good morning ladies and gentlemen for family reasons george grosvenor is on a to be president in person and disappearing by video sheets on the screen at the podium or yours and see her and we can also see her so our first case for argument this morning is a stop against trinity medical center see the last session of fees he encouraged as a result of trinity medical center's failure to reemploy him from the date of his term a nation with its aug seventeenth of two thousand and nine through the end of two thousand the law in our brief we went through several issues of this morning i want to focus on primarily three issues the first being the porch denial of motion to compel production  in the practice yet he had no ownership interest in the practice and his salary was on the tech did by the breach even if the breach was to decrease and professional loss professional fees which are the fees which are generated when the doctor performs services it's not a i don't think it's a question of who the fees particularly go to but rather how they're generated physician in that practice he was the one who made all the decisions he was the only one practicing medicine in that practice from two thousand and eight on  so it would been nice if doc stuff could have had his own practice but he simply can't due to the immigration issues and the lost fest fees would go to go to somebody else doesn't that somebody else have to be a party i understand the real party in interest question and i think that in this case when we're dealing with professional fees i don't think so i think it's the person who provides the services that is the real party in interest a person who is damaged by the loss of the income and that seems i believe that even though i think issue is still preserved for the courts to ration through the section at trial and the discussion in the brief on whether this is a consequen direct damage and in particular we believe the court aired as a matter of law as to its ruling that the last professional fees were consequential damage  begin with it of course the fact medical director reman required doctor stuff he on active status as a practicing physician with twenty medical center which required can provide professional services to the patients  to provide a yellow page ad i think you're really missing the point of my question we don't hear appeals to decide abstract legal questions we decide have affected the jury how it could have affected the jury your brief has no discussion of any of those matters so what are we supposed to decide well i believe it the question of law whether or not question if the district judge had said i believe that this is open and you put a key on to know it's not a banana but unless it affects jury instruction and then the jury in some concrete has already been paid the fifty thousand dollars that he would have been paid for every year of the the role of contract right yes or for working about a quarter time five hundred hours using the administrative functions of the job of medical records well for five hundred hours a year right yes or so i mean that's the contract five hundred hours a year of services in this particular role in return for fifty thousand dollars a year i don't see how any additional damages be anything other than sequential it and very sketchy at  best i think your honor that these damages are similar to the damages from the yellow page this you know was established to bring in patients generate fees for trinity through the technical aspect was it was basically the only fact that the twenty four hour e g video monitoring which is all we're asking for in this case yeah that's their rhetoric and a rifle shot is very troubling and because you don't want to talk you haven't tried to prove in essence these worse off you just had to show that there's one narrow category of fees that drop without looking you know the larger picture of of in and that is the difficult issue in we looked at direct amaj of those flying directly from the kind that has a court notes that facade has received all of the payments that the contract bided for the fifty thousand dollars a year for two thousand and nine ten  five hundred dollars five hundred hours per year when he wasn't working for trinity in other words he was paid twenty ten and eleven for five hundred hours of work but he never did five hundred hours of work because they never  that he went around the community and promoted the trinity program and that also promoted his own practice so we said well what about now you've got five hundred hours of your own time each year to promote your own consideration and that was one of the points that was raised by our expert dr sandberg in criticizing dr newkirk finding a doctor who first analysis was unscientific and that is conclusion yes and i have understood the district judges in limit live any order to say that is off limits unless dr opened the doors now on direct i didn't see that that happened it looks like the door was opened by you on cross well the doctor said he admitted that all of his patients came to them by referral and he said that he generally had good relations with other positions in the community w in the area and you know i i had bet that that the courts in limiting the instructor was perhaps a little different than what actually happened the doctors at medical arts also said that they took actions in twenty ten and twenty eleven that harm his practice as well as earlier actions that he said harm his reputation because they charged him with doing unnecessary work on a ninety year old patient and that they interfered with his relations with thirty five hundred patients of his and we don't think that these necessarily would be limited to what happened only while he worked for medical arts and immediately thereafter so we felt that that was relevant and unlike case where that the point of sites  where the attempt was made to portray the plaintiffs as a little bit because we never mentioned lawsuit first of all and secondly we didn't try to say that he was suing people all over the place or had filed multiple suits we limited it to specific dates to get paid in his pleadings that video edit making and the reputation of a doctor in the doctor's litigation with other doctors and other practices in the area such evidence was significant and all he had done went and to her in response to a well i don't think that we really get back back besides character we we brought out some specific instances where he did have bad relations with some doctors i think that is relevant and can i don't believe that it was prejudicial in in the scope of the entirety of the the the plaintiff's theory of damages as i understand it correctly was because he lost it's been a straight you roll he also lost certain the kinds of fees that would come from treating patients who would be referred urged him by others so that his reputation within the medical community in this pattern of referrals be central to the to the theory the right