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
                              2022
                              University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, D/B/A St. Joseph Rehabilitative Services, DAB CR6050 (2022)
 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

                    




University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, D/B/A St. Joseph Rehabilitative Services, DAB CR6050 (2022)








  
  
    

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





University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center,
D/B/A St. Joseph Rehabilitative Services,
(NPI:  1811552391) (PTAN:  216713),
Petitioner,

v.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Docket No. C-20-661Decision No. CR6050March 23, 2022

        
              
    

      DECISION

Petitioner, University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, d/b/a St. Joseph Rehabilitative Services, is a rehabilitation agency, providing physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech pathology services in Towson, Maryland. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved its application to participate in the Medicare program, effective January 10, 2020. Petitioner now challenges that effective date.

Because the rehabilitation agency first demonstrated that it met all Medicare health and safety standards on the date of its federal survey, January 10, 2020, I affirm January 10, 2020 as the effective date for Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment. I have no authority to grant Petitioner’s request for equitable relief.

Background

In Maryland, hospital rates are regulated by an independent state body. All payers – including Medicare, Medicaid, private insurers, and self-pay – are charged the same rate for the same service at the same hospital. *See* Social Security Act (Act) § 1814(b) (exempting Maryland from Medicare reimbursement systems); Md. Code §§ 19-201

**Page 2**

through 227 (creating the hospital rate regulation system); Title 19 COMAR (Code of Maryland Regulations) § 10.37.

Prior to August 12, 2019, St. Joseph was part of the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center; it was situated on the medical center’s campus and was subject to the state’s regulated reimbursement rates.  When the rehabilitation agency moved from the hospital campus, it was no longer part of the state-regulated system. CMS Ex. 1. *Like any other prospective provider of services*, to participate in the Medicare program, it was required to enroll, which meant that it had to submit the appropriate application and demonstrate that it complied with all program requirements.  Act § 1866; 42 C.F.R. 42 C.F.R. § 424.510(a); 42 C.F.R. § 488.3.  St. Joseph submitted its enrollment application on June 21, 2019, asking for an enrollment date that would coincide with the date of its deregulation (August 12, 2019). CMS Ex. 2.

In a letter dated March 18, 2020, CMS advised St. Joseph that it approved the rehabilitation agency’s request to participate in the Medicare program, effective January 10, 2020. CMS Ex. 5. St. Joseph sought reconsideration, asking that its effective date be changed to August 12, 2019, *“*to coincide with the effective date of the de-regulation of services.” CMS Ex. 7.

In a reconsidered determination, dated May 22, 2020, a CMS hearing officer affirmed the January 10, 2020 effective date. CMS Reconsideration Request Decision, DAB E-file Dkt. C-20-661, Doc. No. 1(a). St. Joseph requested review by an administrative law judge.

Although the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, I find that this matter may be decided on the written record, without considering whether the standards for summary judgment are satisfied. In my standing order, I instructed the parties to list any proposed witnesses and to submit their written direct testimony. Standing Order at 3, 5 (¶¶ 4, 8) (July 22, 2020). The order also directed the parties to indicate which, if any, of the opposing side’s witnesses the party wished to cross-examine and explained that an in-person hearing would be needed only if a party wishes to cross-examine the opposing side’s witness. Standing Order at 5-6 (¶¶ 9, 10). Neither party lists any witnesses. An in-person hearing would therefore serve no purpose, and I may decide this case based on the written record without considering whether the standards for summary judgment are met.

With its motion and brief (CMS Br.), CMS submitted seven exhibits (CMS Exs. 1-7). In the absence of any objections, I admit into evidence CMS Exs. 1-7.

Petitioner submitted a cross-motion and brief (P. Br.) with two exhibits. However, Petitioner did not submit these exhibits at the reconsideration level.

**Page 3**

Petitioner’s exhibits consist of:

P. Ex. 1: an August 29, 2019 letter from the Maryland state agency approving Petitioner’s request to enroll in the Maryland Medicaid Program, along with an August 9, 2019 email from St. Joseph staff reporting that Medicaid surveyors had been at the rehab center from 1:10 until 1:20 p.m. that day; and
	P. Ex. 2: a series of emails, dated October 30, 2019, through March 16, 2020, discussing the steps Petitioner needed to take in order to enroll in the program and schedule the Medicare survey.CMS Reconsideration Request Decision, DAB E-file Dkt. C-20-661, Doc. No. 1(a) at 1-2 (listing all of the exhibits submitted at reconsideration).

