norml01 - Page 9
Page 9
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
!
f With regard to the AdministratorSs procedural error in
refusing to reopen the records Respondent admits that in the
prior decision this Court did not even mention, let alone
J resolves this argument. See Resp. Br. at 12. Ignoring this
deficiency, Respondent again asserts that in remarking that "the
i Administrator's interpretation of the statute was in the main
i acceptable, w' 930 F.2d at 937_ the Court _'implicitly rejected u
this argument. See Respo Bro at 12. This bald statement is
i unsupported in fact or law; there is nothing in the prior
decision to buttress such a conclusion, an_ in any event, the
I law of the case doctrine does not countenance such expansive
l application. This Court did not previously resolve these
challenges, and Petitioners submit that it is now appropriate and
l necessary for this Court to take this '_opportunity to more fully
consider th[ese] question[s]. _ Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement,
I 427 U.S. at 308 n.lo
I IIo THE ADMINISTRATOR'S STANDARD IS SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE
I In the opening brief; Petitioners demonstrated that the
Administratorts interpretation of the controlling statutory lan-
guage is unreasonable° Peto Br. at 17-24o Equating 'Wcurrently
i accepted medical use in treatments '_ within the meaning of the
CSA, with the substantive standards for interstate marketing
t approval under the FDCA is unreasonable because the two statutory
schemes have vastly different purposes. Petitioners also showed
I that AdministratorSs standard is inconsistent with the prior
|
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index