because of the nature of the condition the man in me the inflammation you heard the testimony from all of the medical witnesses his insides were cemented together his guard later was cemented to his liver his liver was cemented to his doctor it was like trying to look through ice to play into tiny troops that were the same color of the ice so what we had here was an expert who was allowed to say doctor should have done is three things but never runs established how any one of those for things would have made a difference in this case he was honest he was candid he said i didn't know whether this would have worked i can't that one or more of each individual step if not satisfied would have resulted in the injury or can we look at it as a the entire four step fink's agrees that that was appropriate to compare the two into so we can get a feel better live and sometimes even then it's just physically impossible to figure out what's the what's the bio docked and what's the cystic doc and here again specialist who actually testified in this case and he said if you got really i couldn't have done any better there was no way to find this mistrial back so we have that testimony that's why we're asking you for a verdict for judgment in favor of the defendants because there was absolutely no proximate cause testimony for this jury to bas all his testimony as to deviations with no proximate cause ation you combine that then with concepts argument when he told the jury he has to prove is that the defendant didn't try that's not only had to prove that the jury's job here is to miss a verdict on the evidence telling the jury that i don't have to prove anything other than the defendant failed to try was a misstatement of law and had to move it planned he was telling the jury he didn't have to prove something that he had no proof of their resume or kinds in the causation prove he suggested the jury he didn't need it that's improper in addition to that in closing argument this was the perfect storm we have no evidence of proximate cause we have counsel arguing that he didn't need to prove facts in a cause and then we had counsel arguing that the juries needed to be the guardians of their community this clearly shouldn't put its stamp of approval on that type of argument in the alternative then we seek a new trial on all issues finally if the clear rejects a request for judgment and rejects request for a new trial we're seeking the minute or for the medical expenses that were recovered in this case there was no two thirteen opinion on medical bills in this case not in plaintiff's two thirty in serious not in themselves i'm sorry there was a request to admit to which we responded and we said that these bills are accurate and to a reasonable that we specifically denied that they were secondary to the defendant's for the medical expenses of here that was rejected plaintiff's jury instruction was given to the jury with a line item for medical expenses was in the expert question about the medical claims he wasn't asked one question about medical deliberately you can take these steps to make sure that you're you're not making the leap here that's the that's the position that which there is contained a transcript of ever hearing that took place the further the jury heard closing argument and rich the trash made a ruling and decided to exclude the first week now you know were we steps in hey we recognize that we might not be able to do a run or two or three or i refer or listen to what he says try to run if you can't get run try to if you can do to one different types of improper argument were objected to can't be riotous for feeling to try something that wouldn't work unless an expert says if he had done this it would have shown that it would have prevented says it simply doesn't matter about ready says we didn't