Although CMS did not object to my admitting these documents, I am required to examine any new documentary evidence independently to determine whether the provider has good cause for submitting it for the first time at the ALJ level of review. If I find that good cause does not exist, I must exclude the evidence and may not consider it in reaching a decision. 42 C.F.R. § 498.56(e); *see* 42 C.F.R. § 405.803(e).

In advising Petitioner of its right to request reconsideration, the contractor also advised Petitioner that it could submit additional information, but warned:

However, if you have additional information that you would like a Hearing Officer to consider during the reconsideration or, if necessary, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to consider during a hearing, you *must submit*that information with your request for reconsideration. This is *your only opportunity* to submit information during the administrative appeals process unless an ALJ allows additional information to be submitted.

CMS Ex. 6 at 2 (emphasis added).

Petitioner has not explained why it did not submit its exhibits at the reconsideration level. The documents were certainly available and in the Petitioner’s possession. Because no good cause justifies Petitioner’s failing to submit the documents at the reconsideration stage, I must exclude the evidence and may not consider it in reaching my decision. *Mohammad Nawaz, M.D., & Mohammad Zaim, M.D., PA,*DAB No. 2687 at 12-13 (2016), *aff’d, Nawaz v. Price,*No. 4:16CV386, 2017 WL 2798230 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2017) (finding that the ALJ did not abuse his discretion when he did not find good cause to admit documents not offered at reconsideration because the regulation itself provided notice of the requirement to provide all documents on reconsideration).

**Page 4**

Discussion

***1. Because Petitioner established that it first met all Medicare enrollment requirements on the date of its Medicare survey, January 10, 2020, January 10, 2020 is the effective date of its Medicare enrollment.***1

**Program requirements.****A rehabilitation agency provides “an integrated interdisciplinary rehabilitation program” designed to upgrade the physical functioning of the disabled by bringing together specialized rehabilitation staff to function as a team. Its services must include at least physical therapy or speech-language pathology. 42 C.F.R. § 485.703.  It may participate in the Medicare program as a provider of services. 42 C.F.R. §§ 400.202, 424.500, 424.505; 489.2(b); *see* Act § 1861(p) and (u). Like all prospective providers, to enroll in Medicare, a rehabilitation agency must complete and submit an enrollment application.  42 C.F.R. §§ 424.510(a), 424.510(d)(1); *see*42 C.F.R. § 498.2.  It must be surveyed and demonstrate that it meets all program requirements. 42 C.F.R. §§ 424.510(a), 485.707, 488.3(a).

If the rehabilitation agency meets all health and safety standards on the date of the survey, the effective date of its approval is the survey date.  42 C.F.R. § 489.13(b)(1).

**The date St. Joseph first met all Medicare participation requirements.** On June 21, 2019, St. Joseph applied to enroll in the Medicare program by submitting to the Medicare contractor, Novitas Solutions, an application (Form CMS-855A) via PECOS (Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System), CMS’s electronic filing process. CMS Ex. 2.

In a letter to CMS, dated July 12, 2019, the contractor confirmed that it verified the application information and recommended that the application be approved. CMS Ex. 3.

The state agency surveyed St. Joseph on January 10, 2020, and determined that the agency complied with Medicare conditions of participation for rehabilitation agencies, 42 C.F.R. part 485, subpart H. CMS Ex. 4. Based on this survey, January 10, 2020 is the earliest possible effective date of approval. 42 C.F.R. § 489.13(b)(1).

**Petitioner’s arguments.** Petitioner insists that its effective date for Medicare participation should align with the date of its deregulation. But the date it was no longer regulated by Maryland’s hospital rate regulation system is irrelevant to the date it demonstrated that it met Medicare program requirements. From the time the rehabilitation agency separated from the hospital, it was in the same position as any other

**Page 5**

prospective provider. Until it established, by means of a Medicare survey, that it met all Medicare health and safety requirements, it could not enroll in the program.

