time between you that's correct so we're ready to proceed because we're in this unusual format you both are arguing for four minutes we'll give you two minutes start and then we'll jump in with whether yancey had an objective least serious medical need in the form of difficulty breathing on the night of april th or if as defendants argue his only condition was a mild skin rash the primary issue before the court is whether there is a material  in the record as to whether yancey was suffering from more than just skin rash whether the allegations rose to the level of an objective an objective lead serious medical condition and summary judgment here should not be upheld because abundant evidence before the court including deposition testimony and a sworn verified grain so the n t was suffering from a serious medical need most notably difficulty breathing from an apparent to be allergic reaction there was angle evidence for reasonable juror to lamb on april th yet the repeatedly called out robertson i can't breathe can you please take me down the medical i've been having this issue with this outbreak i have puss in blood coming out i can't breathe can you please help me on paper on to die when he finally received medical treatment each an hour later and a b c s doctor told the n c you're breaking out because you were given the wrong medication you're having a severe outbreak and you're having some respiratory difficulties on page one even with the other evidence that we know he had an allergic reaction i mean sometimes people say i can't breathe i'm having trouble breathing and they go their doctor and the doctor says this is not a big problem  here take this take this medicine sometimes it's a matter of more urgency and there's no medical evidence here that says that evening he was suffering from severe respiratory distress so help me understand why is it enough to just take his articulation of the symptoms absent some medical expert in the record yes your honor they're there to answer that question the st being that in fact the record does support if he was suffering from a severe allergic reaction based on the fact that he was then taken off the medication prescribed benadryl and prednisone and admitted to the infirmary but more importantly the issue is that he was not able to provide evidence of his severe need on the night in question for the exact reason that he bringing this claim which is the fact that he did not receive medical attention and was therefore not able to document the fact that he would be suffering from difficulty exhibited and skin skin problems up to that point this was the st time there was an attempt really component to this and then later on when he was when he was examined it turned out that they they they and twenty two it was the the appendix it states that the doctor had recorded that it was worsening over two weeks so although there is some question as to what the exact allergic reaction was at that point it cannot be discounted a summary judgment because the only evidence we have here is his sworn testimony that he could not breathe on the night of april th and robertson had put forth no evidence contradicting any of the anti statement he wasn't seen until each now is later so the fact that eighteen hours after he requested there he was still breathing is not evidence that he was not suffering from a serious serious medical condition at two am there's also went wrong he was seen when he was being eighteen hours later sixteen hours later he didn't at that time tell the medical staff listen i had very severe i couldn't breathe with air at least that's not reflected in the medical records am i right about that your honor i'm not honor at the time that you would see eighteen hours later it was not clear that he was suffering from any respiratory difficulties however he stated repeatedly and his deposition that he had in fact been suffering from the respiratory distress the night he asked for care but his his symptoms here were consistent i guess my question was slightly different is there any indication in the medical records when he was seen in the infirmary eighteen hours later indication those records that he at that time reported last night i suffered a very severe respiratory incident no your honor the records of the medical records at least are only be notations by the doctor that described what he was suffering from at that time eighteen hours later but the doctor informed him you're reacting to the wrong medication you're having some respiratory difficulties which he reported in his deposition the fact that eighteen hours conclude that everything that he was saying was exaggerated out of panic which is perfectly sensible your honor the jury could conclude that the issue about whether or not he had from certain parts of his body was or was not present however there is no evidence showing that he was not suffering from respiratory distress and the record does indicate that he had a worsening rash but that is not the material disputed fact that would in the record indicates that he complained at that time when he woke up the next morning he waited all day and went with the beach is there anything in the record that shows that there was any any up complaint made between two am and the  there's no evidence in the record that he complained of respiratory problems to work corrections office in the morning during the day while he was waiting to be seen yes right under the yes because the issue before the court is is whether robertson recklessly disregarded that care the record only state that there was one interaction between robertson and mr e and p and then he  of the night this does not indicate that he didn't keep asking for help which in his that position he states that he did repeatedly continue to ask for help but that he received no responses from robertson and robert bennett stating that no reasonable jury could find that he was suffering from a severe medical need based only on the anthony's admission that he was not balmy convulsing or unconscious robertson doesn't try to argue that yet you claim wouldn't be viable if the records showed he had difficulty breathing he's only arguing that there's no evidence that he couldn't breathe that no possible reasonable jury could find that he could not breathe on the night of april th and that it's simply not the truth yet these observations of his own body may be exactly that this complaint he says that doctors knew his allergy with this it was clearly clearly recorded in this record and they prescribe to him anyway and then he went on to have a severe allergic reaction now that sounds like there were not individual doctors named point assuming the court agrees with us that this was going to a dismissal was inappropriate that does raise the question of whether yes you should be allowed to all men and whether in order to substitute the individual doctor and then of course whether that individual medical staff members that were responsible for his severe allergic reaction and that yes he should be allowed to move the amendment relates back to their number theory and the theory is that these these doctors were d in particular should have known acted recklessly and not knowing that he was allergic and in this multi vitamin they describe they prescribed