and i'm here to plead with this court to reverse the decision granting summary judgment to defendant's rodman hammersley and watch for health sources when to start with defendant rodman the undisputed facts are that according to the prisoner witnesses that mr frederick sent complaints to mr rodman or a guard expressing suicidal feelings calling out for help  otherwise asking to see mental health practitioners so a lot of me just jump in right away and that the district court and certainly the state argues that while there was testimony from some of these other prisoners on his block it was actually not as concise as you just characterize it he didn't say i heard inmate so and so i heard you know mr frederick n ask mr rodman for cycle it's it's much bigger you know there at some point somebody is yelling at some point people are hearing things but whether it's said to your c e o rudman or  not is quite unclear and that concerned the district court because there wasn't enough to trigger rodman's responsibility to respond sure i'll dress does it mean he went to the front of the cell the way he was supposed to or does it mean he said i'm in here and fine or i'm in here and i'm not you know what does that mean interactive is pretty broad it means that you spoke with him and that's what he admits and what was exchanged during that interaction is the subject of a classic factual dispute because the president's claim at that time he was calling out for help loudly and rodman says he heard nothing like that so i don't know that the president are that precise in their timing that's what worries me and obviously it's a very sad case and there's no doubt about that but connecting what the prisoners are saying to what rodman heard is essential before we can hold rodman responsible for not taking further steps you know to address somebodies distress and against the record evidence you know rodman suggests that well maybe he didn't hear maybe he was in don't think that's in the record but in our view that's not material because he had myths that he interacted and spoke with him at the ten pm count when the prisoners claim mr frederickson was interacting with them and the reason that i think you know the district court's problem with the vagueness of the testimony was that she was unable from the records determine the exact words that some of these prisoners used and that it was occasioned by the fact that the prisoners were not deposed in the case and so their testimony was not officially made of it's not just what was said it was when it was said correct because we don't necessarily have any record evidence that says that the statements being made by mr frederickson was at the same time that mr rodman was that's correct i mean obviously if if if he's making complaints to an empty space and the rodman is not there to hear it and rodman is not liable but again like you know our view is that these kinds of issues are factual disputes based on the record and i think that of michael williams and i guess i have it memorized it but does say that it was during the ten pm counts but even if you doesn't the fact that rodman is the guard on duty and for all intents and purposes the only record evidence is that he's in the general area where these prisoners are held if they're going to come out and deny that the reason he didn't that it was some other guard who was there responsible there's no evidence any other guards were in the area at the time the only evidence of any guard being there is r the only guard it could have been was robbed and obviously you know if there's going to be some kind of dispute over whether he heard it or not because he wasn't there you know there's no facts to support that so let me get anything and procedural introducing evidence necessarily since they don't have the burden of proof on this point and the question then becomes whether the squint acting for mr frederickson has put enough in the record that a rational jury could say well we have an issue here you know is there a conversation about mental distress going on between fredrickson and rodman or not and the problem is  that this may fall short even if he's banging on his cell door to bradman hear him was he in the area how big was the unit how many other people were there what time is judge brennan points out you know did this all happen  so that's what at least has me concerned about this so from a procedural point of view have you gotten beyond that st step when the defendants move for summary judgment they say we don't think you can link up this communication with rodman of rodman has no idea that he can't be liable and then what do you come back with right and and so i think that what we come back with is what i've already stated and i'm not going to repeat it i know you know and and  about i'm sorry yeah i think that's you know look and a trial that's correct you know a trial we've disclosed witnesses we intend to call and summary judgment the defendant actually bears the burden to show that we have no case and they have to do that by actually creating record evidence to show they don't or that that they can your brain cell that there is no evidence i'm sorry i'm just saying that was the issue and sell it tex if they have the burden of proof and they want summary judgment they certainly have to develop evident but they can come in and say we don't think you can prove knowledge if knowledge is a critical element or we don't think you can prove causation and we don't think you can prove whatever it is and if they have pointed to the flaw in the plaintiff's case l a tech says they've discharged what they need to do and the onus of moving forward moves