honors there was no dispute that maria martinez had a preexisting generative spinal condition when she was involved with a sideswipe location with mr simply whether he was completely motionless so there was a liability issue one of the key issues was whether or not she suffered any damage whether or not they had x sideswipe generated enough force to aggravate her preexisting spinal condition sheep before and even after the accident she knew the radio a logical studies the the x rays and eyes whatever they took everybody agreed she had stage of frequent consumer of healthcare services at that hammond clinic over a period of twenty twenty five years or so she had gone there numerous times ten years or so before the accident she was diagnosed with a spinal condition she had he had no even though she'd gone to the clinic up out thirty forty times in the five years before the accident she had no complaints of back out more than five years more than five and he half years before the accident she nearly every city and we we know those facts yes you are focusing on the medical aspects let me ask you about it talked about yesterday he says he's one of the three witnesses  that was part of his opinion yes ok if i visit can it did not a aggravate her condition and she would have needed surgery anyways and so it was it was kind of actually she would have needed surgery at some in defines point to render some kind of opinion on this was not sufficient because once you liberate on them sure he did not he never revealed a method that would she to reach that opinion in other words there's the plaintiff's experts used a differential e q ology it was such a common every day there was there was actually no objection to their testimony it's a common thing at doctors do it in the state every day and when they testified that it's somebody has a condition and what's the cause of the condition more likely than that you know it's like here are the list of possible things that could have caused it you rule things a crucial is a distinction between we know somebody has a condition after an accident they claim and then they're claiming he had this the accident caused the condition and so they're saying well we know she's got a condition we know she had the complaints of back then we know she had three surgeries and so prior to the comment that the typical the ordinary everyday testimony could not have said eventually yes she's got to generate a spinal condition i've seen a hundred people with their condition especially ninety nine percent of them need surgery i don't object to him i don't say that that was wrong b le next year five years ten years what if he in the accident made it aggravated they had a preexisting condition and excel rated when she would have needed the surgery vendetta compensable injury and he had no way of knowing he couldn't predict the future he with the drug trade can't predict the future about so they would appear to say oh she really needed the surgery even without the work for dr harding's company mr watson was the fellow who did the computer simulations and he said he took four that he thought were representative with slow speed narrow a narrow angle sides encounter more than one shia force and that was he said what she would have a comment that it encountered on a daily basis and therefore he said there was no mechanism that would of course these injury even though he said she probably would have suffered muscle spray i thinking i drive to work every day i don't suffer muscle strain because i stop at the stop sign or stop light whether mt the forest closes on a daily it you explain that to the factors i don't actually i don't know if anybody explained it well that's my concern you say that this was that this was not this was harmful error and the houses even explained again we feel earth pulling us down so that's i think back to harding probably covered bit but what having did once he was fired from using the watson report then all of the sudden he came in with new never before disclose in the hallway when he was trying to justify his opinion and judge siriano called everybody i think they called everybody out to the whole way rather than sending jurors out and just syriana over and over again yesterday how do you calculus the formula from the found paper and he had some laurel fifteen degree angle sideswipes at the lower speeds and they in seven experiments it generated less than one and by the way there was conflicting testimony about the speeds of the vehicles and normally testified about that angle fifteen degrees thirty degrees forty five degrees sixty degrees there was no testimony uses i understand that ok didn't happen isn't there some other document that said that speeds of three point five i believe i read somewhere are involved in sideswipes as well as some other document that you were that was involved in the trial he said he could tell that all sideswipes are less than one g and it was i and he said it doesn't say that in those words and the paper he was relying on you know he admitted that he was simulation from watson to justified to come up with the one g so all of what we're saying he came up factor by our came up with several opinion of actor choose me having him up with several opinions that were never disclosed before trial he never disclosed before trial that his opinion is that all side cyclist if we did not all if there had been fear running if he had seven his two thirteen report every sideswipe collision generates less than one g of force then we would have not hire an expert but because he relied on the bison report and once the watson report was out it was you know reasonable to assume he's not going to be able to testify that this was less than one sheet and all the sudden he came up with something that he didn't say anywhere in this report or deposition it was less than one g and even if it was less