With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Department will withhold future Medicaid payments due and owing to Riverside, jeopardizing its financial well-being. Moreover, Riverside argues in its supplemental brief that “provider standing has been recognized in the Medicaid context as to beneficiary eligibility and coverage issues.” Thus Riverside maintains that there is no impediment, statutory or otherwise, precluding our review of its claims. Undoubtedly the recoupment notices, if and when they are carried out, will affect Riverside’s bottom line, and for that reason we agree that Riverside has shown that the coverage determinations and the resulting threat of recoupment constitute an injury sufficient for the purposes of Article III standing. See, e.g., Arthur v. District of Columbia, 857 A.2d 473, 488 n. 19 (D.C.2004) (<HOLDING>). However, this court, at least for now, is not

A: holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court
B: holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact as to all claims in the appellants rule 32 petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not first present the claim to the circuit court
C: recognizing that prisoners former attorney had a significant relationship with the prisoner for purposes of next friend standing because attorney had acted on behalf of the prisoner in prior legal proceedings
D: holding that the district had standing to raise claims on behalf of the appellant because the district had a direct financial stake in supporting the position that appellants former wife is the owner of the underlying funds
D.