some third case in the morning in radio state of granted summary judgment to a doctor and a doctor are worried they questioned there and the question here is whether something in the record shows that dr r worried contributed to the use o there's first there is an initial bit batch of information then there was the fax that went to newman and preliminary facts and then there were the final records that somehow ended up at newman at a later date talking about the the initial rather than the middle section of that the newman and that's not what the allegation was nobody said iraq is responsible for carrying that document to newman that the way it came up of course was that there's nance was the one responsible for repairing that document  put in the document what was transmitted over the defense contention was that when you look at their stances testimony there's nantz said that when that order medical people said that's what it accomplished and although it was populated by a computer it was it was nonetheless the result at least according to nurse nance of her saying i've already talked to the doctor about th nobody asked her what did you do when you talked to that doctor if we had that further if i was there are probably of my opposing counsel was there and we could've asked two or three more questions we could answer that for you but we can't but our position is quite simply she  at least there's a question of fact about that because of the timing show the nurse nurse nancy and nurse nor we both talked about the timing of the preparation of that final order and those were prepared until after the patient was transferred so they could have gotten t don't one of the witnesses said on which the only way that they knew that the final words that last package had gotten there was because when they got back when they got human foundation's records it was there but nobody knows when it got there but we know it didn't cover the patient which means that when it went came in they looked ok those nurses want those records there in dance so they can get the medication moving right away if the if the final orders came in at some later date and somebody should quote that at a later date that would be i think another question not one that is part of this  yes it is still pending against newman and miller i believe those are the last two and that's correct and that of our inside he was never paul finance with regard to this transfer discharge function of the computer pretty populating what was sent over and not necessarily at conversation with the doctor correct no i would disagree with that because when you're talking about that very document that's one when nurse nanc was no discharge order at the time that the draft transfer order will sit if you have maybe i misunderstood dr our worries position was that that was simply a draft order there's nance was adamant about that if you recall she said that was not a draft we have to do that we send that over to the human nursing home because they want that information when that patient comes through the door that you think they want that of that they can get the meds in advance so it wasn't a draft  wasn't just something that was sitting on somebody's steps it was sent finance through the home apparently according to her with a i was approval because that's what the phone call with already would have been about would have been a distract and sent with the intent that they rely upon and how it might have been undone by something later on but i submit that's what the nursing home should have done if they got some different order at a later date that's a different question that i think we have here that's beyond the sc to the jury but she said she didn't talk to her so i don't think she had any independent recollection of talking to him in order to prepare that trash for she or i have i have to agree when you read  just what i just read she said doing when we're doing this these discharge orders and that's this order when we're doing them i think a jury can read that maybe when we are preparing these discharge orders we talk to the doctor well if that destroys order and that's what that would mean i didn't talk to the doctor i have no telephone order no you don't know i don't have an order i'm just transferring these documents all by myself that seems absurd i did so send a really good nurse so she didn't say that sometimes she puts  she say that she writes that and sometimes without actually calmly not changed a little bit and saying that well i didn't call that i can't that i get that i'd have to go read her exact words but the weird way i read those words was that she had she she doesn't write those things in when she's had no contact with that whether it's a telephone call or in the in the office before you left the house but here with you could be a telephone if she's talked to him if it means she talked to him here would seemingly have to be a telephone call as so as to this is that she's looking at the document and she says that means we've already talked to the doctor if she's ready to talk to the doctor it's about the discharge i think i am arguing that the jury can assume for that he's going to presume from that that they talked about what supposed to be in the district attorney because if they're talking about the proper information about the medication is in that order now whether he did or not is you know that's on him but whether but once once you realize that there's testimony that the doctor has got a role to play at the time of transfer i think the jury can draw the conclusion that people talk to the nurse right before the transfer either personally or by the phone you must have said something about that otherwise we're back to what i said before it's a renegade nurse and there's this prescribed prescribing meds or same thing taking something off the computer and passing it on which strangely enough but that's the record here that the people at the nursing home rely on and then everybody knows they're going to once you do something like that that standard of care means that you've got to watch what you're doing  do that we've already talked to the doctor so from that unless she was lying when she did just that want to answer she talked to the doctor she talked to the doctor about the destructive i don't understand why that would not be enough that that means the i think then the court would have to say that a nurse at the hospital is taking something that came into the hospital and passing it on to somebody knowing they're going to rely upon that without talking to anybody putting it upon herself to do that i suppose that's an argument they can make to the jury but i don't but