federal court that it's too late to add us there and the defendants argued well there's equitable stoppel you can raise that in federal court defendant did not say we will not raise the statute of limitations issue if you dismiss the case but they  you well i think the court has thought about this a lot and has questions so i don't want to be presumptuous and start by repeating stuff that we all thought about but all of the try to be very brief well read read everything and we think a lot about what we're doing and we because our job is to get it right i i and my job is to prevail from a cycle that we're all really here sad to see get it right to i revisit the same bus have actually said yes it's the same cause it's about this man dying at the jail it's not the same parish unless it's like over the sofa yes ok you you admit today that these are the same employment defense then it's the same the same party if the county at some place says well these people were not acting within the scope of employment then it's not the same parties use those individuals or at least by the county or not  parties turning to the well i wonder if that's a consideration that is supposed to be taken into account this stage so at this point they're the same parties but were you if i understood what you just said correctly at this point  later and then could it possibly be account factor because there's the possibility that you might not get all the relief you're looking for well that's i think a litigate for three years in federal court and the district judge there says you lose on the federal claims and i'm not  but that that's what we we want that we want to proceed with discovery and getting just ready for it was a let me ask it is on the record before us which doesn't include he the fact really that you filed in the federal court ok because the record before us determine whether this judge should be affirmed or reverse ok and at that point in time before you go out into federal court after the statute of limitations it wasn't the same simply all of the issues and claims were played in the federal court this is a redundant pleading that's my position but well at that point in time there was no claim for negligence in the federal actually i believe there was if you recall from the complaint itself at every turn it's plett that all state claims are asserted in the federal jurisdiction the difference between the state or federal jurisdiction is that in the federal probe you do not have to plead all theories all you have to do is plead a plausible claim you have but there was no pleading of the medical malpractise case in effect that that there wasn't even name well that's only partially true because the doctor named under his theory of responding that's occurring or in the federal court even though the doctors conduct might be criticize that doctor may have you probably should have been added in the federal case and i would just point out counsel here thirteen months after filing a federal complaint to make the decision on whether he was going to have to the doctor before he found the state courts so you're saying basically that they can prepay under this medical negligence theory that the factor plural what he says about the sheriff is only that the sheriff is the word of the jail and therefore is responsible for that act in light of seeing things that should be done differently but the sheriff does not control medical care at the jail that's right i say what he actually pled is a claim against how t what he says county employees cost the harm in this state claim he's identified those employees that he's going to ask them directly ok and i have to go back to my you tell me where this complaint ever suggests that he that mr rogers die because dr williamson prescribed the wrong medication if we look or i don't care if it's notice or effect leading or what i want to know where you're saying you're going to find that that dr williams said this prescribe the medication and therefore  reached her duty of care and caused the death and then the subsequent damages resulting from her mistake you tell me where it's in the federal land if you take the federal complaint the piece of paper all by itself you to look at a thirty minute complaint we're basing everything we do on the record of us i believe but we're basing our actions i was the record that was before the trial judge and that record included the materials that i've just spoken about hasn't allowed thirty minute no we're talking about only whether or not the complaint in the circuit court was properly dismissed or if it was dismissed under some abuse of discretion that's what we're asking here medication which ultimately caused his death and the result of the problem is because of notice pleading you cannot look to whether the complaint provided that notice or you can do is look at what's before this tragedy they made the decision that these are the same biases the same parties and that the kellermann factors were met in order to do that she considered the briefs and the attachments to those briefs that were provided back counsel which included his second emetic complaints to demonstrate that he was in fact talking about a prescription error it's in the record that that complaint was filed and that he was talking about a prescription error and referring to the actions of a county employee that was before the judge if you want to just look at the complaint form itself certainly the federal court case the claim that the claim that's presented there does not inform anybody of anything  problem it talks about policy and i think i guess since this time change the policy was at the time this me and that was that you were not allowed to get your prescription medication unless and until you about the briefing of the motion as wrong as a moral argument that in fact he did allege that it was a prescription error in the federal court because of nervous pleading he didn't have to he didn't have to inform anybody at the time that  question is really not in this in this jurisdiction that's the federal courts question to answer yes and it's very messy at all militates aper office stay here once you either win or lose your statute of limitations perhaps th court truly review to decide whether or not what you're saying is accurate because i'm the one hand you're saying it's all they are it doesn't have to be let's this difficulty and yet at same time you're moving to however that's not the aim of this lawsuit this lawsuit originally sought the county has a fact that the aim is to get to a recovery of damages and attorneys fees in federal court because a big acts of our and traditionally has been an argument that the employee is not acting in this oh here's the problem with the theory the council's present we're not talking about a private hospital and contract doctors we're talking about a public all of the claims that they could bring already in federal court then why are you going to dismiss them on schedule limitations if the same time you're saying this all relates that it's there the action  they may not be dismissed sundered that that motion then there should was a personal motion made by the individuals but the claim will remain against the county that there is no motion to dismiss at this point the county for breaking up medical malpractise  is castle she was an attorney who would help set policy well i would differ with the court with a justice on that the president's office is separate from the bureau of health services the president's office does not set she i had heard it and other times but i don't recall it being said on this case ok that if the if dr william send mr oliver get kicked out on the statue of limitations you're still going to get complete relief from federal court because if you win your cause of action through court the they're on the hook under responded