[00:00:05] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors, and happy Thanksgiving.

[00:00:09] Speaker 00:
I'd like to thank the Court for allowing me this opportunity to present my oral arguments.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
I represent the defendant's appellants in this matter.

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
The district court erred when denying defendants motion for summary judgment because they are entitled to qualified immunity as they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right beyond debate.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
Lewis points to no evidence that defendants delayed Lewis's dental care, but instead Lewis received dental care within the constraints permitted by the unprecedented COVID-19 global pandemic, which restricted dental care to emergency dental services only and limited the available dental resources.

[00:00:41] Speaker 02:
Slow down a second, but I thought the dental care was delayed.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
I thought that was the whole issue.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
No, well,

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
Well, actually I don't I contend that there's no facts that was delayed, but if there was any delay here It wasn't the lay caused by the defendants.

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
It was the lay caused by the global pandemic Okay, but I mean that the the pandemic you know there are documents there there was guidance to the prison on what kinds of medical treatments dental treatments could be delayed and what what kinds should not be

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
It seemed like the facts construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff here could indicate that he fell within the more acute needs that would need to be treated during the pandemic, or at least the jury could conclude that.

[00:01:26] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, if you go to the Friot case, though, in the instances of a global pandemic here, for example, in the Friot case,

[00:01:35] Speaker 00:
you have to give substantial deference.

[00:01:37] Speaker 00:
And that's something that you cannot say, well, that's a question of fact, whether or not they're entitled to substantial deference.

[00:01:42] Speaker 00:
No, the Friot case says that they're entitled to substantial deference.

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
And that it's not the court's decision to determine post-hack and said, oh, geez, you know, looking back on this, we should just go forward and say, hey, you know, maybe there's a question of fact here.

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
Because if you do that, then you're going to have

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
during these extreme emergencies.

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
And I want to have the court recollect.

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
I mean, there was nothing like the COVID-19 pandemic, at least in my lifetime.

[00:02:09] Speaker 00:
And if you go back and say, hey, I'm going to go back and say, OK, as the court and second guess, or have some expert come back and second guess and say, hey, you could have done this, or you could have done that, and it would have been more effective.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
Well, that's not how it works.

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
I mean, because they have to be given the discretion on how to do these things.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
In order to prove an Eighth Amendment violation, Lewis must establish that each individual defendant, okay, and that's a key here, Your Honor, so that it has to be, you have to look at each individual defendant.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
You can't look and say, oh, the dental care overall, even here, because that's what they're doing.

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
Mr. Davis, Mr. Davis, I do have a question since you raised that point about each individual defendant.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Specifically, I want to talk to you about Dr. Castellan.

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
With regards to Dr. Castellan,

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
At ER 250, Mr. Lewis's motion for summary judgment, he makes a very detailed argument that it was defendant Castellan who treated him on March 19th, on July 1st, and on September 9th.

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
And so defendant at the time opposed summary judgment, argued that Gutierrez, Avila, and Nichols did not personally participate in the violation.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
But defendant Castellan now contends that he

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
was the treating physician on March 19th and 20th and on July 1st.

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
So why didn't Castellan say so before the district court at summary judgment that he didn't participate?

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
Well, no.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
Dr. Castellano, I don't know.

[00:03:44] Speaker 00:
My understanding of the facts are different from yours.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
And if I'm mistaken, I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
But my understanding is the only allegation really is that Dr. Castellano treated him on September 9th.

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
And we're not disputing that.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
That Dr. Castellano treated him on September 9th.

[00:03:57] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
But Mr. Lewis actually, in his motion for summary judgment, specifically articulates, and again, that's at ER 250, that Mr. Castellano treated him on March 19th.

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
July 7th and on September 9th.

[00:04:14] Speaker 00:
But if you go actually, you can't go by the arguments in whatever he says in his motion for summer judgment.

[00:04:19] Speaker 00:
What you have to do is look at the underlying facts in the record.

[00:04:21] Speaker 00:
There is no evidence in the record that Dr. Castillon treated him on any date other than September 19th.

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
Are you representing that?