that means nobody nobody put it in if she just did it by herself up that i don't think if you're ever going to buy that that's the issue i could repeat that numerous times but that's not going to advance my c aware of that if let's you have some further question genuine issue of material facts that would justify reversal based upon her testimony it's clear that she considers it likely that she spoke with dr r it some time in the process of preparing the document as facts thirty two she explicitly denied the idea that he had been necessarily then consulted and approved of its contents based upon  she said when asked so that means that dr ira was informed of the information the time exhibit number one and he agreed she said no i don't agree with that she continued continued to explain that it does the phrase order how how it came to appear on this document it came to appear on that document this carol systems automatically populate this for the medications from the time of admission on the disk charge medications up until the point that a final discharge order is entered that's in the testimony of both nurse nance and dr are there consistent in that regard they do disagree and that he says that he never spoke with her and that she said that she believes she  speaking to them in preparing the order and preparing the document but the fact is that that's not a material dispute between the two points now nurse nance they had to testify that dr ari actually instructed her to place him in on that order or at least that she had read the information on it back to him and he had confirmed its contents that includes all the medications at the time of the mission rather than the medication for her right has there been a change to the procedure that spanned use your honor and i don't know the answer to of our representation of the defendants in the underlying lawsuit that we would have reported on this deposition and its significance to carol's risk management officer i cannot represent to you with knowledge that the procedure has been rehab it's thirty two am june fourth and she described it as usually this sense because the nursing homes a lot of them haven't their own pharmacy so they're very very anxious to get a summary of  what possible medications this person might be on so that they can make sure they have everything available and they want also want to know ahead of time ok is this person going to be enough imo solution what's the code status that's why we're trying to get lots of oil that's it page thirty two of her printed by nurse mantz until after the ambulance records reflect that he had left the hospital we don't know exactly how that record got there but we do know that it was generated by dr laurie  completely system i don't think that a jury could possibly credit the claim bed at ten o'clock he issues an affirms an order prescribing human and then at eleven o two issues a final discharge order that is removed but his entire care with the exception of this ten thirty two facts was consistent in removing human didn't receive the boss battle is reflected in the records that were sent and she and we have this and in that document the first is north nurse northway who is an expert witness on behalf of newman rehab she testified in the context of explaining how the newman rehab staff's inferences were reasonable that they had an order from doctor are worried she was not testifying that you are viewed as some kind of independent significance in the medical profession as anything that the doctor must have been informed of all the contents of the but all of that relates to the level of communication between a nurse and ah yes you're here you're certain about that when you're certain that that communication testified but if if we for instance we were to obtain the phone records from the hospital to determine if a phone call been placed between dr ari and their snouts even that would not prove him now what if you create the same information without the information being fully communicated and there's a difference between it being read back and communicate communicate can mean a brief summary communique if you mean what's on here you know this is the standard this is the routine one it's got the stuff that he was on when he came in the last committee read back knees reading back the words that are on communication to conversation between the doctor and the nurse was there an obligation on the part of the doctor knowing that it is going over to the nursing home to say ok make sure coding is not on there because he's  he has that conversation i really don't see how the jury can infer what might have been said in that conversation without speculation because again to say on the topic so nurse nance basically saying that generally this on the phone means that i spoke with them i mean i understand that mr lee going over gave him the contents of it they were just saying i spoke to him about it that's not enough for the jury to say were it if they talked about it in any way shape or form the doctor have a responsibility to make sure that who that was not on their given that it was going to the receiver no your honor i don't i don't think that there is have it's hard for me to respond that your honor without engaging in and more maybes and that's not my position is the light but the the the difficulty is that again with they they that's true your honor we would have an even more congested docket if it were that this is a case where you have no evidence to support the idea that summary that removed then that that had it with it was consistent with all the rest of his care of course it's zation now it's so all of this comes back to the fact that deposition that really decide have to decide the court what the decision will be and i hope that i've been helpful in presenting on behalf of my client if you have no further questions i have to thank you thank you you always get points for leading minutes this document and say i agree with sol somebody looking at this probably a jury down the road is going to read this and say all that your stance was same and her testimony was that in this case he did see that document and potentially i didn't even read it back to him but she never backed away from the statement that i spoke with him before it was answered and that should be considered in light of the fact she testified just a couple of pages later page later whose role is it to didn't read it back that that this our case going here and her face just connect i understand that we don't have a very very strong case we have a case that may have some difficulty but we still have a right to  unless the court has another question that richard thank you