They reasoned that because Barnett did not rule against the dismissal of the malpractice claim at the time of its dismissal nor did he include the claim in subsequent reviews, he had not support his claim that the court erred in rejecting his negligence claim. The court further determined that the wording of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete and unconditional immunity must be afforded under supervision. As a result of this interpretation, the question of whether the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton conduct was rendered irrelevant. Because the questions of fact raised by appellant were not actually questions of fact, the Supreme Court granted the District and Appeals Court's motion and subsequent summary affirmation