John F. Kodenkandeth v. Blind & Vision Rehabilitation Services of Pittsburgh, et al.

Question 1) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference ( Wilful Blindness ) by THE MOTIONS PANEL of Ca3 No. 25-2263, SUMMARILY AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT'S BIASED, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS MERITLESS RULING Pawd ECF 111,TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF;S CASE 2:23-CV-2051-CB WITH PREJUDICE. The motions panel did not perform an analysis or write an opinion See Ca3 docket ECF # 41 42, 43, inter alia. ANSWER : YES See Page #8 et seq for supporting arguments. Question 2 : Whether the " MOTIONS PANEL " engaged in abuse of discretion, was arbitrary and capricious by NOT reviewing Appellant's opening brief ECF 20 that has more than 30 substantive issues and was on the docket Ca3 since August 26, 2025; a) Instead the motions panel sat on 9 nine low value peding administrative motioons, for .more than 240 days ECF 27, 29, 30, 31 33, 34, 35,36 & 37 and then declaring in a few minutes (with wilful blindness), that " there was no substantial issues " , and affirmed the lower court meritless contradictory ruling Pawd ECF 111. ANSWER : YES See Page #8 et seq for supporting arguments. Question 3) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference ( Wilful Blindness) by declaring " that the appellant's appeal has no substantial issues " without reviewing appellant* brief at ECF 20, on the Merits. ANSWER YES .Question 4) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference (Wilful Blindness ) by misuse of the FRAP 27.4 and IOP 10 et seq, to summarily dismiss the appellant's apples without a merit review of appellant's opening brief at ECF 20. by the Merit's panel. ANSWER : YES See Page #8 et seq for supporting arguments. Question 5) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference ( Wilful Blindness ) by failure of the Ca3 to perform a De Novo appellate review of the district court dismissal of plaintiff's removed complaint without discovery, oral arguments and trial? ANSWER YES Question 6) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference (Wilful Blindness ) by Ca3 with wilful! blindness ignoring the procedural fact that the appellees including the joinder defendants defaulted and failed to file a appellee brief pursuant Ca3 circuit judge order from circuit judge Monrgomery Reeves ? ANSWER YES Question 7) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference ( Wilful Blindness ) by ignoring the " liability shifting scheme for negligence and malpractice " to engage in Medicare fraud under the " nose and plain sight" of the Federal article III judges 7ANSWER YES QuestLon-8) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference (Wilful Blindness) by ignoring the *' liability shifting scheme and Medicare Fraud " under the " nose and plain sight" of the Federal article III judges ? ANSWER YES uestion 9) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference (Wilful Blindness ) by ignoring the jurisdictional fact that the defendants including defendant Highmark Health failed to file a valid notice of Removal pursuant to 28 USE 1441(a)(1) et seq ? ANSWER YES Question 10) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference (Wilful Blindness ), the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Appellant's claims are common-law negligence and breach of contract actions, rather than appealable "Medicare claims." ANSWER : YES See Page #8 et seq for supporting arguments. Question I!) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference ( Wilful Blindness ) by Whether the District Court erred by denying Appellant's Motion to Remand despite fatal,, and untimely procedural defects in the Defendants' Notice of Removal. ANSWER : YES See Page #8 et seq for supporting arguments. Question !2) Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference (Wilful Blindness) by ignoring the fact that Simple Contract Grievances Are Not Appealable Medicare Benefits ? ANSWER : YES See Page #8 et seq for supporting arguments. Question 13) operational negligence. Whether, the 3rd circuit court of Appeal and district court of Western Pennsylvania, erred by Arbitrary, Capricious abuse of discretion by deliberate indifference ( Wilful Blindness ) by ignoring the fact that The Eradication of Chevron Deference Mandates Independent Judicial Review ? ANSWER : YES See Page #8 et seq for supporting arguments.