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
                              Zeynab Sagna-Nardy aka Gaye Seynabou, DAB CR6199 (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

                    




Zeynab Sagna-Nardy aka Gaye Seynabou, DAB CR6199 (2022)








  
  
    

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





Zeynab Sagna-Nardy aka
Gaye Seynabou,
(OI File No. H-19-42270-9),
Petitioner,

v.

The Inspector General
Docket No. C-22-800Decision No. CR6199December 8, 2022

        
              
    

      DECISION

Petitioner, Zeynab Sagna-Nardy, owned and operated Medicaid-funded assisted living facilities in Tucson, Arizona.  She was indicted on nine felony counts of Vulnerable Adult Abuse because one of her facilities was without running water, which jeopardized the health and safety of the nine vulnerable men who lived there.  Petitioner ultimately pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of Obtaining a Utility Service Fraudulently.  Based on this conviction, the Inspector General (IG) has excluded Petitioner for five years from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and all federal health care programs, as authorized by section 1128(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (Act).  Petitioner appeals the exclusion.  For the reasons discussed below, I find that the IG properly excluded her.  Because the statute mandates a minimum five-year exclusion, the length of her exclusion is, by law, reasonable.

Background

In a letter dated August 31, 2022, the IG notified Petitioner that she was excluded from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and all federal health care programs for a period of

**Page 2**

five years because she had been convicted of a criminal offense related to the delivery of an item or service under Medicare or a state health care program.  The letter explained that section 1128(a)(1) of the Act authorizes the exclusion.  IG Ex. 1.

Petitioner timely requested review.

The IG submitted a written argument (IG Br.) and 15 exhibits (IG Exs. 1-15).  Petitioner submitted her own written argument (P. Br.) with 11 exhibits (P. Exs. 1-11).  In the absence of any objections, I admit into evidence IG Exs. 1-15 and P. Exs. 1-11.

**Hearing on the written record**.  I instructed the parties to indicate, in their briefs, whether an in-person (video) hearing would be necessary and, if so, to explain why, identify any proposed witness, and *submit “in the form of an affidavit or a written sworn declaration,” the witness’s direct testimony*.  Order and Schedule for Filing Briefs and Documentary Evidence at 4 (¶ 7) (October 4, 2022) (emphasis added).  The IG indicates that an in-person hearing is not necessary.  IG Br. at 5.

Petitioner maintains that an in-person hearing is necessary.  P. Br. at 2.  However, she lists no witnesses and concedes that she has no testimony to offer at an in-person hearing.  P. Br. at 2-4.  Because there are no witnesses, an in-person hearing would serve no purpose.  This case may therefore be decided based on the written record.

Discussion

******Petitioner must be excluded from program participation for a minimum of five years because she was convicted of a criminal offense related to the delivery of an item or service under a state health care program.  Act § 1128(a)(1).***1***Under section 1128(a)(1) of the Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must exclude an individual who has been convicted under federal or state law of a criminal offense related to the delivery of an item or service under Medicare or a state health care program.  42 C.F.R. § 1001.101(a).

**The charges**.  Petitioner owned and operated an assisted-living facility, Heaven Can Wait, which was funded, in part, by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), the state’s Medicaid program.  IG Exs. 6, 7, 8; IG Ex. 10 at 3; IG Exs. 11, 13.

**Page 3**

On September 29, 2017, officers from the Tucson Police Department responded to an anonymous 911 call and went to the Heaven Can Wait facility.  An employee eventually answered the door, claiming that the other employee on duty had called requesting assistance with moving one of the residents (the facility did not have a working lift).  While there, the police officers observed that the facility had no running water.  They contacted Petitioner who conceded that, because she had not paid the water bill, the water department shut off the utility.  In their official report, the officers listed the following observations:

The water was shut off.
	Although ten people were inside the facility, only 4.5 gallons of water were available.
	Urine was in the bathroom sink.
	Urine and feces were in both of the facility’s toilets.
	The facility had no hand sanitizer.
	The evacuation plan was outdated; a secondary exit had sheetrock covering it.
	A medication cart was left unlocked and unattended, with keys on the top.
	Carpet tack strips were still on the floor.
	A broken gate separated the kitchen from the dining area.IG Ex. 15 at 9.

In an Indictment and Information, filed May 4, 2018, Petitioner was charged with nine felony counts of Vulnerable Adult Abuse, in violation of Arizona Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3623(B)(1), 13-603, 13-701, 13-702, 13-703, 13-704, 13-801, 13-804, and 13-811.  The indictment charged that, between September 11 and September 29, 2017, Petitioner “intentionally or knowingly” caused nine vulnerable adults “to suffer physical injury or abuse” and/or placed them in a situation where their health was endangered.  IG Ex. 5.

