Where the plaintiff's fundamental right to medical treatment is violated

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | I. Where the plaintiffs fundamental right to medical treatment is violated under | conflict of laws, unsettled area of law statutes and guidelines pursuant to: 1) CFR 42 § 2.61-2.67, 2) the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §701, et seq., 3) the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. §18116, et seq, 4) the Nuremberg Code §§4 and 44 Code of the Geneva Convention, 5) Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) “pain as the 5» Vital Sign,” 6) EMTALA ( Emergency Treatment and Labor Act) laws, 6) the Controlled Substance Act (CSA 802 (56)(c)), 7) the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (Data 2000) under SAMSHA, 8) PROP (Physicians For Responsible Opioid Prescribing) guidelines, 9) the 2016 CDC Guidelines and the proposed July 2021 revised guidelines , 10) the pharmacist’s corresponding responsibility under CFR 1306.04 (a) where dispensing of a prescription ratifying the validity of that prescription for controlled substances, 11) health insurance pre-authorization services of medications, 12) Pharmacy Benefit Programs ( PBM) formularies, 13) THE June 16 2020 AMA Letter to the CDC and the American Medical Association Drug Task Force studies, and 14) the 2019 HHS “ Best Practices Pain Management Guidelines is there a basis for the use of strict scrutiny standard for judicial review , regarding the release of information and affidavits supporting the search and seizure of PDMP and medical records? ii II . Where the state has a legitimate interest in reducing overdose drug deaths, does a private entity, such as BCBSMMIC or Qlarant, acting as agents of the state under the color of law, is the use of false medical records, false state of Michigan driver’s license, false social security number, false documents, to coordinate the incarceration of non-white physicians, is that conduct related to a compelling government interest? iii