later he said that there's a possibility because there's a temporal connection between the stroke and the surgery there's a possibility that the surgery may have caused it and that he was going to talk to his cohort dr tirzah aside whether or not or there could be a drop in your blood pressure such that there's no blood in your veins and a clot can form later on he said i don't find evidence for either of those and you're getting far away from first graders question and i don't understand opinion of a treating physician and that is our axe to grind in this case your honor he did not follow the procedure he did not stay on the record while he rejected the persuasive opinion of a treating physician the reason we have to have a legitimate reasons for doing so and that's exactly what happened in this case the algerian connection with the cause asian opinion what caused the students a stroke and then made no reference at all the doctor hacker what's conflicting evidence as to what the packers opinions have been there was evidence that is opinions have changed over time there was no suggestion in the discussion of the facts the medical evidence the testimony of hearing that he credited hackers opinion or discredited ha just i'm not understanding the argument frankly well i don't want to be cavalier here but every human's to understanding the cause and effect is not necessarily correct and that's why we have doctors doctors an expert in fact there's a temporal connection between the it's not uncommon an expert actually does an independent medical examinations the expert actually sees the patient testifies concerning the patient's condition or disability usually in a longer case claimants treating physicians  employer has the claimant seen by an independent medical examiner in the nat examiner either gives testimony or writes a record in this case claimants testifying experts never even  body i don't want to be crass here but they didn't examine the body they did not see where the surgical wound was need they did not talk to the doctor who created that wound to determine where it was placed or what techniques he used during this surgery testimony they were given some past medical records and apparently they were given the autopsy in one of the problems with the autopsy in this report is or in this case is that it did not cover really the anatomical prove causation and he doesn't know exactly what was done with the man in this case dr hackers testimony was he had a very short stick neck he had to make an incision laterally across the neck from the front to open and large part if not the center piece dr now guards testimony was looking for up this locating pin it was so far out that means the wound was there and he had to refund that man's neck just open a wound large enough to get further down his neck to get to rejecting and treating physicians probative opinion on the on the central issue in the case in this case the cost of deceit and stroke and that they must do that and the elegy didn't do that and as a result questions right i think everything's been covered understand i mean part of hackers opinion was to blame the death on the dead man because he used to be a cigarette smoker so able to chase that weather stock smoking many years earlier and he but i think that's a reasonable inference but we don't know whether he's rejecting it because he thinks the dr hackers testimony was inconsistent because he doesn't believe this theory is actually agreed to by every expert in this case if people can just have strokes as they're predisposed to something more than us inserting after the fact what possibly could have been fielding's reason for rejecting