the fact that emmaus how it actually is treated which is not something that a neurosurgeon treats it's treated by a neurologist he also talked about what the percentages of the chances were for the pla on the fifth morning i've trial a motion was made by the defendant asking it was kind of it was unclear to me what the motion was an apparently it was unclear to the court because it came out of a number of different ways rest of the similarity rule and whether then very simple to fix at the time of the testimony however six days later the day after at the weekend holiday it's not possible to fix that have asked that question or made the objection at the time and she did not make the objection at the time now the problem is that of course a jury has no way of teasing out something as because your honor the whole point of asking not objecting on a foundation question like that is so that he was in the weeds exactly well and you know it seems to me that that's exactly the opposite of what the court saying you never asked a question about the standard of care in the organ or county mental motion to limit the testimony based on that and so that was done and you're saying and i'm asking you  go well i believe that doesn't apply your honor that they should have stated to specific ground and that was one of the bases that we made our objection at the trial level was that it wasn't specific and it wasn't timely and therefore it's and i believe what happened is that that was cured in the transcript i believe that there was an objection to that and then i asked dr gross a series of questions about the interplay between the the motion for a new trial that she had worked with dr m starts as an x ray technician she had worked at the same hospital and she had been called repeatedly into the operating room where  and had been asked to point out things on the x ray and she had stated that that was something that made her feel uncomfortable because she was an x ray technician not a neurosurgeon and she did not go comfortable giving  only knew it some time while she was working at the hospital when he removed the president i after a surgery that was how she learned about it in my situation you know i don't i wish i had big how long i represent the defendant in this case three starters elastic issues first if i could sense it's at least fresh in my mind has to do with that he was not negligent so either that he was not negligent or that if he misread the x rays it didn't cause any harm so i think there's there's it's well there's no harm no foul situations in a way because this jury found that he read those x rays correctly or if he didn't it cost no harm you know the jury would have found that if if he  one i would have no impact on a person's ability to read latch on the death of perception which is relevant there was nothing submitted in opposition to jackson's the first question started that was something to the effect of what would a neurosurgeon see in these x rays i objected to the act on the basis of fat ation that was sustained there after in the next several pages other questions were asked for but can also never went back to asking what a neurosurgeon should or should not do they were rephrased in terms of what a neurologist would  i think if you take a look at the answers to questions and answers it will cast a little bit different light on where we were on that particular issue so your testimony that i've that you've referred through the question i think i believe it's not waived for this issue for this reason an extra witness's testimony on the standard of care is never sufficient unless it includes the locale evidence and i have no way of knowing at what point she's going to put the act in to the kids in fact if you read dr gross's testimony it's i'm not sure that he was ever that's good and substantively there were simply nothing there that related to a doctor and that's what he should or should not have done you know the question is do you agree with the substantive law well he was not asked that question well it doesn't make any difference if he was not a surgeon i agree with that he can expressed opinions under and under certain circumstances but they have to lay the foundation there a just doctor was aware of what a surgeon shared or should not do and in a locality like this that's the other foundational deficit sometime you ar concerning what he saw in the m r i and in the m r i me and my questions re simply a response to that act so in that sense they opened the door but and then the third and this is testified that that's part of his job even though he's not qualified to quote interpret and charge for x rays he does as part of his function he looks at expiration he talked it over with dr rancho certainly a jury is not going to think that tons of the tightening up that it somehow became part of the jury instructions which is that's exactly where it ended up it ended up in the middle of the jury instructions because he asked for the limiting stress on the last day of trial as we were putting the jury instructions together that instruction came out it became part of the jury instructions it is directed through the roof if you will i did not object to it under rule fifty one your honor i had objected to it and then the instruction somehow became part of the jury instructions because that was the next thing that happened in the trial as the jury instructions are to come out and you know frankly limiting instruction and jury instruction the only thing they have in common is that they're the second word of the sign and somehow off this instruction handed up in the middle of the jury instructions with that which then david i dand and very and do wait because it gives the impression that the judge is saying that there is something wrong with