# Episode 04 Legal Claim Chart

## Title

Government Cannot Outsource Accountability

## Source proposition

- Report location: PDF pages 28–32; cross-reference PDF pages 16–22 and 33–43
- Classification: ALLEGATION AND REQUEST FOR CLARITY: the report questioned whether care-management consultation services and transition recommendations exceeded approved program authority.
- Verified act by David Medeiros and ABI Resources: He forced a function-by-function question: who had authority, who made the decision, which rule governed it, and who remained accountable.

## Three rights holders

| Rights holder | Legally controlled frame |
|---|---|
| People served | They retain accessible planning, conflict safeguards, notice, review, and grievance protections even when contractors perform program functions. |
| David Medeiros | David may question governmental or delegated administration through speech and petition without that act itself deciding state-action status. |
| ABI Resources LLC | ABI may hold process or contract rights; a private provider or contractor is not automatically a constitutional state actor. |

## Governing legal test

Map the exact function, statutory or contractual delegation, state control, joint action, final decision-maker, and challenged conduct.

## Strongest fair counterargument

A contractor may have acted independently within a lawful private role, or the questioned service may have been authorized by a waiver amendment or later guidance.

## Decisive evidence

- waiver terms and amendments
- delegation and care-management contracts
- authorizations and assessments
- billing codes and claims
- supervision and escalation rules
- identity of final decision-maker

## National significance

Public responsibility should remain traceable when essential government programs are administered through private entities.

## 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution Annotated — State Action Doctrine | Federal constitutional liability ordinarily requires conduct fairly attributable to government; funding, regulation, licensing, or contracting alone is not enough. | https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-2/ALDE_00000810/ |
| 42 C.F.R. § 441.301(c)(7) | Beginning July 9, 2026, covered states must operate an accessible HCBS grievance system with assistance, receipt acknowledgment, independent review, case-file access, anti-retaliation safeguards, and generally a 90-day resolution ceiling. | 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 U.S.C. § 1983; Health & Hospital Corp. v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166 (2023) | Section 1983 is a remedial vehicle, not a source of rights; each constitutional or statutory provision needs actor, right, enforceability, causation, defense, and remedy analysis. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf |

## 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.