operated on by the defendant in this case the procedure was known as a bilateral your reader will real plantation procedure and it's a surgery that plaintiff asserts never should have taken place  addition to numerous other allegations of negligence including the fact that the doctor actually operated and did the surgery bilaterally both yours although the left your was completely healthy  because she replaced that left healthy her she and that was actually the site where she perforated the bladder failed to close it up and morgan for the next two and a half days had mass which basically means that you're in came out of that pool and her bladder and filled her entire abdominal cavity just to give the court a feel for some of the figures we're talking about the day of the surgery on june thirtieth the doctor the defendant had put one thousand nine hundred twenty three ccs of fluid into morgan and only forty five c c s had come out the second day july first two thousand seven hundred fifty four c had been put into morgan only one hundred ninety one c c s had been reported coming out and it was two and a half days not until the following day on july second which we don't have the figures for that the doctor that evening actually did a sonogram which revealed the the cause of the problem which was that her abdominal cavity and basically the way that it was described by some of the witnesses was like she was pregnant she couldn't even bend over she became sh as a result of this failure to diagnose this your eerie leak that she had and she had to have a subsequent surgery then she'd have a third surgery to repair damage done by the second surgery award a new trial because americans did not get a fair trial in this case in fact the trial should have even gone forward because a mistrial should have been declared on the very first day the court heard evidence one of the allegations i said was that the surgery never should have taken place in the first place and the defendant's well the plaintiff of the motion and women a saying certain medical records involving insurance should addressed by counsel or the witnesses because they are related to insurance in the scheduling of tests the court allowed that motion the defense in opening statements in the defendant her style that same day both violated the court's order and referenced the scheduling order that had been precluded by the court what's the significance of that specifically exactly when you have bilateral  reflux what you do is every summer and morgan's case she would have a test in the review test to determine what grade that reflux was and i indicated eventually it cleared on the left side and it was actually normal at the time of the surgery test be moved up and to the defense in that case it was basically the appearance or the ones that decided to have the surgery and not the doctor and to the court correctly precluded reference to the moving out of the appointment because you claim it was moved up because of an insurance change not because the parents wanted to have the surgery done when morgan was four years old she had just turned four actually by six days at the time of the first surgery and dr rehearsed out the defendant indicated she would not have preyed on the child until she reached at least five years of age so the moving of the appointment that was scheduled for testing in august to june the opening statement in a press statement was now the next thing that happened wasn't in august of two thousand and three which is when the test was scheduled it was in may one of the parents called and they wanted to move the and i have checked it the course the stained my objection and said that that was a violation of the order in the ne admonished counsel in the presence of the defendant and specifically said do not talk about calling and moving out the appointment that's even more prejudicial to plaintiff that's what the court said in the presence of defense counsel and the defendant herself do not talk about that do not reference the moving of the appointments and maybes certainly she was absolutely absolutely and of course even if she wasn't paying attention which she was but even if she was then counsel has an obligation to tell the witnesses of the court's orders and women and the defendant was well aware of that and then defense counsel that we proceed on and the last thing the jury hears at the end of the day is a defendant volunteering those responses not in response to questions i'm asking that are even appropriate but just volunteered again specifically th question i asked was i was talking about this with the guidelines of when the surgery should be done because morgan was too young to have the surgery and i said if you would have done what this book suggests and biopics are continued until the reflux disappears and she says ok yes and i said but that isn't what happened with morgan right she wasn't continued on the in the battles you want to head in did the surgery and so they're just saying yes she throws out there at the parents request there be a request having nothing to do with moving you know the parents requesting surgery that there could be but it's not they never there was never an issue that the parents wanted the surgery independent after dr murray told them it needed to be done and then they said well can we schedule before insurance changes but there was never to but i didn't object at that point it was the next question i said what's this business about the parents of the parents come to your office and say we demand you do this bilateral review plantation which is exactly the question the court asked the answer is no but instead of answering it honestly then she went full of hope and said they called it one of the office visit moved up so they can consider having the surgery done yes because remember and then she goes on and so at that point in time she's using even the for may twenty second now will once and jodi jackson's testimony it was we never talked to the person that actually took the nose our nurses notes but jodi said you know consistent with what was in that may twenty second no we didn't know whether there was going to be a surgery we just wanted the test moved up is dr reef to target and force parents don't decide whether to perform a surgery it needs to have you have a doctor decides whether it's appropriate to operate on a child  dr as she recommended this when she recommended the surgery so he said well if we're going to do this surgery can we please do it before july first because you know you know our insurance is changing and we're going to have to pay a lot more out of pocket if we do i tests i'm going to do the surgery and then she said well if you're going to do the surgery can we do it before but again there's no allegation that there would have been a difference if the surgery would about perform in august or june the allegation is officially in the band performed