although that comes up as an issue in these types of cases no but you have to show more than malpractise cannot i mean if this is a malpractise case this now francisco you're out i understand that and i agree with that and i think that's a good all for doctors to use and it's not i don't think it's well below the standard of care doesn't really matter here because you don't want this to be a med now case that's not a good thing for your client but what can you point to in your summary judgment record that would support an inference of deliberate indifference to history and when i pointed out in the brief that this doctor and this prisoner had a four year continues giving this guy his medication for six more months the way it works is that family members bring the medication to the doc is this not on the formulary of the jail family members bring it to the doctor went there and that's that's what we have to have him not just first time not the first time in one nine hundred ninety seven there's no evidence of a seizure the second time that he took them off he was only in jail for three days so was taken off completely off the drug before he was back out and being treated by his normal physician the the third time is the time that caused the problem and we know in the way the doctor took them off without telling anybody on the staff to watch out for this particular political period of time which the manufacturer says to the doctor is twenty four to seventy two hours after is to sh and there's no my name is patrick lang is my represent the absolute dr lancaster there really there is no delivered indifference to any serious medical need when mr burnett comes in the jail in the middle of november of two thousand dr lancaster meet after being weaned off the drugs with no seizures or other problems in two thousand he was back in march and it was more than three days he tapered off for over a week this time he comes in and he's going to taper him off again he ha said that he knows there's a risk it's point four we submit that's not a substantial risk but nonetheless you acknowledges the risk and not with deliberate indifference but instead he carefully tapers it for a longer period of time this time dollars yesterday yesterday and that's after quick or immediate cutting them off the way to deal with it in the recommendations across the board are don't make them go cold turkey taper and that's what he did he saw him again the other mental health death saw him there was never an indication that he had another serious medical need in connection with the tapering or anything else but why w drug that can be used appropriately effectively for panic attacks and i believe there may be another declaration in support of the motion to that effect as well e december second when she was called in by the jailers saw him concluded he didn't and she did not need to call a medical doctor and then he comes into the pill line at six thirty in collapses and has injury dr lancaster has no subjective awareness that these problems are going on she never calls them so he can't be held to be deliberately indifferent to any medical need associated with this reaction occurring at that time instead what he has done has never been deliberately indifferent to any medical attention and he should not be held liable for the claim of violating this gentleman's due process rights or the constitutional prescription is cruel and unusual punishment when i ask one question  where the drug is being supplied by jail or by the family this went on this occasion he was arrested in montana and transported to butte county he brought his own supply when they bring him into the jail they take those dr so the wanted it true ok thank you or thank you morning your honour's my name is michael deems and i represent the county defendants and this will be brief because i think we're sharing our time  the plaintiffs claim against the county defendants fails for two reasons two fundamental reasons number one since dr lancaster's decision to taper her debt xanax was not the result of the liberty indifference it was therefore not unconstitutional there is no liability under men al if the act complained of there's not unconstitutional number two this gets us to the drug holiday issue from his then acts and at the same time replacing that with a mr mean that does not even fall within the definition of what's been described as the drug holiday so any written policy on the record there's no the cake that he never he reported complaint to he reported complaints to the county the term dr holiday as we understand it was coined by either the county itself did not do anything to implement that policy it was not county employees that were using the policy the only issue was really in terms of whether there was a policy or not did the county that there was a treatment modality called drug holiday and should they have done something about that we're just assuming for the sake of argument what if there was it's not at issue here there is no causal connection between any thank you for your argument your time has expired all right this matter will and i have a load versus john ashcroft cases number zero three seven one five zero seven zero three seven one five zero eight zero tyrant we're back in session i understand we were looking out here and i didn't know that you'd be here we have a number of visitors of september is that urban high school and where is that and what year students do we have well thank you for joining us so we always like to see students here i mean i know it's probably not quite as exciting as watching some of the shows on t v but it's every bit as important if not more important and that you know we thank all of the council for their fine arguments today but i think probably as you've seen and a palette courts we're not doing the trials we're not actually hearing the witnesses or doing any of that  that's already happened before people get here in front of us so we're dealing with the legal issues and i know sometimes if you haven't read the briefs before which we all have it it doesn't maybe sound quite it and i'm glad that you know what are we so probably that may not have been an issue that you were aware of but the federal courts have been waiting for the supreme court to rule about the federal guideline we're you know a lot of times there's a period in the law after a big decision comes about that we talk a lot about it in the courts and decide how what the supreme court now when they get it anyway i would like to call the next matter and that