judgment and it's a matter of law on the issue of prosecution he's awful to find so what is truly extraordinary in most cases the issue of causation is a question of fact in this case there are several to render an opinion i prosecution of for his health need for medical treatment the illinois case law says that when the relationship between an accident and an injury is beyond the ken of the average juror or requires knowledge that a juror generally la expert testimony is necessary this supreme court in the case can view the state of the bear said that in most cases it is beyond the kind of the average and the boy can come court harped on the fact that the human body is complex  this is particularly true in cases of spinal or back injuries the case of brown v baker contracts a cut on the plaintiff's arm versus a back injury whereas the lay person can appreciate that someone cut their arm in an accident and can appreciate the fact that it is a cut on the arm for lack of a better term and diagnose because they cannot do so with a back injury and here we're dealing with the spinal condition that i in my neck and i said before the accident i didn't have a cut i didn't have a laceration on my neck required plastic surgery later on and i don't know what c shattered windshield or some piece of metal that's part of the accident lacerate my neck and i'm leaning on whatever and that's how the paramedics find me and there's no i think that's an issue that the baker court was addressing the obvious cuts the average person can see that someone is cut after the accident the average person cannot appreciate that there is an internal back injury that happens one time or another suffers from some back complaint and those have been accidents probably associated with an accident that the rest of us just have to suffer because y question the jury's supposed to also consider the bias clearly the plaintiff had a financial stake in the outcome and in claiming that ali all kinds of injuries resolved this resulted from this accident you need to have an expert even if this court says that an expert wasn't needed in this case those are the reasons for that you know proximate cause is a conjunction if it must be established for every injury and for every medical bill and by failing to identify those injuries what we're specifically talking about is confusing to the jury and it just the ruling just didn't make a lot of sense and like to address a second issue on a on addressing interactive verdicts on medical specials but there is the case of baker be hudson i said in my brief at that case the trial for directed verdict on medical special damages and court of appeals said that that was an error because there follow up for treatment when he went to the chiropractor it was that for all of this attorney when he completed his first round of corrective therapy he was twenty five or ninety five percent approved and then there was almost a year and the court said that those factors were enough to create an issue of fact and the directed verdict was improper in our case there are much more compelling facts to support that the play fifth was overstating the severity normal he did review an m r i and this m r i revealed a preexisting condition that was significant and that's a factor in this case that wasn't present in the paper hudson case but it makes the court's ruling on a motion for directed verdict especially inappropriateness case dr holmes testified that based on this preexisting condition there was a ninety five percent chance that within the next twenty years and he's next twenty years he was going to require three condition and this supreme court said that even if a prior condition doesn't negate causation it may still be relevant to the question of damages because the jury could find the defendant only liable for that amount costs also included etc they didn't treat the jury should have been able to consider that at least they're also fact that the two thousand and ten treatment was not relieved the x here we're talking about a two and a half year gap in treatment before they get in treatment after her said the plaintiff was the star patient he said go live happily ever after and there is a two and a half year getting treatment during this treatment the plaintiff was working as a painter he was hunting he was fishing fifteen minutes for closing argument and then i give you five minutes and you have fifteen minutes and i stop you enforcing its rule in terms of management of baquet if i did it to you and i didn't do it to other people or i didn't do it to your opposing counsel and so forth could be an abuse of discretion i don't understand how this is how you're turning this is a sanction it seems to me it's one could argue that it is simply look you have to be the person i think who was before the for a reason you have the opportunity to move to continue he could have instructed you to move to continue your office could have done so given that opposing counsel remained silent they might very well have said we can kick this week we talk outside to present the jury but i'm not going to let you question witnesses or arche how is that a sanction there requires notice other than the notice that was already received well your honor first of all the shows how what how is it unreasonable what's the prejudice what's the the root which you know one could do also going to say and there wasn't a defense well your honor it was highly prejudicial i ended up here at the hearing on the rules for summary judgment or on the motion for summary judgment the major issues that do not have to deal with all the medical bills and all that sort of thing we're talking about for years that this guy was complaining of pain and suffering case there were three doctors that were qualified and in as far as your comments regarding my client's hiring the firm the discussions regarding who was to try the case trial lawyer is different than a lawyer that might argue motions and that sort of thing i think it's commonplace that you have a trial lawyer and then you have a lawyer that of the other stuff so i see that my time is out i think  state but you know what we're not going to force you know the name for that rule is clear the attorney then intends to try the case rule three point five shall appear very clear i agree with you just disconnect issues why are leader been sufficient for him to say i don't want to hear from you counsel you scared that final conference you can try to case but i don't want your opinion they could have asked the question dr understanding that you felt that you were it was a medical necessity the standard care for you to perform the surgery or do the correct  before the court at the time of commotion and lemony so the motion lemonade was really just limited to the fact that we could not argue the right side now and the evidence was there in front of the jury now we don't need to argue every theory of the case and order for the jury to consider that a motion in limine a did that preclude the jury to consider it if it was not a directed verdict on the  the surgery and the fact that all of the medical bills were related it just precluded arguments that the facts that were before the court in and of themselves were enough to give a reasonable inference that part of the surgery was not related to the has brought up that there was no testimony saying exelon hours were spent on the right side are x amount of charges were spent for the right side well again that shifting the burden of proof it's the plaintiff liable and reduce those damages accordingly it doesn't say you need to have an expert testimony to distinguish well twenty five percent of this was a result of the accident and you know seventy five percent was not the jury's the terminations and any decisions made from the jury were after the fact it was after the fact that the court linked the two and a half year gap in treatment and said that the symptoms that the plaintiff was experiencing in two thousand and ten because i'm relating dr harms treatment her symptoms are related to this mo can so i don't know what your level of experience was before the trial but i would imagine having gone through the trial and you know the people that seem drawn me you're being year you've gained a good deal of experience and i think