court with all due respect to that court found that there was no serious medical condition as applied to dr carter because this court has previously history warded referral out to an actual medical doctor our position is is that the patient was see the october th two thousand and fourteen b the patient was not seen by another physician for almost a year it was seven they short of a year i believe it was next seen by actual medical doctor october the ni thousand and fifty our expert dr ehrhart had a lot of different opinions about this case but overall his is is comment was the care was terrible the overall management of the case was inappropriate and he was critical of dr five carter now i call him dr carter he's an optometrist he is not a medical doctor he's he's an eyeglass doctor and a doctor that can test your contacts but in addition the doctor ehrhardt when the family found out that they that the patient wasn't being properly rejection and that that also has immunosuppressive effects that's correct and that i will confess that that situation seems to me even if it's relatively stable like a pretty serious medical condition that needs attention but what evidence is there mr donald suffered any harm as a result of anything having to do with d mr donald during that period of time when we've got the evidence of this later a very very fast moving infection the cause of the loss of the high well the evidence shows  normal range and they never one time referred him to enough the moloch just to see why the pressures continued to stay up now there was one reading that they did go down your honor but i think there might have been one that was down it remains to be seen whether it was due to the medication or whether it was due to something else but his pressures did come down but the redness you know i and so there were clearly some material issues back the court also said pointed out plaintiff has not who wanted the any testimony from the or the treating ophthalmologist said eleanore if i center the plaintiffs i condition required more well or more that there was a problem well if the requirement to proceed is to get the very testimony from the treating physicians to say that one of the screwed up that isn't required what we did is we had dr earhart of former prior present physician testify  so the court also said there's no evidence of an optometrist is unqualified to treat this condition well what they are testified to was the overall management was terrible and that carter should have communicated now because he's in a different status is his license that he's limited on what he can say but clearly ehrhardt testified that he should have communicated to the treating physicians or to a medical doctor and those are those are the i think the problems that we have along with the fact that we believe that there was a serious medical condition here at the court orders and there's no evidence from a qualified medical expert expert that the an ophthalmologist was required well it's not only dr ehrhart saying that but the doctor say sure said that and said get him to qualifications of his expert dr whose testimony was limited to managing and coordinating care for a prison inmate isn't qualified to testify as an optometrist or modest concerning specific care treatment now is the district court noted this presents a very significant problem before plaintiff can argue that dr carter failed to refer him to a specialist he must st establish that he's i condition required more than dr carter provided or was able to provide and dr erhard simply isn't qualified to make those determinations nor is he qualified to say whether ple do so i condition as it existed in september two thousand and fifteen was somehow anyhow related to the eventual loss of his eye this is beyond is his ability training as a physician now we have undisputed testimony from two qualified medical experts that the infection that led to the nucleation of donald was unrelated to the conditions that dr carter managed dr nim is just one example noted that the specific infection oral y the earliest indication of a possible cornea rejection or infection was more than three weeks after dr carter's last examination plane just expert is not qualified to contest any of those assertions if playing his claim for medical negligence in that survives summary judgment that it most certainly cannot survive at a much higher standard of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need brothera i ask your question about i'm troubled by the district court's finding in your argument that mr donald did not suffer any air experience any serious medical needs related to his eyes while dr carter was treating him we've got glaucoma we've got the most transplant freedom including the apparently the course oids to minimize the risk of rejection and we've got to cure the coma i'm sure i'm not pronouncing it quite right all was just conditions that seemed to require at least ongoing treatment that were the treatment itself raises risks of potential rejection so all that looks to me like serious medical conditions so that a complete denial of treatment would surely be a problem  that that's just simply not the law but to just to buy it on that in been patient there would that would clean up these cases real quick because unless they had all three of those those experts willing to testify then they couldn't proceed now there's not there's not an actual requirement that you even have expert testimony in that deliberate indifference case but we had d ehrhart he never never saw a medical doctor for almost a year and we can talk about steroids in and but and treatment for  dr carter was no more qualified to treat just complicated off some logical condition more than i would be to start up the space shuttle and that's the problem here you've got a situation where you've got a non physician corral him this guy and not let him see i don't think that's the law but just last point is if the court is going to find no deliberate interprets i don't believe the the court should have got it are our med mouth case against dr carter i don't think it was clear i think there's some dispute there but if