your other doctor boffo did did testify to the effect that there was a delay and that this is the way by the nurse of cause or contributed to these injuries the delays had a  specifics the only thing that was remember was that the blood thinner was was ordered to be discontinued but nothing else we know of at that time it as to what the nurse was saying at that time as far as records we do know that these records she was recording in fifteen minute intervals zero paying zero pain zero pain from three hundred and fifteen to four o'clock so according to these records again these are black and white they're there pain all she said was all we can gather from this phone call was that she she asked dr every wall to come to the bedside and that happened it four o'clock so so this time frame and at that point mr nabors by the time he got there was in shock so so it was very difficult for mr neville as to articulate exactly what his pain was where his pain was and that that's why the testified that they had that not only went into the hallway looking for staff but also apprised nurse augustinian that he was in these this this terrible condition and he had this blank pain  the growing this pain in the back and these are all hallmarks of retro peel him and tom so so this time lag you know we make the point that that it's time is important but it's also an error of o mission and these these were critical symptoms that should have been relayed by the nurse to the doctor and they were not and this is the lady again is what started this this cascade of failures the was made and they're almost another hour and a half before surgery began so five hours elapsed between the st symptoms and the actual procedure just two to remedy the situation but there was that was that it was discomfort that was the word that was used that that nurse augusten excuse and that were she she admitted on the stand that discomfort is not pain those are two different things in her use of that word was very important because it did not accurately reflect what was going on and didn't make the reflect what was relayed from mr nieves from his brother and his son so that is why it's critical that she did not give that information and she admitted that relaying information from family members maybe if if they in from asia was there she says it wasn't there would be important that would be relevant but again to what what exactly is the link between these two things but you know we don't want to serve that this was a proximate cause because again it prevented it precluded the failing to relay that information that's where the onus is on the nurse because she did not provide this information in whether it's a ten minute window a three hour window again this  treatment lessen his chance of recovery and obviously the damage was was severe fifty four days not hospital he was a coma for for a couple weeks you know he still feels the input implications of the of this to this day  boffa gave that testimony the there was no chest in the testimony linking the nurse's conduct to the injury and i you know i heard counsel describe a standard of care type of testimony and that wasn't the basis for a motion for a directed verdict dr bopha never gave the testimony that any allege delay or any alleged failure to provide information by the nurse to dr andrew weil cause or contributed to cause any injury and he that not only it is they had testimony absent he specifically testified to her actions did not cause any injury and the answer is yes and there isn't a single word anywhere by dr bob g and of course of course this kind of testimony has to come from a physician testimony linking the alleged violation of the standard of care which by the way counsel said that there was a finding of a ten minute gap by the judge that wasn't that was a finding by the court that was near sketchy actual testimony so he made it clear that he had he came up with this ten minute gap but it couldn't have any impact as we know based on dr aaron was testimony and i have to also correct counsel statement that day after dr earle didn't know about pain he specifically said he knew about pain when he was at bedside page two hundred and thirteen of the record he specifically said matter it doesn't mean or as we know it because of dr it was testimony and it doesn't matter as we know because there's nothing there from dr paul so if anything there's a didn't miles that there is any causal link by dr bopha to the extent th council states that there's a question effect as to delay or there wasn't a question effect as to delay as to kind of the nurse and i think you know i think the key saw that we've that we cited in our brief is absolutely on point and this you know the we went through you know i i think we certainly tried to look at every single site that the plaintiff set forth in the plaintiff's brief and we about where this alleged connection was in the record now one citation we i did the same thing going through the plaintiff's reply brief where there's a couple of statements about yes the experts testified today and then n citation at all it's not there so i don't i don't see any basis for the court to to question the tried trial judge's decision and it  some sort of attributed that to being more correct in the plainest it is just not true at all i think i counted eight places in the hearing and a motion for directed verdict in the hearing the next day and the most reconsider where the judge said well i don't see it give me a page say i don't see it tell me more show me show me show me show me musta said that a dozen times half a dozen times i mean staging a teeny bit so it wasn't  the judge gave plaintiff every opportunity and i also know i've addressed the substance because frankly i think it's very clearly despise udev but there's a pretty significant procedural bar to what happened in this case and the you know the plaintiff's notice of appeal says that the plaintiff wants a new trial doesn't say who they want a new trial against but the only party who they could possibly want to a new trial against is the hospital but the hospital had it there was a judgment for the hospital and their judgment was never challenge so there is whether you want to call it a  trial one trial is are you getting against a party and there has been no request by the plaintiff to vacate the judgment that was entered on the jury's verdict so there couldn't that there's the only way the same defendant and here we are and then we have to judgment and how to win then what we do with that the jury already had has heard and determined that there was there was no delay that caused an injury plaintiff had a day in court any and the response today at argument they had plaintiff presented in the reply was it well it wouldn't be fair to to apply those doctrine what would be unfair about it the plaintiff had every opportunity there is now one bit of even argument that anything happened at the trial that was unfair the plaintiff had a day in court the unfairness there would potentially preclude the court from applying those federal court and so didn't you know no jurisdiction in the st time there was never a presentation of the plaintiff's case while the plaintiff certainly was able and fully presented the case here and the court heard the evidence considered it any question about what the nurse did or didn't do and we know that from galen cif and from these other cases that we said in our brief so there can't be any connection because the nurses and the person who's going to diagnose the nurse reports the symptoms  failed to notify the position of the change the patient's good condition so they had that failure again as i said earlier that's that's what started it started the ball rolling and kept the doctors in the dark as to that the doctor excuse me the nurse chalked it up to mere discomfort an issue she herself admitted discomfort is not pain and this information would have been in trouble to the doctors to start this process at four o'clock not wait three hours and seven minutes to finally find out what was going on so again we respectfully would ask the court to reverse as to the relief that we're seeking i was a reversal in the nurse's actions her her conduct here was yes because that simply was not not before the jury that she was she was it a critical role in this in this drama the fact what she did not tell the doctors i guess the doctors if there is agreement they would be out we recognize it or case