department of corrections it was tantamount to a death sentence which he majors had an obviously serious mental condition medical condition under the liberal and different standard and that is a condition that the defendants knew about the medical record in this case is replete with references from the beginning of major says intake and michigan department of corrections that he had notified them that he had m s and even prior to that point  in his quick incarceration in wayne county jail he informed them to do in march of two thousand and ten that he had a history of and mess and the record indicates a history of stretching and three and stretching back to his incarceration in the minnesota department of corrections in the problem here is that that obviously serious medical condition was never treated i reference opposing counsel's briefs and there is an attempt to catch this case is one between doing contentions over the adequacy of the care which is how you eventually evaluate whether a patient has in the us and he received that m r i four and a half years later and in between there was zero treatment and then only that was your treatment there was no effort made even diagnose the disease there's mention of it by his medical providers that he had in the us if he did not take the basic step of getting him an m metals is that fair to say what was happening no there in the record there if you look at the persians i don't believe the full transcript is there but portions of the transcript from the estate his sister she testif efforts to get the records from minnesota in the hands of the michigan department of corrections efforts by the family the records correct correct what's in the record as far as what prison officials or medical personnel person in michigan to get the records from then appears to be unclear they i mean they knew the record indicates clear that they knew he was in the minnesota department of corrections they knew he was there for a certain period of time they knew that he was treated for m s because majors knew the drugs that he received at least by chemical name which is interference he informed them of that they had that is intake back when he st came in to michigan department of corrections and nothing was done then there is indications the record that the doctors wanted to get medical records and we should eventually get him an m r i but was never done he was never followed up again there are countless i don't have a record of him any high until april of twenty four that the vet then is that is true there is no record of a cape but the record does indicate several instances where he made complaints to treating staff the best condition  often go out from under him and that his hands are numb tell tale signs of the mess that conny should have known about that she didn't know about because he she had his m d you see medical records and his n b c medical records even maybe having symptoms of m s aug th two thousand and eleven worsening m s would like prescription injections in back for m s so it's hard for defendant economy to say she didn't know what was going on didn't know he had or didn't know that he had he's prone to relapses when the medical record that she had was clear there was a history there and that only that when he actually was there again with the two thousand december two thousand and twelve complain t there is a there is an affidavit from her and which he says i noted that he was in apparent remission and requested some additional medical records that were not in his chart an m r i report and that the physician defendants raise and to a certain extent the nurse defendants and that is that mr majors was in remission the only problem with that is that you don't know if he's in remission if you don't know the disease that he's suffering from if you have been diagnosed responsibilities is this court could very easily take a look at the guidance that the national multiple sclerosis society puts forth as to the standard of care for not for multiple sclerosis as does the mayo clinic and that is three things it's a three pronged approach that every medical provider whether physician assistant or doctor should follow and that is the moment you have a diagnosis which again these defendants never perceive is number one early treatment with drugs such as read death and i  in terms of in terms of what they can order an m r i or not yes and what this what what the care of the offer us to what level of professional judgment they are responsible for exercising even assuming and again i plead i don't know the exact contours of what a physician's assistant can do even assuming they couldn't directly order the m r i they should have at least made the recommendation to a physician  the record but after that there was again no measures taken to even as little as they news majors with the condition he had and they remind the court he was exhibiting symptoms at certain times of strength and they did not they had no idea what he was themselves reported to the medical providers and the nurses you've got to do something about this guy because he's looking really bad and that's around august of two thousand and fourteen the main point here is that nothing was done and the conventional treatment of multiple sclerosis is early treatment with repeat for van x which wasn't done ongoing treatment so long as the individual is tolerant if not we switching to a different drug and three vigilance none of those measures were taken and again these are standards that the mayor clinic and the national multiple sclerosis society are urged the court to take a look at it let me ask you about when the war claiming  and it takes lenore a month from major is getting there to an actual review just see major and at the time meters was exhibiting symptoms they could have been struck and nothing was done and even after that point even inter s majors to get the ball rolling to get what i would beg to differ after the august th two thousand and fourteen meeting it takes about almost a nother month to even have a conversation with the higher ups that this guy just even needs the bare minimum of an m r i to diagnose the condition he was telling them that he had for four years and again these were signs of strip were took two months to get him an m r i they had no idea what he was suffering from there is it's quite simple number one is that reason point zero governs the statue imitation is analysis the district judge resorted to state law and the clear case on this circuit and across the country is that the accrual of the statue imitations is governed fourteen and if that's the date we use or the claims against all the defendants come back into this case thank you thank you together he knows they're from twenty million one hundred and twelve thousand and twelve his argument is his gentlemen or ladies i have a mass i need medication because i got it in a different institution two and a half years ago so he knows this all a lot he could kites he could file pro se he could hire an attorney we get hundreds a year so there was no risk to him in the argument being made that well he may not have been of the mental  recognize that was never made there was no argument in the motion to dismiss when judge goldsmith argue or made the ruling that substantial imitation started ok started may of two thousand and thirteen that he was incompetent that the period told him in a motion for reconsideration when they raised that the judge said again he said look i consider their issue way one you never raised in a response the most into space into motion for reconsideration you don't give me any evidence whatsoever that somehow he was incompetent didn't know was right that's the only thing you could do was told that there's been no argument made of that so you know our position the case starts i think judge goldsmith articulate that well in the motion to dismiss and in the response or the addressing the