Amgen Inc. v. Scully, Thomas

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).