court the trial court committed harmful error when it permitted licensed practical nurse rhonda old rich to give expert testimony during trial even though she had only been disclosed as a fact witness her testimony about the stuart of injuries she would have expected to see at patterson an attempt as he claims undermined patterson's credibility by calling into question his account of the events there is significant chance that her testimony affected the verdict and a new trial is required certain things are not in dispute here the defendant do not dispute the nurse aldrich events from testimony they do not dispute that she had not been disclosed as an expert or trial nor qualified as one during trial have a headache or soft tissue issues without any visible symptoms and on recrossed didn't she just testified to the flip of that that essentially it's also possible to have that headache which everyone has experienced every juror has experienced by contrast the defense asked for the injury she wouldn't intice an agency based on someone who had been beaten up by prison guards and her opinion about that is not within the realm of common knowledge or common but you're correct that that was the question but that's not what she answered they asked if she would anticipate but her answer was that that it's not that's upset with the garage about a negligent repair and the mechanic who did the repair is testifying and has asked the question when the car came in and you put it up on the left what did you see what did you not see and what did you expect to see i was that expert or those answers expert testimony in regards to the st two what the mechanic saw and what the mechanic did professional and indeed defendant zero in a case like that went in a case like that it's about an oil leak you have to provide expert disclosures and the mechanic has to prepare an expert report saying well when he told me that every morning there was a quarter size drop of what looked like oil on the driveway i thought when i put it up on a lift i'd find some indication of an oil leak that's what i thought well you're the situation where a witness is asked to draw on specialized knowledge that is not within the realm of common knowledge the jurors may have yes but so my macand the my mechanic in the hypothetical would have to issue an expert  an emergency room physician or go on and on and on where you're talking about her sippy and testimony from someone that may harbor specialized knowledge from their work and i i worry that that just completely transforms her understanding of the distinction between late testimony and expert testimony you're not understand your concerns but under this court's pro expert disclosure requirements under this court's precedents and under the federal rules of still in procedure have been rendered meaningless thirty very little incentive to comply with those disclosure requirements if it were that easy this court has consistently stressed the district testimony skewer patterson's credibility she told jurors but the story of the injury she would have expected to see but she did not observe those and then during closing the defendant's reminded jurors about  that if you have a headache there may or may not be visible signs why aren't these questions about if you have a soft tissue issue or issue whether or not there would be visible symptoms such as bruising or redness really just common knowledge well let me ask you any mom who has a kid who's fallen and gotten a soft tissue injury they say they can testify that sometimes there's bruising and swelling it's not as if you're asking something said we're reviewing this we don't have to accept that concession you asked really essentially a flip of this to ms aldridge and claimed that it was common knowledge why wouldn't retracked examination elicited expert witness testimony from aldridge about the possibility of visible symptoms for self reported and stop tissue injuries because patterson opens the door to this expert testimony on the would have been possibly not outlays but possibly bruising and some retinas like the statements elicited from patterson during redirect examination this equivocal statement was expert testimony and on appeal patterson e attorney general was the attorney general so quick to call this expert testimony and i would say that because of this court's decision and my services ginty about health services when someone is a treating a nurse or a physician and they stop delivering observations about treatments and st hand knowledge and start to deliver opinions and specialized knowledge based on a medical experience in general and about the generalit discussing about what she might generally see on it she is discussing she's applying her general theory of what she generally sees to the case at hand and that's what makes  expert testimony just a judge have a requirement to apply who is expert and who isn't the district judge can properly have met expert testimony injury reports and patterson opens the door to those questions by asking him in general was it possible to feel pain without showing bicycles and is it possible for there not to be as both sometimes st something like a headache treating yourself as an expert during history and i would disagree i think that he was treating aldridge as his expert he called her as a fact witness and then began during re examination treating her as an expert witness discussing her credentials as a nurse and a licensed nurse and as an adjunct nurse instructor and asking her questions pertaining to her knowledge experience and expertise about different types of injuries and to the extent that he was dissatisfied just like in the united states st time he could have asked for a part of the year when he made his objection keep it and ask for additional side bars or even light of the other testimony in exhibits a trial her testimony was not groundbreaking she sad that with what the end may complain what a possibly not always possibly offend some bruising and some but that's not exactly what the question wasn't what would you look like after beating up by prison guards it was would you show visible signs of a soft tissue injury it was based on what patterson had complained about mr patterson's counsel asked entre practic salmon nation is it possible to not have visible symptoms with a headache or soft tissue injury why isn't that expert to and confirming what is common knowledge it's merely clarifying what nurse alters wrote in the injury report itself which is the patterson report it was in pain even though there were no visible sometimes she thought there was a soft tissue injury which is very different than offering an opinion or a summary of her know it's not expert to testify that it's possible not to have visible symptoms but it crosses into expert testimony to give the flip that it's