and it really does not matter whether the breathing stopped first or the heart stopped beating first this patient goes into this quote with within a matter of minutes of coming up on to the floor saying that that was a critical the station i don't remember any expert testimony that there was an expert just when it was one of the other right there was testimony from both camps as to what they thought it originated the only person that was question was a surgeon by the name of mark who promoted who said specifically i disagree with those guidelines i don't agree with that our case law on oil is very very clear that when any witness is being cross examined with respect to learning free that a foundation has to be laid either the court has to take judicial notice of the fact that the guide and the problem that we're going to run into in the age of the internet is that there is a proliferation of medical information on the you know some of which is totally and yet will be allowed into evidence yes any article in the boat off the internet and a witness in the course of the trial can be questioned cross examined guidelines meant and on page given to dr aish who testified on behalf of the defense and and that the plaintiff was never allowed to cross examine dr ration about that in other words and i've got to thirteen disclosure i did i'll take the really works he's a live witness he's under oath he says he reviewed that transcript if you review that transcript then he should have said the article that was appended to the transcript that completely contradicted what he was testifying to on the stand but the judge the trial court would not lack the plaintiff establish in front of the jury back that article that supported the playoffs case and directly to call his attention that he or to the jury's attention that he had something in this file which he admitted to that he was ignored clear indications that the things he was recommending there was no proof that this case was tried on the premise that post trial literature can be used to cross examine on the issue of causation that standard of care there's three cases that directly these are sat out or bayda i asked my questions all had to do with the efficacies the fact of these provisions and whether they are up to whether there was efficacies they were off causation questions the plan of comes back and was allowed to bring out recommendations recommendations that came out six years after the moon's recommendations are standard here attention jury even if it's not all or even there's no requirement of authoritative if the expert has got it in his file is what that that's that's in our brief and you'll see that in one of his sections he actually adopt set theory for a reason that he should have been able to use other articles there are two other articles it's not just this article there's the so called  article that the code the phone who settled with settle out of the case is expert there was no foundation authoritative foundation for either of those either but certain witnesses so i don't think there's that problem we said about clearly in our opening statement the tuition and let me just touch on that a minute the proof in this case and if you want to verify what i'm saying go to the and i think it was is it more probably to the nub that this was a party  says that point two is it not of her as it's presented here he was allowed to cross examine on both of those articles was allowed to cross examine freedom now the your cross examining them with so even if that witness doesn't rely on the article doesn't like it to preview to be able to cross examine on it you've got to have someone who says this is an authoritative article i'll accept your word that that's what the case says that's not i mean it was used by both sides if there was there it was far more prejudicial to us as judge corey said in his order but it was to them when it wasn't prejudicial because of her people basically and i'm saying that h contained in any of those questions those were all or standard of care statements made in closing were objectionable that there was no standard of care with respect to post op repair of sleep apnea patients in two thousand and one unfortunately the trial court chose to bar all testimony of dr neil thomas on the issue of the standard of care completely despite the fact that that statement had been made in opening statement back to time as was