katherine lives just east of compton between the city center of the town center around twenty seven on about twenty one acres of land before this brac happened she was single she took care of that land took care of that house and she took care of her ninety year old something parents who she had moved on to the only some years  his brother she was the man of the house so a very rich woman who worked in a grocery store or market in carbondale and that was for a line that was and shows she of tainting a release from her urgent care doctor despite the fact she was still treating with an expert dentist about it t m j problems and that expert dentist within a matter of weeks of that urgent care will take care of somebody on a chronic basis so she established with another doctor at the center for some more visit there be an actually a specialist and or test and then she gets to about a two year anniversary doctor or that specialist whether it be the primary care physician or the ra is for the dentist since this sort of two year anniversary date was significant and the doctors all said oh i haven't seen  mr blair so what you've been available to see you having food doctor says we've been available to see or we don't know what your status and he asked those questions with each of the doctors he mentions why haven't you been back to the doctor and in the in the sack to describe this case she said because i don't have health and that was her reason for not going back to the dump and at that point judge who you could play or  doctor last three years have you encountered certain offals that have prevented you from doing objection sustained and the judge of the jury of his whole disregard so not only is she now allowed to give for a reason for not going to the doctor she's not allowed to even say she has a reason for not going to die i mean to say that she can say she has obstacles that prevented her from going when the predominant theme of the defense is how any of that so you know this huge family a person has to be able to give an explanation it wasn't like this was part of our case before we came in and said poor cat she can't affor tell me the public tell me what prejudice there is to the defense i mean how is the defense prejudice buying an explanation of something that the defense raise there isn't it but  she went from having no doctor no health insurance no need to go to a doctor for years i mean this woman bill furniture cut down trees she tended to go farm next door she took care of er zero for the loss of a normal life and i understand your basis that say that is zero can be sustained the jury has discretion to do it but there has to be evidence in the record supporting z and there is this and so  you look for an explanation for why did this happen well in far she's she's got this big gap incorrect in her testimony which is how can you claim a loss with more life with him but not for three years and there's no explanation and then you have unfortunately the argument made closing heart which is hated suffering and loss of a normal life are double duty it's the same thing because it was her pain that was limiting her function and she said yeah i'm limited by pain but the law says these are two distinct elements of damn lost when it isn't was the life caused by pain i mean in almost every one of these cases the loss of a well i could see where that might be confused or something to that that he didn't rule many sets up that he gave commentary but he didn't say sustained and he didn't say will rule and when good mood was done saying this could be so as i say i'm not i'm not anxious to try cases for the fourth time but i do think that fundamental fairness requires factoring to have an opportunity if she's going to be in a case where it's major but double dipping means to me and i guarantee i've seen a lot of arguments and there's one argument that it's i majored in there one argue this case forty five years ago where they raise some different version of this i have to tender idea i do have collateral source issues in the case i got to try if she had been able to give her explanation any harder explanation in the offer proof which instructed for the case i had i think it was appropriate for me to tender that instruction based on the evidence that i got in if i had gotten other evidence i may have done something different so i don't think i could be criticized after the fact if it's a all where she didn't get to do something that has a bad day and to so is their support in director for giving her nothing well i don't think there is is there an explanation for why this theory might have given her nothing but we know