resulted from her addiction and then he said i don't treat addictions that was plaintiff's only expert witness she was addicted she died secondary to her addiction and i don't treat addiction peace i think that what you're saying what i'm saying is as soon as their only expert says she's addicted she died second you get to the addiction and i don't treat addictions there's a gap in the proof because it doesn't years of disabling chronic debilitating pain who's two months post a major spine surgery but all the doctors agree she has to be maintained on pain medications for at least three months she's depressed she has a vacation for years she knew what helped her she knew what her body responded to she came in on that day and said i think that i need this i think that this will work for the discomfort that i'm having but does it you know that that's what the patient asked for and i will go back to what we're talking about here is playing a spirit of proof and we're not here to retry the facts of this case we're here to analyze whether what happened to trial whether the expat killed the ball across the does it work i don't agree with that fundamentally just a speech in ski all we know the general verdict we can't explain we will never know why the jury signed for it to be we know why they sign because dr tomlin sad she's not at risk for an addiction she's not at risk for misuse of medications and kills conduct in combination with one of those treating physicians could have been the sole proximate cause and i have to take issue with counsel statement that the defense attorney never argued that in closing he definitely argued that in closing he pointed out that the primary care physician was treating her mental illness medicating her for her depression the doctor like profit quoting to which time did not have a duty to treat her mental illness or to diagnose her is suicidal he also argued that dr phil misconduct in feeling to win her for long before it got to light outside the patient may have caused her death so we talked about it before trial started the doctor so tanian or other treating fizzy sins could be the sole proximate cause of this death we discussed it  closing argument and i will get to the testament and i will give you the citations to the argument where we did that that's why i think this case is like townsend and actually are the condition that jim carrey had no doctor who what the diagnosis would have been what the treatment what if and how the treatment would have made a difference in vanderhoof there was a surgeon who testified about the surgical technique that should have been utilized in testified in said if the if these good products had been given to the patient in a timely manner this is how i could have treated this patient in miller and encourages testified and said i treat cancer i can tell you how i would have treated diagnose to an addiction and if he could have winter off with medications there's the problem those are all the pathetic holes and dr retire wasn't able to carry the ball across all of those hypothetical excuse me counsel some things are these high the price degree opioids and he never ever made a referral to somebody else to evaluate her that doesn't carry the ball the full way and one way is the other thing i'd say here we're talking about what he did he didn't know i refer to respectfully the court can't sit here and act as a physician or an expert and determine whether what he gave her was proper and and you know on this day with this increase in medication and on that day with the decrease in that that's not what we're here to decide we're not going to decide whether you're on any given date he prescribe the appropriate amount of medication what we're talking about is did this plaintiff who has the burden of medical negligence case of establishing expert testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that this is addicted patient who died from her addiction that the cause of her death was secondary to they have addiction something that his expert doesn't treat  debilitating pain and she's depressed she's been hospitalized for treatment of depression we don't know what that psychiatry is with that specialist would have done with this patient it's his burden to prove that and he did it when he did prove that this doctor prescribe treating pain well counsel i'm so wrestling with you've got you're seeing one doctor for pain and that's she's at the point where she's not seeing a bunch of doctors anymore which she was really at the beginning nationalising one doctor and he none of that was heard by the jury plaintiffs have the burden of a stale mate you can't just say you should have done that and not proved it that it made a difference and dats where they felt could you talk about why they're not entitled to a new trial yes before i get to that if i can briefly and in your right justice i mean if you decide that the plaintiff didn't carry the ball and proximate cause the appeal is resolved because then judgement should have been entered in favor of the defendants the jury never should have gotten this case air he never said that the court improperly limited his damage evidence he never asked for a new trial and damages under twelve o two under supreme court rule three sixty six and abundance of case  that's forfeited any claim that that damage award was improper is forfeit you can't stand silently in the trial court and then come up here and say and by the way now i want a new trial and damages we know that in addition to that there would was not against the manifest weight and that's standard there was a lot of testimony in this case that jill suffered from debilitating pain she'd been suffering from it for years on that she was depressed she had been intent of the jury there was a clear zero all the way across the board and i say you have to specify the relief you're requesting and there was there was never there was never an allegation that there was any gear with regard to