness through the time of trial and various diagnoses and it continued and there are things when these incidents occur started occurring in what two thousand and four she doesn't report them right and then when she leaves she says it's another reason for leaving right correct so i mean front and center the jury has to decide it's her word against the other people she doesn't basically have any rob rates her version of the events that they were hers and so whether she can correctly understand what's going on whether she can correctly remember whether she can correctly report and what she supposedly has p t s d from two prior rapes as well whether it's a recurrent type of thing that you know in her mind that you know that that she sees things as a and the if that didn't happen here the navy failed to show that these that these errors were not harmless they made this trial about anything but the sexual harassment fit their scope i mean about this remote mental health of their son why they plucked these lurid delusions out of her records from one thousand nine hundred seventy because they were memorable because they were salacious because they were lure it because that's what the jurors would remember and but you were asking for damages in the jury had to determine what was related to you have to somehow you know you're entitled to say let's say if something really tragic happens to someone and then they have an incident at work that also upsets them isn't if you sue the employer aren't they allowed to go into other things that could be contributing to their emotional state absolutely i mean you bring that you call that into question don't you i mean they are absolutely able to go in th