[tag=□] □
[tag=IN] □
The State also argued that just because there is no separate written justification does not negate the fact that the State had written evidence of the facilities ' compliance with the requirements for Medicaid participation . Moreover , since the State had identified eight State hospitals as IMDs , we do not think the Agency was required to find that a failure to have procedures for identifying nursing home IMDs was substantial noncompliance . The history of apprenticeship particularly demonstrates that the states had long regulated both the wages and the working and training conditions of apprentices . ( Decision No. 472 , p. 5 ) Basis for Agency 's Finding of Ineligibility As indicated above , the Agency determined that the State had no statewide information system in fiscal year 1983 which met the requirements of section 427 . Just as each family had its hearth , so the state had its hearth in the council house , where the officials and a few especially honored citizens took their daily meals . Instead , it used what it saw as analogous title VII caselaw on burden-shifting to hold that while the state had committed a constitutional violation , the plaintiffs had the ultimate burden of proving damages . The auditors also found that , for some quarters , the State did not retroactively amend its allocation to reflect subsequent Agency approval of data elements added or deleted during those quarters , and that the State had not submitted new data elements for approval after October 1979 . Since the State had ample opportunity to establish that the activitiescoded as delivery of training but not specifically described as such infact constituted training , but failed to do so , we conclude that theseactivities were not properly claimed at the 75 % training rate . The States asserted that the MQC estimates relied onwere too imprecise to show that the States had exceeded the targetrates .. HCFA 's position was that the states had ample notice of the provisions of section 441.25 and should have been actively preparing for its implementation during the period of its suspension . The auditors determined that the State had not provided evidence that costs reported in general Medicaid codes were actually costs of doing MMIS and Fraud and Abuse work .