sister regards to the damage to the vehicles but my client after directly after the accident reported to the emergency room but roman reporting injuries to her lower back she then followed up with her primary physician dr sheppard a few days later had some of our eyes perform went through some therapy there was of after the therapy it was was it did she testify that she continued to perform home exercises and continue to have added to it because we were not clear as to whether or not mr beveridge know was was working or you know doing some type of employment on behalf of them the time of the accident it was later determined that that was not the case to prove in order to establish their case in regards to a personal injury claim in regards to the fact that she's required to prove that the defendant was negligent that she's required to prove that you know that there's there were but she was injured and that she e facts are clear on that issue that you know if he's not paying attention that he was clearly negligent if if are quite as required to prove that she was injured as a result of this accident if you look at the if you look at her testimony in regards to her injuries and you look at the medical reports that were submitted as evidence and the emergency room report clearly states that she's here a couple hours if you look at the time frames as far as when she presented emergency room probably two hours after the accident and the doctor kno she is diagnosed with a motor vehicle accident with a cucumber sprain and the dr notes that she's experiencing low back pain that she's never experienced before then that the facts of the case would be that she clearly has  emulating in pain she reported back to the passenger that was in her vehicle the only conversation she had with the defendant was sort of a are you all right you know can my kid my passenger you know help you the the only person that she really spoke to at the scene of the accident that she was injured the doctor ordered the orchid people hillary whom power to do they told her they gave her some pain medication and they told her she was taken off of work for two days it stretching exercises to the low back and see dr susan shepherd if not well in five days or any time of worse so they specifically told or five days or any other other time is worse and she actually saw dr sheppard on the fourteenth which is there she actually ended up having because of her medical insurance she was of course witch doctors so she went inside dr cantu many in january so she did she did follow up with the doctor afterwards but because of a change in her medical insurance at after she was released from physical therapy she tried that for a little over a year and when she finally she said she probably got to the point where she just decided she wanted to try something different because it wasn't really resolving  ice towards the end of that tree led the way to some other neck problems and things like back home and that that was some unrelated treatment that she went through with dr snack of a dr snack also testified that she had ongoing what what she would had did a stipulation to submit them out all right you know sitting on jury well the first things that occurs to me pickup truck most name thirty to thirty five maybe five nearly as violent and your client suggested or the mustang could never have given away from hansen and then secondly there are unanswered questions fall between the event and the trial and i mean it's so the jury's thinking we don't know well when the plaintiff may have made you know maybe pumped up the the  violence of the collision and then we don't even know with whatever did happen is a result of a collision however severe what how what we say is a court of when we tell those twelve jurors and you and the judge and the parties what legal basis is there for us to reach over them to overrule the jury's decision and go another way well in that regard i guess i would say that they're the evidence all of the parties agree that there was damage ok i mean that there's no just yes to that so i mean ye the fact that i mean that in the medical reports in the emergency room just a couple hours after the accident are clear that she's coming to the emergency room directly from the scene of the accident for the pain that she's never experienced before and so i mean throwing out i mean even considering that dr stack had issues related to treatment that she provided two years after the accident if you go through all of dr sacks affidavit the only statement that she makes and regards to the two thousand the treatment pain and i asked her a question about that because she had stated that that the accident was the only cause of the patient's condition and when i asked her i said you know you referred to the only cause of the patient's  condition being the accident and that's what you stated yes and she said well and i asked her what condition are you referring to she said i was referring to that was what i was referring to was the fact that maggie more per state she had her back after the accident had ongoing problems with it so only discussion in regards to the treatment directly after the accident in two thousand and five through from november of two thousand and five through april two thousand and six when she did the initial course of treatment and she did the initial position of therapy right after the accident d strain resulting from a motor vehicle accident as documented in the emergency room doctors report so even if you say ok dr snacked didn't link it so i think that the jury was correct in saying ok i have some issues with saying  this on these are going problems have anything to do with this accident that does it take away from the fact that all of the evidence is that she immediately reported to the emergency room with it with an acute lumber spring resulting from the accident you're skipping over  exposed to those consumer reports things that show up on sixty minutes right of thirty three five mile an hour collusion with the mustang against the pickup truck w opri focuses on what we think is the strongest point defending this verdict is that there was no injury is so sexy the allegations of injury the claim of injury all revolves around the core of various points in time and concluded we submitted in a general verdict the