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
                              2020
                              Neha Thakker, PT, DAB CR5670 (2020)
 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

                    




Neha Thakker, PT, DAB CR5670 (2020)








  
  
    

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





Neha Thakker, PT
	(PTAN: 844206 / NPI: 1134581424),
	Petitioner,
v.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Docket No. C-20-253Decision No. CR5670August 28, 2020

        
              
    

      DECISION
The effective date of the reassignment of Medicare benefits of Petitioner, Neha Thakker, PT, is August 9, 2019, with retrospective billing privileges authorized beginning July 10, 2019.
I.  Background and Procedural History
Petitioner is a physical therapist.  *See*Request for Hearing; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Ex. 3 at 4.  On August 9, 2019, Novitas Solutions (Novitas), a Medicare administrative contractor, received Petitioner’s Form CMS-855R enrollment application to reassign her benefits to Elite Spine and Sports Care of Totowa.  CMS Ex. 1 at 8, 10, 14.  On August 28, 2019, Novitas approved Petitioner’s reassignment of benefits, effective July 10, 2019.1
  CMS Ex. 2 at 1-2.
Page 2
On October 28, 2019, Petitioner sent a letter to Novitas, which it received that same day, in which she requested reconsideration of the effective date assigned for her reassignment of benefits.  CMS Ex. 3 at 4; *see*CMS Ex. 4 at 2.  Petitioner explained that she “began employment . . .  on June 24, 2019 and was added to [the practice’s] group NPI,” and “[t]here was a provider over lap [sic] as she was replacing another physical therapist in [the] practice.”  CMS Ex. 3 at 4.
Novitas issued a reconsidered determination on January 16, 2020, explaining that “[b]ased on the CMS-855R reassignment of benefits application being received on August 9, 2019, the effective date of Medicare billing privileges is August 9, 2019.”  CMS Ex. 4 at 1.  Novitas further explained that “[t]he requirements for retrospective billing were met as required by 42 [C.F.R. § ]424.521(a) and a Medicare effective date of billing of July 10, 2019 was provided and set up correctly based on the effective date regulations stated above.”  CMS Ex. 4 at 2-3.
Petitioner submitted a request for an administrative law judge (ALJ) hearing that was received on January 21, 2020.2
  Thereafter, the Civil Remedies Division issued my standing pre-hearing order (Pre-Hearing Order) that directed the parties to file their respective pre-hearing exchanges.  CMS filed a pre-hearing brief and motion for summary judgment, along with four proposed exhibits (CMS Exs. 1-4).  Petitioner filed a response that I construe as a brief (P. Br.).3
Page 3
Neither party has submitted written direct testimony, as addressed in sections 11 through 13 of the Pre-Hearing Order.  A hearing for the purpose of cross-examination is therefore unnecessary.  I consider the record in this case to be closed, and the matter is ready for a decision on the merits.4
II.  Issue
Whether the effective date of Petitioner’s reassigned Medicare benefits is August 9, 2019, with retrospective billing privileges authorized beginning July 10, 2019.
III.  Jurisdiction
I have jurisdiction to hear and decide this case.  42 C.F.R § 498.3(b)(15); *Victor Alvarez, M.D.*, DAB No. 2325 at 8-12 (2010); *see* 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc(j)(8).
IV.  Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Analysis5
***Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.520(d), the effective date of Petitioner’s reassignment of benefits is August 9, 2019, which is the date of receipt of the Medicare enrollment application that Novitas was able to process to approval, and retrospective billing privileges are authorized beginning July 10, 2019, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.521(a)(1).***
As a physical therapist, Petitioner is a “supplier” for purposes of the Medicare program.  *See*CMS Ex. 3 at 4;*see also*42 U.S.C. § 1395x(d); 42 C.F.R. §§ 400.202 (definition of supplier), 498.2.  A “supplier” furnishes items or services under Medicare and the term applies to physicians or other practitioners who are not included within the definition of the phrase “provider of services.”  42 U.S.C. § 1395x(d).  A supplier must enroll in the Medicare program to receive payment for covered Medicare items or services.  42 C.F.R. § 424.505.  The regulations at 42 C.F.R. Part 424, subpart P, establish the requirements for a supplier to enroll in the Medicare program.  42 C.F.R. §§ 424.510-424.516; *see also*42 U.S.C. § 1395cc(j)(1)(A) (authorizing the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to establish regulations addressing the enrollment of providers and suppliers in the Medicare program).  A supplier who seeks billing privileges under Medicare “must submit enrollment information on the applicable enrollment application.”
Page 4
42 C.F.R. § 424.510(a)(1).  “Once the provider or supplier successfully completes the enrollment process . . . , CMS enrolls the provider or supplier into the Medicare program.”  *Id.*; *see also* 42 C.F.R. § 424.510(d) (listing enrollment requirements for suppliers).  When the contractor approves an enrollment application, it sets the effective date for approval of billing privileges.  *See Alexander C. Gatzimos, MD, JD, LLC*,DAB No. 2730 at 2 (2016).  “The effective date of a physician’s or physician organization’s enrollment in Medicare is ‘the later of the date of filing of a Medicare enrollment application that was subsequently approved by a Medicare contractor or the date [the supplier] first began furnishing services at a new practice location.’”  *Gatzimos*, DAB No. 2730 at 2-3, citing 42 C.F.R. § 424.520(d) (addressing the effective date of enrollment, for *inter alia*, physicians and non-physician practitioners); *see Gaurav Lakhanpal, MD*, DAB No. 2951 at 6 (2019) (“the effective date of . . . reassignment of billing privileges is . . . the date that [the contractor] received [the] reassignment application that was subsequently approved.”).
The Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) has explained that “[t]he governing law on how CMS (and its Medicare contractors) determine the effective date for [suppliers] applying for Medicare billing privileges is set by regulation” at 42 C.F.R. § 424.520(d).  *Willie Goffney, Jr., M.D.*, DAB No. 2763 at 7 (2017).  Petitioner argues that she commenced employment with her current employer on June 24, 2019, and should be granted an effective date of June 24, 2019, for the reassignment of her Medicare benefits.  Request for Hearing; CMS Ex. 3 at 4; P. Br. (listing an effective date of June 24, 2019).  Petitioner did not submit an application to reassign benefits to her new practice until August 9, 2019.  CMS Ex. 1 at 8, 10, 14.  Therefore, the earliest possible effective date for Petitioner’s reassignment of benefits is August 9, 2019, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.520(d), because that is the date she submitted her application to reassign her benefits.  Billing privileges are authorized beginning up to 30 days earlier pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.521(a)(1), and therefore, Petitioner’s billing privileges are effective on the earliest possible date allowed by law, July 10, 2019.  Accordingly, I conclude that, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.520(d), the effective date of Petitioner’s reassignment of benefits is August 9, 2019, with retrospective billing privileges beginning July 10, 2019.  *See* *Lakhanpal,*DAB No. 2951 at 6.
To the extent that Petitioner’s request for relief is based on principles of equitable relief, I cannot grant such relief.  *US Ultrasound*, DAB No. 2302 at 8 (2010) (“Neither the ALJ nor the [DAB] is authorized to provide equitable relief by reimbursing or enrolling a supplier who does not meet statutory or regulatory requirements.”).  Petitioner points to no authority by which I may grant her relief from the applicable regulatory requirements, and I have no authority to declare statutes or regulations invalid or ultra vires.  *1866ICPayday.com, L.L.C*., DAB No. 2289 at 14 (2009) (“An ALJ is bound by applicable laws and regulations and may not invalidate either a law or regulation on any ground . . . .”).
Page 5
V.  Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, I uphold the August 9, 2019 effective date of Petitioner’s reassigned billing privileges, with retrospective billing authorized beginning July 10, 2019.


