With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". consequences to events completed before its enactment.” Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 269-70, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). The law generally disfavors retroactive rule-making. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). The Medicare statute is no exception — it requires an opportunity for notice and comment, and findings by the Secretary, before CMS can implement retroactive, substantive changes in regulations. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395hh(a)(l)-(4), 395hh(e)(l)(A). Fayetteville argues that the addition of a temporal limitation to the preamble of paragraph (c)(4)(iii) was a substantive, retroactive change that required notice and comment. See Hardy Wilson Mem’l Hosp. v. Sebelius, 616 F.3d 449, 461 (5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). It also asserts that the Secretary knew the

A: holding that change in state substantive case law does not constitute the removal of an impediment
B: holding that the 2005 amendment was a substantive change
C: holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child
D: holding that substantive review is adequate
B.