Amarininves., it's madning to hear, that in order to have the best chances of winning an appeal, we need to do the extreme opposite of what this board has unraveled thus far. That two issues of relevance should be chosen, but not from those which were reviewed at trial.
Why? If a patient dies and the Doctor is sued for mal+practice, do you believe the Judge should accept all pertinent actions taken by the Doctor, or limit it to two?
It's nuts? In a patent appeals case, the courts expect the latter. So if the Judge made 10 critical errors, we should limit her potential embarrassment to two. Perhaps she has a better chance of challenging those, or better odds of saving face.
ILT
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
