your honor's if i may i'd like to focus on two main issues in this argument the st issue deals with whether or not there needs to be a finding that  we provided any type of bedside here nursing here for patient care direct patient care and the position that he appellant takes is that they're not it's not need to be any type of finding that there needs to be direct patient care let me let me turn it around a little bit worse as you know i think there are no allegations that  shadow mountain employees knew about individual residence their conditions or care and so on as opposed to the avalon employees did i miss that is there some allegation in the complaint that evelyn healthcare the parent corporation russia we're of the building and was aware that the building would have residents or patients the direct names of the residents or patients or whether they actually met with them in appellant's position is not relevant here because if you look at the corporate case and you look at the adult protective services act erez forty six thousand four hundred and fifty five which cases have stated needs to be interpreted broadly you don't need an actual finding that we are aware of this patient in our building so so i gather your construction of the act that you mention is that just corporate ownership alone and control of a budget is enough to make the parent corporation liable in a case like this i agree but the facts in way beyond that because they make up the budget they make up the staffing they get when you say they make up the staffing i i i'm a little blurry on that note is that mean they select the people who are going to be on the staff or does that  they do the budget that that sort of puts the parameters of how much they have taken here that's a very good question what they do is they allocate how many people are going to be at that building in terms of staff the staff went for many months and  avalon health care did more than just make up the budget they did the hiring they decided what the rates of pay would be an obviously if you're going to pay a c n a a certified nurse's assistant or an r n or an l dollars or three dollars more per hour you're going to attract for lack of a better word a better caliber of applicants which translates into patient care well i guess i understand that but we we have lots of our employees are subject to categories and grade levels sure that but that doesn't mean that that the administrative office actually employees all of those does the hands on employment of all of our law clerks for example i'm just not understanding whether whether they pick the grandparent company decided who the people were w to be tired or whether they just decided the pay categories and they basically said you can't have an a v o and if you need a van driver to go to dialysis to take patien dialysis we have to make that decision that's that's in the record if you want to attract more experienced applicants who have worked in different buildings and have one thousand and fifteen dollars or twenty years worth of experience it's going to be a higher rate of pay we're going to curb the rate of pay so and then they made decisions they made this is about equipment a quick meant that is directly related to patient care now this is this is a full case let me let me let me be sure i understand of course i gather you would admit that under arizona law you have not pled alter ego liability right not not in the complaint o really talking about is the implications of back right right and you believe the action be construed very liberally and that there is no requirement that the parent company actually know and be involved in the care of the individual patient right well they they actually are if you look at the health care reforms that have avalon health care on it and if you're position is that they are they are involved they are there not that they need not be but that they are they are having there's a risk befall assessment form and i can give you the the e r it's eighty five and ninety eight where he tells the building staff of the nursing staff to rate the patients risk for falls and says a score of ten or more indicates a high risk then the form which again was drafted by the police says and must be care plan so there dictating the care to the staff in the building so let's take your particular client sherman i guess right right where is the allegation that the parent company made specific decisions regarding staffing or didn't care about your client well that you your client the husband the allegation is in the complaint regarding the care of mr schirmer while he was a patient there and the record the forms the testimony that came from the depositions from michael morris from the from the dio and it all points in the direction at least in the light most favorable to the plaintiff at least for a question of the trier of fact did this parent corporation orchestrate have a hand have a say have involvement in activities which translate into patient care to do your client my client yes yes my client did not have a bed pad alarm the which would indicate whether or not he's getting up and because he's a high risk  patient the deal one testified she asked for better alarms and only would get so many as authorized by corporate corporate in this case is avalon health care who clearly had a role in patient care so you're i gather your claim is that they had a role in that they made financial decisions that lessen the quality of medical personnel lessen the amount of care given to individual patients but may or may not have known about mr scherer personally right well there's there's nothing in the record to show that they directly knew of him by name right so i that's right get back you know you're saying that the they're require i understand your barriers to yeah you are but you're also see if i understood what you just say you're also contending that they knew that