# Episode 03 Legal Claim Chart

## Title

A Missing Plan Can Become a Rights Problem

## Source proposition

- Report location: PDF pages 16–22
- Classification: ALLEGATION: ABI Resources reported that it did not receive service and intervention plans needed for implementation and requested investigation, provision, guidance, and review.
- Verified act by David Medeiros and ABI Resources: He documented how a records-and-process failure could reach the daily support, goals, risks, staffing, and rehabilitation of people with brain injuries.

## Three rights holders

| Rights holder | Legally controlled frame |
|---|---|
| People served | The person-centered plan must reflect assessed needs, preferences, goals, providers, risks, consent, signatures, distribution, and accessible language. |
| David Medeiros | Documenting a plan gap may be protected advocacy when the governing speech or disability-retaliation elements are satisfied. |
| ABI Resources LLC | ABI may have implementation, authorization, contract, and payment interests; the beneficiary's planning right is not automatically ABI's constitutional injury. |

## Governing legal test

Determine who was entitled or authorized to receive which plan, when it was completed, what consent permitted, and what notice or review followed any denial.

## Strongest fair counterargument

Privacy, consent, role boundaries, incomplete authorization, or a distinction between plan types may lawfully limit what a provider receives.

## Decisive evidence

- every plan version
- consent and authorization
- signature and distribution pages
- delivery receipts
- revision and denial notices
- intervention-plan role rules

## National significance

Person-centered care becomes rhetoric unless the operative plan reaches the people responsible for understanding and implementing it lawfully.

## Current primary authorities

Authority status checked 2026-09-20. The eCFR displayed Title 42 and Title 45 as current through September 17, 2026 during review.

| Authority | Rule used | Official source |
|---|---|---|
| 42 C.F.R. § 441.301(c) | HCBS rules govern person-centered planning, informed provider choice, plan contents, settings, autonomy, conflict safeguards, and covered grievance systems. | https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-C/part-441/subpart-G/section-441.301 |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Roth; Goldberg; Mathews | Procedural due process begins with a protected liberty or property interest and government deprivation, then asks what notice and opportunity to be heard were due. | https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-5-1/ALDE_00013747/ |
| 42 C.F.R. Part 431, Subpart E | Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries have specified notice and fair-hearing protections for covered agency actions; continuation rules are conditional. | https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-C/part-431/subpart-E/subject-group-ECFR803dd5eda355b92 |
| 29 U.S.C. § 794; 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.68, 84.71, 84.76 | Federally assisted programs may be subject to nondiscrimination, reasonable-modification, anti-retaliation, and integration duties, including serious-risk-of-institutionalization protections. | https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-84/subpart-G |

## Attorney review before reliance

Identify the exact plaintiff, defendant, government or covered actor, enforceable right, state action, standing, injury, causation, exhaustion rule, administrative record, limitations period, immunity, available prospective or damages remedy, forum, and attorney-fee basis. For a Section 1983 theory, separately analyze whether the asserted provision creates an enforceable individual right under current precedent. For relief against state actors, separately analyze sovereign immunity, Ex parte Young, qualified immunity, and any municipal policy-or-custom requirement. No deadline, standing, violation, or remedy is established by this educational chart.