Wilson Ochar v. Roy S. Rubenfield

.......................................................... 2-6 A. Table of Citations: Citations will appear in the standard Joint Appendix format and the record-page number (e.g., “J.A.1”) II. List,of Parties............................................................................ 6 III. Corporate Disclosure........................................................... 6-7 IV. Related Cases............................................................................ 7 V. Table of Contents.................................................................. 7-8 VI. Appendix to Index.................................................................... 8 VII. Table of Authorities........................................................... 8-10 VIII. Opinions Below....................................................................... 10 IX. Jurisdiction.............................................................................. 11 X. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved... 11-13 XI. Statement of the Case.................................................... .13-16 XII. Reasons for Granting the Writ...................................... 16-24 XIII. Conclusion..........................................................................24-25 XIV. Certificate of Service....................................... 26 XV. Certificate of Compliance.................................................... 27 XVI. Local Rule Certification...................................................... 28 XVII. Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument................................... 29 I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14.1(a) - The questions presented for review: 1. First, on June 10th 2024 the plaintiff alleges medical malpractice against Roy S. Rubinfeld M.D, following a cross-linking eye surgery in June 2022, claiming the procedure failed to achieve the promised 20/40 vision necessary for unrestricted driving. Despite earlier assurances, Dr. Rubinfeld allegedly refused to certify the results on the DMV vision report. (J.A.22-46) The plaintiff contends this constitutes a violation of 15 U.S. Code § 52 (Dissemination of false advertisements) warranting civil action pursuant to 31 U.S. Code § 3730(b) - Civil actions for false claims, arguing that the District Court, not a circuit court, should retain jurisdiction due to this federal questioned .A. 175) a. Did the District Court err in dismissing and remanding the complaint to state court, given the plaintiffs claims alleging violations of 15 U.S. Code § 52 and 18 U.S. Code § 1035, which raises federal questions?