between the claim for injuries and the claim for damages this case i'll begin with the damages as i believe it's the more succinct of the issues and yes i believe it is controlling of the requested relief to get a new  associated with the ambulance ride and the emergency room treatment were stipulated in the evidence by the defendant and hold more than three thousand dollars now what the l having sustained injuries in the house and the medical treatment the five of the defendant brought in medical expert testimony to challenge the reasonableness and necessity of some of the bills but not all of the bills verdict in that case was returned in an amount that was less than the only challenge portion of the medical bills and what the court recognized that there was a sufficient basis to reject the medical treatment for the portion of the defend testified to having seen mr mcnally holding his back and limping at the scene of the accident so the defendant other than this offer no medical testimony whatsoever that cut and dry that in all cases they would be entitled to recover but i would suggest it would be very difficult for them to not recover what the case law provides is if the plaintiff renders testimony that he was injured as a result of the act and to the medical treatment he chicago case out of the only supreme court and in those cases there was no medical testimony linking the complaints at the scene or in the e r to the accident it's that is correct as well as an aggravating vision condition in general this disease in the interest of brevity i've just pressed the shoulder injury will stand on our brief on the back injury part but respect to the him if the exam no altered his causation opinion at all just simply never followed up on the note and when we went on redirect  counsel was able to establish that through dr karen that if and was i see some evidence at the point of bush creating or an injury to his right shoulder during the four weeks between two accidents in my of questioning by defendant were the notes of the primary care physician during the intervening period and those clearly established that there was no treatment for the shoulder and no true shoulder complaints whatsoever oh yes we submit believe the second accident produced on the the entry but that the mechanism involved in the first accident was more likely the map and his and that could result in this type of shoulder injury because doctors here  may be the only word on the subject of whether he was injured or how he took the impact but the trial court is not required to believe testimony just because it is set even if it's  just to make sure they probably would but they don't necessarily need to go in an ambulance these guys are out walking around in the intersection at first and then they agreed to drive their cars into the parking lot to wait for the  from of them without expert assistance now if the trial judge has the discretion to make that determination prelate jurors it is really difficult to see how he would not have the discretion to make that determination for himself and if he has  making suggests that you need to throw in one sense that this person point of pain in a different part of the body and ask the prior effect so we speculate whether there is something that this isn't an issue of objecting at the time of the mission and shoulder and that's why we believe it was completely and proper for the rover to consider that her injury evidence went to the fence fail to tie it up or type that cross examination and even if this considered as are clearly doesn't overcome seem to be making failing to make the distinction that i've made between injuries and damages on this case if there is is damage plate of his entitle to recover court's  wasn't hurt and that he had more time to think about it decided he was going to try to mclean her into a case here but the argument inherently says that the emergency room treatments good she's only complaining about the ambulance ride so council seems to be making my argument that the purpose of proof shifted to the defendant it is not our argument there is a distinction between the shifting of the further proof and shifting of the burden of going forward with the evidence and with the case law sets that mr mcnally's testimony and it all itself that i was injured i had pain i was hurt i went to the emergency room and here is a treatment i received here are the charges i heard for that is enough to shift the burden of going forth with the evidence so it is not the we were talking about earlier with opposing counsel was isn't it reasonable for a plaintiff has been involved in an injury to try to find out whether or not he's been injured and if told him at least it's found that there is no injury then  suffer damages what would it be would it be defense testimony that the services were unreasonable and on this or i believe it would have to be got to that is the very basis of the distinction i make and injuries and damage he could have done at the emergency room or the pregnant woman go there and get checked out or go find those are damages without injury now in this particular case the burden of going forward to meet that burden i frankly didn't look into it that far but some expert would have to say yes the he that it was neither reasonable nor reasonable to go to the hospital was not reasonable for the doctors to run these diagnostic tests and they certainly were not necessary based upon the presenting points we don't have that you don't