What is the test for treating a person who is personally named as a respondent in a medical malpractice case?

But the principle expressed in Kim v. Camenietzki, above, is that “treatment with respect to services” necessarily requires that the behaviour being complained of is behaviour that is connected to the delivery of a service. I agree with that principle. Here, the personally named respondent’s behaviour had nothing to do with the good, service, or facility being delivered to the applicant; he just happened to be present in the same location when the applicant was seeking services in the respondent City’s facility.