little, as we have recognized "it is widely held that there is now little difference in the application of the [substantial evidence and the arbitrary and capricious] standards.” James City County v. EPA, 12 F.3d 1330, 1338 n.4 (4th Cir.1993). 4 .As noted above, the term in CHAMPUS's policy manual entitled “Bone Marrow Transplants" provides that, with the exception of certain specified conditions that do not include breast cancer, ABMTs are not covered. Relying on the provision permitting peripheral stem cell rescue in those instances, CHAMPUS argues that an exclusion for HDC/PSCR can be inferred. First, the exclusion of ABMT for breast cancer is quite limited, with no mention of high dose chemotherapy. Cf. Doe v. Group Hospitalization & Medical Services, 3 F.3d 80, 89 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Second, PSCR is a procedure distinct from
holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that high dose chemotherapy is not a service  or supply for or related to an abmt holding that the relevant question is not whether risk is involved or assumed but rather whether that or something else to which it is related in the particular plan is its principal object and purpose holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service holding that a defendants actual knowledge that an action is pending or that service has been attempted is not the equivalent of service of summons and will not relieve the plaintiff of its burden or vest the court with jurisdiction