Opinion ID: 683609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: 21 In Case No. 93-6867, Blue Cross presents the following issues for review: 22 (1) Whether the district court improperly applied heightened scrutiny under the arbitrary and capricious standard in reviewing Blue Cross's administrative decision. 23 (2) Whether the district court erred as a matter of law by not upholding Holloway's decision that $19 per hour was the reasonable charge for care rendered during July 8--July 20, 1987. 24 (3) Whether the district court erred in holding that the post-July 20 care was medically necessary. 25 (4) Whether the district court abused its discretion in applying Alabama's insurance interest statute in awarding prejudgment interest. 26 In Case No. 93-6918, Nightingale contends that the district court erred in denying its motion for attorney's fees without first affording Nightingale an opportunity to be heard and, in denying the motion for attorney's fees, the district court applied an erroneous legal standard.