Petitioner also points to the August 9, 2019 Medicaid survey and argues that it is entitled to Medicare enrollment based on the results of that survey.2
 That a prospective provider underwent an arguably similar survey, but for a different purpose, does not establish that it met Medicare program requirements on an earlier date. *See Manor of Wayne Skilled Nursing & Rehab.,*DAB No. 2249 (2009). Here, the record is effectively silent on the August 9 survey findings, and there is no evidence that they were submitted to CMS for its review in determining whether St. Joseph complied with Medicare requirements.3
 Even if they were, CMS was not bound to accept them as adequate to establish Medicare compliance. Thus, in *Manor of Wayne,* the Board rejected the notion that earlier life safety code surveys satisfied the requirement that the facility meet federal LSC standards. DAB No. 2249 at 5, 10.

Petitioner complains about the delay in scheduling the Medicare survey. Petitioner’s complaints that it did not know what it had to do before a survey would be conducted (discussed below) suggest that it may have been at least partially at fault for the delay in scheduling a survey, but the question of fault is irrelevant. A prospective supplier may not appeal based on the contention that its survey should have been conducted earlier.  42 C.F.R. § 498.3(d)(15); *Manor of Wayne,*DAB No. 2249 at 12; *Forest Glen Skilled Nursing & Rehab. Ctr.,* DAB No. 1887 at 10 (2003) (holding that the state survey agency’s delay in conducting a survey “is not a proper basis for appeal under 42 C.F.R. Part 498, nor do the regulations . . . permit an ALJ . . . to set an earlier effective date . . . based solely on equitable considerations . . ..”).

Petitioner asserts that neither CMS nor Novitas informed the rehabilitation agency that it needed a separate Medicare survey or that its billing date would be tied to that survey. Petitioner complains that it did not understand the application process and blames CMS for any “failure to comply with applicable rules.”  P. Br. at 7-8. It is well-settled that, as a prospective participant in the Medicare program, Petitioner was charged with knowing

**Page 6**

its governing regulations. *Sunshine Haven Lordsburg,* DAB No. 2456 at 20 (2012), citing *Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs. of Crawford Cty.,*467 U.S. 51, 63, 64 (1984); *Manor of Wayne,* DAB No. 2249 at 10-11 (holding that the prospective provider had “constructive notice” of the regulations); *Cary Health & Rehab. Ctr.,*DAB No. 1771 (2001) (finding that applicants are responsible for understanding what is required of them to be program participants).

Finally, Petitioner asserts that I have the authority to grant equitable relief and should do so because the rehabilitation agency was fully open and operational as of August 12, 2019 and treated patients “in dire need” of its medical services. P. Br. at 9. No matter how compelling the circumstances, I have no authority to grant Petitioner an earlier effective date based on equitable or policy arguments. *Howard M. Sokoloff,* *DPM, MS, Inc.,* DAB No. 2972 at 9 (2019); *US Ultrasound,*DAB No. 2302 at 8 (2010); *see Manor of Wayne,*DAB No. 2249 at 7 (rejecting a provider’s claim that it was entitled to an earlier effective date because of its “very unique circumstances”).

Conclusion

Petitioner first met all Medicare participation requirements on the date of its Medicare survey, January 10, 2020, and CMS therefore properly approved its Medicare enrollment effective that date.


          /s/
        Carolyn Cozad Hughes

                      Administrative Law Judge
      1. I make this one finding of fact/conclusion of law. back to note 1
                      2. Petitioner faults CMS for not addressing the significance of this survey. However, it seems that Petitioner may have raised the issue, for the first time, at this level. Nothing in the reconsideration determination suggests that either party or the hearing officer discussed the issue. See, e.g., CMS Reconsideration Request Decision, DAB E-file Dkt. C-20-661, Doc. No. 1(a). back to note 2
                      3. Petitioner’s proposed exhibits, even if admitted, shed virtually no light on what the surveyors looked at or found during that state survey. Aside from establishing that the state approved St. Joseph’s Medicaid participation, they show that the surveyors spent ten minutes at the rehab center, which does not suggest that they assessed the center’s compliance with all Medicare requirements, 42 C.F.R. §§ 485.707- 485.729. P. Ex. 1. 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