people involved in this particular scenario the reason that you brought the motion in in wanting to keep that evidence out and why it was improper in this case is that while the defendant is allowed to present evidence if they have it  the jury to decide correct then is up to the jury to decide whether or not you know which which expert and whether or not dr mance was required to read the prior prenatal records there is one allegation that the plane just made not to go in and of the evidence in this case which does not go to or all of the proximate cause defense because that would be between the defendant dr mannus and the plaintiff jeannie meyers and i think were a lot of the issues come in here and why it would be improper to bring in the third party issues is that in order for there to be an emission of evidence of so proximate cause it has to be evidence according to the hold and ready courts they had that was the only c thing on the prenatal record she would have seen the figure and then she could have independently verified the other mrs myers and or her husband so the point is no matter what shakeups did or didn't do there's no way for her to be the only cause because mannus was already involved in that it's his prenatal record that goes to the hospital so other jurors obviously obviously felt that it was incumbent upon the nurses to by the doctor  her two thousand and six pregnancy and while the defense expert testified the doctor minutes did not have an obligation to go back and look at his prior pregnancy records the plaintiff's liability expert testified that absolutely did and a cross examination dr weeks the defense expert didn't it that actually fifteen pages worth of that prior record what is what would have been the proper prior pregnancy records that would have been reviewed we know that in two thousand and information was replete with that is within his his file there's also the testimony of dr mannix himself that we believe is very strong and shows why he cannot have a sole proximate cause instruction in this case and testimony was solely that dr mans did not have an obligation to read his record that he was entitled to rely upon jeannie myers as an h k good competent adult to read inform him of her allergy and then he was not to this when he did the surgery obviously but so if he didn't see her that day then that information should have come from someone else that you're straight goods or something because he never they they did not understand it and were confused because i think the been that we should be very careful with the use of twelve for and the defendants are not automatically entitled to the use of twelve for just because there could be current or another cause it admitted dr murray as himself invented that he had just forgotten he admitted it was in his record he admitted that he had used pain for taken two thousand and one and when you have they have much direct that is what he is is improper but when you have a stronger argument if there contributory negligence instruction there i think it may be a different argument your honor i don't know that it would be stronger impropriety and that the track court's misunderstanding of the use of twelve for i don't know that we can rely on the jury to be able to make those distinctions with regard to he go page by page through his creative record through deliberate five years earlier will be expected to remember one patient of thousands told him five years or regarding analogy so what is also disputed is the testimony is myers and her husband that they clearly and unequivocally on the day of the delivery hours before the surgery told the nursing staff of this allergy told them how the reaction takes place with their concerns are that it was my obligation to communicate that information to document this specifically because if it's not going to create a record if i fear something that's a conflict with what i see in the previous record it's my obligation with the doctor knows who he uses a different type of take what she said that even if it was there she would go through her own protocol anyway yes and sam would include asking about allergies exactly and then whatever she learn cause whether that was the plan to fail in the community of the information whether it was the nurse if in fact she was clearly provided that information feeling to communicate that to dr mans the case law talks about the fact that the supposedly improper sole proximate cause instruction in rendering a verdict for the defense and i just doing some research the other night i say to the case of  no negligence then instructing us all proximate cause did not mat exactly what we have here the mere fact that counsel disagrees despite the evidence available that the court that the duration of instructed on the soul proximate cause instruction as i think you're on the point that instruction is very clear if there was negligence shown then you don't even get to the second paragraph about sole proximate cause it's only if you get past the a limit of negligence that you can consider sole proximate cause so there's never been a case cited really that says it's error and reversible participation in this negligent act is there any specific case that says this or is this just a theory in your mind it is certainly nothing that i've ever seen in veg one interesting thing happened during the trial which was  at the close of his own case i thought are we allowed to put on our own defense in our own defense expert witness there is a difference of opinion as to whether that's the standard and the jury was certainly entitled to reach its own conclusion based upon all the onus on the jury preview record from two thousand one of the all he chose to look good to see if there were complications during the surgery itself he looked at there were not that was of interest to him just to make sure that there wasn't a placental abruption of the leader something that he needed to be aware of that there were two times my year and then the next year the doctor made a point to come in the big x where he was doing the surgery now i know this would be pretty obvious when the surgery was being down but he didn't talk about why the is miner's credibility as to whether she told anyone the jury or the right to certainly consider the fact that nobody charted her documented despite numerous places where she was asked by the realities this tape allergy they could consider the fact that when d told on a provocation he took action and the jury can consider the fact to ms miers went to see a plastic surgeon about a major it down procedure just a couple of years prior to this she was asked about the realities and didn't bother to share with the plastic surgeon didn't share that information with the doctor so the jury can consider that in evaluating whether she really would have made sure or if this was just a statement she was making now at the time of trial because she felt it supported her case wh every question that was asked of dr don why didn't he say it was negligent for the nurse not to have noted this or done something so if she objects or she interposes objections to the doctor who's testifying is the standard of care and she also have to do it to the nurse who's testifying well first of all i did again by the counsel show me which objection to show more importantly the court which objections  would think you can should we have a case is this is it have to do each and every one because i mean there is also the counter theory that the more you object the more it becomes obvious to the jury that maybe the you know this is process a no the strategy often cause versus contributory negligence had no point during my argument did i mean to infer to the court nor do i think that i did there that he would have had to have proven negligent conduct in order to arrive proximate without the allergy she even testified that if the allergy had been listed on the prenatal record then she would have reviewed it and independently verified so with an action by another individual and his expert says he doesn't have to read through every note the cities have concerning this patient because it's this incident or this occasion not the previous occasion this issue so  issue with her with her stomach was at that time i think there well the jury may have believed dr mann i think that the evidence that that was prevented presented by the