Whether the District Court erred in dismissing Petitioner's claims

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED O Pek r bio ere Quvestovs Whetllee DoS cemivahov at EQ@vuat Oppoehas ty Beenure. of Soul, Ecowomi Rep Cavaddal Ari) begar ee 5 Movlb Ba. rilowed To Defeat Petitonecc Aght to BAPude. @ Peli brener Querfons Whedhee He coreele4 Conbeetiny Peacedearrh wes Applied ushen THE DiStactt Covneteed on ‘Peres ” tomplant, | (3) Reb bowed Qveitiins whelbee His PiSABLS Vveteard Shots Exlhles Min to He Level of Het V.A, woul Reotle, Avid whetlve He bsp Hs iyhts fe ob ban : j Treatment Foe THE Damages He Suthred ters he FEAUL ) Bodh rower Ansesprons whepher Lhe Dishwek Comt EC Usauc, THE Appedis Poouess AS A WAY bo Reevent Av roosgk Appellee From Guest Me Hrs Pula. () Del brane Queshoml heliee THE Desheth Coot mpoe B gow faith EAARE te Concecdhy AO) Veh tote, : lacrftoo. 070 Mok Becavie of THE Pebittetd com Polficwt Reason. Due le tHe tack avewesys Frcfs were Lal E€ rok va wi teetek mo His Ot OLES, @ PelslreneR Qvifrove wkHec Dockea-kims Mobivehins Te Be A witwess BE fadstiove 2’ Caimibwh Gale Wee ° ; coe. pakienstt Pehehen sh. p pr. FM SOFAR AS THE Po P ne 24 of) tritetanetbsl UN 062 App rd as yep O€ fen! Fue utes oved, GE pec 47-4) ~| \