unfortunately seems to be justified or accepted by the district court it's really a very simple case a woman went in for a surgery that should have taken between three and eight hours according to all the expert witnesses in the medical literature and it took thirteen and a half hours there's no explanation for the additional five nine hours of surgery the operative report says the surgery was completely uncomplicated but we know that after the incision was inserted into the patient the like burnout apparently it's the fourth time that it was malfunctioned and yet there was no backup instrument so another light source from a different instrument was jury rigged against him was leaving the search  tissue and a great deal of manipulation by the census go the trial court mismanaged and what happened the next day of course as you can see from the pictures of the eighty nine is a whole about the size of a baseball bat i'm sorry baseball in her back and coincidentally a drain infection in her armpit which if you look carefully at the testimony of the expert dr weil it's quite understandable and perhaps even expect the trial court misunderstood apparently the evidence and of course plaintiff bears some responsibility for not making it clear enough what i think defendant got in the back up here the lippy like tissue down here and in fact maybe part of the reason it took thirteen and a half hours is at one point she says well i went into the armpit and i reasoned sort of the in the scope there because i had to do with the old fashioned way because things weren't working out and then she goes down here which is where that breast tissue was and she again is manipulating tissue but that she shoots she says over and over again it's communicating the entire common sense and that's what the medical literature that she cited supports thirteen and a half hours of surgery doesn't matter where you poke the holes if they're all communicating with one another the risk of infection is going to be greater but let's just take her statement of what this case has always been about from the beginning not some drain in the armpit which defendant's own doctor who treated her says was very superficial treated and get results no filed a lawsuit about that no one hired an expert about that that was resolved before she was released from the hospital if ah the lawsuit because she had a hole in her back the size of a baseball and that hole was caused by the leak the surgery that hole was in it is not that the defense's position if they get up and say that i'll be i'll be very surprised their position is there's no infection in the back whatsoever and at this lab report refers to the armpit they say there's a faction in the armpit and they're their own and their surgeon says oh no no if you have any infection in the back now we also have some circumstantial evidence which supports this the plaintiff's own photographs of her back which she was taking contemporaneous with the events that were happening in writing notes on before she revenue that would be before this court on this issue on april fifteenth the picture she takes of her back as this is a photograph of the day after my wound was flushed out because of the infection lab says is the back now i submitted this court to the lab person a medical person just like a lay person if they're going to describe the auxiliary the armpit a drain site they know the difference between that and  i think it pages fifty eight fifty nine and sixty or perhaps forty eight where she concedes there may have been some superficial actually in the arsenal of it she says but what's the point it's not relevant to what i'm trying to tell you he and because of that you don't get sufficient blood flow and sufficient blood flow is what washes bacteria away from an infection site like this so she's saying i look at this world and i look at all the trauma that happened and all that that tissue and everything else and i say this is most consistent with infection so you have a lab report you have the testimony of our experts either one of which should be enough our expert although she doesn't work very artfully if you read it in context instead of it's all communicating ok finally the third prong is the testimony of the place of herself who says the doctor told me i had an infection in my lower back and that's why i kept going back for all this treatment and why it had to be flushed out so there's three pieces of evidence i submit that raised a clear tribal issue of fact it's the location of the infection thank you c who removed dead tissue according to council once one scientific method was objectionable now he's a surgeon describing under our case law about a medical doctor testifying about cause ation on the basis of experience and medical records there's nothing wrong with that that's perfectly acceptable i think opinion must be supported by  the surgery she was asked do you rule anything else out and he said she said i've considered just not a smoker she's not obese wildlife well that all kinds of things this is the most likely in my opinion beyond i'm sorry in my opinion to a reasonable medical probability this was caused by the with the surgery there is a place in her deposition testimony mr sullivan where she specifically is asked what happened that day that's the day she flushed out my lower back and told me she was trying to get the infection flushed out of my lower back wound dr wallace read the lab report and interpret it if it needs any more foundation in her declaration i'm going to report she said i've looked at the lab report it indicates there's an infection in the back the