Under Article III of the Constitution, Federal courts can hear 'all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States. 'US Const, Art III, Sec 2. he Supreme Court has interpreted this clause broadly, finding that it allows federal courts to hear any case in which there is a federal ingredient. See, Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S.C. 738 (1824). The Supreme Court has found that a 'suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action, see, American Well Works v. Layne, 241 U.S. 257 (1916), and therefore, only suits based on federal law, not state lawsuits, are most likely to create federal questions Jurisdiction, see, Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, Grable Test: Courts often use to determine federal questions jurisdiction is called the Grable Test, established in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing. 1. Does the claim have 'federal questions jurisdiction under Article III Section 2 of the Consti8tution? 2. Does the claim meet the requirements for 28 USC 1331 Federal question jurisdiction? See, Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing:

(A) Whether a individual receiving Medicaid under Title XIX of the Social security Act (the Act, P.L. 89-97) can sue a physician for violating, the False Claims Act, bind Federal Courts Jurisdiction? And if so, Whether, the limitation on medical malpractice damages in Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 4590L 11.02 and 11.03(Vernon Supp.196) is consistent with the TexasConstitution, and if so, whether it applies to limit the liability of each defendant rather than the recovery of each Claimant?

(B) Whether, punative damages can be levied 4 separate times based on Dr. Bala Davuluri, providing four diagnosis in areas he does not treat nor focus on under Title XIX of the Social security Act(the Act, P.L. 89-97)?

(C) Whether the First Amendment Limits on intentional Limits on intentional infliction of emotional distress, (IIED) Liability, which certain intentional actions may meet the prima facie case for an (IIED), (Particularly as related to the outrageous conduct components)?

(D) Whether the First Amendment Limits on intentional Limits on intentional infliction of emotional distress, (IIED) Liability, which certain intentional actions may meet the 'prima facie case', for an (IIED), (Particularly as related to the 'outrageous conduct components)?

(E) Whether Sec. 108.0085. bindes the duties of the Attorney General, to the Petitioners case because the Petitioner was receiving Medicaid under XIX of the Social security Act (the Act, P.L 89-97)?

(F) Whether DR. Bala Davuluri, Violated HIPPA Law Rights? And the False Claims Act?

Whether an individual receiving Medicaid under Title XIX of the Social Security Act can sue a physician for violating the False Claims Act and whether punitive damages can be levied for multiple diagnoses outside a physician's specialty