defendant is a doctor in this case was was properly allowed to argue that a car crash was responsible for nerve damage to my c to rist by anybody now by the doctor and now by the witness and that's really what would i find disturbing about this one would say well all this shows up because of this but but the fact of the barrier is it is her previous i can't tell you that and to say that atrophy can be attributed to the car crash that caused the nerve damage four of only half that we never saw never observed despite the fact that we have deep bruises becomes all who are just stretch that's the problem i've always had with this cases i've looked at this i brought my motion to bar i listen to to this man and speak in it always came back to the same issue  is it is all due respect mike my issue is that that's the objection that you pretty served in the trial record that's why i asked if you if you took the opportunity to do it at a later time no are you ok with that did is there anything in this record indicates that dr limber ever reviewed the and there is an objection relevance and he feels based upon the original conversation with the judge moments that if he's not going to do so what else should he have done well here under the law don't require more than th even if the judge had actually thought of denying the motion and there's no order in the record or any colloquy in the reports proceeding procedure or proceedings that shows that there was a denial even if there had been in order entered in their regard the objection is to be renewed again at the time of the testimony and you know the plaintiff on the sites to pieces on this point you the one question what is not was not an objection to the foundation for the opinion that the order vehicle accident had something to do with the findings of dr lynn byrd so i think it's very clear that there is no preservation of this of this error dr herdsman assuming it was preserved how is it not speculation that the accident had something to do with this failure we don't even have to get to this question about what happened in the motor vehicle accident dr hersman and dr fierro yet a perfectly legitimate and appropriate foundation for their opinion that quintessential versus car type of expert testimony testifies based on his medical records which were very detailed his own personal recollection and he trial judge who i have to submit in no way abused her discretion in denying a new trial she saw the a b a act of dr her spirit and dr fierro on the jury and then you know decisions of the score medical expert does not have to have them in the patient does not have to examine the patient it's a absolutely clear and you looked at all the records and he said ok according to these records this is what bertie's credibility because he testified they had it was important for him to know what he had done during the first surgery so that he would know how to treat this patient and the plaintiffs really didn't know she had accident and this was another sort of strange twist that the plaintiff seemed to be trying to shift the burden of proof to the defense by saying ok they cross examine a doctor hersman and there were objections some miss procedures is the plaintiff's supposed to happen at recollection or knowledge of what a doctor does a specially if he or she is under some sort and it's these you know i'm not sure counsel and if this is part of the before the jury a defense counsel is making the point that the plaintiffs in their presentation didn't address the fact that here we are and they don't  juncture because again it relied on a finding that the injury occurred during the surgery and this is exactly what the negligence the regular negligence  issues were as well so i'm like you're see your point is all of this evidence all these issues just to get to experts was present to the jury and they made a factual finding to get caught that's that's it i didn't do it something else must have done it but the issue isn't simply i didn't do it because it's that i want to a jury i would have to leave the army but i was left with the problem of i didn't do it a motor vehicle accident in which there was no evidence of the injury to her wrist that he sees he doesn't see this this bruising but he says that the perps at the time of the surgery i did this he did this i did this i didn't do this and i didn't do this he says does this medical record unusual if you're going to be doing a subsequent surgery to myriad it's already been treated don't you want to know what happened well i think he knew what happened there was a purple tunnel surgery with continuing and so his issue simply was what's causing the problems and when he opened it off and he said he suspected put it in one of the women further that there was a problem with prior surgery he was inject it into this is a car crash that had nothing to do with anything it gave the jury an opportunity to speculate as to whether a car crash which there was no injury to the wrist who would have caused a cut to the median nerve