important and you'll hear me come back to you but in this case we will list is not route to the standard care in the healing arts community but rather a complete lack of consent with the treatment whatsoever in this case the prescription to ministration of medication c section she explained the medical personnel and her religious police printer from being seen completely naked by another man she was promised that her religious beliefs would be upheld she came to find out later that while she was unconscious  owners was in the room while she was completely naked and did their physical contact with her body she brought her case on the basis of the complete lack of consent to that type of treatment what's important there is it didn't the court didn't have to get into whether poor stated based on the facts in each case and expert opinion may not always be necessary similarly in the macdonald case the issue is whether the use of a certain capture device to the point it was unaware of was appropriate when she agreed to an it were really doesn't get down to something when the simple threshold has to do with expert testimony that we need it would corrode the purpose of sixty two by requiring it in cases where you have here a simple lack of consent as opposed and the family members could testify that this man who was in a failed state of health and was given comfort by being kept around his wife and being able to interact with her and other members of the community is big for law for her little quality of life being at being is circumstantial evidence but they did the cases are clearly circumstantial evidence is appropriate that often the existence of a conspiracy can only be proven by circumstantial evidence as the scatters is all the case that the court accepted the reasonable inference that because multiple people came out with statements against him a contemporaneous time you could draw the inference inference of the most inept secretively and decided to do this at the same time that there were no said the holster to case i think there's an important quote from that case that we need to keep in mind made of challenging implicit part of the medical treatment should not be able to avoid the requirement of an expert medical opinion simply by claiming medical battery or something other than medical malpractise played a plated medical malpractise against doctors to feed and when it didn't work they try to switch the facts in strategically to the need some facts of the allegations to try to turn this case into the medical battery  and yet and she wrote the prescription the inference is there but i don't know what the inference is that the court would be referring to that that the somehow there was some secret conversation let's let's write a prescription chemically restrain this be aware of whether or not there was a consent and what was the school with the consent most medical doctors would inquire as to whether or not there is consent for this prescription or whether or not it's within the scope of the consent good this is being the intended targets of yours you go direct that goes away and then on to the medical battery count we won't talk about the specifics of the relationship or anything that happened between dr b and the facility will just make this allegation will throw of damages or the air are brokerage whether compensatory damages are appropriate whether natural damages are typically appropriate depends on the facts and figures and so  e a reasonable person could look at these facts and say this particular doctor prescribe something to someone who specifically indicated to the caregiver dr should do now he's the police are almost be kind here lying by saying that she didn't do this intentionally that she didn't disregard for all we know the  is the issue of the conduct of the defendant beyond whether or not there was a consent given comes into play as part of the evidence in the case that necessarily the case the appropriateness of the calling by the physician which is the prevent frivolous lawsuits and is to be liberally construed to allow all claims to go forward in cases where a certificate for a good eight on a six twenty two state from another physician is not required that's the malpractise and there's negligence that everybody every day does the fact that a doctor goes through a snapshot if somebody is not medical malpractise even if he's on his way to the emergency room because he got a phone call so i think part of the problem here is we're looking this at this in part as negligence and not necessarily medical malpractise and the affidavit we believe i think i can speak on behalf of my colleagues in the affidavit that is required relates to medical malpractise where medical negligence it doesn't relate to laymen negligence or negligence that everybody is required to abide by you know  there is a lack of consent here what else do we have to deal with phone users of thank you thank you