specific reasons she simply was not credible she was not credible any medical opinions fail based on this issue where you ample opportunity for them to have concluded from the get go the story of a high speed impact in congested traffic where she claimed she was stopped for at least thirty seconds the traffic was so heavy that she could move through cycles of lights dead stopped and says that our young driver pulls out of school going thirty miles per hour and she was able to observe him for thirty seconds on his approach and she did he just broke into the rear end that the violence of the collision and the inconsistency is in the event itself from the very first airing of this debate she was telling a driveway just not far from where impact occurred was going five miles per hour or less and distracted it's doesn't get stopped in time he described the scooping of  their pick up truck vs the mustang at the high rate of speed but also the relative plane of the vehicles they want to describe a damage and this was telling there were two people that testified damage to the truck used the interesting language of imprints on the tailgate of the truck imprint was a curious term but they had the same description to the jury that somehow this mu elevated above the level of the rear bumper of the truck to make the imprint on the tailgate again sitting there in the trial where our son says i've never spoken to mom about the accident  i thought was a curious choice of the word important trying to make the physical evidence fit of a lower profile vehicle somehow getting elevated to cause even the physical damage they were claiming happened and it doesn't stand alone there we ask ourselves if we were thirty miles per hour and she stopped only two to five feet behind the vehicle immediately before her in traffic stop and you have no impact that tells us that this accident did not occur anyway  claims that this jury would have been free the holy reject her description of the occurrence and she said the same for if she said two hours following the occurrence conversing with others having no  ship of injury no marks cuts bruises or abrasions an element of i don't think korean the maple case sustaining a jury verdict there the two hours no request for emergency care or medical care the only person who claims she reported injury again was her son i asked unsure of bias that the jury could have concluded given that relationship given the strange similarity of testimony they may have rejected his he indicated he was ok and that was the extent of the testimony all along those lines other than she testified that she did not request assistance at the scene when the police arrived the symptoms that she the patient reported be related to the preexisting pathology and the absence of trauma and she said yes the house evidence to support the verdict even though as the defense did not have to come forward with any evidence to disprove a subjective point of injury there is none the less an objective pathology that could explain the symptoms in the absence of traumatic event against if he was but i i do not know leave any marks the loss of consciousness two hours scene without reporter request for assistance preexisting degenerative changes a checklist of factors each of which is present in the maple emergency room and certain back when initially it was her low back when she gets to the new doctor after insurance in january two months post the accident it's her back in the reference to a low back she goes through physical therapy leaving her low back still causing her problems it's not present in the records that were admitted into evidence she's cross examined on it and she's then starts telling this jury the doctors didn't record everything i told them  i believe i don't know whether the record shows it but i don't and this is when you look at a record whether it was in a deposition or a trial i believe it did happen streets she was a very short late ah and  so as we're going through again we have only subjective claim of injury and nothing object that they can bring home with any evidence their burden of proof  submit that on the basis of the totality of evidence this general verdict is sustained on a finding that she wasn't injured or she has some medical conditions they were not proximately caused by this occurrence  not has been assigned to the only issue that i recall was i was allowed to question of regarding the smoking history but no error was this has been asserted on appeal regarding that and in terms of the instructions  but i am think for obvious reasons of focusing more on the last two elements of case by the emergency room doctor is that is that she's not had so much as back pain but neck pain is her main source of previous discomfort so she wasn't reporting that pain you know necessarily force going back and forth as to where her injuries were as injury that she presented with was was back pain but she was letting the doctor know that she had problems with her neck more and that she did have the doctor did note that she did have a protective gait so there was you know some objective evidence that the doctor was able to see in that regard but again and in regards to your previous question about that the maple versus gustafson i think the way we were looking at this though is that there there was there was no evidence presented to the here to our but she testified that they waited to wait for like an hour and something for the police officers to get there and it's clear up to go through everything so i mean as soon as soon as everything was done and she was free to be you she went directly to the emergency room w forward into the break and her legs you see like to meet her legs did get away and so all of the impact was was basically just shoved back i mean she was pushed up into it she didn't strike the front of it because she was she was maybe maybe i'm describing it backwards but i mean she's she was she was the way she described this she was pushed forward and she braced herself to stop herself from me or and to it really counts for the difficulty mean i guess my question i guess my question would be i mean what what evidence did the jury have that she was not injured in this i mean she clearly testified in the doctor's notes record and agree with the bank that she never had this low back pain