their budget decisions were affecting specific health care provisions or lack of her visions in certain circumstances sure how could they not if the deal when they ask for fifty bed alarms well i don't want to make sure i understand i think that's an excellent question but but but you know when they're only getting approved a small number that alarms for patients that are at high risk for falls they know that the decisions that they're making is a direct directly affecting patient care when they're deciding well we're go get a van driver we're not going to get a van driver for patients that need to go outside for dialysis and they're making a decision that the regularly relates the patient care and there were more many decisions here when we when they're going not going to approve an assistant director of nursing who oversees patient care in part again they're making a decision that directly filters or effects patient care that they knew that and they were can they were the controlling entity they were controlling the budget the finances the staffing the hiring decisions like i said the a t o and this is not some company that's far removed from the day to day cutting corners which staffing for these elderly people that are in need if they're cutting corners with that having an eight thousand and one in the building to oversee the quality of care for the patients if they're cutting corners by not authoriz supplies or equipment that patients need especially high risk for patients they certainly are there making business decisions which affect the patients in that building and their needs and their care you believe that since we're construing arizona law here and this involves air as well as a lot of health care facilities do you believe this is an issue that should be certified to the ers on the supreme court for a determination there well it has been addressed in some of the cases in the arizona supreme court but my position is there was ample evidence on the record and established and brought out in the depositions to at least at a very minimum create a whether they had a role in the day to day care i that that that's how you see that's what i think it comes down to basically and how could they not when they are and your view is that if they determine the but budgetary constraints and the nature of the person that the the and the limitations that they make on personnel  that that that is participation in the day to day care oh very much so and the patients are the ones that suffer from a plot as they get shortchanged if i think correctly you just sued the parent corporation not shadow mountain is that correct in this case why is that because shadow mountain building had been sold avalon healthcare had three buildings in the state of arizona by the time from what i understand at the time i got involved the buildings had been sold and the parent corporation was the one that was benefiting from that but if you did the shadowmen and no money there was no point in your judgment against it it's not part of the record but later on  it was represented that the buildings were sold and there wasn't much of anything there he simply understand your honor there's a few other issues here you're welcome to make them the new but you want to save any of your time so yes i will thank you good morning may please the court i'm blake miller i represent avalon health carrying on with me today is craig how your honour's the district court was correct in granting summary judgment because there was no evidence whatsoever that this particular grandparent this particular defendant did anything at all or failed to do something it should have done regarding mr schirmer and that the fact runs throughout the entire case this is not a case let me let me ask you a certainly goes this is a hypothetical but supposing hypothetically that people at the facility the employees at the facility with knowledge of the situation said to avalon we can't guarantee a proper health care in less you expand your budget and less hire x y and  and avalon for financial reasons or whatever said no and then the very health care problem that the people had predicted occurred are you saying avalon would not be the one that controls the budget told not it doesn't control no budget no and there's no evidence it did what's happened in this case is plaintiff has referred to terms like corporate or corporate office or they or the higher ups and when questioned to the poets there's only two policy even with question on this issue michael morris who is the former administrator of the nursing home and miss holmes is the former director of nursing and players council asked questions such as corporate corporate do something to is they've corporate corporate defendants ever linked to this particular great grandparent never not a single time and that's the point the district court focused on and said there's nothing linking avalon their subsidiary l the nursing home buyer is an asset or it's another level i don't know how much the organizational charts in the record but the way it goes is avalon health care  owns a subsidiary which owns another inc which owns the leasehold which owns another ending owns the nursing home i'm sorry i skipped a step it goes leasehold to the nursing home it and whose corporate i have no idea there are and there's nothing in the record indicating that well that was the reason there is coverage and i have no idea why the nursing home wasn't sued they go to utah and pick an entity which is way up the corporate chain in a different area and say that's corporate welfare let's just assume th the nursing home can't provide adequate care to the patients that are in it comes to the issue assuming corporate is the sanity it comes the issue well i guess whatever entity would be that the degree of control the exercise over budget michael moore's testified that they gave him input data when you set budgets you