Christ the King Manor, Inc. v. Secretary United States Department of Health & Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the agency’s action was arbitrary and capricious because it did not supply a “reasoned basis” for its decision
• recognizing that Court may “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned”
• holding agency action was arbitrary and capricious “because we cannot discern from the record a reasoned basis for the agency’s decision”
• explaining that § 1396a(a)(13)(A)’s “notice requirements must be satisfied in order for a state plan amendment to receive approval”
• explaining that Section 30(A) is generally known as the equal access provision
• noting that “post-hoc rationalizations” will not support agency actions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).