prompted what what led to this to the to that order and the record shows that there was an agreement reached on september fifth two thousand and eight between the attorneys for the parties concerned the medical bills medical bills in question were pleased with the information bunch of and i was trying to find a way they would simplify things and i thought we had reached an agreement with regard to those medical bills by a virtue or stipulation which i can hear on september eleventh two thousand and eight and submitted to counsel for the funds good to be agree with you have to do with where the bills were reasonable and necessary to the exclusion of where they were entire case for the entire time i've been involved in this case we're talking about the purge procedure the first time to do for a record ever was a rapist was raised by him when we started getting these motions that are before while then introduce evidence to that effect but it wasn't there was no way and i really changed the defendant's that they can come before this court in good faith in say it possibly true can't defendant that there was going to be an issue now or who was should i gatton a stipulation earlier perhaps but the case wasn't ready for trial there was never an issue in my  the attorneys for the defense in which they indicated you know joel there's going to be a situation here we can do this ok if there is a case i've heard from this a long time ago but again you know i've been around the block we've you know end you even listen to what your opponents say you trust what your opponents say and you have a working relationship and then it went south so i will be able to do is we have to take began from the outset of the case i was an i v in my discussions with the attorneys for the defendant there was never an issue as far as the bills the bills are going to be stipulated to so that's the reason why i i took them for their work and that's what i did so i didn't think it was necessary to put it into the at since the bills were going to be stipulated when they came to the window when the disagreement occurred then i couldn't but the potential argument regarding the bill i don't know you well i don't think it will because i don't think you would judge because i think there you would be able to differentiate because if again it would be only the bills pertaining get to do for the other that it did occur but it it's not a in issue in this case it really isn't taking all those things  the bills were possibly caused by the failure to change informed consent that surprise prejudicial effect right before trial and this is serious for a trial date that we've had in this case we now have to be deposed the plaintiffs expert and present our expert for because they are delayed and for the plaintiffs to put on the defense that somehow are simply in telling them that they're way too late is prejudicial i think it is very courageous statement for them to make think so in the first place of course we didn't avoid taking the finest experts deposition we took his deposition and we asked him did he have any more opinions regarding prox reason why the plaintiff's current players expert has new opinions and what usually happens is these cases in my experience as the plaintiff this had to additional surgery or some changes have occurred or the defense expert has some opinions that the plaintiffs and the experts are surprised by song or the cleanest expert maybe has done some additional research some new studies that have come out since this deposition is going to be some reason for the expert opinions for years before the supplemental disclosure yes the plaintiff's attorney expert said that there were damages approximately cause he was talking about pain and suffering and he didn't distinguish between which were due to the opinion and it has to be supported by medical testimony and the plaintiff doesn't have to work the summary judgment stage no issues where there's a material question of fact that was raised to all the discovery in the depositions whether any of the injuries time she had she knew the right over which removed and the birth procedure was performed and it's their obligation to prove that she was injured by the proposed treatment there is no testimony to that effect it is worse spring wasn't part of the agreement i was and i'm sure it covered all three components reasonable customary and proximate cause addition otherwise i would have written a stipulation to that effect which is part of the record you know you have a situation about it again council wants to distinguish given between there's no case law that says that an expert has to cover what exactly what she said and said you have to come forward their one sentence he unequivocally said bernstein on the quote where he said it's all related to the purchase procedure