i said i think often what he would have but i think it's important  it does your honor that's really nothing that's been raised by the government here and it's certainly something that with the benefit of counsel they did not raise a certificate of merit challenge to my recollection right and i think it's important to put that in context for a few reasons one it was never never addressed by the district court as is a ground for summary judgment but it is significant why for two reasons one it would be intentional i think with the decision not to point to counsel but more importantly the way this case essentially dressed it that way the parties brief that after the government lost the first time they had limited discovery just the the time in this issue and then they go for summary judgment again there was no real merits discovery so i think it's to have offered to taint an expert offered medical evidence at those that stage the p c so going back to the courts failure to address his medical negligence again the what the cause of the injuries those are the two pieces of knowledge that a plaintiff needs to have a recently should have had for the statute to start accruing and his medical negligence claim is based on the worsening of his injury not getting worse itself no no he starts writing to that from our perspective the you know the beauty is we just need to get two days when you just need to get from a second what he's told to be diagnosed to may fourth and are likely to may third because anything on may fourth would that if it hasn't gotten worse within that time frame or if there's at least an issue of fact as to whether it's gotten worse in that timeframe you can't say that his claim accrued as of that time and that's just on the injury oh there's the causation  which here as is as it pertains to medical negligence claim is that it was an adequate treatment he received the cause of his condition to worsen and certainly he could not have suspected the the prison unit where he didn't get treated or mersa in the interim are inadequate treatment i think it's a combination of things it's it's his requests for treatment going on heated which is reflected in a number of of the from this record is that he sent a request that was addressed to the medical unit it's unclear whether or not you actually presented but i would say that's just one piece of the negligence on behalf of the person of the health services department it's also when he didn't back present he said he had a history of of mersa they told him we don't need to take a culture you know that this is how this is perceived you're we just you know give you some antibiotics and send you on your way but clearly that wasn't working and yet they every time he he came he had the same right right culture to figure out whether they were just going to give you medications and send you one way and that's the point where you'd say something's not right as i'm not getting better and i'm only getting worse in the meanwhile and this sort of dovetails with the conditions claimed there are a lot of other people in this summary judgment and what i think is very telling is despite the posting i'm on the time in this issue there's not a page of his deposition transcript they attach their second summary judgment motion in support of the timing is it the fact that the one that did the couple page that they did attach were single affidavit or i think it's a declaration actually were prison officials six paragraph declaration saying i held some town hall meetings at some unspecified point in time maybe fourteen months in advance of when the stories are got is   i think the key is that the flaw in that argument which it's actually reduces to this is that if you're in control of good control by one entity and you get an injury you get sick just because if there were someone who right but there's that there's an assumption even in that that that it's related to the senate house sanitary the environment i think it's so fact dependent on what he knew when about merced and i think based on this record it's that he knew would be to ghoulish consequences because you would immediately start filing lawsuits or start digging through the government's files in search of wrongdoing and that's that's just that's not the standard that's not that that the causation standard requires who you have to show your claims not accrue until you have reason to believe that something that could be explained by innocent causes or natural causes may have in fact been caused by or another contributing factor is pointed out in our response brief we move for summary judgment also on merits and that's no one disputes that mr lauriston needed an expert and does have one button but that this issue gone on before the district court was it wasn't time we moved on an alternate basis it's not our fault that the district court didn't reach that as an alternative holding and there's no dispute on appeal that that would be dispositive thing now in this case i used to defend a lot of medical malpractise case and it was never an issue in the beginning as the case was filed that a medical expert was needed now once full discovery was taken if if i if you have a medical expert that was the end of it but it's not my understanding that this case is going ever got to that point well we didn't do for the scope i know that you know mr royce truth says that we didn't and that's because he didn't depose anybody or get an expert but we all exchanged documents we went through to around the summ to yours exactly which means the instant he was completing the form he had to have known it would be too late because the language in the form instructions say that if one is presented to the agency when it is received not when it is male so that is and the only way he could possibly get around the statute patients is if he could somehow she'll have to issue but again we're dealing with and i'm representing prisoners and his appreciation of some of the intricacies of medical yeah your honor i like to respond to several points that the government makes first and foremost on the appointment council issue the district court the best reaches order expressing that she'd made some attempts to appoint counsel i think it's very interesting to look at her language it's j a twenty six she says this court has made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain the assistance of a local attorney to handle plaintiff's case now the problem here is that the allegheny or association here in pittsburgh there were letters sent in by the attorneys who were contacted for in total and i think they're under seal but my understanding is those letters would express their recent why they were going to take the  a few other quick points factual issues that are in dispute the government says are not the government suggest that it mr oyster was complaining about his laundry coming back more dirty they take they rely  on some forms that he submitted to the prison in september october of two thousand and six we're talking well more than a year after he got most of what he's complaining about it in retrospect not any contemporaneous evidence that he had knowledge the washing machines were operating or they were there were not being operated appropriately under the argument that he heard the town hall meeting he did in his opposition to the first summary judgment motion say there was a town hall meeting and he attached a memo from the it was in that the bureau pieced mail room on may second we've got a different outcome and that's precisely the sort of discovery that council would want to have wanted to undertake and i think that that's an important point in addition to our legal arguments that the government's argument that he was complaining about his treatment from day one the second he presented in a on april twenty third two thousand and five again they're citing to his his form ninety five submitted two years later when he's looking back on this retrospectively it's not evidence of what he was thinking or reason person would have thought of time and then finally the clear standard again i i don't know how the government can stand by that is the  standard here for the reasons we saw fourth in our brief the miller case that they cite includes language that didn't even apply in that case and was based on case that decided after trial on the merits where the this record oxy has something that you all don't have the ability to