at all because she least five years old so our expert said that surgery never should have taken place but it i understand it's an abuse of discretion standard but i don't think we want to have defendants out there who basically have decided that that's a valid defense and they're going to throw it out there regardless of what an order of them and he says the correct procedure is to try the case complying with the court's orders and then bring it to this court and say hey we think this order was incorrect friday openings we're choosing morning so of declaring a mistrial on you know what amounted to a three to four day trial i mean i don't know why he wouldn't want to to do that and start off rush with a jury that had not heard injected the issue of insurance in the case which is prejudicial to my client and this proffer that i think i better move on the second issue i think is even more significant which is the trial court without any authority without any support declared that i could not cross examine the doctor about medical articles that she researched and she reviewed in preparation for testifying in the case she was disclosed expert about what they've been shown what they reviewed even if they're relying on it or not she said that she spent six years she had six to eight inches worth of articles she spent forty five hours reviewing literature she destroyed half of the article defense motion to bar me from asking any questions about that and go against it and in the literature that she had reviewed and she was up to thirteen as three witness and that is contrary to supreme court  on experts and i don't know how we got there but we did it and i said well it has to be one of the other issues that you thirteen at three so i have to be able to ask her about the literature and what she reviewed as the basis for her opinions because she offered opinions or i filed witnesses that some exception which i've never seen reported anywhere that when you're a party you're not a regular to thirteen f three w i just you know basically the trial court created this category of witnesses and allowed the defendant to use herself as a sort of a shield a sword because she was able to offer opinions and that she complied with the standard of care but then the sheeple which precluded me from cross examining her based on her status as a party and that's not in the law because remember at this point surgery isn't simple be it so there's no surgery to move no rescheduling based on the insurers surgery is not schedule all that is scheduled for august in two thousand and three was the that i disagree let's assume that what was the question this was the purchase they never heard anything about insurance they never heard anything about the parents requesting surgery to go because of insurance all they are at most was  in research those things and that's the point is that the defendant gets to participate in her defense gets to discuss with her counsel what potential strengths and weaknesses her case what needs research how to go nothing in the trial and so what you're proposing is of the defendant expert doctor as many many more protective shields to lean on than any other it's where there would be called medical malpracti significant benefit at trial in the other defendant would she has to disclose just like will to thirteen will was there be a difference of the cross examination the other side i mean under your view the other side doesn't do to do the same cross examination that they would do it with every other expert they're limited i would disagree again because you just sit for doctors who are experts case we discloses opinions we disclose his education expertise and all the medical you know be davidson leave already be loyal i think the darling piece which the court reference goes all the way back to nine hundred sixty five you can act you can cross examine an expert about anything they have reviewed regardless of whether they are relying upon anything they have reviewed dr meade showed up at her deposition i certainly know this thing i wanted to see everything that she had reviewed she showed up with a stack of articles this tall  they were there at the desk i asked did you review those yes i did how long did you spend reviewing the medical literature she said forty five hours and sixty eight inches of articles so how many do you have there should i kept throughout support of the a this case i can ask dr cooper that they can ask my expert dr givens that i should have been able to ask dr reid that she's at two thirty now three council of jackets she refused to tell me what articles she had resented it doesn't matter whether she's relying upon them or not i could have cross examined her and i could have gotten those articles from her i could have used those articles in my cross examination of her i tried so she basically had the benefit that no longer to thirteen after the w had the trial she could review whatever she wanted she saw articles possibly that supported her opinion possibly that didn't but i never got to even find out what the lady reviewed that i never even got to see those articles so she opinion that she complied with the standard of care is not protected it's not the work product of an attorney these are mental articles that she said her computer met my articles that she reviewed and printed up that's not a work product of an attorney that's her researching and i said why are you doing that but i want to see what was out there in the medical literature about this surgery she didn't say i said in defense counsel and was schooling him on what reimplementation is and i was doing it to educate my counsel she didn't say that she she was doing it to prepare her defense counsel in conjunction with him or anything else it was to offer her opinions to find out what was in the literature so that she could be a witness in her case and simply on heard of that she gets these special protection that was blown up and shown to the jury from a medical article medical articles art and most of the point of it is there are hearsay that was allowed and we had some testimony about whether or not her parents divorce was the cause of her bedwetting that should not have medical articles be a subpoena and produce them to the plaintiff so we have someone usual rulings in this case and they defrock my client of a fair trial i mean last night a ten year old girl wore a diaper too bad she's entitled to a fair trial she didn't get one in this case she's entitled to a trial where you know if the court's orders are obeyed she's entitled to a trial where i defended dr who's going to be opinion when this gets treated like every other two thirteen three when this where her medical records are ended and where a blow up from some article five years after some guidelines are produce something get passed to the jury and admitted in opening statement shown to them and then take it back in deliberations medical