several times do not speak on for example don't mention any studies that you talk about about wrong side surgery don't do it consistently the you with this did not only that but he's describ objection that was made was that we would be careful be sure that was raised and that carried on from that point because from that point on look just focus on the issue of the studies and continue to focus on even after being in march by by the court and even after defense counsel said well let's not talk about the studies and then he continues the reason why that comes to play is because even the justice will now this because you commented on his lack of specificity in the vague nature of giving the witness only standard of care for the defense to the entire testimony to the point where the judge had to remark on this i've never seen anything like this those issues the issue about just was something that seems to be of apparently i don't know what the situation was in between the door but when he justified there was no disclosure of aim at the viewer specific issue about it being a known complication the very question that was afoot in regards to the entire issue of negligence in this case was whether or not wrong site surgery and we call it wrong site for i guess lack of a better term reality there w the of the credibility of the witnesses but also the effect of the testimony upon of the jury but in this particular case you actually get to come a peek behind the curtain because just well it was very explicit about how she felt about some of the back and i saw l three n l four which he operated in l two that he saw what he expected to see defense cross and say that well that was simply just making an observation an observation i don't know that i don't understand would you be able to observe that secondly though if he just simply said that i saw i saw that there was some deterioration in l t you know you're right that would be an observation however for him to add and in addition to it is that maybe you know what i was looking for i was expecting to see that basic on the the pre operative filters that's an opinion that's sa you saw them was basically like a dictionary the group b i understand trying to make sure you get everything in however the law does not require for that if it requires very specific disclosure about particular issues in this if you went through all the sixty pages or however long it was there was not one shred of evidence that the promoter was going to say well when i got in as i confused all three however it gets to a point and in fact i believe that it just began to see that point because even the judge during the course of this as these these improper comes to begin to mount and in continues the mounted up she made a comment that you're honest can actually under your authority can actually step in and where they are sometimes as we did objected to certain aspects of the improper testimony and put it in our post trial motion creating this conspiracy that we somehow were colluding with witnesses to get the country on testimony or to do all the things to the point that the judge actually said shame on you and i can't i'm surprised that i can't believe that that you're doing these things saying there's no proper purpose that you could be offering this evidence at all and all of these things when they continuously through higher and higher it didn't stop it didn't even stop after it be  misspoke i did need to do that but after that even all the way up to closing arguments there were three statements that we had to object to that were just not true and those statements related to things that were again ensuring the to talk about what his findings were at surgery that was clearly disclosed he was asked about it in his deposition his deposition wasn't a test because he did talk about what he found the surgery  and it's i asked the question you heard dr curtsied saying when you got in the ark operation here to look to see if you're getting into the pathology you expect to hear him say that answer i did hear him say that when you the word literature was mention multiple times and i might say the literature might say articles different case and he was asked about some of it but not all of the question i goes on and so long answer me said at the end i mean there's literature truth to support those i have some of those mr lee said sustain that stricken place in germany but any notion of literature out of your mind reading from was in our disclosure clearly he was questioned about what conferences he was a and these discussions and he said was trying to give it it's a well known complication and he goes out he says there's this number of studies that about he said literature to me and i realized that what i'm now going to say is going to sound foolish but he could have been talking about shakespeare you wouldn't have asked about shakespeare you know and try out so why strike that they said they were too comprehensive and there was too much in there and that would inhibit their from objecting at the time the trial and the justices will know to thirteen's to disclose things because i heard it i don't he's a damage approximate cost he was going to go through the different areas in relate complaints to different areas of the spine what's being corrective in that and after one of the things he i mean is after somebody is head back pain like this for for more than sixteen years when you operate out of that's not going to go away you're trying to avoid further deterioration and get some improvement but good speed their expertise  all know he's not going to be a free he's not to be disability free there are other experts admitted no no no no he's going to have substantial hits so much more so what we're doing with result we at that point is we're going down were there the statements of up no you bring it up over and over again which is something