the damage calculation never and never a request for a trial on a for a new trial and damages that's forfeited under under the statutes under the rules and under the case law then let me address this so proximate cause instruction in the if there is some evidence that the conduct of someone other than the defendant is the sole proximate cause the defendant is entitled to those instructions ok the evidence can be slight linearity says the evidence can be slight the defendant doesn't a misuse of her medications he said she knew it was not good it increased risk for addiction he said this patient doesn't need to do it to have follow up with the psychiatry just a psychologist turns out he was wrong right all of the evidence came in in the jury's finding in the special in a rather tory could have been based on doctor time once conduct that was evidence of conduct of someone other than a party that may have been council and i'll point you to the argument in defense closing argument he said jill died secondary to a mental illness thirteen fifty six dr saul chaney and it was treating her for that mental illness thirteen seventy eight and thirteen eighty seven like mine was not treating her psychiatric problems thirteen eighty two thirteen eighty seven still suicide visited from seki a trip issues managed by other doctors fourteen  argument so accident caused but he didn't path to where he too on the jury was this woman had a mental illness that was being treated by her primary care physician dr rich minor admitted that dr white pot wasn't responsible for treating  depression well her mental illness the jury could have found based on that evidence the sole consummate cause of her death was the conduct of one of those physicians she hadn't seen at least the record doesn't indicate that she saw any other doctors after night september sixteenth of two thousand and ten no she did she's dr saltine and was still in the primary care physician in two thousand and eleven and still treating her for depression he was the doctor who was prescribing  antidepressants and he continued to see her through two thousand and eleven and that's a page for twenty years of the report of proceedings so the judge was right the first time the sale price of it cause instruction was him correct it's wrong as a matter of law to give it with good family members and we do know that in closing the emphasis was not on the individual traders but on the family so that we can look at you know iran is throughout the course of this trial there was testimony elicited from every witness about the involvement of these other traders i mean it was i mean in closing argument about their impact in the decisions that were made and how that might have john kerry they can establish prejudice there were legitimate reasons that this instruction had to be given not could have been given linearity says if the evidence warrants it you are entitled to the instruction and without to introduce that it would have been objectionable and irrelevant to the issues in the the timing of events on july twenty fourth played by ideas in this brief that the introduction of the timing of events was improper but we know from reading the opening statements from the direct examination of the family members by discussed before a trial started the judge had made a ruling that was an interlocutory ruling that required a timely objection during the course of these examinations there was no objection that issue has been forfeited that timing evidence and we know from the events of bad day that she was laying on the couch israelis eleven am continued to lay on the couch unresponsive moaning i think there was testimony she yelled at john at some point for hours and hours and hours she didn't die so the timing on that that day is relevant to the cause of death if it was an opioid overdose she would have been dead within two hours of ingestion and will be suggested that she took more medication later on that day so it was relevant to the cause of death with regard to the closing argument plaintiff open the door during his closing argument to the timing of events he never objected to the defense closing argument never once that's for and it was an issue it was an interlocutory order it required a continuing objection you can't sit on your hands during trial and not object to evidence that you think is improper or i do think it's improper and wait until you get an unfavorable result before you come into this court and ask for relief that's for why we ask the jury please answer this specific determinative question so that we can test the general project and that's what happened here if we accept plaintiff's argument then any time there's a will in a way for a million dollars but the jury finds that the so proximate causes the conduct of someone other than the defendant then he's entitled to a new trial but those are irreconcilable no that special in  controls it says even though the jury find this general very important for whatever reason we don't know we know one thing and that's that the jury found that the conduct of someone other than the defendant was the sole proximate cause so i would be inconsistent yes and you know what that means that the special interactive tory control no physician testified who treats the condition the doctor rich or says she suffered from that caused her death nobody established what the diagnosis would have been what the treatment would have been what difference it would have made the plaintiff didn't prove oxen a cause  of zero dollars that's never been challenged by claim never challenged in close trial proceedings not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the years of trial and testimony that was excluded concerning damages the that they'd stay for a few minutes answer questions about the case we're going to set down in our lives they answer questions about the court for just a few minutes if you don't mind putting up with that and then we'll leave and then you can