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
                              William G. Coggins, Jr., ALJ Ruling 2020-16 (HHS CRD Sept. 4, 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

                    




William G. Coggins, Jr., ALJ Ruling 2020-16 (HHS CRD Sept. 4, 2020)








  
  
    

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





The Inspector General of the Social Security Administration,
Petitioner,

v.

William G. Coggins, Jr.,
Respondent.
Docket No. C-20-390Ruling No. 2020-16September 4, 2020

        
              
    

      RULING DENYING MOTION TO VACATE THE JULY 31, 2020 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

I.        Background

On March 7, 2020, Respondent, William G. Coggins, Jr., filed a request for hearing to challenge the Social Security Administration (SSA) Inspector General’s (IG’s) proposed civil monetary penalty (CMP) of $223,024, which included a penalty of $161,784 and an assessment of $61,240.  DAB E-File Docket Entry 5 (herein “Notice of Proposed CMP”).  The IG charged that the facts underlying the IG’s proposal of a CMP included that Respondent had wrongfully received $134,820 in SSA disability insurance benefits based on his “false statements, misrepresentations, and/or omissions of material fact to the SSA.”  Notice of Proposed CMP at 1.  The IG further charged that Respondent had wrongfully received $61,240 in disability insurance benefits during the six-year limitations period.  Notice of Proposed CMP at 2; *see*42 U.S.C. § 1320a-8(b)(1).

The Civil Remedies Division (CRD) issued my standing pre-hearing order (Pre-Hearing Order) on March 20, 2020.  In section 2 of the Pre-Hearing Order, I informed Respondent that he had the right to be represented by an attorney in this matter, but that I cannot appoint an attorney to represent him.  In section 15 of the Pre-Hearing Order, I explained

Page 2

that I would dismiss the case pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 498.202(f)(2) if the parties settled and notified me that they no longer wished to proceed with this case.

I convened a pre-hearing conference on April 8, 2020.  Thereafter, I issued an order summarizing the pre-hearing conference in which I again informed the parties that I would dismiss this case if the parties notified me that they had settled and no longer wished to proceed with this case.

On July 9, 2020, the IG filed a joint motion seeking an extension of the then-pending deadlines, at which time the parties explained that they were “actively pursuing resolution via a settlement agreement and are making progress toward resolving this matter without the necessity for further litigation.”  I granted this motion the same day.  On July 30, 2020, the IG filed a joint motion to dismiss the request for hearing in which the parties reported that they had “executed a Settlement Agreement thereby resolving the pending matter.”  The joint motion to dismiss further stated that “pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 498.202(f)(2), the SSA-OIG and [Respondent] respectfully request the Court issue an Order dismissing this case with prejudice.”  I issued an order dismissing the case (“Dismissal Order”) on July 31, 2020, in which I explained that the parties had filed a joint motion to dismiss Respondent’s request for hearing and that I had granted the motion and ordered dismissal of the case.

Respondent filed a motion to vacate the Dismissal Order on August 17, 2020, explaining that he thought that the $20,000 CMP stipulated in the settlement agreement “was the only debt that was to be paid back” and that he was surprised to learn that he continued to be liable for an overpayment of the SSA disability insurance benefits he had received.  Respondent argued that his liability for repayment of the SSA disability insurance benefits resulted from “surprising,” “misleading,” and “faulty” conduct by the IG.  Respondent argued that Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provided “grounds to re-open the case due to the mistakes, surprise and irregularity.”1
  Respondent filed a copy of an undated settlement agreement that had not been executed by either party.2

Page 3

I directed the IG to file a response, which the IG filed on August 27, 2020.  In support, the IG filed, *inter alia*, a copy of a settlement agreement that the parties had executed on July 29, 2020.  IG Ex. D.  The opening sentence explained that the parties had settled the IG’s claim against Respondent for violations of Section 1129 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-8.  IG Ex. D at 1.  The parties agreed that Section 1129 of the Social Security Act authorized both the imposition of CMPs “for each false or misleading statement or representation of a material fact made for use” in connection with SSA benefits and the imposition of an assessment in lieu of twice the amount of benefits paid “because of the aforementioned false or misleading statements and/or representation, or withholding disclosure of a material fact.”  IG Ex. D at 1.  The settlement agreement memorialized that Respondent agreed to pay a total CMP of $20,000 and that there would be no assessment in lieu of damages.  IG Ex. D at 1.  In section 9, the parties further agreed to the following:

This agreement in no way relieves [Respondent] of any responsibility he may have to repay overpayments of Title II and/or Title XVI Social Security benefits and/or payments as determined by the SSA, including overpayments that originated prior to the signing of this Agreement.  This Agreement in no way limits the SSA in its determination as to the appropriate manner in which to recover any such overpayments.

[Respondent] reserves all objections, defenses, claims, appeals, and rights of any kind with respect to an alleged overpayment, and this Agreement in no way precludes [Respondent] of availing himself of any available administrative processes to challenge such an overpayment determination by the SSA.

IG Ex. D at 3.  The parties agreed that the settlement agreement “is final and binding when signed by [Respondent] and the below-named SSA-OIG representative.”  IG Ex. D at 3.  Respondent acknowledged “all of the language contained in this Agreement is accurate and satisfactory to him.”  IG Ex. D at 1 (emphasis omitted).  Respondent also acknowledged that he entered into the agreement “knowingly and voluntarily and was given reasonable time to consult with an attorney.”  IG Ex. D at 3.

