by these stipulations because she was not a party to the proceedings where these stipulations were made. Loma Linda Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Leavitt, 492 F.3d 1065, 1074 (9th Cir.2007). We look to the entire administrative record, most particularly the terms of the Washington State Medical Plan itself. 4 . That these individuals would otherwise be state-funded is confirmed by the fact that if a GAU or MI patient is treated by a hospital that does not qualify for Medicaid DSH reim bursement, the State reimburses the Hospital out of its own coffers. 5 . We reject the Secretary's determination that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the Hospitals' claims for several of the cost-reporting periods at issue in this case. See French Hasp. Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 89 F.3d 1411, 1420-22 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Because the Board had jurisdiction over these
holding that the victim and witness protection act limits the amount of restitution to the loss caused by the specific conduct forming the basis of the offense of conviction holding that a defendant may be convicted of theft twice on the basis of intentional possession at one time of stolen property if the property forming the basis of the one conviction was stolen at different times and places from different owners than the property forming the basis of the second conviction holding that where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing holding that the board has jurisdiction over issues forming the basis for a request for a reopening of a providers cost report holding that a nonfrivolous allegation of board jurisdiction is one which if true would establish a prima facie case that the board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue