was a clear with respect to exactly i knew she was in her when they found her and she felt that most recent time but my question is do we know whether or not she was  i don't want to lose a lot of your time let me ask you another question there seem to be some i don't know i mix up with the exhibits as far as what made it to the trial court if i'm recalling correctly was it number twelve that contained all the notes from either the nursing home or the hospital and it was a real clear whether or not all those notes actually for exhibit because there were references in your brief in going to that in the record it wasn't real clear as to whether or not those were notes from the hospital or notes from nursing  like unified in seeing her fall at that point right and so we don't really know from home the history that that doctor you know that any i believe that he said that it would most  know you got out of that up by someone specifically but he said most likely it would have come from someone from the nurses are expert testified to that there was no no that she had been transferred back into that so there's the like nine seventy seven eighty five and both dr mather so do you believe it really comes down to whether or not there was sufficient evidence basically for the jury to find that there was no breach of the standard of care her can you repeat that so do you believe that it comes down to whether or not there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that there was not a creature the standard of care correct i think that the jury that you've been the care plan in place that she was a traffic area and i know there was some reference to twenty four hours of one on one therapy restraints and everyone agreed that that was not part of the care plan and that that was not but anyway and i'm just wondering was it really established that she should have been out in a high traffic area but based on whether or not you know she was even out of bed at that point  know absent an eye witness you know what else you show i think about the i p i this is circumstantial evidence is just as you know relevant as you know direct evidence i mean if you don't have stand that is the better standard for it and you had an expert on standard care defense rather an expert on standard of care there were competing opinions about what the standard of care required and whether there was a that based upon their expert own admission that they were to follow their own protocol that this protocol if it's not followed and be a detriment to the well being of the individual did your expert explain the proximate cause element the in other words if she had been kept in a high pressure pick area that would have prevented the whole the fall or did she nurses and i think this was more brought out with regard to that one on one care but i mean if you look facts we have an eighty nine year old woman she said i traffic area i mean evidence that came in for the jury during the jury instructions regarding anything else that took place it's simply a plane that we think the jury got it wrong and i'm glad you referenced that the federal standard has that's simply not why we're supposed to be here and that there were a couple of procedural issues we briefed that i want to save for later it's really that this appeal turns on what was before the jury in this case and we talked a little bit already about those competing experts and they truly were mean anybody who's looked at she's in a nurse's station that type traffic you know unfortunately nurses are busy people to believe the nursing home they could very well be in somebody else's room caring to somebody else so that's part of it but do you agree that back to paris testified that it was more likely than not that she fell and was not seen because she was not in a high traffic area honestly i'm not exactly sure she because i like to think that this appeal is really a formula presented by the appellate you poets formula here is that we have a standard of care established by care plan that the care plan fired high traffic areas care plan it's said this should be the care plan this is the the patients need space so that takes you the airplanes in this case there's a couple of them the reference in the brief there is no care plan document that do and both experts both plaintiffs experts and defense experts that would be highly inappropriate to use physical restraints ok but i mean just in terms of the evidence here there was no order for bed burials to be range right i believe there were other  cautions in place such as lowering the bed i do not have them members of my heart for you today and in fact our expert after reviewing the record said that we have done everything that there was nothing of airplanes and that there's a place in the dock and that the care plan that suggested i try areas which is not true actually there was a suggestion in one of the records from the facility that look let me ask you this question if there was a suggestion that high traffic area was important for her care and it didn't get transferred to the care plan are we talking about negligence there well it was in this it didn't get to this so therefore it's half hearted standard care well that could be very negligent for the nursing home not to take it from here in put it in the care plan you could argue that that wasn't our view and we also do have separate testimony this is just an element of their argument on appeal the testimony from our expert was that he acted appropriately that there was no yeah i understand where you're staying you're saying the plaintiff's expert identifies a breach  actually call him and they said what we do to prevent this in the future place or a traffic area so i think to argue that because it wasn't an a tool and so we were that was kind of a surprise to me so i wasn't there but then i followed up and if it does not follow that i have a detrimental effect on the care that is provided to that individual she answered yes and in this instance an assessment was made that if mary is out of bed in the wheelchair she was placed in a high traffic area correct yes in this instance we know she was found of a foreigner correct correct i testified that standard and i think where the jury possibly got hung up was with this talk of you know restraints with this talk of twenty four hour one on one where the whole experts agree you know was not appropriate under the under circumstances but i think all the experts agree that there was a protocol implemented and that frankly