Secretary awarded plaintiff moiety payments for the first two seizures, that occurred within days of receiving information from the plaintiff. See Gov’t Acct. at 2. According to the Secretary, these two seizures were “derived directly” from plaintiffs information. Id. The six seizures that occurred thereafter, however, required an “extensive multi-state, multi-agency task force investigation, utilizing information from numerous citizens and inside informants.” Id. Therefore, they “were only made possible by various intervening factors” and were not derived directly from plaintiffs information. Id. For these reasons, the Secretary’s decision to award plaintiff with moiety payments for the first two seizures, as a matter of law, was not arbitrary or capricious. See Doe, 100 F.3d at 1583 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, it is not necessary for the
recognizing a nonstatutory basis for setting aside an arbitration award if it is arbitrary and capricious holding it is not arbitrary and capricious to request additional evidence of continuing disability holding that a moiety award will be upheld unless it is arbitrary or capricious holding that regulations promulgated pursuant to an express congressional grant of rulemaking authority will be upheld unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute holding the court will not disturb the decision of the abcmr unless it was arbitrary capricious contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence