Court Opinion

ID: 9491735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:22:15.618143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:54.950039
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I concur in Parts I, II, III.A and in the judgment. With respect, however, I cannot concur in Part III.B.
The discussion contained in Part III.B is premised on TAP’s argument that it was within the zone of interests of Medicare Part B merely because it had an interest in en*209forcing the provisions of the statutory and regulatory scheme. In my view, that argument was not fully briefed and argued before the court and therefore was not properly raised. See Canady v. Crestar Mortgage Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973 (4th Cir.1997). As a result, I conclude that the discussion contained in Part III.B is unnecessary.