With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-2. Section 1320a-2 precludes defendant from relying on the plan requirement language of Section 1396r-6. Because all of the language of Section 1396r-6 except the “plan requirements” language, reflects Congress’s intention to confer a right to TMA upon persons who meet the various eligibility requirements, we find that Section 1396r-6 can support a Section 1983 claim. The only relevant post -Gonzaga precedent from the Courts of Appeals supports this holding. See Gean v. Hattaway, 330 F.3d 758, 772-73 (6th Cir.2003) (finding that Medicaid recipients may bring a Section 1983 action for breach of the Medicaid Act’s fair hearing provision assuming that they failed to receive complete and adequate medical benefits); Bryson v. Shumway, 308 F.3d 79, 88-89 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Assoc., 496 U.S.

A: holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983
B: holding that a state is required to provide medical care to incarcerated individuals
C: holding that the federal supplemental nutrition assistance program  mandating that assistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households 7 usc  2014acreated a privately enforceable statutory right
D: holding that section 1396aa8 which requires that state medicaid plans provide that medical assistance shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals supports a section 1983 claim
D.