that i disagree with what happens in this case is it turn out mr blankenship of mr we have a very close relationship ok the blanket ship is a it's just a faint testing number pretensions and he testified that he sees all these people in these office ok that's where he has his a like a three flat three story building him i was asking about the day he saw because they got into the fact that he saw this mr pugh in the office where pew lives up here and it's kind se offices the st time then i didn't read or write that ok and then i went through the issue of what he did in the office then we came back to it later because what happened here was he wrote reporters blankenship wrote a report saying this guy's disabled from working forever but two days after i wrote the report he went back to work full time work for a year their saying that it was implying that he was doing something wrong and that that was impugning the legal profession and i was in puny the fact that they would hire he has which apparently he did how many cases you inventories and the name of his book how to maximize in minimize your damages it's pretty it's pretty significant evidence right there that the jury thought so too but that you added certain things and think why couldn't you just go on with that information but what he did in there was interesting in his article to the players are here was how to maximize he had treaters are not saying there's just ability bring in a rehab and that's hire somebody to do an exam and find him disable and then make your what they did then is that they followed that they hired blankenship to examine him to increase this calculation of loss a village east and then they send them to another orthopedist in an up to find them disabled where the treaters didn't find the say so i pointed that out as well you are in the here's the conversation were you at the time of this conversation i was somewhere in the office space of the law firm of mr lee's law firm and i said did he give you any discussion about doing the updated report went out and then i showed deposition has he said he couldn't remember and he said i think you're going this is mr reed going to want to update your report because mr pugh has returned to work and he goes yes all right now yeah that's what happened so if you that i went on and on and this was not attacking the profession this was somebody who was in lee's off testified to these things and when i asked him questions about it the witness was admitting to it all so it wasn't going on and on of the comment you made closing argument that mr really just referred to that comment was i said i did say follow the game plan that is laid out and the judge told me not to get into that anymore so what i was doing then is i was going through the chronology of his work in the case and what came up  attorney from that point forward but i was she had interpreted based on gist of these comments that i was trying to pune mr nice character by the fact that he hired one to thirteen issues now seems to confuse me can in general ideas in all this literature out there for making the very specific disclosure list required of a particular issue that of an opinion they've done that on several office complex and right after that within the militants he repeats it before the judge and that's what calls another step and that's when she got upset she basically said this and i'm going to read it to you what's the objection you're saying they did this and i think you clearly are intending that the jury to conclude the plaintiff's attorney mr he can i will rephrase the court shame on you don't do it again i am really surprised the objection sustained and this releases he's intentionally but it was time after time after time it wasn't just it was from the beginning of the cross examination you supply ship all the way through closing argument when not only did he make a mistake but he said that the only stated that  would never occur but that's not the law we got rid of so it doesn't say that this kind of would never occur it simply says that it doesn't normally occur with out negligence before for example in this particular case there's never been an instance where he's known of anyone operating at the wrong love all he said was that there's no perceivable that always it happens he said but in this case it does and if i can redress that with the argument before the reason why promoters testimony about pathology of those who becomes very clear now and now is st they try to say what was just an observation as you heard but it clearly was responding to gross beings testimony that when you got in and you saw that there wasn't the pathology  the justifications for however the very nature of operations is to operate at the right place it doesn't take it doesn't take a celebrated doctor to find out if i go into the hospital to have my broken arm chair i'm not it that's what the testimony regarding this kind of care was in regards to how rigorous of a come up even you have to look at it from the standpoint from a common even if it's a common lay person we didn't get into that because it just didn't actually speak about it she i'm sorry that's right he said i've seen is a few times but when you look at it he's basically saying that out of all these things you expect for them to know where they are you expect them to see where they are that's what they did for the fact for the fact that they're saying well i got in and now i don't know where i am there was no testimonies it said that he didn't know where he works or it's been testified that one could not see anything from the x ray marker it could well looking at the marker and i believe he was referred to the coca marker so basically what he does is when they go in they isolate whatever area of the most mind they are going to operate on he put musically as a clam in the air where they think that they need to operate on