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
I mean, this is your client.

[00:04:30] Speaker 02:
So did Dr. Castillon treat him in March?

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
I don't see anything in the record that says he does, and I wasn't the counsel below him, and I couldn't find anything in the record that said that he treated him in March.

[00:04:43] Speaker 01:
Well, we know that he didn't argue that he wasn't personally treating him.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
We know he didn't argue that in front of the district court, did he?

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I can't say for certain one way or the other in that particular instance.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:04:56] Speaker 00:
Okay, and I apologize, Your Honor, for not being more prepared.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
How about with respect to the nurses?

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
I mean, why were they not deliberately indifferent or at least the jury could find that when they are getting all these different kites from

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
from Mr.. Lewis that says he's in extreme pain because because of the Peralta case your honor the Peralta case says it was involving a Chief dental okay, these guys these these they're only dental assistants.

[00:05:25] Speaker 00:
They're not dentists They have no no significant training in determining whether or not something would be a significant dental dental condition okay, all they have is a

[00:05:36] Speaker 00:
Claims by Mr.. Lewis that they haven't treated that he needs dental care Okay, but isn't it undisputed that everybody knew he he I mean as it from the very beginning everybody knew this gentleman needed dental care You're only speculating that I don't know that I'm saying I think he was treated

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
I think he was treated for dental issues.

[00:05:56] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence in the record that they ever reviewed the dental records, that they ever participated in any of the dental appointments.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence in the record that they did anything.

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
This is clearly under Peralta.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
Without any evidence that they actually were in any of these dental appointments and that they actually participated in his dental treatment, there is no way they could possibly maybe suspect

[00:06:17] Speaker 00:
Maybe possibly they had a suspicion, but in Peralta it says inmates misrepresent things all the time, and so they cannot know from an inmate's claims about what the dental care is.

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
The chief dental officer, he was a dentist even, and in Peralta, and they said, hey, guess what?

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
You know what?

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
We're not going to hold them liable based on complaints from inmates, because inmates sometimes fabricate things, and often do.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
And so that can't do it.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
So under farmer, even if you suspect, even if you have a suspicion,

[00:06:49] Speaker 00:
that it is, that's not enough.

[00:06:54] Speaker 00:
You've got to have actual knowledge that he faced substantial, significant harm from this.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
And then the thing is, you've got to understand also, what could they do?

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
They had no control over the dental resources.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
Dental resources were extremely limited during COVID pandemic.

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
They could only give appointments for days that the dental providers were available.

[00:07:16] Speaker 00:
They can't say, hey, you can come into a dental appointment when there's no dentists available.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
There's nothing they could do they had no control so again under parole that they cannot be possibly held liable For this because they acted as reasonably as they can do what they did is they they took the kites And they scheduled them for the first available dental appointment is available.

[00:07:33] Speaker 00:
What else do you want from the dental assistant your honor?

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
Okay, do you want to save some time for rebuttal?

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
Yes, your honor.

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
Thank you Mr.. Schneider

[00:07:53] Speaker 03:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
Kyle Schneider on behalf of Isaac Lewis.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
The district court correctly held that a reasonable officer would have understood the three and a half month delay in providing dental treatment for Mr. Lewis's serious medical need to be unlawful.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
Mr. Lewis suffered from tooth pain that his dentist determined in March at the start of the delay reflected a badly decayed tooth

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
that quote needs further work.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
That's at ER 503.

[00:08:15] Speaker 02:
Let's just walk through the different defendants.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
I mean, start with the dental assistants.

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
So the argument on the other side I hear is kind of two things.

[00:08:21] Speaker 02:
One, the pandemic.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
Two, the dental assistants are just dental assistants and they can't really be expected to do more.

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
So why don't you address both those?

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
Sure, I'm happy to, Your Honor.

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
So as to COVID, Your Honor, I think it's very important to separate out in this interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment, denial of qualified immunity.

[00:08:39] Speaker 03:
What are the undisputed facts about COVID versus the disputed facts?

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
The undisputed facts about COVID, Your Honor, is, of course, COVID was going on during this time period, and it's also undisputed that the facility had these COVID policies in place.