Respondent, through his spouse, submitted a reply, arguing that although the IG had argued Respondent had “intentionally misrepresented his level of functioning,” he is illiterate and has a “documented IQ of 68.”3
  Respondent also alleged that he had been

Page 4

adversely affected by a lack of legal representation, and he criticized the individuals who purportedly initiated the IG’s investigation.  Respondent further argued that he maintained a license and drove a dump truck because his 92-year old father was unable “to continue to drive safely,” and therefore, SSA should not have terminated his disability insurance benefits.

II.       Discussion

These proceedings are governed by 20 C.F.R. Part 498 (Civil Monetary Penalties, Assessments, and Recommended Exclusions).  Part 498 does not provide for the reopening of an order dismissing a request for hearing.  *See*20 C.F.R. §§ 498.202(f)(2) (“The ALJ shall dismiss a hearing request where . . . [t]he respondent withdraws or abandons respondent’s request for a hearing.”); 498.126 (“The Inspector General has exclusive authority to settle any issues or case, without the consent of the [ALJ] or the Commissioner, at any time prior to a final determination.”).

Although the regulations do not expressly authorize an ALJ to reopen a dismissed case, the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) has acknowledged that “[g]enerally, a decision‐maker has inherent authority to reopen and reconsider a decision even in the absence of express authorization in its procedures” in order to ensure “fair process and sound decisions.”  *Henry L. Gupton*, DAB Ruling No. 2007-2 at 2 (2007).  The DAB discussed that such reopening and reconsideration may be appropriate when a party “promptly alleges a clear error of fact or law.”  *Gupton*, DAB Ruling No. 2007-2 at 3.  The DAB has explained that “[r]eopening a decision is not a routine step in the administrative appeal process but, rather, an opportunity for the parties to identify ‘any errors that make the decision clearly wrong.’”  *Howard M. Sokoloff*, *DPM, MS, Inc.*, DAB Ruling 2020-2 at 1-2 (2019).  The DAB has explained that, in requesting the reopening of a DAB decision, “the central inquiry is whether the party requesting reopening has articulated a clear error of fact or law in the . . . decision.”  *Id.*at 2.

Respondent has not alleged any error of fact or law in the July 31, 2020 Dismissal Order.  Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the IG, as contemplated by 20 C.F.R. § 498.126.  Thereafter, Respondent withdrew his request for hearing.  *See*IG Ex. D at 2 (“[Respondent] agrees not to contest the amount due under this Agreement, and waives all procedural rights granted under applicable law and regulation, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-8 and 20 C.F.R. Part 498.”).  As required by 20 C.F.R. § 498.202(f)(2), I dismissed the case based on Respondent’s withdrawal of his request for hearing.

Page 5

Respondent argues in his motion to vacate that he thought that the terms of the settlement required that he owed a penalty of $20,000 and “nothing more.”  However, the settlement agreement is quite clear in its breadth and scope, as evidenced by its opening with the following statement:  “This Settlement Agreement . . . settles a claim against [Respondent] for violations of Section 1129 of the Social Security Act.”  IG Ex. D at 1 (emphasis omitted).  Further, not only did the settlement agreement clearly define the scope of Section 1129 (page 1, discussing Section 1129’s authorization of a CMP and an assessment), but it also explained, on page 3, that the Agreement “in no way relieves [Respondent] of any responsibility he may have to repay overpayments of Title II and/or Title XVI Social Security benefits and/or payments as determined by SSA, including overpayments that originated prior to the signing of this Agreement.”  IG Ex. D at 3.  The settlement agreement is detailed and unambiguous, and there is no doubt that its plain terms informed Respondent that he was settling the IG’s action with respect to a CMP and assessment relating to his allegedly “false or misleading statement or representation of a material fact made for use in determining an initial or continuing right” or “withholding disclosure of a material fact” in connection with his SSA benefits.  IG Ex. D at 1.  Likewise, the settlement agreement clearly informed Respondent that he may be liable for an overpayment resulting from his improper receipt of SSA benefits and that he would be afforded an opportunity to challenge any overpayment determination.  IG Ex. D at 3.

Respondent does not allege any error of fact or law, but rather, simply appears to regret his decision to enter into a settlement agreement that resolved only the IG-proposed CMP and assessment pursuant to Section 1129 of the Social Security Act.  However, such regret does not constitute an allegation of an error of fact or law in the Dismissal Order.  Further, and although not dispositive of the issue presented herein, I see nothing “surprising,” “misleading,” or “faulty” in the terms of the settlement agreement or the IG’s conduct in offering and executing the settlement agreement; Respondent requested a hearing to challenge the proposed CMP and assessment, and the settlement agreement resolved the issues that were the subject of the IG’s proposed action.  *See*IG Ex. D; Notice of Proposed CMP.  Therefore, Respondent has not demonstrated the existence of any error in fact or law in the dismissal of his case.

Page 6

For the foregoing reasons, I deny Respondent’s motion to vacate the Dismissal Order.


          /s/
        Leslie C. Rogall

                      Administrative Law Judge
      1. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings in United States district courts and do not apply to this proceeding.  Nonetheless, I note that Rule 60 allows a district court to correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission.  Respondent has not alleged that such a circumstance is present here. back to note 1
                      2. In an August 27, 2020 filing, the IG explained that Respondent had rejected this proposed settlement agreement, along with at least one other proposed settlement agreement.  IG Reply to Motion to Vacate at 5 (“Respondent . . . made clear to SSA-OIG that his decision to reject the previous proposed agreements was based on his reluctance to relinquish his rights to challenge the current $134,820.00 overpayment.”).  It is unclear why Respondent submitted a rejected settlement agreement in lieu of the executed version of the settlement agreement. back to note 2
                      3. As discussed in the order summarizing the pre-hearing conference, Respondent’s spouse participated in the conference.  I note that Respondent signed the request for hearing, listed his own name on the motion to vacate, and executed the settlement agreement on his own behalf. 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