D.C. Circuit· 2/13/2004

Amgen Inc. v. Scully, Thomas

Citations

357 F.3d 103
360 U.S. App. D.C. 88
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2406
2004 WL 257042

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that where preclusion language is clear, absence of alternative outlets for review is “unsurprising”
explaining that courts typically construe preclusion statutes to extend “no further than the Secretary’s statutory authority”
noting that the “inquir[y] whether a challenged agency decision is arbitrary, capricious, or procedurally defective” is barred by a no-review provision
finding that statutory language prohibiting “judicial review under section 1395ff, 1395oo, of this title, or otherwise” of “other adjustments” did not preclude review of whether the challenged “other adjustment” was one authorized by the statute
applying the canon of noscitur a sociis to support consistent 21 United States v. Martinelli, No. 02-0623/AR interpretation of separate phrases within a statutory section
noting that “judicially mandated changes in one [OPPS] payment rate would affect the aggregate impact of the Secretary’s decisions by requiring offsets elsewhere, and thereby interfere with the Secretary’s ability to ensure budget neutrality in each fiscal year”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Henderson, Rogers, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

86 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.