than one g of force he in his second deposition and first deposition money do you agree that you know everything you're pressing in this case is an issue about mission openness or yes ok our senior review is what differential except for when  further surgery i was a doctor based on his knowledge will know this person is going to age the big changes it realigns all these things happen to the human body and therefore somewhere in the future he says she's going to require surgery yes the part i agree with ok yes the part i agree with you could tell from a doctor and you know he's got that out thousand people with the same condition and he said ninety nine percent of them eventually need surgery when five years ten years fifteen years if this accident made all that made it a situation where she needed the surgery five years one year two years six months before she otherwise would have needed it it repeated a preexisting condition and the defendant hates the person with th surgery a month or so after the accident well whether she would have otherwise gone one year two years three years his he didn't have a methodology for predicting the future that she in other words in order to for his testimony to be admissible he would have been able to say and i know exactly when she would have needed this surgery it would have been exactly when she had the surgery was honest about dr solomon did you disclose an opinion as to how the accident occurred he didn't he what those cases say as the experts get that they can testify even if it contradicts the eyewitness if they're talking about something that is beyond the knowledge of the average jur has some scientific principal if they're talking about some scientific methodology that is beyond the knowledge of the average juror then they get to testify if they're just just if they're not supplying any knowledge this fiann the knowledge of the average juror then they don't just get to come in and say i make a credibility argument but don't we have jurors all the time listen to witnesses who say i saw the car move or i saw the car didn't move that the credibility of the parties is something for them for the jury to assess and i think that's what they did here and when he was ruling the post trial motion i know just realises if he said the judge the jury could well this may not have been a case where experts were necessary at all when but when all was said done and that the jury was in a position to assess the credibility of the witnesses i do want to focus if i can on this business about the the the fog paper and the fight with the watson reporter come in and take the good with the bad that comes with that or do i want to move the bar which it we had we had a legal basis to do its part and so for him to then be asking questions about the five paper after now i've thirteen f it is quite that restrictive and what it would allow in terms of explaining opinion that that was clearly disclosed  correct that given the condition of this woman's disease at some point that on the level of the generative disease and her spine was such that she would need surgery at some point in the future if this sideswipe i'm not so sure that's true that if it if the that if the that the accident caused it to happen on the day that she actually did have the surgery that that makes a compensable if his if his opinions were that she would have needed the surgery surgery in the future can i tell you what exact no i can't i cannot tell you when they will need their knee replacement or their future back surgery but they will need it in the future and that gets admitted in the jury hears it so i think i think that the doctor power testified that she would have needed this surgery in the future irrespective of this occurrence is is the is the analog to the test or that we often hear and that is that is clearly admissible with proper foundation from treating physicians regarding or  all aside from your opinion that the accident did not happen the way mr simply said he said no i have no other opinions about this case i don't have enough data to formulate how the accident occurred i can't tell you anything else about how that happened so it and the case as to how it actually happened and that the case was very clear and there's a good reason why it's clear because we did what we don't want is we don't want experts coming in and not giving any explanation except to say no it didn't happen the way that th eyewitness said or in this case a party that it would be degrading our court system to allow testimony to that extent the remainder of the plainest arguments are go to liability issues and as we stayed in our  brower we've done many many times and frankly could not have been clearer in terms of what he was reviewing and relying upon he did every scrap of medical records film etc that was available was given to him and we clearly disclosed what his opinions were so of and i have experiments in which i have been involved tell me they are it was less than one sheer force and the yet to me i interpret it that when i read the record it's not that more than he didn't use a methodology he provided no basis he has room to thirteen f three he's provided no scientific basis for his opinions and his mr hunt objected and judge said we're not getting into the funk paper it wasn't relied on anything except it's listed in a footnote and what i was trying to get to the point i was trying to make is it wasn't just a footnote he didn't just put footnotes in there to try to make it look the n c he put footnotes in there already was relying on and what he said he from here the only experiments he could have been involved with were the people from his friend and he admitted he said you were like mr green yes relied on the front paper he said best mr hunt objected judd said we're not getting into the front paper later he explained it wasn't used in anything other