when someone suffers from a stroke and what the symptoms are in fact he testified that he has treated people with stroke and stroke like symptoms before he also acknowledges the importance of early intervention and strokes and so what what happened here is during the roll of a period of here was whether or not the stroke like symptoms or symptoms that were consistent with the stroke got worse that was what he requested from that staff to communicate but what's most important is when he was initially told about these stroke like symptoms a position it forms a differential diagnosis but do we know from this record what the symptoms somebody would experience during dialysis w current procedure you're right it if i'm understanding your point your point i'm just trying to figure out you know what did dr kyra do wrong he's given inconclusive information or at least in his medical judgment it seems to information very early in the morning on the twenty first he says call me back no one calls back and then he shows up monday morning  more helpful to your honor's is a jury could have concluded based on the symptoms that were conveyed to dr kay early on the twenty first in the morning that it required it was incumbent upon him because he was aware of situation that dr kay or was was experiencing at that time whether or not so what is it that pushes us from medical judgment to recklessness in this situation i mean another doctor might have pushes it over the line from negligence from gross negligence from difference of medical opinion which might not be either one of them and it might just research there are at least three other possibilities and  you know if he had said don't call me back anymore and you know i'm going to go off you know punting this afternoon or something maybe that's the kind of thing that you need something to tell you you what is it that would allow it to say this is not just negligence not just gross negligence it's deliberate indifference and i want to go back to one of your points which is that if he had said i'm going to go hunting and i'm not going to come see this person that would be indifference and unfortunately what the jury would be confronted with in a circumstance like that is listening to dr kay or listening to whether or not what he says makes sense because in this particular case he's going to testify if he were to testify tri doesn't make any sense at all you're the doctor you're the only person that can diagnose you're the only person who can make the call to transfer this person to a facility where he can get the care so i don't think the that he would entertaining which was this his reaction to dialysis you know you fluids in your body you're all changed out in dialysis headache you know strange feeling in or major injuries and the jury will hear that and will decide whether or not it was reasonable that he did that or whether or not given his understanding of his background in treating stroke patients and the importance of early intervention whether or not it was reckless for him to based on the single telephone conversation that he had in the early morning hours on june twenty first twenty fourteen with the nurse because he was on call that day it was a saturday and also based on his medical judgment  and that's the basis for his question enough the nurse on the telecon of asking of the different symptoms and why he asked questions and that he did know that urgency was an issue with respect  symptoms and that's why he did not receive a follow up car from any nurse and it wasn't until he arrived at the facility during his normal working hours than on monday june twenty third when he arrived and actually greater indications there are some responsibility i assume by the nurse followed the direction of the doctor to place a further call and maybe i'm asking i don't believe there's any responsibility on him to have to follow up when when mr davis has had these type of symptoms in the past are not resolved i don't think that it was leaning toward it was an actual stroke i mean when that when he went through the four different factors of stroke on the telephone with the nurse there was only one that was indicative of the stroke and it was kind of and big position just because that's what's in the record there's no there's nothing else in the record about what the doctors k e r s responsibility yes i mean he didn't testify as to that at his deposition that question was not asked and there is no other it was within his differential diagnosis he said that he wanted to hear from somebody if there was going to be any worsening of symptoms he never heard from anybody about worsening symptoms but he was relying upon someone whose judgment and