case. Having determined that the court only has subject matter jurisdiction to review the fiscal intermediary’s action in denying the interest expense based on § 413.153(c)(1), the court now reviews that action. However, there is no longer anything for the court to review. The parties have resolved the issue between themselves. The Secretary has conceded that the fiscal intermediary’s action of disallowing the interest expense solely because the loans were from related parties was an error of law. Thus, because it is undisputed that the fiscal intermediary erred, the proper action at this juncture is for the court to remand the case to the Secretary. See South Prairie Constr. Co. v. Local No. 627, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 425 U.S. 800, 806, 96 S.Ct. 1842, 48 L.Ed.2d 382 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Federal Power Comm’n v. Idaho Power Co., 344
holding that a reviewing courts task is to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the administrative agency on the record as a whole to support the agencys conclusions holding that when an administrative agencys decision was a mixed question of fact and law a reviewing court should apply a clearly erroneous standard of review holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence holding that the function of the reviewing court ends when the administrative agencys error on the legal issue is laid bare holding that the district court is limited to considering the administrative record in reviewing the denial of benefits under an erisa plan