Whether Appellate review of a grant of summary judgment was de novo

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Reuel Jacques Abale Gnalega, an | African-American US military veteran, was . | electrocuted and misdiagnosed by a VA Hospital | physician team, including a Dr. Michael H. ; f Pfeiffer. Petitioner is a veteran who is eligible for : treatment at the VA Hospital in Washington, DC. After electrocuting Petitioner, and several | years of attempts by the VA Hospital to diagnosis and cure of the cause of Petitioner’s pain, the VA , | ; ; Hospital in Washington DC prematurely : . discharged Petitioner from further diagnosis and treatment. On March 16, 2016, the VA Hospital in Washington, DC refused to continue to evaluate. and treat Petitioner’s pain. Id. Asa ; ; result, Petitioner has suffered incapacity from the j chronic excruciating pain of the internal burns, the inability to walk except with crutches, a a possible foot amputation, cognitive decline, and to. the inability to work. : | ; ! On May 31, 2017, Petitioner submitted a claim ; f letter to the VA of Washington DC — well within | two years of the VA Hospital’s discharge and | ending its treatment attempts to determine the . : cause and resolve the pain of Petitioner. q eee | | partiés to ‘proceed with discoyery, ‘the Respondent on’ sworn affidavits of two VA “Doctors,” Michael H. Pfeiffer and Freidhelm Sandbrink: Plaintiff sought deposition of. those doctors... .;It, was only discovery, and, in, turn, block-, Petitioner” from deposing the very VA. doctors. whose._affidavits | The questions presented are)? . | (A) Issue 1: Whether Appellate review of a grant | of summary judgment was de novo, (Judicial | a 1110 (D.C. Cir. 2019)), and whether, in such review, the Court of Appeals “examine[d] the ;, facts, in. the, record, -and .all _ reasonable “*~ favorable ‘to’ the’ nori-moving party." Feld v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 909 F.3d 1186,-1193 _ (DC, Cin, 2018); ge eet (B) ‘Issue’2: Is ‘a Court dbligated’ to” treat the . : Federal Tort Claims Act’s statute of ‘ z see, : : l att , : limitations as running while the veteran ., remains under the exclusive. control and.care ~" traumatizing “éle€frocution injury “in ‘an “thug ‘allowing thé VA té benefit from its illegal .., and/or immoral behavior.”.“*.*: ge ne te “* the District“Court’ to prevent Petitioner from TITS EY ere NOt Ce SU pg eee oS -z; Teposing and doing othér forms of discovery on the VA"ddctors ‘whose’ affidavits and récords ; } were, in fact, relied upon by the District Court in granting the .Motion __ for . Summary. | Judgment. 3 bs SG GLOSTER aa | | “S..