look at historical and he got from corp well the question was did you get that information from corporate yes that's not setting a budget but if that entity said i'm going to restrain you or you can only spend x dollars and even if that affects care it doesn't matter there is liability for that are both absa in common law that's not our case and that's really not out on health care inc it so basically your your your primary point is even if the plaintiff in this case people in this case is correct about the effect of monetary constraints and so on it doesn't really matter because they've never really  fide that avalon for had this control that it was in quotes corporate it was all very vague and indefinite and there are other levels that were not mentioned that if indeed there was control it was them  nursing information and the district court was right because the providing forms is simply different than rendering care and the district court probably understood that well i understand that but i'm still trying to get to a more interesting question which is left and standard answer to the question of whether or not if they could if they set the budgetary constraints on the nursing home this defendant is that sufficient to idea law firm of the person running a law firms billings don't practice law but if that back office says you can't hire a court reporter you can't file an answer we won't give you the money to file a jury demand that's restraint and or add a said you have to have five hundred patients they give them a budget that is sufficient to take provide care for two hundred i guess that would exactly and in this case there's no evidence that that type of budgetary control existed but we don't even have to get there because as to avalon health greinke there's not a shred of evidence other than its name on forms it did anything well it's a complete failure of proof from your perspective right absolutely and that's why certification to the arizona supreme court probably doesn't make sense because it's a lack of it's a it's a cellar tax case absolutely no evidence the you mentioned there was coverage in terms of shadow the management company the ministre toure's that's a separate case in state court as of this case we since day one and the answer and through his coverage and in depositions we maintain the same statement not the right entity people you separation of the aorta it's a very catastrophic event the blood goes to the chest cavity it is not a good thing their only disclosed expert in arizona in a malpractise case you have to have an expert in there's only one expert per issue state rules and you need a good time both proximate cause and standard of care that was doctor or a back row back carson when i took her deposition in the record she declined to tie in anything the nursing home did or didn't do the resulted in a already deception no connection whatsoever just a declined to go there that is again four steps removed from what this great grandparent may have done or not done if the nursing home did can be tied into it certainly  let me briefly address the death certificate is that was raised in the brief that were concerned because that raises a new argument here somehow that the death certificate is sufficient excuse the requirement to submit medical testimony under arizona law as i indicated as absolute required and that law to give the federal rules of supersede requires disclosures facts and opinions upon which they are based on the rule twenty six dollars the argument seems to be that a death certificate standing alone simply excuses that the district court's wasn't presented with that was never argued under the would occur versus executor case that has been waived but no your honor still under arizona the statute says that a death certificate this fax contained within a death certificate or private face evidence the facts even in their briefs the palace argue that what they are seeking is the opinion of cause of death in the death certificate under the statute only facts are presumed not opinions what the plaintiff has for an expert disclosure basically the general statement that a hip fracture can lead to loss of mobility and can affect life expectancy generally and as a general we would agree with that it's like saying that smoking cigarettes can affect your life expectancy i would rule that as well but if that smoker later there is no connection to the nursing home that would he stayed at earlier and there's certainly no connection to his great grandparent a couple additional points your honors dr horn opinion  our forty four which was disclosed history yours was a ministry to export that was disclosed in a timely fashion he did in the original report and then he that a supplemental report by way of affidavit after john tea report now he says he refers to avalon healthcare as the corporation so i play it right in the record he refers specifically to avalon warning you refer to corporate in his report which is part of the record he refers to avalon health care incorporated the appellee in this case as the corporation he says that pursuant to the federal regulations avalon health care incorporate incorporated the appellee is the governing body of shadow mountains the reason evidence in the record that we all are talking about the same corporate that's a that's a clue how can a next period pine on that sort of question a lot i'm sorry how can an expert opine on that it's a question of law from the from the record like what the regulations require show or do not show from the records and reports that need to be filed regarding well your adversary says that numerous times during the deposition you put questions referring to corporate and that he objected and said say ambiguous what you mean and you decline to ok i think your time is up any other questions by my colleagues we thank you all for your argument that a case just argued is submitted