I as against the Corporate Defendants. 67 . This definition also contains numerous exceptions not applicable to this case. 68 . The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has observed that "any general definition [of ‘agency’] can be of only limited utility to a court confronted with one of the myriad organizational arrangements for getting the business of government done.” Washington Research Project, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 504 F.2d 238, 245-46 (D.C.Cir.1974). Thus, "[t]he unavoidable fact is that each new arrangement mu iew Organization ("PSRO”) at issue in Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Dep’t of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 449 F.Supp. 937 (D.D.C.1978), none of the Corporate Defendants "has any authority in law to make decisions.” Id. at 941 (<HOLDING>). Finally, unlike the Property Review Board
holding that a state medicaid agency can review the medical necessity of treatment prescribed by a doctor on a casebycase basis holding that the psro was an agency under the apa where in practically all cases medicare or medicaid benefits are not paid unless the psro makes its conclusive affirmative determinations of medical necessity holding that the knowing submission of medicare claims for services that were not covered and payable under the medicare act was an fca violation holding that patient could sue state agency under  1983 for breaching its obligation under the balance billing provision of the medicaid statute holding that knowing submission of medicare claims for services that are not covered and payable under the medicare act is a violation of the fca