they raise it again i'm on we do our openings all of a sudden she's in town ready to testify we've been working on this case for three years and all of a sudden madonna says now i'm barring her she was her first witness or intended to be our first witness and the feeling i had i guess would be like if your honour's told me don't bother arguing any markers we lost ok it took the wind out of me but i'll try it out i felt sick and basically we needed the they never even requested it in their motions and we lost a very key witness and then the poor  the books i'm reading scripts are written by nurses pretty experts are the ones who are there observing everything as nurses would be in this case what's a complication first of all it isn't claim w and the basis of those cases it is harassment of the defendant if they shouldn't be required to keep defending the same case  that didn't apply here and one exception is that it shouldn't be applied if it's unfair to to a plaintiff the insurance issue in this case is not an insignificant issue for the hospital who are we going to point at who we're going to follow the focus groups for you know what why do we bring in an eighteen t person to testify about a nine minute phone call with the hospital always sudden after three years or so we find out two weeks before trial oops there are just me there's that extra twenty five million that we've we forgot about so here we are and you know for for three years i'm telling our people all that matters is this phone call worst thing that can happen is that we get  we went forward with the hospital we did that because of the misrepresentation in there in iraq atari's regarding insurance we are entitled to rely on us w tort system depends on truthfulness and if your honour's feel the claim splitting is an issue that's an exception that that we felt we were forced into it to do otherwise they would have no consequences for misrepresenting it critical element in the case lot of things in my life you know if i knew i can tell you we we would have four hundred thousand reasons why i wish we had an answer to both cases but we did and we didn't have to monday morning quarterbacking those doesn't count  the the issue that your honour's might be thinking about as well mind would purposely separate cases and keep an empty chair in both of the cases spend enormous amounts of money to try to get separate he just wouldn't do it we didn't do it until we found out the truth about the insurance and if judicial economy is is the issue there's legislative fixes or supreme court rules fixes you know in illinois we don't even have a rule for compulsory counter flight like you do in federal chain of command question we we were going to raise you know throughout this if this is a it is interesting i agree but it reminds me of a round wo where we're going is that we feel we were totally denied a fair trial because of nursed because stanza that that's what that's why we lost the case but the only thing i've heard about dan so far is that you were surprised when in fact that was a contested issue all the way through the polygamy stages of getting ready for trial i mean and motions eliminate can be read i mean the judge in one point says i'm going to you know i'll come back and reviews again you know i understand it wasn't there contested issue she was she was our two thirteen x i don't i mean contested in the sense that there was a lot of discussion and debate about what she was going to get going to testify that that it is a complication when a baby is born not really that it's a complication when a baby is born and wires two and a half minutes of resuscitation that it's a complication when a baby is a newborn has hypoglycemia that it's a complication when a baby doesn't eat for twelve hours their nurse testified essentially that everything was ok that that's we and we never said she wasn't going to testify to do what we searched she wasn't going to testify to the standard of care or a doctor or that i knew her says violated the center care i made that clear from the initial motion in limine she was not going to i know the rules and if counsel or the court were suspicious of me that i was going to be sneaky and do it anyway  judges can prevent hectoring trial making declare a mistrial but i had no intention of doing that it wasn't our plan but it was certainly our plan all along to have her testify that these things are complications and if there are complications we had doctors testifying that under the policies of the american academy of pediatrics maybe stay in the hospital for forty eight hours if unless it's some complicated if it's routine it's normal and all but if there's anything wrong they stay in and nurses are on the frontline and much more experience than a pediatrician and they're there that well you know dr sly's didn't testify about a complicated course he testified about what are signs of infection dr marilyn the from boston was going to testify that with these complications a baby is required to stay for forty eight hours so we had to two witnesses essentially on complications with nurses you could sanzo and they had five including a nurse a very persuasive nurse who had worked at this hospital for thirty five years she was going to say well everything was ok is why she didn't treat the baby she only discharged so everything she was testifying to was based on the same record review that nurse eco stand so was going to testify about and then the jury felt that this you know there's no big deal that there are five five witnesses saying that up you know babies wake up not breathing a lot they are hypoglycemia a lot you know it's not a big deal because i'm discharge his ruling based on a misperception of the law in other words if there can be a backdoor opinion then we suggested it might be dunno but i don't think it matters what it is houses where all the difference was one of two thirteen and two in the other well that's what counsel suggest but they're both experts there's no base there's no difference in in law that on that that that she was a traitor and she went into things that she does when she treats babies how she does rounds how she does all these things and all she did here like a nurse comes in the doctor's clear the baby for discharge and the nurse