          /s/
        Leslie C. Rogall

                      Administrative Law Judge
      1. Although an effective date of a reassignment of benefits is set in accordance with 42 C.F.R. § 424.520(d), CMS or its contractor may permit retrospective billing for 30 days prior to the effective date if “circumstances precluded enrollment in advance of providing services to Medicare beneficiaries.”  42 C.F.R. § 424.521(a)(1).  Novitas used imprecise language when it stated that it had assigned a July 10, 2019 effective date for Petitioner’s reassignment of benefits.  In actuality, Novitas assigned an August 9, 2019 effective date for the reassignment of benefits, based on the receipt date of the application, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.520(d), and it authorized retrospective billing privileges beginning 30 days earlier, on July 10, 2019, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.521(a)(1). back to note 1
                      2. Petitioner’s request for hearing is identical to her request for reconsideration; both documents are dated October 28, 2019.  Request for Hearing; CMS Ex. 3 at 4. back to note 2
                      3. Petitioner filed her request for hearing via DAB E-File, and was required to submit all filings through DAB E-File.  See Civil Remedies Division Procedures § 6.  Nonetheless, Petitioner submitted documents by mail that were received on or about March 4, 2020, and on March 5, 2020, after discussing the matter with Petitioner by telephone, a Civil Remedies Division attorney returned those documents with a cover letter explaining that, “[i]f you want these documents to be a part of the record . . . , you[] must file them through the DAB E-File system . . . .”  DAB E-File Dkt. #5.  On March 9, 2020, following CMS’s filing of its pre-hearing exchange and prior to her deadline to file her pre-hearing exchange, Petitioner filed, via DAB E-File, a document with the file name of “Provider_Demographic_Neha.docx,” which is a document containing biographical information.  DAB E-File Dkt. #6.  Petitioner’s filing includes the following statement:  “Effective date: 06/24/2019.”  Id.  On May 22, 2020, I issued an order in which I offered Petitioner an opportunity to file a substitute pre-hearing exchange. Petitioner did not file a response to this order. back to note 3
                      4. Because a hearing is unnecessary, I need not address whether summary judgment is appropriate. back to note 4
                      5. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are in bold and italics. back to note 5 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