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
                              Board Decisions
                              2022 Board Decisions
                              Resource Health Care, Inc., DAB No. 3063 (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

                    




Resource Health Care, Inc., DAB No. 3063 (2022)








  
  
    

  
      
Department of Health and Human Services 
    DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
          Appellate Division





Resource Health Care, Inc.
Docket No. A-22-25Decision No. 3063May 16, 2022

        
              
    

      FINAL DECISION ON REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DISMISSAL

Resource Health Care, Inc. (Petitioner) appeals the October 18, 2021 ruling of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissing Petitioner’s request for a hearing.  *Resource Health Care, Inc.*, Dismissal, Docket No. C-22-40 (ALJ Dismissal).  The ALJ determined that Petitioner had no right to an ALJ hearing because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did not issue a reconsidered determination that would have entitled Petitioner to ALJ review.  The ALJ further concluded that she had no authority to review CMS’s dismissal of Petitioner’s request for reconsideration.  For the reasons explained below, we affirm the ALJ’s dismissal of Petitioner’s hearing request under 42 C.F.R. § 498.70(b).

Legal Background

CMS or its contractor may revoke a provider’s Medicare billing privileges and corresponding provider agreement if, among other reasons, the provider “is determined to not be in compliance with the enrollment requirements described in [42 C.F.R. Part 424] subpart P” or its applicable enrollment application.  42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(1).1
  The decision to revoke a provider’s Medicare enrollment is an “initial determination” subject to the review procedures in 42 C.F.R. Part 498.  *See* 42 C.F.R.§ 498.3(a)(1), (b)(17).  A provider “dissatisfied with an initial determination or revised initial determination related to the denial or revocation of Medicare billing privileges may request reconsideration in accordance with § 498.22(a).”  *Id.*§ 498.5(*l*)(1).  Section 498.22 provides, in pertinent part, that a provider may request reconsideration of an initial determination by filing a written request with CMS within 60 days of receipt of the notice of initial determination.  *Id*. § 498.22(a), (b)(3).

Page 2

If an affected party is unable to timely request reconsideration, it may request an extension of time by filing a written request with CMS stating the reasons why the request for reconsideration was not timely filed.  *Id*. § 498.22(b)(3), (d)(1).  CMS will extend the deadline to request reconsideration “if the affected party shows good cause for missing the deadline.”  *Id.*§ 498.22(d)(2).

When a request for reconsideration is properly filed, CMS “[m]akes a reconsidered determination, affirming or modifying the initial determination and the findings on which it was based.”  *Id.* § 498.24(c).  A provider “dissatisfied with a reconsidered determination . . . is entitled to a hearing before an ALJ.”  *Id.*§ 498.5(*l*)(2).  An initial determination to revoke billing privileges is “binding” unless it is reconsidered under section 498.24, reversed or modified by a hearing decision under section 498.78 (remand by an ALJ), or revised under sections 498.32 or 498.100 (reopening and revision).  42 C.F.R. §§ 498.20(b), 498.24.

An ALJ may dismiss a hearing request “for cause” when the requesting party “is not a proper party or does not otherwise have a right to a hearing.”  42 C.F.R. § 498.70(b).  A party whose hearing request is dismissed by an ALJ may appeal that dismissal to the Board.  *Id*. §§ 498.80, 498.82(a).

Case Background2

Petitioner is a home health agency located in Houston, Texas that participated in the Medicare program.   *See*Declaration of Matthew Mba (Aug. 2, 2021), Docket No.
C-22-40 (ALJ Dkt.) #1c, at ¶¶ 2-3.3
  On October 13, 2020, Palmetto GBA (Palmetto), a Medicare contractor for CMS, sent a notice to Petitioner stating that Petitioner’s Medicare billing privileges were being revoked effective December 12, 2019.  Revocation Notice (Oct. 13, 2020), ALJ Dkt. #1a, at 1.  Palmetto sent the revocation notice to 7447 Harwin Drive, Suite 216, Houston, Texas.  *Id*.  The notice stated that Petitioner’s billing privileges were being revoked pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(1)(i) because Petitioner was not in compliance with Medicare requirements.  *Id*.  The notice further informed Petitioner of its appeal rights, including the right to request reconsideration within 65 days of the date of the revocation notice.  *Id.*at 2 (providing that any reconsideration request must be received by CMS in writing “within

Page 3

65 calendar days of the date of this letter”).4
  The notice further advised Petitioner that if it did not request reconsideration, “CMS deems this a waiver of all rights to further administrative review.”  *Id*. at 3.

