Opinion ID: 70389
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: 12 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395oo (f)(1), the standard for judicial review of the Secretary's actions is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. Sec. 706. Under that standard of review, considerable weight should be given to an agency's regulations interpreting matters over which the agency is charged to administer. See Medical Center Hospital v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1504, 1510 (11th Cir.1988) (citations omitted); Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., 467 U.S. 837, 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1227, 105 S.Ct. 28, 29, 82 L.Ed.2d 921 (1984). Neither a district court nor an appellate court may overturn the Secretary's decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole. Carraway Methodist Medical Center v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1006, 1009 (11th Cir.1985) (citations omitted). 13 Although deference should be afforded especially when, as here [in Medicare], the regulation concerns 'a complex and highly technical regulatory program,' in which the identification and classification of relevant 'criteria necessarily require significant expertise and entail the exercise of judgment grounded in policy concerns,'  Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, --- U.S. ----, ----, 115 S.Ct. 1232, 1243, 131 L.Ed.2d 106 (1995) (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (quoting Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala, 512 U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 2387, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994) (citation omitted)), courts are not bound by an agency's interpretation. Furthermore, a court must not abdicate its responsibility to review an agency's construction that is alleged to be inconsistent with the statutory mandate. Medical Center Hospital, 839 F.2d at 1510.