for thirty five years i've been seeing coming where doctor says yeah i do this for a living yet i recommend orthopedic surgery for hips yardwork the corporations  recommendations for surgery as part of his profession and he teaches physicians about hits me he's a teacher on it so he qualifies under the law based on it's based on knowledge or based on education or based on experience and ultimate test is is a beyond the ken of the ordinary juries he helping absolutely mean this is what he does corporations were lying under for twenty five years to   the doctor in this case who creepy don't send people back to work that's what this guy does he said i can patient medicine physician so his job is to determine if people need to go back to work if they don't people back to work if they need surgery if if you surgery that's what he's been doing for years there's not even any cross examination of the defendants no this is true they never cross examine him on it never asked or even were here or anything the questions of the doctor says hey this is what the defendant is arguing that they're cross examination proves he's not qualified ok proves he shouldn't be and there's a number of responses to that number one if i'm going to cross examine a doctor anything i get across we have a new trial if that's what's happening here now that's the failure to object that's a little bit more than just a good cross right i mean he's whole argument here is him dr cohen i said sure go can doctor  case where a judge the trial judge reversed himself and hell where is a doctor said that he could not state this is one he  and in this case they didn't negate that might be testimony because he said he made the future surgery he said the first surgery was a factor causing the need for a second surgery that was they did not the gate no sudden break in causation as defendant expert testified because you know what they say it's all really this is really after here so he said there was no break in the prosecution and he said he may have arthritis there's nothing wrong with any of this this man is experienced twenty five and your physician who been doing this for twenty five years recommends a reason for corporations patients and teaches because there's nothing wrong but then you get to then you get to what's the alternative here the guy's going to live in pain for the rest of his life at a level seven which is basically how contradicted he's got arthritis according to defend this expert and my experts and mike  saying could might be possibly surgery i don't think they did what anything about surgery would but there's no harm to saying you know we cited the lab in case we cited two cases where they talked about so there's just multiple reasons you know this is a one sentence this testimony was one sentence of one thousand pages where a doctor says you know i think you should go to a physician who can figure out cases we cited cases you know our feeling that the supreme court has said you know i want to be inviting judge shopping because if you if you're allowed insurance companies live say you know  careful when you're dealing with the discretion of another judge but should that you those cases deal with anything beyond discovery orders if they deal with new promotion for a new trial it did not feel they did not deal with discovery orders judge does not mention the standard of care regarding the success or judge every case i looked at all was concentrated on discretion of the trial judge it was let's let's do like this what if it were question and judge which could say well i'm what would be the question he would be asking himself i'm not trying to be cute at this i think this is important he would ask himself what do you think was there or would he say did i use my discretion i mean that would be weird to reassess that we have to find some kind of a change in fact a circumstance i think it should be addressed like every court has addressed it like hampton they just evaluate a special trial judge because to say that that a question it's you know that's like you have nine out of ten so we don't review the ruling if the if the if the the post road judge gives a written ruling granting a new trial we nor can we just  higher because he's basically crippled and instead there's some hole he's got three surgeries he's got to go through so the one is a diagnosis of or a surgery to be cited by another lot of these for about four years and he had a lot of he had a case then it seems high especially when there is this i know no fine career electrician before this accident so if if a year and a half years were seven hundred fifty thousand to fifty three year old man what is twenty thirty years worth by defendant's own much of this his should come in with more but there is a we made a huge statement backs about what this man is going three significant major injuries of which he is suffering from adequate cannot afford to get surgeries  did none of those other was a bench trial and the issue on appeal was whether or not the finding in the conviction first degree murder felony murder was against the manifest weight of the evidence the court found that it was not against apply the standard that that is typically applied in a post trauma motion which is whether prejudicial error occur question earlier what standard does the trial judge who heard the case apply when he's hearing his own reassessment as well on what i think it's crucial that that we understand that the successor judges can judge the post from motion on the same standard that the original judge would do it