good morning your honor it's i'm not going to belabor my argument here because i think the issue is really quite uncomplicated my appeal to this court concerns the trial court's treatment plaintiff's chiropractic refile in the predecessor case plaintiffs named a doctor i cited as the chiropractic expert after he was named after opinions were disclosed i learned that he had been his education training experience and his deposition was taken and minutely he was not as strong a witness in his deposition as i would like to for a plaintiffs inform the court in the telephone conversation that she wanted to name a different chiropractor expert the court deny that request the court also that dr sash my poor chiropractic expert had written to defendant dr wade and i reciting you know the actual contents of that letter in my essentially what he's saying is i understand that this case had to be dismissed because they get such a lousy job you may not believe this but i tried to help you at that point all the bells and whistles flying off and my head well no wonder he did you know the job he did he was having second thoughts apparently about his loyalties perhaps to dr way i don't know in any event very shortly after me learning of that any additional discovery i knew that still i did and was not satisfied with what he said to me that's not a part of this record but i getting back to that and by this point my relationship with dr sash had deteriorated i don't know it was i upset that after all the time i spent with him his deposition was as it was in recanted essentially then i find out that he sent this letter which i looked to be you know a pat on the back to wait i did what i could to help you ok and when the court denied me the right to even look into what dr sacks had on his mind i needed to record what sort of you i don't know how i would be able to get my conversations with dr sash before the court back back essentially what i think was going on was this dr sash had left the area he was no longer in that he would get more business it's carlinville illinois we're talking about he had since gone on to another area and was engaged in some other occupation involving teaching and seeing fewer patients he is fighting its own admissions  is sort of a parallel there was a point when i discovered a nurse at the hospital who sat contrary to the emergency room doctor who the defense counsel had to pose to after he how this nurse said contrary to what nurse b j cans and i don't have the affidavit in front of me but i didn't say that she had testimony that would contradict the emergency room doctor and that she was a critical witness in the case i  and she relied on him as a primary care trader he also saw her at times when she had high blood pressure when she came in to see him at the critical point in two thousand and three she had not had a severe life she cannot sit back and see she's holding her head up toward the dash she gets to the hospital and this is when ever everything goes to pot she starts by putting she has you know the paralysis of the one arm you know they do you know well if the court treats this as a new and refiled case then it is there and in my experience parties can't even agree to adopt sashes deposition it's impossible to separate out what portion of factor sashes opinion is based upon his education and experience what portion is based upon the  study pack and which portion is based upon his own practices to which he acknowledges other chiropractors might not agree here's the important part and which implies to this court that his personal practices do not reflect the standard of care so i think that's kind of a while for the trial court to make look because i can understand where he's coming from i'm going to throw it all out we have no opportunity at trial to rehabilitate dr sash now dr sash what is the basis of that opinion well my education training and experience we had no opportunity to to clean up if you will this or witness and did what he said was that as of the point that he viewed the deposition of dr sas he couldn't find he couldn't find that there was a proper foundation for these that night and i totally disagree with practicing risk management guidelines and the mercy guidelines because he kept being pressed for what else and what else and what else anything in writing and what else and what else and then he starts talking about these goofy reference it's ok but he had already laid the foundation based upon all these education training and experience and i think that for the court to say there was no foundation was it reasonable and if it goes to trial whether there is an  adequate presentation of his credentials for the jury will believe him that something the jury should decide that does go to his credibility been seeing joy that this as of two thousand and two for sixteen years for many things primarily headaches and migraines she came to his office on september twentieth two thousand and two with a severe migraine and elevated let her rest took it again and it was elevated again at that point he realized that this was a medical condition not a chiropractor she needed medical care she offered to call an ambulance she preferred there was going to get her hospital in case the case was separate trial october first on october first two thousand and seven in july of two thousand and seven the defendants the defendant filed a motion in limine day to bar the testimony and opinions  dr baker as well as a motion for a fright or six days after those motions were filed the plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case judge gramlich who was the presiding circuit court judge at the time granted their motion for voluntary dismissal upon payment of costs and made it to nineteen the finding that there had been discovery violations in this case an addition to the taxable cost a warrant some discovery costs as  finding because of what two nineteen sats meaning you can have a plaintiff cannot avoid discovery deadlines and motions to bar her and the barring of testimony by voluntarily dismissing a case which is what is happening in the previous case this particular case he has to decide whether or not there is an adequate foundation that has been laid for the expert i'm prior to his testimony that her sash is well known qualified as a chiropractic expert based on his experience sashes testimony should be a farce opinion should be part first and foremost that he not only relied upon his experience and education as the basis for his opinions but he also relies upon his risk management management documents the alleged negligence with causation those opinions must be bar there was no proximate cause evidence in this case and therefore the court gave us a second reason for getting close in the course of course except except when in medical malpractise cases i want to get to the language so they can have that normally to establish proximate cause and just addressing that that that here the court gave as part of its granting of it some of our motion for summary judgment not only the failure to establish standard  since the doctor sashes opinions have been barred but also because the play to fail to produce any evidence of proximate cause none of their medical experts have any opinion that any negligence and that's the that's the crux of this appeal here the court granted our motion for summary judgment our motion for summary judgment was two to one in medical malpractise cases you must establish standard of care through expert testimony expert testimony to establish proximate cause none of their experts had any opinion as to proximate cause dr stache testified that he's not qualified to offer an opinion on proximate cause he leaves that up to the treating surgeon which said he couldn't tell if doctors if he didn't know whether or not dr wade's actions or inactions has it as it worked but to her death yes he said he would have liked to have gotten to her sooner that's all he said but correct correct that position that's the purpose of cross examination of a witness we did not force him to say that relied upon these documents in fact we didn't really know about these documents until he testified yes i'm relying upon these documents that i have  received from my life villainy carrier the motion to reopen discovery i believe they did make an oral motion or an oral this is what we're what we're planning to do there was nothing in writing there was nothing on file there was nothing for the defendant to respond to in fact the court's order denying that reopening the opening of discovery was actually in response to our motion to s he received a call from from counsel saying that the ever that the case had been dismissed because of his testimony there was nothing to indicate that he could not come to trial and testify as he did in his deposition whether you think so or not i believe that i helped you we have no idea why you wrote that miss frederick reese may have an idea but there's nothing in the record to indicate that he would not that he was changing his opinions in any way  no basis for those opinions he says it's education experience but it's also relying upon his his risk management documents and also the third reason why the court cards opinions was because they were based upon you just keep going through experts how they like their testimony let's see what else i can get until i can get a strong enough expert that i'm happy with it's going to crack that's not the way these cases work this case is already eight years old this case was filed in two thousand and three it's on its second appeal and while the plaintiff is allowed some way under the law we've she's the plaintiff has already gone through and gone by rule two eighteen deadlines on occasions we can't allow parties to put to disclose an expert their opinions we take their deposition and just because counsel is and happy with what they said because they don't think they're going to win their case then give them a to and i will say also plaintiffs prefer also mentions the motion of our doctor baker he's very our expert and that his issue is really not up on appeal and really at issue in this appeal the other standard of care expert of course was dr dr sashing we've already talked about the fact that once i lost him i have no case i don't even have to go to approximate it's i don't have to argue proximate cause one way or the other after i paid four thousand seven hundred dollars for the privilege of being able to voluntarily dismiss and refile the case then wrote a rather scathing opinion about all of my my time to act and this