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 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