relieved by any other me there are three main issues in this case the first is the sufficiency of the evidence a defect to support the jury eighty million dollars verdict in this case the second  but the proper analysis is to discuss the element of defect and limited to defect not causation which means what is a malfunction evidence and what is the evidence eliminating other causes of the malfunction as this  exactly what product liability law says you cannot do and that is inferred defect from the accident death injury alone in this case how that is done his with a number a  mortem number of a level of fennel that's acted by many different things and the effort is to say because of that number we can infer a defect but what about how does this apply to this case what about the sticky spot the six five that was found on the when an expert relies on his opinion that contradicts the finest own testimony it is speculative and insufficient to support an in the opinion of that the slick film was  came from an expert who said that you assumed that because it was an unusual occurrence and it was not an unusual occurrence that there was a slick film because the undeniable and the ask us to substitute judgement for that or if a jury the question is whether under a judge and over the standard there is sufficient evidence for us to reject the jury's verdict and tell the expert can take an everyday occurrence that is nothing unusual at the kind of white stuff with his bare hand that you don't know if it's white or not and convert it merely by presenting expert testimony he interpreted two words and he interpreted to mean something totally different but i understand where you're coming from on that and that's the the gillan is the case that we would urge this court to apply that to see if  wrong with that but there's there's absolutely no question that that was not the only pass that was used by this to see of course the last patch was the only one that was preserved for his observation but when he told about the recall he then said oh i changed my mind because the last patch see the fact so he had even though he saw nothing wrong with it how awful recall evidence is such that last thing and let's talk about this causation issue of what you have been these have all of these elements of causation and what kind of evidence should the court have allowed  and we know we had evidence that anywhere hitting on the individual from three and a half to fifty five have been reported by various corners so we know that that's number all over the place and it overlaps with patients walking around with four six seven eight levels that are not overdosed you have well what was it before she died you have all the earmarks of the the delay in the the testing of the blood these things in the office and they know that you have what else was he taking in how much did she take of it and in that you have an incomplete list given so there was an incomplete testing and you have the pills destroyed by the plate but wasn't there also weren't tested for all the more reason your honor that if causation is going to become the linchpin or deep case in an eighteen million dollars verdict shouldn't the other side have a little bit of leeway in in describing what kind of evidence was tested for and on board you cannot even mention it and because of that the jury was deprived of key evidence of a cns the press not only were they deprived of that evidence plaintiffs used it to their advantage to undermine the credibility of out of witnesses we had dr purity on the stand to testify that this death was caused by the interaction of multiple compresses and plaintiff's lawyer got up and said well you would have to say if she was taken by drugs three months and nothing changed in that she up and and she got to die then you have to do something had to have changed correct point three sure some people it takes more but her levels twenty points to the average fatal level eighty point three but there is also the concept of the one thing i do want to point out interesting and they're required to defend it pointed out that well there's a study that showed that somebody had a nine point nine federal level of the living patient i don't know what they were trying to prove with it but that person was w excluded as a possibility under their theory the question is a legal question about whether the judge abused his discretion in not allowing the fact that it wasn't tested for and was accessible arguably to her at the time of her her perceive her death as as suggesting to the jury that that's an alternative cause of death and i think that that to be greedy you're suggesting preserve a point of hearing objection must be made in trial there was no injection during the fifteen minute closing argument the opening force opposing argument by our no judge a single objection even when that system is timely implemented they argue that they acted appropriately in how they handled the recall the closing argument attack each of those points by saying let's look at what the defendant true motivation was it was to make money the financial documents relied upon to make that have a transcript site i can only argue that i remember reading that in the transcript and it was extremely confusing i'm still not sure what that transcript sat but i do know that it's plaintiff's burden to prove causation not the defending us we had a situation here where it wasn't until the first day of trial when the court told us oh by the way you're not going to be able to get any evidence of any drug that wasn't tested for and found to be on or the discovery had been on all of these products our experts had been proud that this is how they were going to testify we couldn't even talk about  complaint that that this might have been in the system which is the best you could you can say on this record really is not the strongest position coach this for you used it to say why should she have turned in front of the emergency room via and opened the door and the judge said well we're still not going to live by the evidence here they set up nothing in her drug regimen change and look how critical it was that he just thirty thirty four barbary over and over again you're taken five drugs for three months and nothing changes then something must happen for this death to occur  greatly higher than any reasonable circumstances should have a lot of it why it's greatly higher but why we don't know what this individual was before we don't know what here and if it is what it's going to be how can defend its rebuttal and what complain to stoop to keep defendants from rebutting causation which in this case all we were allowed to do with say based on w understand that this judge said that this was not an improper argument so when you talk about objections it would have been futile to raise him earlier he did raise it at the end of his argument there was no you know you're right i and they need to take responsibility when a judge says that that's doesn't even cross the line of propriety then you know you have a situation where it's a great just it's a great it's we had a one