and held that preclusion “applies to disputes over the methods used to determine reimbursement just as it applies to disputes over reimbursement amount determinations.” Am. Med. Techs. v. Johnson, 598 F.Supp.2d 78, 81 (D.D.C.2009). 3. The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Having found that judicial review of the Secretary’s choice and promulgation of financial standards is precluded, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over each of plaintiffs’ claims. Courts have routinely upheld the denial of administrative or judicial review of HHS actions where the relevant Medicare provision states that “[t]here shall be no administrative or judicial review.” Am. Soc’y of Dermatology v. Shalala, 962 F.Supp. 141,145-47 (D.D.C.1996); see also Amgen, 357 F.3d at 111-12 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, consideration of any claim under
holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear holding that where preclusion language is clear absence of alternative outlets for review is unsurprising holding that remand is unnecessary when it is clear that the same decision would have been reached in the absence of the errors holding that where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation