Case ID: f-appx_542/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marco GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-55057.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 10, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 18, 2013.
    R.J. Strotz, Law Office of R.J. Strotz, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Russell William Chittenden, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: PAEZ and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marco Garcia appeals a district court judgment upholding a Medicare recoupment determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. Substantial evidence supports the Secretary’s conclusion that Garcia was a Medicare “provider.” Garcia applied for and obtained a six-digit Medicare billing Provider Identification Number, bills were processed under this PIN, and Medicare payment checks were made out in Garcia’s name.

2. Substantial evidence also supports the Secretary’s conclusion that Garcia is not entitled to a liability waiver. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395pp(a). The Secretary also reasonably found that Garcia did not act “without fault.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1395gg(b)(l).

3.Garcia waived any argument that the Secretary denied him due process by not raising it below. Malhiot v. S. Cal. Retail Clerks Union, 735 F.2d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir.1984).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.