otherwise there is a change in the substance of rights of the parties based on the chance that there's an administrative change in judge and we can't have that they could not allow that in in hampton and it should not happen here there was here where we might be under an abuse of discretion but they're not using a standard they're just looking for error they just look back at the rulings they didn't make them because the trial judge they go back and say that's he's wrong  comes in and just says i see it differently i'm pursing isn't that isn't that unfair i think that there is the question of course addressed in hampton well that's what the senate was arguing in hampton and the court said no we can't accept that we have to reject that beginning and he said the video everything and he made a record that he was thoroughly familiar with all of the factual basis on the on the points raised what one of the thing i feel the need to point out on this precise issue  two they seem to be quoting hampton where they that where they say the decision whether to admit or exclude photographic evidence is reserved for the discretion of the trial judge that sub paragraph single space in that seems to be appropriation there's no more graphic evidence at issue in hampton suggesting this is a quote from hampton the order on presentation of evidence is that there is no no issue about presentation of evidence in hampton last against the pervert in that this and suggesting this is a quotation from happening it's not review another question  is retained expert in there to thirteen's they gave notice that he would give an opinion that the plaintiff will require hip replacement surgery in the future there was a motion in limine to buy them on two grounds pal just was not qualified to give an opinion on the repairability of a neck wound glassman held that a clinical psychologist was not qualified to give an opinion that the decision suffered brain injury now no certainly i appreciate i suggest of course as that these cases are highly effective and ok here we have not only this disconnect between he's really not qualified to say hip replacements ok that in addition to that there's just no foundation for this submit five point three million in noneconomic damages is shocking ok for a man who is able to work light duty for a man who testified that he's applied for hundreds of jobs for a man who under the the the strength test can live for three pounds you know shoulder height for a man who while true he testified that he doesn't enjoy activities kayaking hiking that kind of thing so he was  shoveling snow so a man was filmed cutting grass with a writing one more ok five point three million a picture damages from you can do all this ok i submit that shocking and i also submit that in context i would ask this court to consider that we don't just ants is it shocking or not shocking because it is shocking i think we take the next step and we ask that something go wrong in this trial that caused a shocking verdict and the answer is yes something went very wrong ok something went wrong on most every day in this trial ok because what we had was not only this this prejudicial air about hip replacement ok we had this time that the judge lynch found almost every day starting with the opening statement when they said thank you corey for finally admitting liability two weeks before trial shopping here we do we should use the hands of standard but be that as it may be ok what really happened here there was precious and most every day of this trial it was it was miss kind of the place of turning it was it was this it in the civil evidence and that's how we and i really want to be specific about this like i voted with and what i said in the record page c zero thirty six i said with respect to the   at page c forty which is the second point of the argument i said that this is the standard here is whether or not there was prejudicial error with respect to  really i want to say only that but i think that certainly it can be the case that prejudice only emerges at the end of the case ok we don't know that if you judge judgments didn't really know what  impact any one of these prejudicial things could have had until we get to the end of the case the animal up and say oh my gosh yeah so i think that it has to be that that the thank you very much again we're asking the court to form judge stuck in its order so they said you can reassess arguments i gree course you can reassess arguments serious as the arguments the i also want to point out the judge will get it in that say a word about what prejudice was because there was no prejudice injuries far worse there's no cure the fenice says you know there's prejudice because of the verdict but look at the verdict if that's true it's one hundred fifty thousand medical there's no way i'm a hip replacement shoulder surgery major s fine testified to it and then he says based on a reasonable degree to medical certainty i believe he will get me to surgery to be determined by another surgeon ok so the judge would say you know that's all fine now you raise all these issues based on cross but there was never another objection how my how my supposed to do something if you're not going to object you know what what am i supposed to do and that's what i'm saying yeah the cross examination we go to unappealing to say my cross was every little thing is being looked at almost everything the kind of talk about there was no objection it was the judge made jackson and then it's unusual in cases of him pick trying to piece for thirty five years it's not