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
                              Rachel E. Scott, DAB CR5687 (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

                    




Rachel E. Scott, DAB CR5687 (2020)








  
  
    

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





Rachel E. Scott,
	(OI File No. H-19-41329-9),
	Petitioner,
v.
The Inspector General.
Docket No. C-20-389Decision No. CR5687August 13, 2020

        
              
    

      DECISION
Petitioner, Rachel E. Scott, is a licensed practical nurse, who worked at a nursing home in the State of Indiana.  She was charged with crimes (three felony counts and one misdemeanor count) connected to her handling of controlled substances that went missing from the nursing home.  She pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally failing to make, keep, or furnish records of controlled substances.  Based on her conviction, the Inspector General (IG) has excluded her from participating in the Medicare, Medicaid, and all federal health care programs for a period of two years, pursuant to section 1128(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (Act).
For the reasons discussed below, I find that the IG is authorized to exclude Petitioner and that the two-year exclusion is reasonable.
Background
In a letter dated January 31, 2020, the IG advised Petitioner Scott that, because she had been convicted of a misdemeanor offense related to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct in connection with the delivery of
Page 2
a healthcare item or service, the IG was excluding her from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and all federal health care programs for a period of two years.  IG Ex. 1.  Petitioner requested review.
The parties have submitted their written arguments (IG Br.; P. Br.).  The IG also submitted five exhibits (IG Exs. 1-5) and a reply.
In the absence of any objections, I admit into evidence IG Exs. 1-5.
The parties agree that this case does not require an in-person hearing.  IG Br. at 13; P. Br. at 7.
Discussion
***1. Petitioner Scott may be excluded from program participation because she was convicted of a misdemeanor offense relating to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct in connection with the delivery of a healthcare item or service.***1
Section 1128(b)(1) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to exclude from participating in all federal health care programs any individual or entity convicted of a misdemeanor offense “relating to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct in connection with the delivery of a health care item or service.”  *See* 42 C.F.R. § 1001.201(a).
Petitioner was a licensed practical nurse, working at an Indiana nursing home.  In that capacity, she was responsible for dispensing controlled substances.  Federal and state laws required her to keep complete and accurate records of the drugs dispensed to patients (number of units or volume, name and address of recipient, date, name or initials of person dispensing the drug).  21 U.S.C. § 827(a)(3); 21 C.F.R. §§ 1304.21, 1304.22; *see* Ind. Code § 35-48-3-7.  If she removed any controlled substance but did not actually give it to a patient, federal regulations required her to destroy the drug.  The destruction had to be witnessed by another staff member, and she was required to make a drug destruction record.  21 C.F.R. § 1317.95(d); *see* IG Ex. 2 at 1-2.
On September 10, 2018, the nursing home’s executive director reported to the Indiana Office of the Attorney General that a significant amount of the drugs Norco (containing
Page 3
hydrocodone) and Percocet (containing oxycodone) was missing, and the loss was directly attributable to Petitioner Scott.  IG Ex. 2 at 2.
A state investigation, which included reviews of the facility’s medication records and its audits of the missing medications, concluded that Petitioner Scott knowingly or intentionally:  1) failed to make, keep, or furnish the required records of her dispensing or administering controlled substances; 2) furnished false or fraudulent information in, or omitted material information from, a required report regarding her dispensing or administering controlled substances; 3) acquired possession of hydrocodone by “misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, subterfuge, or concealment of a material fact,”; and 4) exerted “unauthorized control” over hydrocodone with the intent to deprive the nursing home of it.  IG Ex. 2 at 8.
In an Information dated February 22, 2019, Petitioner was charged with three felony counts:
Failing to make, keep, or furnish records, in violation of Ind. Code § 35‐48‐4‐14(a)(3); specifically, between August 1 and September 10, 2018, she “recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally” failed to make a record and/or an order form and/or information required by the state law;
	Furnishing false or fraudulent information, in violation of Ind. Code § 35‐48‐4‐14(b)(3); specifically, between August 1 and September 10, 2018, she “knowingly or intentionally” omitted material information from a medication administration record; and
	Obtaining a controlled substance by fraud or deceit, in violation of Ind. Code § 35‐48-4-14(c); specifically, between August 1 and September 10, 2018, she “knowingly or intentionally” acquired possession of a controlled substance, hydrocodone, by deception – she improperly removed the drug from a medical cart.IG Ex. 3 at 1.  She was also charged with one misdemeanor count of theft; specifically, between August 1 and September 10, 2018, she “knowingly or intentionally” exerted unauthorized control over the nursing home’s property – medication and/or controlled substances – intending to deprive the nursing home of “any part of the use or value of the property.”  IG Ex. 3 at 1-2.
On May 22, 2019, Petitioner signed a plea agreement and pled guilty to Count 1of the Information (failing to make, keep, or furnish records).  IG Ex. 4.  Under Indiana law, if a person is convicted of a level 6 felony, the court may enter judgment of conviction of a misdemeanor and sentence accordingly.  Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7.  The court did so,
Page 4
convicting Petitioner of a misdemeanor and sentencing her to 365 days in jail, followed by 360 days probation.  She was required to pay court costs.  IG Ex. 5.
Based on these underlying facts, it seems certain that Petitioner’s conviction was related to fraud and theft.  She knowingly failed to maintain the records required for monitoring controlled substances, and, based on the evidence in this record, she committed that crime in order to conceal the fact that she was diverting the narcotics, probably for her own use.
