our fifth case this morning is dalton versus team in north america have an expert witness in this case because there was one that was not needed the expert witness in this case would have been showing no expert witness  this case would have been you don't need to tell us what the excluded expert would have said because you haven't challenged the exclusion of the expert in this case out of there was no need for an expert witness expert witnesses they showed the relationship between hospitalised which deals with acute but it all situations they said that the only way that they could take this idea out is that she would need a hysterectomy so based on pull on the strain and the id normally comes out in this case she pulled on the grass where she felt some tension and then it snapped so basically a witness would be able to understand pulling the strain and i'd be the id normally under normal circumstances under normal circumstances but you have a specific case the question is what happened here normally happens and what happened here you're not going to just pro basically it was probably most likely many factors defect because dr rozen just said that state that in her testimony that she took over two hundred of these and basically normally they just come out there's no problem so this but as and looking at all the parties that you named in the suit their art to teach us sales and marketing and t v women's health sales corporation for which the principal place of business and state and cooperation is still unknow they should not have been there at our mistake but if they are there and you don't provide any information about their citizenship and the quite lax diversity jurisdiction my client is from and they were in indiana we're trying to get some information on those two companies and we just listed them in an abundance of caution they should have been removed further just to wrap up briefly there was no medical causation in this case medical causation deals with the relationship between a drug and its effect on my client's need for a hysterectomy has nothing to do with her having excessive bleeding or anything this list on the warning label anything like that her need for hysterectomy further medical treatment is because she  c they did ultrasounds they did x rays and the only thing they'd come up with was that she would need a hysterectomy there's been no testimony presented anywhere that there's another way to get it out these expert to do that to show that there was a de fact in the i u d that caused it to break it was imbedded that's the record when it was pulled on it was came out as the district or properly alleged and some of what's happened in this in the briefing to the court in trying to skip over to those steps is to ignore all the allegations in the complaint where the plane of said it's a  broke when it was embedded and when it was removed and that is replete throughout the amended complaint at paragraph fourteen forty forty two forty four fifty fifty seven sixty sixty one the pride the the pla acknowledgment that they have to prove proximate causes at paragraphs twelve twenty nine forty two forty four fifty seven and sixty sixty two so there's a little bit of an attempt right now to reengineer the claim by the district court had it right the plaintiff has been improved to prove that there's of the fact that that defect caused it to burrow and that the injuries that are alleged which are bleeding and pain and disk for resulted from concerns about making sure that the right heard is there to support that there is in fact complete diversity i can tell you it's not in the record i can tell you to the extent that those and cities are still around and will and as i mentioned one of the may not be they are not citizens of indiana i appreciate the court doesn't have that before in the record and i understand that the court has a couple options it could ask for further supplementation on that issue and i also understand the court may decide that it doesn't have jurisdiction over the appeal all right i'm going to order the parties to file within two weeks was left there does that drug that remains the part of the drug have an effect on the pain and suffering and bleeding that's alleged by the plaintiffs so this is no different from any other alleged drug side effect case it's the same type of thing where you have an interaction with tissue that the plaintiff is alleging gives rise to her claim and gives rise to the injuries or damages she's alleging so there's no point of differentiation with talker or any other cases that we've my client did not file her claim because of bleeding discomfort or pain that she was receiving from the i u d my client filed her claim because she the only reason she filed was because she knew that hysterectomy to get it surgery just to have a removed that's why the case was filed that's why there's no medical causation medical causation can be seen like a set in man with the white hole where they try to use the well they tried to say that i be program caused brain a failure things like that where the cause is associated with the effect of the drug the injury is affected with the drug and this is not the case here this is just a simple fact of my client is a hysterectomy just to have a removed not the bleeding not for the pain that for the discover there were no experts named even the doctors that treated her in ins ins installed it removed it from a day named as experts no they were not your honor because it was straightforward we did feel that the experts were needed because her injury was objective it was something that you could look at you could see another doctor could test and test her to see that this is the case and the only thing was that she needed hysterectomy to have complete