defendant characterize this case is involving a classic pattern will be expletives if true it substantiates the harm that was caused by the admission of irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence and cross examination of the plaintiff's only standard of care right the plaintiff in this case was forced to try to cases number wanted to prosecute a medical negligence case against the defendant and secondly to defend the plainest standard of care expert both in terms of his credibility and his prior remote conduct which for no relationship to the facts in this case at all can make no mistake now do you really an expert don't you always put his or her prior professional history out to be cross examined isn't it similar in so far areas recognizing diagnosing recognizing that injury diagnosis through and treating injury as between your expert and  were not at all similar this case involved six holes six perforations in the plains all done under direct visualization with a camera it was dr dines that the defendant was negligent in entering the ball six times three times full with scuse me three times four with the ball while using a camera and he explained his opinion can then be acquainted with a blind insertion there is no similarity the idea of the a six holes in the play an elective procedure done with an assistant under control circumstances compared to an emergency procedure with one hole that's recognized immediately doesn't allow similarity and so there was absolutely no similarity between dr dines event twenty distorted in here and he made no mention of there that his assistant the actual surgeon for the second procedure to repair the follow made no mention other than in the potential of there being  earlier opportunity either in medical records or elsewhere who are on the defendant could have siraj consistently witness your experts experience the medical records the only medical records evidence of any issues was the potential for humans that was noted in the report of the procedure at the defendant's deposition she did not during the procedure this occurred and it was the defense experts who came in and testified it occurred during the initial assertion again something that dr dying did not agreeing with dr going to testify that it occurred in the le know how the conclusion can be anything other than this affected the outcome of the trial it's kind of like the older c t a case where evidence of a driver's prior violation of the c t a rule was allowed in during the course of his cross examination by the new survey he gave in his deposition that was just here that it was not it was not impeaching so this this was not only an expert personal practice certainly not in the french personal it's over then when it directly and piccies what the witnesses say so we have cases where a doctor will come in and say the standard of then another question was asked about those other trocar injuries no objection was made so i don't want the court to be misdirected into looking to be on this issue with dr dying you have to find a new and i'm going to talk about the similarities and differences in the procedures in just a moment because it's critically important but dr dine said that he acted within the standard just here in perforating the power of his patient because prior to his entry that is exactly what the defense maintains happened in this case that the plaintiffs who had had a number of previous abdominal surgeries had he shins there was a risk of it he  that's the entire reason they opted he was being used in the first place but the condition is unknowable remember the op to you is coming like this into the abdomen there's a camera up here we can see what's going on the skin when he's hitting this is the lower level and when he's starting to hit it he shoots current he testified that it feels very much the same the jurors actually asked that question what is the difference between the way the surgery and then afterwards they're looking for any injuries after they've completed the fashion portion they're looking again why don't they see any contents leaking into the abdomen under the plaintiff's theory  looking from the left or right but then you know the same problem if the left one came out last in the injury was actually there no longer at the center one then you wouldn't be able to detect leakage from that left side one so it's an excellent question put the evidence  to referencing the injury caused on your claims expert that for purposes of recognizing the injury th theories reviewed how each side was able to question the other side's experts including the plaintiff question one of our experts doctors the busy about a prior valid injury that he had and so it was really a level playing field each side was able to put forth their theory of the case each side was able to attack to attempt to discredit the other side's theory of the case the jury was very attentive to esther very insightful questions and true its own conclusions i submit that  on this record there's no abuse of discretion in the name dr dines testimony of events regarding his prior procedure and even if there was you could not show prejudice here because of these all these avenues he was able to explain all the differences if the procedures were so different then how could this be so damaging to his credibility the jury we said well the procedures are very different if if if it was so damaging to ask about a prior about perforation  just like plaintiffs had the theory that it was the left trocar that costy injury as the doctor was trying to maneuver around the omentum there's no direct evidence of back either we have competing theories that were presented to the jury and the jury r can be ok do you think you heard about how long it takes for two parts to it he's to one another i don't believe there is i don't recall him but as i stand here i don't believe that there is anything you really heard about whether as to whether or not i'm trying to figure out how to explain the issue tools is was there any evidence as to whether there were spaces that and then the perforation went through through and through this way that is exactly the defense's theory because not all the point is if that's the case then the only hole we would have we would have seen the last hole question about that but they witness this troll car perforate the baja three times through through and did nothing about completely missed it completely ignored it completely the reason he didn't see it is in his hour of report he says the area around the left corner was a secured by momentum he said he couldn't see it as he was going in and the reason he didn't see leakage is the same reason that the defendants are saying correct a misstatement that was attributed to me i absolutely in response to judge spencer's question say that there were a evens noted on the second exam and the second operation pardon me there were reasons that i said it before the  and by the way the holes were within a certain number of centimeters but the three holes which didn't necessarily mean that the ball was in this compressed as shape that the defendants postulated but most and that means that when you take this out of its five inches warmers or six inches or if it's three something then it's a love under twelve inches or whatever you see my point for now i do and i don't because i'm just talking about