**The conviction**.  On October 2, 2019, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of Obtaining Utility Service Fraudulently, in violation of Arizona Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3724(A)(1), 13-603, 13-701, 13-702, 13-703, 13-704, 13-801, 13-804, and 13-811.  The court accepted her plea and dismissed the felony charges.  IG Exs. 2, 3, 4.  The court

**Page 4**

sentenced Petitioner to three months probation.  She was ordered to pay to the Attorney General Health Care Fraud and Abuse Fund a fine of $1,000.  IG Ex. 4 at 2.

**Related to the delivery of an item or service under Medicaid**.  In determining whether a conviction is program-related within the meaning of section 1128(a)(1), I may look beyond the language of the statute under which she was convicted.  It is well-settled that the IG may rely on extrinsic evidence to explain the circumstances underlying a conviction.  The regulations specifically provide that evidence of “crimes, wrongs, or acts other than those at issue in the instant case is admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, preparation, identity, lack of mistake, or existence of a scheme.”  42 C.F.R. § 1005.17(g); *see Narendra M. Patel, M.D.*, DAB No. 1736 at 7 (2000), *aff’d,* 319 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2003) (“We thus see nothing in section 1128(a)(2) that requires that the necessary elements of the criminal offense must mirror the elements of the exclusion authority, nor that all statutory elements required for an exclusion must be contained in the findings or record of the state criminal court.”); *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, Kai v. Leavitt*, No. 05-00514 BMK (D. Haw. July 17, 2006); *Tanya A. Chuoke, R.N.*, DAB No. 1721 (2000); *Berton Siegel, D.O.*, DAB No. 1467 at 5 (1994); *Carolyn Westin*, DAB No. 1381 (1993), *aff’d*, 845 F. Supp. 1446 (D. Kan. 1994); *Bruce Lindberg, D.C.*, DAB No. 1280 (1991).

Petitioner owned and operated a facility that accepted Medicaid funding.  She was obligated to care for its residents responsibly and to keep them safe.  Her conviction is linked to the condition her facility was in when the police arrived, with its nine vulnerable residents forced to live without running water.  This created a dangerous situation for them and put their health and safety in jeopardy.  Petitioner’s conviction was thus directly related to the delivery of services under a state health care program, and she is subject to exclusion.

**Petitioner’s defenses**.  Initially, Petitioner concedes that she was convicted of an offense for which exclusion is required.  P. Br. at 3-4.  She also concedes that the water was turned off for some period of time.  Nevertheless, she argues that the state investigator lied to the Grand Jury and that the prosecutors would not have been able to prove their case had she not pleaded guilty.  P. Br. at 4-5.  She claims that she did so at the suggestion of the sentencing judge so that she “could get [her] life back.”  P. Br. at 3.

Petitioner also points out that her conviction was set aside after she completed her probation and paid the necessary fees and fine.  P. Br. at 4; P. Ex. 11.

Having pleaded guilty, Petitioner may not use this forum to argue that she did not, in fact, commit the crime.  The regulations preclude such a collateral attack on an underlying conviction:

**Page 5**

When the exclusion is based on the existence of a criminal conviction . . . or any other prior determination where the facts were adjudicated and a final decision was made, the basis for the underlying conviction . . . is not reviewable and the individual or entity may not collaterally attack it either on substantive or procedural grounds in this appeal.

42 C.F.R. § 1001.2007(d); *Delores L. Knight*, DAB No. 2945 at 9 (2019); *Marvin L. Gibbs, Jr., M.D.*, DAB No. 2279 at 8-10 (2009); *Roy Cosby Stark*, DAB No. 1746 (2000).

That her conviction was ultimately set aside does not mean that she wasn’t convicted within the meaning of section 1128.  The statute and regulations provide that a person is “convicted” when “a judgment of conviction has been entered” regardless of whether that judgment has been (or could be) expunged or otherwise removed.  Act § 1128(i)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2(a)(2).  Individuals who participate in “deferred adjudication or other program or arrangement where judgment of conviction has been withheld” are “convicted” within the meaning of the statute.  Act § 1128(i)(4); 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2(d).  Based on these provisions, the Departmental Appeals Board characterizes as “well established” the principle that a “conviction” includes “diverted, deferred and expunged convictions regardless of whether state law treats such actions as a conviction.”  *Henry L. Gupton*, DAB No. 2058 at 8 (2007), *aff’d,*575 F. Supp. 2d 874 (E.D. Tenn. 2008).

An exclusion brought under section 1128(a)(1) must be for a minimum period of five years.  Act § 1128(c)(3)(B); 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2007(a)(2).

Conclusion

For these reasons, I conclude that the IG properly excluded Petitioner from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and all federal health care programs, and I sustain the five-year exclusion.

Endnote

1  I make this one finding of fact/conclusion of law.
  
          /s/
        Carolyn Cozad Hughes

                      Administrative Law Judge 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