addition to that it was actually a new opinion in that they were now being disclosed as experts who would interpret the she teaches this was a clear violation of rules to case insofar as the cause of death is concerned and those disclosures concerning the contents of the chart change marriage indicate it was with dr berlin then that there was a variation from what w disclose probably entirely disclose back in september of two thousand and eight at the earliest opportunity i think there's no dispute about this there was finally objection of the court promptly ashed that in light of the letter i should not have been surprised at the testimony but more importantly found that it did not constitute a breach of the two thirteen and allowed the  if and this happens frequently in medical malpractise cases one or sometimes both sides want to have the pathology results independently evaluate so they'll withdraw those from the hospital and send them out often times over protective  to their individual experts the c t scans themselves don't appear in the chart when you order a truck what they were referring to at the time of the original disclosures was their review of the chart which scans were in nobody's possession in the case other than st mary's hospital who was not part up till april of two thousand and nine seven months after the close of responses in april two thousand and january of two thousand and ten dr berlin looked at them and based on his having looked at them then the report of the c t scans that was consistent with death having been the result of the abscess in that there was no evident explanation that finding that which that was an opinion taken in the context of his review also of the deposition transcription which included the deposition of the pathologist who explain other than to the extent that that knowledge is to have a discussion with other members of the same their staff about it and based on my review of those c t scans it is my opinion that death could not have been his basic opinion regarding the cause of death did not change the basis for the pain and as has the court pointed out for yourself and will to thirteen requires  changed the part of the case in a timely fashion we could have brought in the radiologist change marriage and could have brought in an independent expert to respond to that are it never been in the case up to that point so when i said to the other of three witnesses who was in the best position to judge they admitted oh so when you why did i why did i not yes because we're in the fourth district i believe in the fourth district we have a clear line of authority in terms of what the obligation is well shot under rule two thirteen is that correct that that's true but solon hasn't backed off and in fact sided with approval to the call decision language and discovery information if you if you look at the narrow issue of the cause of death again what's what's at stake in that part of the analysis nature of the case the strategy of the case which markedly change riteish when now instead of relying on the records what do you seen at the time that the difference is now in addition to relying upon i with those other experts he is considered it himself and he agrees with that well no because that specific issue of whether or not there was a channel wasn't addressed in the radiology report well that's why he plays with but he agrees with he's now look at himself his opinion is still the same the the radiologist a st mary's is not expressing any opinion about the cause of death or about whether in fact there was a relationship between the infected to cuba dish and the such as and then he demonstrated to the jury how in his opinion there was a transmission of the infection from the state to the area where  granted his cause of death opinion wasn't any different but it was testimony that nobody else in the case on the defense side went to and which importantly something that the you move credit for a couple of reasons number one i'm i really believe i'm entitle to rely on the fact that did you ever ask i actually took several nurses depositions and you don't know what i mean the medical records are nothing else showed who these people were they did absolutely they did w talk unit testified she identified all of the nurses and in for summary judgment or directed verdict which respective the only evidence in the case was that presentation productive brylin then the one he was going to break prior to his examination of the c t c is that correct well the opinion is that it was going to go all on and never changed was that the  doctors experts on both sides interpret records when making disclosures it's not typical that you would say my disclosure is based on their own records and putting lab reports nursing notes physician medical records say we're going to be right about the records and everything that could possibly be included within the medical records you're on notice that we're going to take your best shot and prepare i don't think that's what two thirteen was designed to do that's a that's impact what happens when i'm not sure that's a good thing is the pick but maybe that's not what should be happening parties in this case all said the same thing that their opinion based on  to tell me about this motion for directed verdict is that the hospital yes your honor in this case pleading by the plaintiff the pleading that we were trying the case and i believe  all the nurses that worked in the hospital were employed by the hospital and cross examination came out number one that she wasn't present all of the times when there's care is provided and secondly that when she said that they were that both the clinic and the hospital employer system worked in the hospital that night that any nurses providing here why were there earlier answers and what your answer the same thing  examination during the defense case go to the issue of agency he didn't allow me however to recall her and by agreement that was done outside the presence of the jury but take part of the case and that's when the testimony all took place in which she identified the fact that this is this was her testimony all of the members of the nursing staff caring for patients on the trauma unit were in fact employed by the hospital all the bedside medical surgical unit interviewed care critical care unit and the nurses on the trauma care team were employed by the hospital and there's additional those earlier plates there was an evidentiary admission that has never been she was just speculating it really got is that he said leading fashion is an assumption on your part she said yes she's been there twenty six years of what it means leading fashion you can lead a cross examination of the answer yes a right one test and it needs to be a bright test and when you start making exceptions closure that's when we get trouble just tell me what the rules are so i know what i need to foll