drew williams suffered his tragic injury the allegations at issue are key it's the nature of the allegations that matter with respect to applicability six twenty two the allegations are not so stat yet but a trainer the duty would be so the idea that because of this about as you know i thought a train services person to contract doesn't matter under the statute applies the contracts in the contract is for frankly the provision of what i thought a train services willful basically cover up of potential medical malpractise this isn't a nursing facility like the ones where someone you know you're just never seen someone and you shouldn't allow them to get up from the chair the way that they did this is regarding a friend of trainers who under you to recognize i'm so they want to use their own language our primary issue with that was that it couched it in a way to withdraw certain inferences with respect to sas withdraw and recognize but i think please the court counsel mr williams just to step back a bit to give you some context on how it was that sort of get before you today or simply just the movement of the brain within the skull and we have come to an understanding and science has come to an understanding that when that incident happens and it's not recognized in the key the key word is recognized today that really terrible things can happen to the brain long term we've heard about what can happen neurodegenerative diseases like c t e that can develop but in  short term there's this there's the simple second impacts in right hands is that initial concussion when i don't recognize and then the brain is subjected to further because of frame traumas or any type of brain that even if what's called cell can cause those trials continue to assume happens to the brain while the brain is trying to recover from the metabolic cascade that is happening to it say a parent would be liable for not recognizing the signs of brain trauma so what difference does it mean if if it was a team down after who was on the sidelines he have to get  provide a failing ration and assistant all matters pertaining to the health of that and so i was watching lame tack itself specifically contrasted  with accelerated and excel assigned to the game and so latex had its own person according to the complaint that would watch for signs of concussion and so in this game in this instance healing it's by its definition means the restoration of one's physical or mental health when when someone who is supposed to be watching for s that's that's a close case if an athletic trainer actually is the one shining in the right me yet doing doing a visual field inspection doing this test if that's going on and that's and that's why i began my argument with the way that i did everyone in and around the game of football today and in two thousand and thirteen must be on the lookout for signs of concussion it's not limited  athletic trainers have a much broader base of knowledge for diagnosing ok i won't say diagnose and they are you waiting and detecting head injuries and a parent standing on the at students we're looking at ephrata training and what i'm saying here is that the standard of care is that whoever is charged with watching for signs of concussion should do so and in this case the allegation is simply that they failed to recognize it as a result fail to evaluate or assess not that they did the assessment that's best bet is standard of care because if the engagement was under the checks and factors that the athletic trainer failed to do test five or eight tests that should be performed in the presence of a suspected concussion playing the first factor of of the jackson court that would be standard of care because now you're going to write sadly they should have done which i think is right is what jackson was saying the functional capacity evaluation differentiate the situation from other cases where were you saying and i might be saying i fully but what i'm saying is that the standard is that whoever is charged with looking out for these kids whether it's a coach  right that's what it's kind of the school's right somebody's there right they they weren't in this case under these facts of these allegations and they prove that there could be effects where it might be murder but factual situation is under an obligation to assess you straight that you know whoever whoever is is a sign that role can do it and so that's not a medical you know good issue without any training without any training right  wouldn't be too vague wouldn't be too ambiguous and the questions here have to be answered in the negative because it just johnson was saying this to us the allegations here are so specific that you can't say these three i think somewhat simple and straightforward allegations there need not be a sixty two under different case were you ready to train or does it actually began the  you know i think i think that the questions are not perfect should be answered in the negative to avoid any implication that it's a blanket he's saying it's it's an allegation of failure to assess evaluate and recognize the second one of my client steps up and says i went to true williamson i spoke to him i looked him in the eyes he was fine to me he told me he was you're actually treating another area of his body and it becomes immediately an issue of medical judgment whether that a trainer should have done something else and that's to me the standard of care that's going to ponder jackson and so i don't think you can focus in out on a realistic basis and so i think your honors are correct when you say that if we agree that a train is on the healing arts and we're talking about the conduct that was allegedly supposed to be engaged in by an athletic trainer we're talking about six twenty two  standard of care in a given school of medicine the witness must be right since there were so i just like a bit christmas time these two things to get together and say if the evidence at the time of trial as to a particular standard of care