comes in and it's a happy occasion and they teach the parents how to get to you know to do the two minutes i cross examination if you get to bring out all the three that you have addressed factor marron dr schweitzer's and dr martin were retained experts  by the plaintiffs gone out found them hired them taped them paid them and they came in and they won over that charge too and nail it was  complications let's remember that the word complication standing in and of itself means nothing but in a medical malpractise case under the american academy of pediatrics physicians there are guidelines hot whooshed guidelines in fact one of their expertise was the author of those published guidelines dr martin and early in the guidelines the word complications is in there and it's in their state if there's complications you don't charge baby earlier than forty eight hours so let's be kamen testified to all the complications and and backdoor the standard of care opinion that if a nurse could recognize reasons to keep a very concerned about they already had four physician experts come in and talk about those issues i can fall back to vasconcellos it was overwhelming  adding nurse to it stands even if somehow they can make an argument she should have passed the five they were harmed prejudiced in any way with having physicians come in and attack the standard of dealing with the nurse just like nurse treating nurse in the case was allowed to testified to the entries in her chart but she wasn't allowed to say anything in that i was there i was standing right there when he said i got to view what my judgment going his reaction was have with me when he said oh boy that doesn't describe his demeanor rocked back in his chair his eyes opened up because there was  testify to complications which no one seems to intend our medical opinions relate to standard here actually and of course a fighter would want the jury to then make a connection between testimony of the foundational witness of the expert or the ultimate conclusion on the term complications is a term involving the standard of care that's the difference those facts in and of themselves would constitute complications wouldn't they with this was a lawsuit or not they would they would not be complications with respect to it being a term of  baby before forty eight hours so every time an expert comes in and she was being presented as an expert let's be clear i'm happy that's three x for her uttering the word let's remember the only defendant in this case the only individual in this case that was being accused of wrongdoing violating the standard of care was to the opposition fact that oh you can't you can't really you can't have a bound ations by a nurse who doesn't have the qualifications of a physician asked the nurse violating the standard violating the rule of law in this state that you can't have a nurse criticizing the pat down of a doctor and judgment  exercised in his discretion and stop exactly what they were doing and if i can't defend sure they act in the record you see mr bass are saying this is here the physician that wrote the bank labs for complications testified as their expert in this case they didn't need a foundation and if they wanted a foundation there was they could have called the nurses that roll those phone and allowed mr bayh's or to cross examine him live over the phone as to whether or not this was the type of surgery that would be incapacitated anyone let alone  elderly backer that the testified but there i don't think there really raising that issue i think is the issue of this attack and all i can tell you is you know the jury is the one that determines issues of credibility more business i mean i read dad last night and i i must have been focused on something else i should have objected that there was even a judgment on your sat in the post trial here and i thought i was there i watched his reaction and it was a mistake but they got to argue was deliberate intentional to to make money so and the jury had a chance to assess all of that and i and obviously we know what their findings were sold so the issue the start of the chain of command it was no testimony and what did they call civils one about dr past themselves filing center didn't come in if it had come into a verdict against us for that could mean various things could mean that the nurses didn't need to use the chain of command could have meant that even if they use the chain of command even if there isn't cells violated the standard of care there was no causal connection but the point is there counsel accuse me of misleading the court we have one witness i'm from the chart and complications that was dr america one dr martin was an author of the practice guidelines he testified hypothetically he didn't make one reference to this chart but he testified had been totally but whether certain things like that reading can be a complication but he testified about the principles dr sliced mary was our only only complication witness in this case he my motives were impudent throughout the trial as they just were here in our proof we made it clear and they say they been this charge at the end of the case and i hope they do it was a foundational witness she was an f three opinion witness they had an f two opinion witnesses f two nurses are opinion witnesses have two witnesses and the jury have to wonder well if we couldn't find a nurse anywhere in the world to talk about complications when they could do it when they found one who actually was there but we had a partner or doctor shola doctor showmen lie to get the mistrial it was a it wasn't the beginning of the trial your honor it was at the end of our  we had expended enormous sums of money and he couldn't get out of bed five days later eight days later to give an evidence deposition then he lied in court he knew he was not board certified he knew it because we had that list serv come in handy we had provided all the information somebody taking his deposit deposition two weeks before three weeks before a material witness who lies and he was a material witness is enough grounds for a mistrial i mean for grounds for a new trial excuse me and he lied about board certification and then he admitted that he wasn't board certified certified in another deposition two weeks later