erred in this case involving the hospital licensing the section ten point two in requiring doctors be offered improve physical harm to avoid immunity now you know i'm unity is an affirmative defense and so the harm one doesn't typically or ever prove him plead physical harm and a breach of contract action breach a patch ect is is what a doctor has to rely on because he has a contract with the hospital based means a course of action that shows actual or deliberate intention to harm or or it it or death if that intentional shows an utter indifference to our conscious disregard for a person's safety own safety or the safety of others no where in the statute does it say you have to plead improved physical harm in order to proceed in this breach of contract action the plain words of the statute don't say it we all know the rules of statutory construction the statue's clear and unambiguous you just apply the rules you don't look too x extrinsic evidence in this case i'm arguing both the plain words of the statute don't if you consider this an unambiguous statute court did in this case is ignoring the fact that the statute says deliberate intent to harm or or if not intentional and that it is not intentional work then conflated the terms yes well not necessarily intentional breaches of patrick but intentional deliberate intent to harm you can deliberately breach of contract by making a very ministerial error that's what this statute is designed to protect and did to promote patients safety but let's say you have an actor who is a pain in the neck adapter is always complaining about the haskell procedures somewhat of a professional jealousy sort of thing and so you think that's the kind of intentional contact with the statute is it just this is the professional jealousy that dr bill for did a lot of lip scrapping procedures at the hospitals he did more than anybody else by many times more that was his expertise that was displayed that was the aim and whether that should have been if you look at the legislative debates that they were imposing a regular definition of willful and wanton behavior i don't think they were contemplating anything like this so would you think they had something in mind here so how do you think th works in that section as you say there's a strong civil or which is the or perp mean deliberate intention to harm or if not intentional shows an other indifference to or conscious disregard for person's own safety conduct is not intentional there's this exception if there's a conscious disregard for a person's own safety and the safety of others  a little reveal like like the rest of us you know and it doesn't make any sense then when you look at it and say well does it make it him did you first of all you can look at extrinsic evidence and then you see the legislature in the limited very limited talk about the statute shows that they were adopting the regular meaning of willful and wanton and you can also say you know what this leads to a certain result because truly it's absurd then their claim was dropped there is only a breach of contract claim so i don't understand it now i think it's absurd you would never say i don't think the hospital has refuted the argument this is a situation where you're going to that absolutely the legislature didn't clearly show that it wanted to give hospitals the absolute immunity they used to give hospitals absolutely and if you think changed it to help this limited immunity i now this is every breach intent or the primary concern i think that the hospital's job would be to show that their primary concern was to protect patient safety yes but the statute is about protecting the patients that end it and if review so i think the problem is really that is that this concept of willful and wanton doesn't belong in the statute is poorly written and it's ambiguous no other state has a requirement for physical harm as i number of reason and other reasons mostly because again liberate intent to harm is not the same as causing harm it's just a difference the letter below the larson you know also relies on the statement that well the legislature argument that this is about reappointment but he has a couple of very salient facts first about dr phil first previous appointment expired by its own terms on may thirty first two thousand and two he went to work june first june second june third letter in the record saying yes dr bell for you has been reappointed and it's also true that at the end of the three day hearing dr bill frist counsel said yes be got everything thank you very much well he can say whatever he wants thank you very much doesn't mean very much to me but especially it was that until four or five years later that dr phil for received in discovery the screenshots from the hospital the computer forms the choate and by their own statements he had been reappointed and th is there any evidence about whether there's going to be robust review or not and whether that really gives them the right to get absolute immunity and i believe this is absolute immunity because the right to clear a jury relief or an injunction doesn't have  anything is very little protection it's absolute immunity you could have all the sham peer review you want now because there's no there's no remedy for a doctor you can have you can go and get injunctions they used upright right by allies but there's no no and the fact that there was previously a statute previously factors you have to ask those absolute immunity to me is also irrelevant because it wasn't ever challenged on special legislation grounds and   affirm and based on the federal statute the statute requires reasonable belief reasonable belief reasonable conduct and preponderance of the evidence and i believe in the case they rely on fire from the nevada supreme court goes in favor of fact or fail or not in favor of the hospital if they don't follow their bylaws and they have a deliberate intent to harm here there should be no immunity under the federal law i believe the two cases  the federal district court obviously you're not bound by them but they are persuasive authority and they show that there is some ambiguity here and that other courts and found even though they were motions to dismiss that summary judgment that you