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
But if you actually look at the NDLC's COVID policies about permissible treatments, and this is at ER 191 to 192, Your Honor, the COVID policies say that elective dental procedures should be delayed during this time period.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
But it goes on to say that urgent dental procedures, and it specifically singles out urgent dental procedures, and it lists such as extraction could go forward during this time period.

[00:09:15] Speaker 03:
That's at ER 191 to 192.

[00:09:18] Speaker 03:
And so if you look at that, what we have here is Mr. Lewis's dentist in March told him that he had a tooth that was badly decayed, that he needed further work.

[00:09:28] Speaker 03:
Mr. Lewis in his kites says, my doctor told me to come back for an extraction.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
That's at ER 489.

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
And then when he's in fact seen at the end of the delay, he receives an extraction.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
But counsel, what evidence do you have that Dr. Kassian was actually the treating dentist, aside from the statements by Mr. Lewis?

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
So one thing I would point to is exactly what Your Honor pointed to at ER 250, Mr. Lewis's summary judgment briefing below.

[00:09:53] Speaker 03:
And under this court's precedence, Mr. Lewis was pro se below.

[00:09:56] Speaker 03:
This court's precedents say that you should construe liberally a pro se inmate's pleadings.

[00:10:02] Speaker 03:
And so I think that's one piece of evidence.

[00:10:04] Speaker 03:
But I think another piece of evidence we have, Your Honor, is that defendants said in the interrogatories that Dr. Castellan was one of only three dentists that was working at this facility during this time period.

[00:10:16] Speaker 03:
We know it's undisputed that he treated him later in the year.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
And it appears, if you look at ER 503, that it was the same dentist that was treating him on each of these dates.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
And so I think it's unreasonable.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
When you look at the chart notes, the chart notes from March, from July, and from September,

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
seem to be by the same hand.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
I think there's at least a plausible argument there.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
But is that going to be enough, that in addition to Mr. Lewis's statements?

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
So I think it is, Your Honor.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
I mean, so again, this appeal is coming up on the denial of summary judgment.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
You're supposed to assume that all factual disputes have resolved in Mr. Lewis's favor and draw reasonable inferences in his favor.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
And so I think in that standard, that is enough here to allow this claim to proceed to a fact finder.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Of course, at trial, defendants could present evidence about Dr. Castellanos, about whether or not he was present there.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
But that's a fact.

[00:11:11] Speaker 02:
We're debating the base level question of whether he was even present.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
Actually, the claim is whether he was deliberately indifferent.

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
He recklessly disregarded a known health risk.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
What evidence is there of that?

[00:11:22] Speaker 03:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
So I think in addition to his presence, if you look at the kites that were submitted, so there are a number of kites that were submitted throughout this time period.

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
It's undisputed that Dr., or sorry, I apologize, that Avila and Rodriguez-Nicholson were reviewing those kites.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
But I think it's a reasonable inference to draw that Dr. Caston would have also been consulted on these.

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
So if you look at the Jet case, that's exactly, that's the inference that this court draws.

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
There the inmate was submitting written requests for treatment and the like.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
And there the defendants actually specifically denied that they'd even received, and this included a doctor, they specifically denied that they'd even received those.

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
But the court said at the summary judgment stage, we think it's a reasonable inference to draw that the doctors could have been made aware of this.

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
What basis is there?

[00:12:07] Speaker 02:
I mean, just that they all worked in the same dental office, so we're going to assume that?

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
So I think a basis for this is that the NDOC's policies, and I apologize, I'm just looking for the page right here.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
This would be at ER 83, talks is the NDOC policies.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
It specifically says that when dental kites are submitted that the doctors should review those and help to establish what the priority order is.

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
And so I think based on that, and again, the inference that the court drew in JET, I think that's the basis for drawing the inference that Dr. Castone should have been aware of it and thus was deliberately indifferent.

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
What if someone were to say that's just too speculative?

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
What else do you have that would put him in the deliberate indifferent box?

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
Or do you think you need him to have kind of presumed awareness of the kites?

