What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the courts's use or interpretation of the arbitrary and capricious standard support the government? Note that APA allows courts to overturn agency actions deemed to be arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Overton Park emphasized this is a narrow standard, and one must prove that agency's action is without a rational basis. This also includes the "substantial justification" doctrine. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

Opinion:
John DiGIOVANNI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. D. HENDERSON, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 72-1934
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 10, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1972.
Dean A. Andrews, Jr., Michael F. Barry, New Orleans, La., for petitionerappellant.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., George H. Connell, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, a federal prisoner, filed suit against the warden of the Federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that he was unable to receive there the medical attention which his physical condition required. The district court granted summary judgment to the warden on the basis of affidavits of the physicians who had examined and were treating appellant. We affirm.
The complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action, thus dismissal under F.R.C.P. § 12(b)(6) would have been inappropriate. Cf. Campbell v. Beto, 460 F.2d 765 (5th Cir., 1972) [April 18, 1972, as corrected July 11, 1972], and cases cited. Compare Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661 (5th Cir., 1971). Summary judgment, however, was appropriate. The record here details the treatment appellant is and has been receiving, and the difference of medical opinion concerning whether appellant’s condition warrants more radical surgical procedures. The district court, while recognizing that appellant consents to the performance of the surgical procedures which his condition may warrant, was called upon to supplant the considered medical opinions of those physicians charged with appellant's case, in whose medical opinion surgery was unwarranted. In the face of the conflicting medical reports and opinions, no clear case for judicial intervention was presented.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Question: Did the courts's use or interpretation of the arbitrary and capricious standard support the government? Note that APA allows courts to overturn agency actions deemed to be arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Overton Park emphasized this is a narrow standard, and one must prove that agency's action is without a rational basis. This also includes the "substantial justification" doctrine.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3