over to the party with the burden of proof here the plaintive right and i guess i would just respond that the issue of when the statements were made to the guard on the chair robin was working was not really an issue in the district court because what they actually raised was that there was no evidence to suggest robin's liability at all and they didn't even of michael williams that was presented to them they don't cite any of the prisoner testimony in the district court raising they just ignored to use you altogether and sought to shift the burden by making what was really an accurate claim that there was no record of it as they just didn't try to discover it  d to some extent we have the same issue when we talk about hammers lease liability because here you have life and death letters that she received that alerted her to the fact that you know amanda smith mr frederickson streeter at shawnee who she spoke to describe these letters as effectively a suicide note you have dr burns our expert saying there effectively a suicide no deny that and that's fine she denies knowing that it was suicide but that these letters were about suicide but she knew that she was he was at least in extreme emotional distress and she met with the warden and they decided to do nothing  transfer from the nd prison to the rd prison just the record reveal why mr frederickson was transferred from jacksonville to pinckneyville was it no substance abuse as a result of the needle in the shoe but the needle i think was a he was like some kind of handcuff key they alleged right it wasn't like a drug needle was my understanding but well the reason why ray's was this is the temporal sequence so june rd year rives at jacksonville is there some type of a distinction here between the prisons with regard to the treatment he would be getting or the programming you beginning i mean technique will sort of well known for abuse i mean i think that you see in the record in this case that prisoners were actually being tortured in the bathroom on the tier that mr frederickson was staying at and one of them had committed suicide a week earlier so you know i think that that's what he was referring to when he said he was afraid of going to pick people so you know it does kind of lead into this problem and the sequence of events that wexford health sources has which is that there is no policies that up to deal with the interest system transfer process and a severe the mentally ill inmate transferring from one prison to another it's it's obvious that they're going to need continuous complex coronated care between their treaters it's not ok to just ship them out and then the people at the new facilities at jacksonville and at picnics will have no idea that he was just taken off suicide watch he's given no medical treatment for twenty five days despite the fact that he was just that's what they were clearly on their psychotropic medications and they clearly indicate that this man is severely mentally ill and a lot of the jail population which is part of the fact of the record to e mail is mentally ill and severely mentally ill this is not an uncommon problem for them to deal with which is why it raises questions about why no one the staff at pick me bill knew that he had this problem and webster doesn't even try to explain that you know they don't try to distinguish argument objection applies to this case where you have a widespread inaccurate medical records and they don't even cite the glisten decision in their brief or try to rebut it well i mean there's about sanctions here but i want to go back i mean this one this woman debbie where by this time it's had pinckneyville yet i guess he still objects and she does a mental health evaluation accurately records that he's been on crisis watch accurately lpn and mary both evaluate suicide potential but they raid yes they write two times in response whether they've been previous suicide attempts or they know it well there's information that they gather once they're there but they but what happens is the offender medical problem list which is the document the witnesses testify they rely on to look at whether or not what kind of problems using made suffer do not have these problems listed on it and that's under spewed it so they're sending around these inaccurate medical records and that's where you have this report by dr sandy and dr stuart pointing out that this is the way the interest transfer system works on a widespread basis there is no accurate information there is no being transmitted on a widespread basis so they don't have the necessary tools they need i do want to reserve some time for but also may have run out but i think the court and expert dr burns who said that she has no criticisms of the individual expert employees and that there is no evidence that they deviated from the standard of care now as to work for the district court promptly determined that there is no genuine issue of material facts left in this case and given that they also this report also promptly determined that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that any policy or procedure or  related there too or the moving force behind frederick's and suicide so miss out on it could you outline for me what policies were in place they don't necessarily have to mean if i do you see has as a policy out present let's forget it was about that everybody doesn't have to repeat every policy but what policies were in place to assure continuity of care in these transfers ok yes of course you're st i would like to point  plaintiff's argument that there were no policies and procedures in place is wholly incorrect as you can tell and it's been in the record i've heard st follows ideas the policies and procedures and if there are any gaps that they're to wexford its policy the procedures will supplement now in this case and actually and all cases any time there is a transfer of an inmate whether that be related to medical or mental health issues the transfer summary is to be completed st by the transferring facility then it is received at the receiving facility and build out there in addition any time and inmate is transferred or actually it's an inmate risk received in a facility they must have any evaluation of suicide potential and that is also a policy or procedure now in addition to that advice or these are written down somewhere this got put in the record has testified to how do we know this these are testified to and specifically i can say that there testif to in ms hammersley his deposition and i can give you some of the citations if you would like to her deposition regarding the mental health evaluations the suicide potential what needs to be filled out and within that timeframe and i look at the deposition for example the mental health evaluation needs to be completed within fourteen days of an inmate being added to the mental health caseload for example when hit me bill as you can less than fourteen days partly ten days little less therefore he didn't he was not there within that time frame that their allotted to complete and based on the evaluations by nancy can know when she did the intake medication it shows that he had a history of suicide it also shows that he has a history of mental health disorders including inside the it's or it's therefore it's unclear what plaintiffs would have you add to that that is fully necessary to have prevented mr frederickson suicide which is why the key here is that there is no evidence presented by miss quinn that any additional policies or procedures or any changes in the policies or procedures would have altered the course of events in this case and that is critical this court in twenty one thousand dollars in the gab case indicated that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof whenever there is no indication that any course of treatment would have alleviated the problem and that is analogous to this case therefore that is the insurmountable flaw in plaintiff's case playing to the right to focus on the policies and procedures themselves and ignore the fact that they have to have a connection they have to be that moving force in mr frederick's and suicide burns dr burns excuse me stated that somebody can be suicidal one day or even one hour and not be suicidal the next in addition she's also that there is a degree of ambivalence and that once somebody makes up their mind it's almost impossible to stop that suicide and that's clear in the record and outlined in our brief regarding plaintiffs tell me mr cain plaintive had a clear plan to commit suicide in this case  and although tragic there is no evidence that that could have been prevented by any changes in policies or procedures significant distinction but in the dixon case there were medical records but they were not scanned in they were not readily available to the provider so even though the provider knew that medical records existed they had no ability to access them that is not evidence in this case in this case there is evidence that the medical and mental health records which again dr burns has stated  that there was nothing significant missing from his mental health records that those were transferred to jacksonville and subsequently to pick me though so the providers on site did have the ability to look at those records which is distinguishable from and regards to glisten glisten as important for a very specific reason and lessen the defendant which was courageous and they admit it that they didn't have any policies or procedures in place rather they went soley by the standard of care which as this court stated resulted in a total lack of uncoordinated care again that's not the case here the transfer summary is that is a policy a procedure that was in place and was completed in this case which contained all the relevant information for a summary of the relevant information related to mr fredericks and mental health and not to put individuals on notice at each facility that he had mental health issues and to maybe dig deeper in those evaluations of suicide potential again in no instance was it evident that he needed expedited or immediate a mental health assistance and that is something that dr burns did not disagree with she said that the wexford she was not critical of the actions by any of the works for defendants in this case not as in conclusion plaintiff akin to the principle of race it's a long tour or even strict liability although tragic that mr ferguson to commit suicide with in the custody of the illinois department of corrections it does not automatically equate to r argument that other inmates were willing to testify that they heard mr frederickson calling out for help after the ten o'clock around the time of the of the ten o'clock infer that mr rodman overheard any requests for any any noise it is how big the wing it is how many levels the wing is where anything was or the timing and so all we have here is that watched to jacksonville his nd disability she then had no further involvement in his care when she received a fax from his mother containing letters from fredrickson she saw them in her professional opinion as a and staying at jacksonville where their one is mental health and drug treatments which was his stated goal and was asking for assistance in that with current system work and she and her professional opinion did not