Question 1. There is a split among the circuits regarding the interpretation and
enforcement of of 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(8) of the Medicaid Act, which requires that "all
individuals wishing to make application for medical assistance under the plan shall have
opportunity to do so, and that such assistance shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to
all eligible individuals." In Olmstead v. L. C. by Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), this Court ruled
that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public entities to provide services in the least
restrictive setting, and CMS regulations issued in 2014 at 42 C.F.R. 441.301 require states to
provide services in the setting chosen by the Medicaid participant.
Was summary judgment improperly granted to Respondents, who have for many years
refused to provide Kobe services in the least restrictive setting, in violation of the
reasonable promptness mandate at 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396a(a)(8) and the integration mandate
of the Americans with Disabilities Act at 28 CFR pt. 35, where Kobe requested those
services in both the original and amended complaints filed in 2011, in his motions for
summary judgment filed in 2012 and 2014 and at every annual support plan meeting?

Question 2. There is a split among the circuits as to whether 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which
provides relief to persons injured by a civil conspiracy, is enforceable by persons who have
disabilities. The Fourth Circuit erroneously determined that Kobe suffered no injury from the
alleged conspiracy. This Court should rule upon the question of whether persons who have
intellectual or related disabilities who live in congregate settings constitute a protected class.
Does the record contain material facts showing that Kobe has suffered discrimination and
injury resulting from the Respondents' longstanding civil conspiracy involving the
fraudulent diversion of state and federal Medicaid dollars that were appropriated by the
state and federal governments to the Respondent agencies for the purpose of providing
services in the least restrictive setting, where Petitioner has presented evidence of money
laundering, the submission of false claims to the federal government and spending
Medicaid funds for other unauthorized purposes in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1396n(c)(2)?
Are persons who have intellectual or related disabilities who live in congregate settings
entitled to protection from civil conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. 1985?

Reasonable-promptness-mandate-under-Medicaid-Act