Can the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sidestep issues under Medicare Part D by not looking behind a compendium's Medically Acceptable Indications when the evidence leads to an underlying false and misleading premise for a prescription?

No question identified. : i Certiorari Questions This is Compendia case, a case of first impression under Shalala v. [linois Council, 529 U.S. 1 (2000). 1. Can the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“9th Circuit”) sidestep all issues under Medicare, Part D by not looking behind a compendium’s Medically Acceptable Indications (“MAI”) also known as ‘on or off label’ when the evidence leads to an underlying false and misleading premise for a prescription, i.e., no rational basis also under Fifth Amendment, Due Process and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Sec. 504”)? The medication, Serostim, as listed in a compendium requires that the patient also have HIV an unrelated condition that does not treat HIV, only lipodystrophy, a lifethreatening condition which prevents Petitioner from retaining lipids. 2.a Does Shalala v. Illinois Council, 529 U.S. 1 (2000), an exhaustion case, preclude Due Process and/or Sec. 504? Was it an abuse of discretion not to allow Petitioner to amend the Complaint as to a Sec. 504 claim or constitutional due process? b. Does 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) if it arises under the Social Security Act, mean that a beneficiary cannot pursue his Due Process and Sec. 504 rights when there is a false and fraudulent premise in HHS policy? Or does § 405(h) only bar actions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346? 8. Can insurance carriers which are Medicare contractors, be sued for not making statutory exceptions under Medicare, Part D? Can HHS not permit statutory peer reviewed articles from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) into account and can the 9th Circuit prevent this evidence favorable to Petitioner to be considered in cross motions for summary judgment? ii LIST OF ALL PROCEEDINGS! 1. In re Steven Bruce, Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, ALJ Appeal Number 1-5125326621 (Myles, ALJ), issued March 30, 2018 (AR 720-727), after remand. 2. In re Steven Bruce, Departmental Appeals Board Docket (“Doc.”) No. M-17-7463. Remand order issued December 20, 2017 (AR 320-24). 3. In re Steven Bruce, Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, ALJ Appeal Number 1-6176167691R1 (Gulin, ALJ), issued March 15, 2018 (AR 49-566), after remand. 4, Objections to Agency for not making findings on Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sec. 504), due process and regarding nondevelopment of record (AR 0007-0009); In re Steven Bruce, Departmental Appeals Board Doc. No. M-18-4059. Order issued December July 12, 2018 (AR 12-17). 5. In re Steven Bruce, Departmental Appeals Board Doc. No. M-18-5595; Order issued September 7, 2018 (AR 2-6). 6. Bruce v. Alex M. Azar IL, et al. U.S. District Court (““D.C.”) for the Northern District of California, Matter No. 18-cv-05022-HSG. Order Granting Motions to Dismiss and Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, and Denying Motions to Supplement the Record, filed June 18, 2019. 7. Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment by U.S. D.C., Northern District of California, filed December 16, 2019. (D.C. Doc. No. 110) 8. Bruce v. Alex M. Azar IT, et al. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 1917565. Memorandum Disposition. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, filed October 20, 2020. 1 The two administrative law judge decisions after remand and the three appeals council decisions are in a sealed Excerpts of Record, Vol. 3, ordered sealed by the agency, the D.C. and by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.