reconsideration that starts in may of two thousand and thirteen so then we get to miska county so this could county he's transferred to  called facts justify this they either accept it or are they get what's called an alternative plan and then that goes back to the p d they could do whatever the p c also has a supervising position which they could go to the supervising physician and say hey we want this or need this or whatever so i'm not sure to make an argument that the p t a either miska county or lenore didn't have the authority to do whatever they felt their medical judgment they needed to do they could have done it but here's the fact the st time miska county sees him as a may st two thousand and thirteen he says i have a mass completely in remission no problems going on and contrary to what coun comes in to see miss county and says i need this or i need that he files a kite in in late april of two thousand and fourteen he sees mr carney a few days after that i think maybe eight or nine days after that she makes a comment in her record that she doesn't have all of the records necessary she's going to take in these records and started analysis and then he gets transferred now here's an interesting thing about transfer nobody knows when someone's going to be transferred that's a security issue advanced to the doctor or whatever corrections knows that they're going to do that so he's transfer to the new physician physician assisted mid level that takes over is  reviewed by a professional he obtains which are in the system doubted he looks at the minnesota records he makes the diagnosis that he should be on some form of biologic she does that  thirty nine dollars days he can't do it that fast in the civilian world right and we put a different standard upon people are corrections and say well you should have done this a ten days or twelve days and remember the  required but it's required when you're relapses become so close together that now the decision is you should be on a biologic because remember you're under biologics have a significant number of our expert plaintiffs have chose not to have any experts in this case and that expert report says in august when he needed to be placed on biologics he received his biologics when all this was done and in late september it continued to receive them all the way through we're looking at this now december come a practice case we're looking at this is the deliberate indifference so when you look at the county you have to say ok maybe  and should have were ordered something but under blackmore since it's not it's obvious you have to say was there any damage where there was no damage there was no additional damage no testimony that says this is a mass progressed significantly during this or caused any of these problems then you go to the north no no there's evidence that he's having these relapses more often than the standard is how fast did you act when you deliberately different did you ignore what how know he has at least two remission or two relapses now within a six month period of time you put them on biologics you do them forty nine dollars days you can't get any better than that i would argue even in a medical malpractise standard that's not medical malpractise that's good medical care in fact judge goldsmith argues that it would have been gross negligence for a colony or earlier nor to just put him on biologics because he says somebody else put him out and remember he was out of the system for two years there's no evidence he testified testified in the record indicates he was not in any biologic for that two year period of time and then he came into the facility so with that i would yield any additional time i have didn't address any kind of personal representative versus injured party discovery it didn't address that it addressed the does it run when the injured person knows the cause or the cause and the person who caused the injury that was the discussion no discussion about whose discovery it was between personal rep or deceit that was not analyzed in that case and to try to twist reason why no to say it was in december of two thousand and fourteen the record shows that mr majors constantly i'll say this he said several kite he said basically i have a mess i need this drug if you don't give me this  there's no complaints go to april and may have chosen fourteen mr sullum onsen get several kites about mr majors in mass what does he do he refers mr majors to a physician's assistant who can look at these problems about m s what does he do what does she do she refers i'm a physician assistant who can treat m s next during the boom that was shoreline she saw mr majors multiple times in two thousand and fourteen what does she do she refers him to a physician's assistant who can treat the m s she also treats constipation she gives him a wheelchair she does things a nurse can do give them medication the nurse can give to a proper medical thirty for other other things about as a mess he was sent to a medical professional medical records or ordered m r i was ordered a doctor reviewed them are i injections were ordered and the nurses gave the injections they did their job  they provided affidavits that they have no expertise it's beyond their scope to address a mass concerns besides the side referring them to a medical professional plaintiff relies on the facts of that was a screaming psychotic me and chained to a bath for four days straight in no air conditioning in one hundred degree heat and they said the nurses can't just sit there and watch they got to jump in that's a far cry from this case and this is their words not mine a medical malpractise claim or cruising the victim news both the existence and the cause that's one of the very firies were positing for special mutations as well we seem to be on the same page that's their brief  with respect to the issue of prescribing something prophylactically i don't get too far into again competing views on how to treat m s because in this case none of those treatments happened nothing happened with respect to treatment than this and again councils here he is a position to argue but there is no treatment done for m s when he makes the statement that the national multiple sclerosis society says you don't give drugs prophylactically that's absolutely true that's why you diagnose them that's why you get them an m r i which was not done in this case over four years so that's that's tremendous issues the fact that this individual mr majors is having a stroke like symptoms and then is you know getting an m r i nothing is being done so when counsel makes the representation that even in general society the timing would be great if someone is having symptoms of a stroke you don't wait two months to confirm what's going on you get him help now and instead it took taken needed to if the physicians are claiming they didn't know what he had until they diagnosed him you can't charge majors with the responsibility of knowing what he had he could have been having a stroke yes he knew he had a history of m s but what was he never done with respect to the mr majors not taking his drugs between the period between appeared time he's incarcerated with minnesota and michigan mr majors was an african american male from detroit his family history which is in the record shows that they did not come from the great grace of family circumstances and he did not have insurance so to claim that he somehow should have been on treatment for   s when he was outside of the minnesota from corrections is to me ignoring the simple fact that the man didn't have health insurance and again with respect to the expert witnesses or just like to say the district court never considered ex witnesses in this case so you can't consider the expert witnesses in this case and the suspect the expert testimony this case is entirely worthless because the doctor stoltz has no experience whatsoever in a raji and judge and a doctor