crystal malik died so unexpectedly and unfortunately we try to have that question answered by or jury of twelve some time ago  know our position we were impeded in that process by some errors of the court in the rulings that were made and not allowed to give a fair presentation of the evidence as the jury should have heard this case involves a lady who died so unexpectedly and embodies the doctrine of race of so low quitter and the concept of circumstantial evidence which we believed was trial one struggled with in coming to grips with those cats ups and putting them in the context of this case this was a situation where this lady underwent a procedure that was within the exclusive which involved a number of medications in various syringes and they all stand which he drew and used during the course of this procedure it was a brief procedure at the end of it within minutes krystal melich willing to cardiopulmonary rest we had ample expert witness testimony in this case to establish our case disagreement among any of the offices of the defense expert witnesses that lie to katie introduced through a hole in the door of which scrubs the nerves that control the diaphragm and think that needs to be seen in the clarity of what he was speculating about which any expert would always have to speculate when you have a re sips a situation dr tata injecting this lie to kate as we believe he did did not do it intentionally he had no knowledge he had done it therefore he is not a way to make any record of is doing it but from the scientific lighting cane unaccounted for that like that dr titus testimony he simply wasted at the end of the procedure with no explanation as to why he drew that up the other strong piece of of the amounts of medications used and for what with very much importance sailing solution that was used there is no accounting for sailing the evidence that we were portraying in this solution into a rest for on the procedure that's what he testified to and there's no there's no evidence of the country no evidence that it was never even done how could a jury ever ever draw that conclusion other than by pure speculation because it absolutely explains the mechanism oh no you you explain the mechanism of her death when you mechanism even by the defense experts is that with a hole in the door without a communication into these subdural space where the nerves of the spinal canal exist if you put  our space she would not have been able to breathe and if it would been a deviation of standard of care and now we just might do testing and then he was forced to testify that he was purely speculating as to whether he actually pointed questions with which formed the basis of our theory against him it was only after the court had reversed itself that that was allowed to be brought into the case but we were well into the case by that point and  evidence through dr ailes it was that through the media wrecked by the fence counsel of dr tata that she was able to do with those articles what she never would have he agreed or disagreed with those statements that's what is allowable with the use of medical literature in cross examination but i would have never been able dr weil's my expert to get in there and turn it into dr of ten minutes may not sound like a huge point to make but i think in the context of this case given you know opportunity had to preside over a period opening statement in the disadvantage of us placed it during a first impression because of the speculation that the for this court to finally give some direction what constitutes quote unquote speculation when an expert witness is testifying based on what experts are allowed to use as a basis for their opinion and as i tried to clarify earlier the only speculation in this case which would be necessary which is a element of every race if the case is to explain exactly what happened that's why the doctor exists i seem to recall i think what beck and law school wasn't one of the the cases that a piano falls out of a window and kill someone and we all know pianos can't fall out of windows by themselves with no witnesses no one to explain how it happened but the fact set of circumstances and that that doctor tot it was in explosive control of the instrumentality that led to this unfortunate so this is an opportunity for this court to really clarify what what constitutes a split is what is speculation by an expert or what is a reasonable opinion based on those factors that have an expert care and reasonably rel reason for the court to address the issue of speculation or what type of speculation is permissible because the jury heard every bit of speculation that dr piles had to offer it struck me in listening to counsel's presentation today and  reviewing the reply brief in preparation for today's hearing that i had to keep reminding myself that i'm not defending a motion for a directed verdict i'm defending it for a jury verdict in favor of my clients and a jury verdict after the jury heard every single bit of speculation or testimony or scientific evidence however you want to classify have their counsel describe this morning and that's described in the briefs so i  don't generally run into a disagreement as to the standard of review in a case where the my opponent is is asking for a new trial after judgment is entered on a jury verdict based on  challenge and then various questions about the procedure of the trial there's our arab use of discretion inquiries that's not a question of law there's now novel question the jury heard all of the evidence so there's no reason at all to go down that path and i can certainly take issue with the plaintiff's characterization of circumstantial evidence and that is a lot of speculation or testimony when the quote allows ray simpson to go to the jury but there's no point in fighting that be at are because the jury heard it all the jury received that very simpson instruction that's that can be nearly devastating to a defendant the jury heard that and the jury rejected it because the jury heard dr todd that was very definite explanation and it was not based on cus impact is it was his d explanation of what happened in this case the race that's the entrance does not allow an expert such as dr pi has anyone else to go back and say all right we don't know what happened but i'm going to just speculat y and z is as to what might have happened that's not the res ipsa entrance race of soon france says it was in your control we don't know really happened you better explain it and that is exactly what happened here plus the speculation came in so i don't understand and i don't fire and i don't agree with counsel's argument in that regard as to the issue of whether the plaintiff was prejudiced or there was any kind of error that occurred with respect do with the issues as to what he wanted to cover with with dr tat and that's when dr character medical examiner went on and that's when the course of well i want to listen to this again think about this summer i had this unusual problem which i don't think there was i think the judge was hit in the first place it was cured and there was men request that the literature witnesses who had already been examined should be put on the stand again there was no request for  mistrial there was there was nothing of that sort at that point in time back to playing if one failed with the examination of dr tatar and dr piles and song and so forth so i don't see how there could possibly be any determination that there be an abuse of discretion with respect to that procedure as far as the closing argument is concerned concert did not object to the length i don't think based on the fact that the two defense counsel reached and have thirty minute there was no indication she i can't cover all this material in fifteen minutes and as a page from that i doubt that this court would want to get into micro managing the time for closing arguments certainly not within ten minutes there would  probably not be something the court would want to address as follows the medical literature i think justice has been a pretty sad but i would have responded to the door was open and there was not ever any use of medical literature presented a substantive evidence the only thing addressing of the medical literature was by dr todd to explain why the literature that the plaintiff raised didn't apply in the situation he explained that there was a side bar there was a lot of discussion and it could be construed he actually that the plaintiff agreed with the the way that the issue was worked out and defense counsel moved on to the next topic and i think that presents any reason to address the two to resist the the verdict in this case based on medical literature that manifests root i certainly disagree that there could be any finding that the verdict was against a manifest weight of the evidence as the tracker commented at the hearing and the post traumatic and in his view the evidence truly supported the defense position and truly supported the initial ruling by the court that dr pal's should not have been permitted to go as far as the right that he was permitted the jury heard it all the jury heard dr todd explain all the circumstances the cardiac arrhythmia secondary to hypertensive cardiovascular disease that was pretty convincing i think and because we are just was put out and we're battle ahead of basic fundamental misunderstanding as to when it happened in the case so i think that what happened here was not that there was any i'm yes not that there was any problem whatsoever there was certainly no reason to think that the the verdict back as a favor of dr tartuffe was in any way inconsistent with the verdict that was and that was against dr bird which preceded and as separate instructions and there's no reason to to revisit this verdict i don't believe in any way shape or form event my expert dr chase refuted the theory that this was a primary cardiac event the experts all gave that explanation how this was an anesthetic a bet leading to corral assists of the nerves of bugs that operate the diaphragm causing a respiratory arrest first then a cardiac arrest that would ensue that follows exactly the logic followed by the jury in in allowing them to find a gets the actor bird while they did absolved dr top if this had been primary cardiac a bad the sudden cardiac arrhythmia this