into this world war and then march fifteenth two thousand and two in the absence of any evidence of a catastrophic event they at play fail those are his opinions and the basis of his opinions or continued and his testimony i'm which was fired was today at he had never seen a broad plate fail within one mile of implantation aat there was no surprise here during the in our written thirteen f three east bengal bill it doesn't contain this specific wording it's clearly within the opinion in his basis i mean that there's only one month period between february fifteenth implantation and march fifteenth when it broke and i've certainly been in one of his bases as he never seemed to break and then when he goes to testify that it's far  when the defense experts testifying they're testifying that it's oh we knew that these things fail within this period of time i see when there's the difference for us the second issue wrong it was two days later when the testimony was struck and i don't know if they were confused or they were confused and i don't even know what limiting instruction i would have so i got from the court the court just indicated that she then  certain testimony that your heard from the doctor and while there was nothing in the deposition dad said that he never seen or heard of the broad plea failing it was nothing in year in iraq employees that says that specific opinion i mean when a defense lawyer is preparing good defense they would you know they have to know exactly what the opinion sackville if you believe that that's the law i believe that that's the law and i believe that that's clearly what they knew i opinion wasn't disclosed i disagree because i believe that opinion is contained within the two thirteen specifically that i march fifteenth two thousand and two in the absence of any evidence of a ca that we have met there and based on the evidence and what occurred with respect to the second issue which is the fact that during closing argument there were a number of things which were brought to the jury's attention that have no relevance and shouldn't have been brought it all the least of which is call me a slick attorney there that is on call for air especially in this climate as we've said it creates an issue in the jury's mind that shouldn't be there additionally the question of when the lawsuit was filed phrase in not only during the case but i view the case was filed two years after clearly within the statute of limitation that's another attempt to tell the jury well something was wrong about when it was file and the third one which combines with the striking of the evidence of our expert is were you retained and that you didn't but what we're really here today about her three issues you hit on the problems with the plaintiffs two thirteen disclosures rule two thirteen is mandatory mandatory requirement  playfield she testified at her deposition that on the day this plate failed she was leaving her house for the first time to get to the bank in the late afternoon she had to go down several stairs both inside her unit and hold site she was ruling rather she gave counsel an opportunity over night to review the two thirteen responses and the deposition testimony of dr three he was allowed to come in the next stage she says basically show me show me counsel asked one question on direct examiner excuse me cross examination of dr krieger sort of as an introductory matter when this case was filed and when we retained to review the records that drew no objection at the time good reason for that is a matter and every trial lawyer knows that you have to waive the impact that your objection is going to have the jury you may just be highlighting the substitute matter before by objecting i understand that that's his position but what it denies the trial court the ability to do when you fail to have jack it denies the trial court the ability to rule to to instruct the jury if that was called for but instead waited until the post trial stage in a post from motion and then said after a result he didn't like i want you to revisit this i'm entitled to a new trial for e so what we're left with is an abuse of discretion standard on the two thirteen point waiver of the arguments and on the grounds what we have here is a classic jury trial with experts on evidence before this jury it's hard to argue that they were prejudiced by the firing of that basis for the opinion because that basis came in through other witnesses and it was argued extensively  plate so everything specific to the case placed a broad plate that is artifacts so then we get to trial and the new opinion was a broad plate won't fail in the first month that's not a specific if that is a disclosed opinion we have a different defense work and now we're doing literature searches to see what the incidence of this is maybe we depose some people at the product manufacturer see what their records are and broad place feeling within th abused it she put too much weight on so that's where experts were prepared to address best pacific plate in this specific patient in these specific circumstances it was never there were never heard of addressed the general literature a looked uncomfortable look untrustworthy you know look unbelievable so the response to that was he was being cross examined very aggressively very cleverly and the worst of it was you and that hans text the jest didn't feel that it was abusing any answers if i would have made any difference in this case direct secondly with respect to the slick lawyer thing why i don't think it's appropriate at all and i don't think that j f k would believe it's appropriate based on his civility issues bob it's not only the slick lawyer it's the slick lawyer in the context of well you didn't even head theory for three hit years and he didn't follow a lawsuit for two years and i believe that that would have made a difference in this case i it brings issues which should never been brought into the courtroom into the and i think that indicates that i mean you don't become uncomfortable for something in front of a jury unless you believe it's going to have an impact and i think in this case it did thank you very much for your time counsel thank you all the case will be taken under advisement with take just a short