Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Am. Express Co. v. United States, 262 F.3d 1376, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The appellant asserts that the Court should find that the Secretary’s interpretation of section 1117 that veterans who served in Afghanistan are not eligible for the service-connection presumptions afforded in it is arbitrary and capricious because the agency did not consider all relevant factors, including the purposes for which section 1117 was originally promulgated and the fact that VA and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have both recognized that veterans who served in Afghanistan face “many if not all” of the same exposures faced by veterans who served in the other countries included in the Southwest Asia theater of operations. App. Br. at 13-17 (citing Marlow v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 146, 151 (1993) (<HOLDING>)(quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable (B) holding that a court reviewing an informal adjudication must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment (C) holding that under the arbitrary and capricious standard this court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment (D) holding that when applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review the courts role is to determine whether the plan administrators decision was completely unreasonable (E) holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious
Output (English): holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious