John F. Kodenkandeth v. UPMC Health Plan Inc., dba UPMC for Life, et al.

QUESTION NO.1 Whether the Ca3 and the USDC courts erred by arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion and hubris . Due to their failure to review the two Medicare appeal Council (MAC) claims M-22-284 & M-22-1424 as invalid and non medicare appealable claims ? ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS QUESTION NO 2 WHETHER the Ca3 merit panel and JUDGE CCW WERE BIASED by willful indifference to : a) MISUSE OF MEDICARE FOUR STEP APPEAL PROCESS 42 CFR §422.564(b)(!). et Seq WHICH REQUIRES DEFENDANT UPMC TO BE LIABLE FOR ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE,FRAUD AND MALPRACTICE. b) Defendant UPMC is the Medicare Advantage organization (MAO), is required by Center for Medicare Services (CMS) to operate a meaningful grievance and appeal process of its own ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS QUESTION 3: Wether the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Appellant's claims are common-law negligence and breach of contract actions, rather than appealable administrative "Medicare claims."? ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

1. QUESTION 4: .Whether the District Court erred by denying petitioner's Motion to Remand despite fatal, waiver and untimely procedural defects in the Defendants* Notice of Removal.?

2. QUESTION 5 Whether the District Court erred by covering up and engaging in wilful indifference to the defective removal of complaint made by the defendants, from the state of Pa court.? 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) of the collateral order doctrine pursuant to 28 USC §1292 et seq, by summarily denying appellant's appeal at No. 24-1208. See Ca3 docket ECF # 42, 43, 74. 75 & 76, inter alia.? ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS 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) of the lack of standing of the defendants/appellees/respondents to remove the piaintiff/appellant/petitioner's complaint GD23-12632 filed on October 31, 2023 at State of Pa Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas (ACCPC). For reasons that include but not limited to the following:? ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS QUESTION 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) and violated the separation of powers ( between Judiciary and DOJ) and acted as " servants" of the DOJ . Corruption of the Judiciary is prejudicial and violates the petitioner's constitutional rights of an independent Judiciary and " Equal Protection clause"under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.. See Ca3 docket ECF # 42, 43. & 75 , inter alia. ? ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS QUESTION 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) and violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff/appellant/petitioner by ignoring the improper removal and " hijacking of the complaint" from the state court of Pa" ? 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) and violated the petitioner's due process and equal protection, 14th amendment right by stonewalling, and wilful blindness insisting that appellant's appealed orders ECF 39, 40 & 41 are " NOT FINAL ORDERS" pursuant 28 USC §1291./? As an arguendo the appellant agrees with the appellate judges that the appealed orders ECF 39, 40 & 41 are NOT final Orders ? ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS QUESTION 11 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) and violated the separation of powers ( between Judiciary and DOJ) and acted as " servants" of the DOJ; ? QUESTION 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) and violated the separation of powers ( between Judiciary and DOJ) and acted as " servants" of the DoJ. ? QUESTION 13 WHETHER District Court PAwd and 3rd Circuit Ct of Appeals erred by REFUSilNG TO STAY the proceedinng after petitioner appealed on February 2,2024 the Federal District denial of the plaintiffs .motion for remand on or about January 23, 2024. Federal District Judge CCW disregarded the traditional stay pending appeal, by claiming that the appeal of a denial of Remand is NOT a final order.? QUESTION 14 WHETHER Federal Court and 3rd Cir Ct of Appeals erred and engaged in abuse of due process by ignoring the improper removal of complaint and default at the state ACCPC and refusing to remand ECF USDC 22 the improperly removed complaint based on bogus and improper motions to dismiss ( District ECF 49, 51 & 52) ? ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS QUESTION 15 WHETHER Federal District Court and 3rd Circuits Ct of Appeals, erred and engaged in abuse discretion, when defendants failed to file an Appearance in the state of Pa Allegheny County common Pleas Court / And had NO standing as an attorney pursuant to Pa RCP 1012 st seq. Meaning that the Notice of Removal filed by the DOJ at ACCPC on December 6, 2023 was null and void? QUESTION 16 Whether, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and Federal district Court Erred , by arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion, when it, without jurisdiction accepted defendants improperly removed complaint ECF 1 & 2 in the district docket 2:23-cv-2049-CCW ? QUESTION 17 WHETHER The Third Circuit erred by refusing to consider the plaintiffs appeal pursuant to 28 US §1447(d), §1292, §1291, inter alia ? Question 18 Finally, the Third Circuit erred by refusing consider, that the USDC Pawd lacked jurisdiction pursuant to 28 US § 1446(a) (1), §1446(b)(1) §1447(d), §1292, §1291 on November 30, 2023 and December 1, 2023. ANSWER: YES SEE PAGE 7 FOR SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS