generally back problems is that right yes it was and the plaintiff plane problems too were caught six region and does appear that pretty much the plaintiffs kept the prior back problems because the complaints don't have to do with the well back well that's fine because we developed a defense that was premised on the plaintiffs not making any ever experience pain or symptoms in the tailbone toxics area no never since june third two thousand boxes this collision with a truck have you continually experience symptoms yes i had well that's  because that seems to limit and narrow it as i think counsel is trying to do the problem of course is that when plaintiff's goes to the emergency room on june third two thousand and five he doesn't say anything about the cops she doesn't say anything about the body or he she says well i have pain in my lower back so we ask  experienced and so clearly the testimony is she began experiencing pain to deal pain on her two thousand bombs in the cross examination have a situation where and i thank you for the question because you really brought it to the nub of the case and this is a very simple and very direct case i think we now have a situation where the pla but the primary process of our expert testimony was that there is no evidence of constant genia from june third two thousand and five to late last of two thousand and five and that and we don't need another part of the box that's essentially that's that's the friends of of of mr shoes most of the women that you might argue this will take and i don't but it's certainly a much closer the question than whether we should have been allowed to reopen which i think it's clear that the plaintiffs testimony when she said i think of the of the bunny this is part of the low back the plaintiffs then told the jury i started having you know that because this is about the day of the accident i started having pain in the cotswolds or in the general area because it up at the time of the accident that cuts the legs out from under the defense at the same time the and you've made complaints about low back pain after the accident did you mean by that step and if the defense is allowed to ask that question to be blunt i don't think we really care what the answer is because in the one hand the answer is defense counsel and there is simply no expert opinion to support that all the expert opinion is contrary to what the defendant is trying to do in this particular case the same thing goes with the old and united the interior fracture of the superior and plate of l three that showed up in on the issue we had one hearing mr off his name granted additional time to a list of whatever other evidence that he could find go back to his is experts that question that presents some additional opinions the record but he was silent off and i think i don't know why he ended it seems to me that dr anderson would stick to his opinion that there was no prior evidence and that no evidence of any prior a very large color diagram of their region a body that was used extensively by experts so that we could be explained to the jury it's just not something they would understand to save that injury to the upper  hint whatsoever tying it that's the only thing is that it is not true that i want to just briefly address this issue of the history following the motor vehicle last the history is very consistent with the one piece of objective evidence showing very problematic injury consistent with the injury that ms will sustain in this particular case and her history throughout after she sees dr rock on the following monday thought those were the low back oh i hear they offer and the doctors who treated her before this motor vehicle accident knew the difference between those parts of the anatomy and the low  intimately very familiar testified that that there was no prior history whatsoever the standard of review in this case is clear abuse of discretion without expert testimony in this case falls wearily in the area of weekend which understand i understand the point and maybe things could have been done the point is that this radically changed the presentation of the case and when the plane hit said this after the accident because we're not allowed talk about for the accident when the plane says after the accident when i say low back pain i mean the bugs you can't talk about it before and the basis the basis of the defense here is that essentially low back means low back if the plane is changes that definition we ought to be able to talk about the low back whenever it came  morning so yes here in the middle of the case it's virtually impossible to to make the kinds of changes in the case that  into that area i think it's it's manifest an injustice if if the result is injustice there is an abuse of discretion and there should be a new trial in this case all i'll