not properly enter a final judgment or grant permanent injunctive relief. D. Appointing a Special Master Before dissolving the preliminary injunction, the district court had considered appointing a special master. In addressing the complex Medicaid issues- presented in this case, the district court may be well-advised to do so, within the bounds of Fed.R.Civ.P. 53. See In re Pearson, 990 F.2d 653, 659-60 (1st Cir.1993) (discussing “some exceptional condition[s]” that could warrant appointment of a special master); United States v. Horton, 622 F.2d 144, 148-49 (5th Cir.1980) (upholding the appointment of a special master in a Medicare reimbursement case presenting complex legal issues); see also Nat’l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 828 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); 9C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and
holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction holding that the prospect of noncompliance with a preliminary injunction is an exceptional condition that justifies reference to a master