by either the patient or the qualified health care provider, and the jury, as trier of fact, is free to accept or reject any portion or all of the opinion. Everett, 359 So.2d at 1269. In the present matter both parties sought an all or nothing ruling on the admissibility of the panel opinion. On one hand, plaintiffs sought to exclude the opinion in its entirety because of the panel’s credibility determinations upon which its ultimate opinion was based. In support of their position, plaintiffs cited the statutory duty of the panel and Third Circuit jurisprudence, arguing the panel, by exceeding its duty and invading the province of the factfinder, rendered its opinion legally invalid and inadmissible. See Whittington v. Savoy, 05-1169, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/06), 931 So.2d 1198, 1201 (<HOLDING>). The defense, on the other hand, argued the
holding that the language of the iad is mandatory and absolute holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language holding that the statute is mandatory holding a simple reading of la rs 40129947h mandates the admissibility of the mrp opinion holding the mandatory language of larevstat  40129947h presupposes the validity of the opinion itself