[00:13:00] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, I think there's two bases for knowing his awareness here.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
And so what the cases say is that for deliberate indifference, that it requires subjective awareness of this is a serious medical need and a failure to adequately respond.

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
And so I think the kites that I've just been talking about would be one basis.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
But I think another independent basis would be the fact that he saw him in March and that he was the one who noted this patient has a badly decayed tooth, that he needs further work.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
So that's about as clear.

[00:13:27] Speaker 03:
clear of notices.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
But how is that deliberate indifference?

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
I mean, that's recognizing that he needs further work.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
That seems like the opposite of deliberate indifference.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
Well, it's recognizing that he needs further work, Your Honor, but then this is a doctor who's heading the dental department and who, throughout this period, is aware that he needs further work.

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
But then Mr. Lewis isn't receiving it for a course of months.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
What kind of discovery happened below?

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
I know your client was pro se.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
Was there anything?

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
Was there interrogatories?

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
Was anything done?

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
Documents?

[00:13:55] Speaker 02:
With respect to what, Your Honor?

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
Discovery.

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
What happened in discovery below, if anything?

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
So there were interrogatories that were served.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
Interrogatories is part of how it was established that Dr. Castillon was one of the doctors that was present during this time period, Your Honor.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
And so I think that's probably the most specific evidence on that.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
And then as to, I just want to get around to your question about Avila and Rodriguez Nicholson, because we've been talking a lot here about Dr. Castellan.

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
So I mean, with respect to them, it's undisputed that they were the ones reviewing and responding to these kites throughout this period.

[00:14:29] Speaker 03:
And I think under this court's decisions in Hunt and in Jett, that's really a pretty straightforward case for allowing this case to proceed against those two, Your Honor.

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
So in the Hunt case, you had Mr. Hunt submitted written requests.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
I don't know if they called them kites in that case, but submitted written requests.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
And you had non-doctor prison officials that merely responded, you've been referred to dental care.

[00:14:52] Speaker 03:
And that was the only response that we had in the Hunt case.

[00:14:55] Speaker 03:
And the court actually reversed a grant of summary judgment as to those defendants and said that that was enough.

[00:15:00] Speaker 03:
you know, coupled with the three-month delay in treatment for a serious medical need, but that was enough to allow the claims to proceed against the dental assistance.

[00:15:09] Speaker 03:
You know, and then in the JET case, again, just I know I referred to it with respect to the doctor, but with respect to the medical assistance, that was a case where you had written requests for treatment, you had the plaintiff had sent letters, and again, there the defendants actually denied that they'd even received those, but the court nonetheless reversed, this court reversed a grant of summary judgment

[00:15:28] Speaker 03:
as to those defendants and said, you know, we think that you can infer knowledge and deliberate indifference when you couple the, you know, they said we think it's a reasonable infant straw that they received it and were thus aware of the serious medical need.

[00:15:39] Speaker 03:
And I think it's really quite similar here with Avila and Rodriguez Nicholson, Your Honor, that they, you know, it's unlike the jet case, it's undisputed here that they received those, that they, you know, responded to these kites, that they, you know, knew of his need for treatment based on that, Your Honor.

[00:15:55] Speaker 03:
And so then you take that and then you look at, there was,

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
this three-and-a-half month delay, which is the type of delay that has been long enough in cases like Hunt to give rise to a deliberate indifference claim.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
I think that's enough for this case to proceed to a fact finder.

[00:16:07] Speaker 02:
What about Gutierrez?

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
Are you conceding that Gutierrez really should be out?

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
We don't contest liability as to Gutierrez in this appeal, Your Honor.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:16:18] Speaker 03:
I mean, just to talk about the qualified immunity, the clearly established portion here, I guess I'll get back to COVID and what I was talking about there about separating out the undisputed facts from the disputed facts.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
And I think what's really important here, if you look at cases like Marsh and cases like Peck from this court, Your Honors,

[00:16:38] Speaker 03:
What they say is that the proper way to conduct this analysis is to first to resolve all factual disputes in the nonmoving party's favor, and then to draw reasonable inferences in that party's favor, and then based on those facts to determine whether there was a violation of clearly established law.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
And so I think here, if you do that,

[00:16:59] Speaker 03:
What you're left with is a factual situation in which Mr. Lewis, you know was seen at the beginning of before the delay in March He was told that he needed treatment.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
He was told he was told that He should come back for that.

