care and related services on a continuing inpatient basis to 6 or more individuals. Gil-logly is thus not controlling. The same is true of Milburn v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 511 F.3d 1285, 1289-91 (10th Cir.2008), and Geary v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 508 F.Supp.2d 518, 523-25 (N.D.Tex.2007). Because both involved substantially the same policy language as Gillogly, i.e., that the facility be licensed to engage primarily in providing nursing care, they too do not control. Milburn, 511 F.3d at 1291 (under Oklahoma law, “an assisted living center may provide ‘intermittent or unscheduled nursing care’ but is not licensed to engage ‘primarily in providing nursing care and related services to inpatients’ as provided in the plaintiff’s policy”); Geary, 508 F.Supp.2d at 523-25 (<HOLDING>). Finally, Crutchfield ex rel. Crutchfield v.
holding that a general acute care hospital may not delegate its duty to provide physicians for emergency room care because the law imposes a duty on hospital to provide that health care holding that nursing home patients did not have a property interest in receiving care at a particular facility recognizing that a licensed chiropractor is a health care provider competent to testify as a medical expert recognizing right to privacy in receipt of health care services to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care and the safety and good order of the facility holding that an assisted living facility licensed to provide personal care was not licensed to engage primarily in providing nursing care