that all the claims that involved the supervision aspects of what happened here should have been screened and medical screening which was in effect at the time and the application of jones v wilkin really would indicate that when you have a chain of causation or fees that it doesn't involve an intentional tort that they the screening panel would be implicated at that  point the negligent hiring negligent training and negligent supervision are not intentional acts and this is not an arbitrary division either because if you look at truck insurance exchange as to the policy behind the screen panel it's increased insurance rates well intentional torts probably wouldn't be covered under malpractise policy that probably fade off into some kind of assaults or something of that nature so it's logical  these activities that involve first hands on treatment by a doctor and then the ancillary parts of it involve medical malpractise that it's not because the terminology involved it's because of the chain of causation in  so then humphries reply that nevada recognizes the torts of negligent hiring training in supervision are all very true but it's not relevant in the situation where they involve provision of medical care in other words these are fine stand now when when the case first arose it was filed the statute had this provision for screening before the panels current right now was for malpractise claims correct right all right or medical malpractise claims now what the nevada argue with respect what if you are you should have been screening both the negligence and the negligence supervision let's get that point that's correct so be dismissed if it's not attached next question asked by the court at that point was well what about the conferences for us to be held is that jurisdictional i think would be very hard to say that it is because there's a range of remedies for not having it on the other hand the entire scheme of of that replace the screening maybe taking this jurisdictional side i don't know really which way that goes because when you think about it if the purpose is to expedite the claims and the entire legislative history such as it is with actually attached by both parties i letter briefs it does appear that that the court's concerns in truck insurance exchange that it was a response to the insurance and all that were vindicated by the legislature late in later and saying well this is a better way to do it but you can't have that conference and less you have the affidavit attached which really goes to that another issue asked by the court for the letter brief and that is well  substantially complied then by having the testimony under oath and the doctor at the hearing any answer is no for a number aside from the fact that he doesn't come up with the conclusions that would be needed in the affidavit and he probably was not qualified properly as it would have been an expert for that's right ok hospital is defined as an establishment for the diagnosis care and treatment of human illness including care available twenty four hours each day from persons licensed to practice professional nursing who are under the direction of a physician services of a medical laboratory and medical radiological dietary and pharmaceutical services does the clinic meet those terms i don't think that common sense i don't think anybody would assume that the prison infirmary is necessarily meant to be defined as a hospital if that statute says but i don't think it's critical to what we're saying we're saying is no it's because it involve alleged lack of supervision training and all the rest was involved in the care by dr bass it's not that we're trying to say no this is a hospital is a hospital it's more that there's a chain of causation is involved medical malpractise but isn't that what we're talking about the supervision by whom and if it's somebody supervision by a hospital that's one thing but supervision by a person well except hospitals arguably are not in a supervisor independent responsibilities and liabilities for malpractise aside from just supervising physicians i mean they can lose the records for instance or they can make only maintain records which would be medical malpractise and in the case fund of out a so they they may be negligent in terms of supervising doctors but hospitals can have their own separate negligence for provision of health care and maybe the problem is the terminology we talk about medical malpractise but we're actually talking about health care provision malpractise when you look at the way they decide to because they say a hospital can have its own independent liability for it whether it had anything to do with the doctor or not so i would argue those are our distinct and could have been a different basis for liability but weren't in this nine two thousand two thousand and one there never was and it was never an expert we need dr amaldi was the treating physician he was supposed to pose as a treating physician with no expert's report and having not even reviewed all the medical records apparently from the deposition and so there really was no even substantial compliance with the requirement that we have notification of this expert and then i guess one could say well no harm no foul other than the deposition would not be able to be taken properly he was not able to be impeached with his statement we didn't can then not have another doctor look at the statement and so it really then leads into the who comes in the last second supposedly is going to establish the causation but then actually at trial says he can't really say it was well if that's the case how are we less than with other than apparently the district courts kind of lay opinion as opposed to an expert comes into play right at that juncture where he goes beyond he should've been in the sling as opposed to like a standard here i have a couple of problems with your arguments about doctor and all they want is t he was allowed to testify then you got to put dr goldsmith on and ok so i think that the problem with that is and that's why i didn't argue and publish things of here today i didn't really realize it was in the court the person who is trying to case now is getting ready is actually actual when he did the final stipulated changes to the pretrial order of the day of trial no mention was made of an expert and now it's pretty clear the court's to let him testify the point person representing the state basically is in the situation saying well judge you're going to do that at least let me have goldsmiths i think he's at that point doing the best you can but i don't think that mitigates the  it does apply to doctor but it doesn't apply to the state and the the finding by the district court that the state was is or had committed negligent refusing medical care at trial we would come find out the real reason why he denied medical care dr vass testified that mr humphrey had filed a complaint against him before the board of medical examiners and th he simply as a result that complaint was not going to provide any more medical care than deliberate indifference that was never allowed to be addressed at trial and in regard to the civil rights action because at that time humphrey again maybe he peed in letters too in that if agreement forms to mr smith requesting medical care these forms were attached to our opposition for much or for summary judgment where mr smith replied you don't need medical care i'm not going to allow you to see a specialist again as your smith was on notice he chose not to do care whether or not he could conceive couldn't conclusively say what to what degree it affected his permanent injuries you know whether or not mr humphrey would be in the same state that he is now  that if an altercation such as that takes place you take the inmate to the infirmary to have them checked out to see if there's any medical issues he simply did not do that he also failed to file a report which was also required the department of policy he simply turned a blind eye and did not take humphrey to the infirmary as he was required to do so by their their requirements to change their judgment under state law and finally i don't recall anything in the record on appeal relative to these numbers not being adequate or accurate and i would urge the court to look at the extra records pages twenty one and twenty two  contradicts the rationale for not having things screened because clearly even if it's of a piece the doctor bass's malpractise was essential to have the liability on the on the state's part it's because any of the supervision training and the rest was related to the alleged malpractise and therefore under the statutes to come in it was very illustrative of that is the jones case where here is negligent maintenance of medical records that somehow then causing this written and negative misrepresentations to be made to an employer same kind of thing if you don't have the hands on contact with the patient then you don't have the rest of it so clearly a person who's keeping medical records somewhere at a medical clinic who is has to have there is somebody who's actually zacky screen it's pretty clear that the doctors that are supervising dr vass need to be screened and i would make a correction dr bassett's never been t