Pointing out that the statutory subsection under which she was convicted does not require fraud or theft, Petitioner argues that, based on that provision, she simply made some “documentation errors.”  P. Br. at 2-3.  Although she concedes that “extrinsic evidence might be relevant,” she accuses the IG of “impermissible *bootstrapping*,” although she does not explain what she means by that term.  P. Br. at 4 (emphasis in original).2
Section 1128(b) recognizes that crimes do not occur in a vacuum, and criminals often plead guilty to non-specific crimes.  As I explained at length in *Thomas B. Higgins*, DAB CR3477 (2014), section 1128(b) does not require a conviction for fraud itself; the IG may exclude based on a conviction *relating* to fraud.  The statute “unambiguously authorizes . . . exclusion of an individual whose conviction is for conduct *factually* related to fraud.”  *Friedman v. Sebelius*, 686 F.3d 813, 820 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added).
The term “misdemeanor” [in section 1128(b)] refers to the particular circumstances of an individual’s conviction, and “relating to” must denote a factual relationship between the conduct underlying the misdemeanor and the conduct underlying a “fraud.”
*Friedman*, 686 F.3d at 821.
In *Higgins*, I also listed a long line of Departmental Appeals Board cases rejecting efforts to limit section 1128 review to the elements of the criminal offense:  *Narendra M. Patel, M.D.*, DAB No. 1736 at 7 (2000), *aff’d sub nom, Patel v. Thompson*, 319 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2003); *Timothy Wayne Hensley*, DAB No. 2044 (2006); *Scott D. Augustine*, DAB No. 2043 (2006); *Lyle Kai, R.Ph.*, DAB No. 1979 at 5 (2005), *aff’d sub nom, Kai v. Leavitt*, No. 05-00514 BMK (D. Haw. July 17, 2006); *Berton Siegel, D.O.*, DAB No.
Page 5
1467 at 5 (1994); *Carolyn Westin*, DAB No. 1381 (1993), *aff’d sub nom, Westin v. Shalala*, 845 F. Supp. 1446 (D. Kan. 1994).  *Higgins*, DAB CR3477 at 5.
Thus, it is well-settled that I may consider the facts underlying Petitioner’s guilty plea.  And those facts include the disappearance of a significant quantity of narcotics, for which Petitioner was responsible:  103 5 mg tablets of Norco; 60 7.5 mg tablets of Norco; 25 5 mg tablets of Percocet; and 10 10 mg tablets of Percocet.  IG Ex. 2 at 2.  She was, by all accounts, a competent nurse, who had been trained to account for the narcotics she administered.  IG Ex. 2 at 6.  And she has not offered any credible explanation for her significant number of “recording errors” or for the missing drugs.  IG Ex. 2 at 7.  In fact, the only reasonable inference I can draw from the evidence before me is that Petitioner deliberately failed to maintain adequate narcotics records in order to hide the disappearance of all those drugs.  That’s fraud – or close enough to be considered “related” to fraud – whether she diverted the narcotics for her own use, gave them away, or just lost them.
Petitioner was thus convicted of a criminal offense relating to fraud in connection with the delivery of a health care item or service and may be excluded under section 1128(b)(1) of the Act.
***2. The two-year exclusion is reasonable.***
Having found a basis for the exclusion, I now consider whether a two-year exclusion falls within a reasonable range.  A permissive exclusion based on section 1128(b)(1) is for three years unless the Secretary determines, in accordance with published regulations, that a shorter period is appropriate because of mitigating circumstances or that a longer period is appropriate because of aggravating circumstances.  Act § 1128(c)(3)(D); 42 C.F.R. § 1001.201(b)(1).  So long as the period of exclusion is within a reasonable range, based on demonstrated criteria, I have no authority to change it.  *Joann Fletcher Cash*, DAB No. 1725 at 16-17 (citing 57 Fed. Reg. 3298, 3321 (1992)).
The IG did not increase the length of Petitioner’s exclusion based on any aggravating factor.3
The regulations consider mitigating the following factors:  1) a petitioner was convicted of three or fewer offenses, and the entire amount of financial loss due to the acts that resulted in the conviction and similar acts is less than $5,000; 2) the record in the criminal proceedings demonstrates that the court determined that the individual had a mental, emotional, or physical condition that reduced her culpability; 3) the individual’s
Page 6
cooperation with federal or state officials resulted in others being convicted or excluded, additional cases being investigated, reports being issued by the appropriate law enforcement agency identifying program vulnerabilities or weaknesses, or civil money penalties being imposed against others; and 4) alternative sources of the type of health care items or services furnished by the individual or entity are not available.  42 C.F.R. § 1001.201(b)(3).
Because Petitioner was convicted of fewer than three offenses and financial losses were less than $5,000, the IG decreased the length of the exclusion from three to two years.  This decrease seems more than reasonable.  No other mitigating circumstance justifies an additional decrease in the length of the exclusion.
Conclusion
The IG was authorized to exclude Petitioner from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs, and no mitigating circumstance justifies shortening the length of the two-year exclusion.


          /s/
        Carolyn Cozad Hughes

                      Administrative Law Judge
      1. My findings of fact/conclusions of law are set forth, in italics and bold, in the discussion captions of this decision. back to note 1
                      2. Petitioner seems to engage in a modicum of “bootstrapping” herself.  She suggests that the dismissal of the fraud charges against her shows that the evidence of fraud was insufficient.  Prosecutors no doubt accept plea agreements for a wide variety of reasons, not necessarily because evidence of the crimes charged is insufficient.  In any event, to sustain the exclusion, I need not find her guilty of fraud; rather, I must find that her offense related to fraud. back to note 2
                      3. Because the sentence imposed by the court included incarceration, the IG might have found an aggravating circumstance.  42 C.F.R. § 1001.201(b)(iv); see Stacy Ann Battle, D.D.S., DAB No. 1843 (2002).  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