[00:17:11] Speaker 03:
He needs further work that during this delay.

[00:17:14] Speaker 03:
He was submitting kites saying my doctor told me I need to come back and then you but you none the like, you know, you have a Vila and Rodriguez Nicholson reviewing these kites, but you nonetheless have a delay of three and a half months and

[00:17:25] Speaker 03:
Well, I think on that set of facts, Hunt's directly on point, Your Honor.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
There, in that case, you had a similar dental need.

[00:17:32] Speaker 03:
There, they described it as a broken tooth.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
You had similar requests for treatment.

[00:17:37] Speaker 03:
There was these written requests where they said, you've been referred to dental care.

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
You had a similar length of time.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
There's a three-month delay.

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
And so Hunt, I think, clearly establishes each element of the claim here, Your Honor, such that it's appropriate to affirm the district court and deny qualified immunity.

[00:17:53] Speaker 03:
I see that my time's almost up.

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
But unless the court has any further questions, I'll... Okay.

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Schneider.

[00:17:59] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
Okay, rebuttal.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
Mr. Davis.

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
I want to address a few things just briefly at the beginning.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
The thing about the same handwriting.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
I mean, first of all,

[00:18:18] Speaker 00:
My dad was a dentist, you know, and when he did these things, he never wrote his own notes.

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
The dental assistant was there.

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
He's busy with people with their hands in their mouth.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
He's telling the dental assistant to do so.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
It's just sheer speculation that it was written by a dentist, and then even more speculation because we're not handwriting afterwards here.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
I want to also talk a little bit about JET.

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
Clearly, any indication that grievances can provide notices has been overruled by Peralta.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
Peralta specifically said, hey, inmate's complaint can't do it.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
I want to go down onto the qualified immunity.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
Because in Carly, this court determined that merely relying on the holding that prison officials, doctors, were deliberately different when they failed to provide or delayed providing necessary medical treatment defines the right too broadly.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
In light of this court's procedures, it requires the court to only look at the law in light of specific consequences of the case, not as a general proposition.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
Lewis, therefore, cannot be relied upon.

[00:19:17] Speaker 00:
There is no COVID pandemic going on in Lewis.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
that he offered to give it to extract the tooth, which would have taken care of this problem, but he refused to do though, because he had a difference of opinion with what could be done.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
And the dentist could not do it because handpieces, dental drills, could not have even been used at that time.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
He could not have filled that cavity.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
He couldn't have done anything other than what he did.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
Therefore, Lewis does not dispute that courts which subsequently considered the issue have repeatedly agreed

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
that dental care in the COVID pandemic, that this is the discretionary decisions, and these other cases cannot possibly be clearly established law.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
And I would, the Friot case in this court and the Pan, what is it, the Panna Breaker case in the Third Circuit, which is directly on point, which they totally ignored in their oral arguments.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
No court is held in a dental system who did not participate in general treatment could be deliberately different when they had no control in a global pandemic situation as this.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
who never read any medical records, who was never present at any of these things.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
No court is held at a difference of opinion, which is all we have here, Your Honor.

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
We have his opinion.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
There is no expert, no other dentist is opined that the treatment provided by Dr. Castillo was medically unacceptable in his circumstances, and he did it in conscious disregard to his safety and health.

[00:20:37] Speaker 00:
He didn't do it in conscious disregard.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
He did it because he did it under the constraints that was available and the constraints of not allowing his tooth to be extracted, Your Honor.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
Lewis therefore cannot establish constitutional violation, much less meet his burden of showing a violation of clearly established law beyond debate.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and this court should therefore reverse the district court's order and grant defendants' motion for summary judgment.

[00:21:00] Speaker 00:
Thanks to your honor.

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:02] Speaker 02:
Thank you both for your helpful presentations.

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
This case is submitted.