Skip to main content


U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government
              Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you knowDot gov**Official websites use .gov**
                 A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
                  HTTPS**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                 A **lock** (A locked padlock) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
  Menu Close
          HHS Search block
    Search
        








  
  
    

  
      

                                      About HHS
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Programs & Services
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Grants & Contracts
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Laws & Regulations Breadcrumb
    Home
                              About
                              Agencies
                              DAB
                              Decisions
                              ALJ Decisions
                              2018
                              Linda Silva, P.A., DAB CR5134 (2018)
 Navigate to:
  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      About DAB
                                            
            
            Organizational Overview
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Who are the Judges?
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      DAB Divisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Contact DAB
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Filing an Appeal Online
                                            
            
            DAB E-File
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Medicare Operations Division (MOD) E-File
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Different Appeals at DAB
                                            
            
            Appeals to DAB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
                          
            
            Forms
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Procedures
    
                                                                
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Appeals to Board
                          
            
            Practice Manual
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Guidelines
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Regulations
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      National Coverage Determination Complaints
    
                                                                
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Appeals to the Medicare Appeals Council (Council)
                          
            
            Forms
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA) Demonstration Project
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Alternative Dispute Resolution Services
                                            
            
            Sharing Neutrals
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      ADR Training
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Other ADR Services
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      DAB Decisions
                                            
            
            Board Decisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions
    
                                    
                              
            
      
      
      
      Stakeholder Feedback
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Careers
                                            
            
            Open Career Opportunities
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Internships & ExternshipsText resize icon

                    




Linda Silva, P.A., DAB CR5134 (2018)








  
  
    

  
      
Department of Health and Human Services 
    DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
          Civil Remedies Division





Linda Silva, P.A.
	(NPI:  1992860100 / PTANs:  Z171919, Z164780, Z156727,
	Z178147, Z186213, Z90844, Z90845, Z90846),
	Petitioner,
v.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Docket No. C-18-199Decision No. CR5134July 13, 2018

        
              
    

      DECISION
The request for hearing of Petitioner, Linda Silva, P.A., is dismissed pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 498.70(b)1
 because she has no right to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
I.  Background
On May 15, 2017, Noridian Healthcare Solutions (Noridian), a Medicare Administrative Contractor, notified Petitioner that her enrollment as a Medicare supplier was revoked effective March 11, 2017, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(1) because her physician assistant license was suspended.  Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 47-49, 64‐73.  The notice of initial determination informed Petitioner that she could submit a corrective action plan (CAP) within 30 calendar days or request
Page 2
reconsideration within 60 calendar days.2
  CMS Ex. 1 at 47, 62, 64, 67, 70.  Petitioner submitted a CAP dated May 25, 2017, stating that her license was reactivated and in good standing as of May 24, 2017, and that her license was in suspended status only from March 11, 2017 to May 24, 2017.  CMS Ex. 1 at 50-53, 57‐60.  Noridian denied Petitioner’s CAP request on July 13, 2017.  CMS Ex. 1 at 5, 54.  Noridian correctly advised Petitioner that she could not appeal the adverse determination for the CAP but incorrectly cited 42 C.F.R. § 405.809(a)(2), rather than 42 C.F.R. § 405.809(b)(2).  CMS Ex. 1 at 5, 54.
On September 5, 2017, Petitioner submitted what she characterized as a second CAP request.  CMS Ex. 1 at 8‐10.  Noridian notified Petitioner by letter dated September 18, 2017, that her request did not meet the requirements of 42 C.F.R. § 498.22 for a request for reconsideration and that she could submit only one CAP.  CMS Ex. 1 at 1.
On November 7, 2017, Petitioner requested review by an ALJ.  The case was assigned to me for hearing and decision.  I issued an Acknowledgment and Prehearing Order on November 22, 2017.
On December 11, 2017, CMS filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment with CMS Ex. 1.  Petitioner filed her response with no exhibits on January 1, 2018.  CMS waived filing a reply brief.  Petitioner did not object to my consideration of CMS Ex. 1 and it is admitted as evidence.
II.  Applicable Law
A provider or supplier may request reconsideration of an initial determination by CMS that affects the provider’s or supplier’s ability to participate in the Medicare program.  42 C.F.R. § 498.5(a), (b), (d), and (*l*).  CMS or its contractor reconsiders an initial determination if there is a written request for reconsideration that complies with 42 C.F.R. § 498.22(b) and (c).  The request for reconsideration must be filed in writing with CMS or its contractor, either directly by the provider/supplier or through the provider’s or supplier’s designated legal representative or authorized official, within 60 days of receipt of the notice of the initial determination.3
 42 C.F.R. § 498.22(b).  The
Page 3
date of receipt of the initial determination is presumed to be five days after the date on the notice from CMS or its contractor, unless there is a showing that it was received earlier or later.  42 C.F.R. § 498.22(b).  Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 498.5(*l*)(2), CMS, a CMS contractor, and a prospective or existing provider or supplier dissatisfied with a reconsidered determination are entitled to a hearing before an ALJ.
III.  Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Analysis
My conclusions of law are set forth in bold followed by the pertinent findings of fact and analysis.
**A.  Petitioner has no right to a hearing before an ALJ because there has been no reconsidered determination.**
**B.  Dismissal is required because Petitioner has no right to a hearing.**
The pertinent facts are not disputed.  Noridian notified Petitioner by letter dated May 15, 2017, of its initial determination revoking her Medicare enrollment and billing privileges.  The notice clearly advised Petitioner that if she disagreed with the initial determination, she could request reconsideration, in writing, within 60 calendar days of the postmark of the May 15 notice letter.  The Noridian notice provided a mailing address for any reconsideration request and a telephone number for any questions.  CMS Ex. 1 at 71.  Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 498.22(b)(3), Petitioner was presumed to have received the May 15, 2017 notice on May 20, 2017.
Petitioner timely filed a CAP on May 25, 2017, that was rejected by Noridian on July 13, 2017.  Petitioner subsequently filed a second CAP on September 5, 2017.  Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 405.809(a)(2), there is only one opportunity to correct deficiencies that are the basis for revocation and, therefore, only one opportunity to submit a CAP.  Noridian considered but rejected Petitioner’s second CAP as a request for reconsideration because it did not meet the requirements of a request for reconsideration under 42 C.F.R. § 498.22, including the fact that it was filed well beyond expiration of the 60‐day time limit for filing a request for reconsideration.  Because Noridian rejected the second CAP as a reconsideration request and returned it to Petitioner there has been no reconsidered determination in this case.
The regulations clearly provide Petitioner a right to ALJ review only when there is a reconsidered determination or a revised reconsidered determination.  42 C.F.R. § 498.5(*l*)(2).  Since Petitioner’s reconsideration request was rejected by Noridian there is no reconsidered determination within the meaning of 42 C.F.R. §§ 498.5(*l*)(2) or 498.24, and no right to ALJ review.  Petitioner cites no statutory or regulatory provision that grants a right to ALJ review of a determination of CMS or its contractor to deny
Page 4
reconsideration and there is none.  Accordingly, dismissal is required by 42 C.F.R. § 498.70(b) because Petitioner has no right to a hearing.
Petitioner admits that she “did not file a reconsideration 42 C.F.R. § 498.22(b), or an extension of time to file per 42 C.F.R. § 498.22(d)” because “she was under the assumption that an appeal or reconsideration was already initiated and in process by Noridian.”  P. Br. at 7‐8.  Petitioner recounts multiple phone calls with Noridian representatives, including one where she was “informed that she could do an appeal verbally by this phone call and she did not need to do any paperwork for this.”  P. Br. at 7.  Petitioner contends that she should be able to rely upon statements of the MAC representative and the government should be bound by those statements.  P. Br. at 9.
Petitioner’s arguments may be construed to be that the government is estopped from denying her review of the revocation of her enrollment based on advice she allegedly received from Noridian employees.  As a matter of law, estoppel against the federal government, if available at all, is presumably unavailable absent “affirmative misconduct,” such as fraud.  *See, e.g., Pac. Islander Council of Leaders*, DAB No. 2091 at 12 (2007); *Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond*, 496 U.S. 414, 421 (1990).  There is no evidence suggesting fraud on the part of Noridian or its employees or that there was any intent to mislead Petitioner.
Petitioner’s arguments may also be construed as a request for equitable relief, but I have no authority to grant such relief.  *US Ultrasound*, DAB No. 2302 at 8 (2010).  I am required to follow the Act and regulations and have no authority to declare statutes or regulations invalid.  *1866ICPayday.com, L.L.C.*, DAB No. 2289 at 14 (2009).
IV.  Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s request for hearing is dismissed.


          /s/
        Keith W. Sickendick

                      Administrative Law Judge
      1. Citations are to the 2016 revision of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), unless otherwise indicated. back to note 1
                      2. The record includes copies of the May 15 notice sent to Petitioner care of multiple reassignors.  CMS Ex. 1 at 47, 62, 64, 67, and 70. back to note 2
                      3. The statement in the initial determination that a request for reconsideration had to be filed within 60 days of the postmark of the initial determination is a legal error.  In this case I find no prejudice to Petitioner due to the erroneous advice.  However, CMS and its contractors should exercise caution to ensure that official notices accurately reflect the law. back to note 3 Back to top
    Contact HHS
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Careers
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      HHS FAQs
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Nondiscrimination NoticeHHS Archive
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Accessibility Statement
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Privacy Policy
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Viewers & PlayersBudget/Performance
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Inspector General
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Web Site Disclaimers
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      EEO/No Fear ActFOIA
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      The White House
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      USA.gov
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
        Sign Up for Email Updates

Receive the latest updates from the Secretary, Blogs, and News Releases.

Sign Up
  HHS Headquarters
          200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
                  Washington, D.C. 20201
                  Toll Free Call Center: 1-877-696-6775​ Disclaimer Policy: Links with this icon () mean that you are leaving the HHS website. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot guarantee the accuracy of a non-federal website.
                  Linking to a non-federal website does not mean that HHS or its employees endorse the sponsors, information, or products presented on the website. HHS links outside of itself to provide you with further information.
                  You will be bound by the destination website's privacy policy and/or terms of service when you follow the link.
                  HHS is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on private websites. For more information on HHS's web notification policies, see Website Disclaimers.
 Continue
                  Go back