or to correct a deficiency — and appeals the deficiency — is no different than the remedy the Secretary ordinarily would impose in the first instance.” Id. Finally, while the Secretary conceded that a home’s deficiencies are posted on the Internet, she also noted that a home can post a reply. Id. In sum, the Court concluded that the statutes that ere- ate the special review channel adequately protect the rights of the nursing homes. Here, of course, the County has sued DHS, not the Secretary of DHHS. But this makes no difference. DHS is standing in the shoes of DHHS. DHS is acting on behalf of, and pursuant to its contract with, the federal agency. See Nursing Inn of Menlo Park v. California Dept. of Health Services, No. C 02-1675, 2003 WL 1872961, *4 (N.D.Cal. April 7, 2003) (<HOLDING>). If nursing homes may not bring actions for
holding that state judges were not necessary parties to action challenging constitutionality of state laws relating to detention of juveniles holding that state agency that performs surveys of nursing homes under contract with dhhs not a proper party to action challenging constitutionality of dhhs regulations holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it holding that material prejudice was not present under the facts however an agency of the state was not a party to the action holding that agency is bound by its regulations