CMS received a request for reconsideration from Petitioner on August 2, 2021, nearly ten months after the date of the revocation notice.  *See* Letter Dismissing Reconsideration Request (Aug. 16, 2021), ALJ Dkt. #1b, at 1.5
  By letter dated August 16, 2021, CMS notified Petitioner’s counsel that it was dismissing Petitioner’s request for reconsideration as untimely.  *Id*. (“CMS is unable to accept [Petitioner’s] reconsideration request as it was not timely submitted.”).  CMS explained that it did not receive Petitioner’s reconsideration request until August 2, 2021, which was beyond the applicable filing deadline.  *Id*.6
  CMS stated that it confirmed the revocation notice “was sent to the correspondence mailing address listed in [Petitioner’s] Medicare enrollment at the time of the initial determination.”  *Id*.  CMS further determined that Petitioner “failed to show good cause for its late request” and, therefore, CMS was “unable to render” a reconsidered determination.  *Id.*

On October 14, 2021, Petitioner filed a request for hearing before the ALJ challenging the revocation of its Medicare billing privileges and CMS’s dismissal of its request for reconsideration.  *See*Request for Hearing (RFH).  Petitioner asserted that it “did not receive the notice of revocation due to an address change” and, therefore, CMS failed to give proper notice of the revocation.  RFH at 1 (alleging Petitioner “never received the October 13, 2020 correspondence as it was mailed to the wrong address”); *but see* Mba Decl., Dkt. #1c, at ¶ 8 (alleging that Petitioner’s owner received the revocation notice from counsel on July 28, 2021).  Petitioner argued that CMS’s failure to send the revocation notice to the correct address prevented Petitioner from submitting a timely request for reconsideration.  RFH at 2-3.  Petitioner argued that this error was analogous to defective “service of process” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that CMS violated its due process rights.  *Id*.  Petitioner further requested that the ALJ grant an extension “for filing the request for hearing” because Petitioner “was unable to file this appeal within 60 days due to CMS’s failure to give proper notice” of the revocation.  *Id*. (citing 42 C.F.R. § 498.40(c) (authorizing ALJs to extend the time for filing a request for hearing for good cause shown)).

Page 4

On October 18, 2021, the ALJ dismissed, *sua sponte*, Petitioner’s hearing request on the ground that Petitioner had no right to a hearing absent a reconsidered determination.  ALJ Dismissal at 1 (“No statutory or regulatory provision allows for a hearing before an ALJ in the absence of a reconsidered determination.”).  The ALJ further explained that “a provider or supplier has no right to appeal CMS’s dismissal of an untimely request for reconsideration.”  *Id*. at 2 (citing *Karthik Ramaswamy, M.D.*, DAB No. 2563, at 7 (2014), *aff’d*, *Ramaswamy v. Burwell*, 83 F. Supp. 3d 846 (E.D. Mo. 2015)).  The ALJ concluded that she had no jurisdiction over Petitioner’s hearing request absent a reconsidered determination and no authority to address CMS’s refusal to accept an untimely request for reconsideration.  *Id*.

On December 16, 2021, Petitioner timely appealed the ALJ Dismissal to the Board.  *See* 42 C.F.R. § 498.80.

Standard of Review

The standard of review on a disputed factual issue is whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.  The standard of review on a disputed issue of law is whether the ALJ’s decision is erroneous.  *See* *Guidelines – Appellate Review of Decisions of Administrative Law Judges Affecting a Provider’s or Supplier’s Enrollment in the Medicare Program*, at https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/dab/different-appeals-at-dab/appeals-to-board/guidelines/enrollment/index.html.

Analysis

In its Request for Review (RR) filed with the Board, Petitioner reiterates the arguments it made in its Request for Hearing before the ALJ.  Petitioner further asserts that the ALJ’s dismissal of its hearing request was improper because it “did not receive a copy of the revocation [notice].”  RR at 2 (¶ 6).  Petitioner maintains that the revocation notice was allegedly “mailed to the wrong address” and, therefore, Petitioner did not timely file its request for reconsideration.  *Id*. at 1 (¶ 1).  In its Reply, Petitioner asserts that it had “good cause” for the late filing of its reconsideration request and that “the ALJ erred in not determining good cause existed.”  P. Reply at 4 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 498.22(d)(2)). Petitioner continues to assert that its due process rights were violated and again requests an extension of time, this time under 42 C.F.R. §§ 498.95(c) and 498.40(c).  RR at 2-3.7
  For the reasons explained below, we reject Petitioner’s contentions and affirm the ALJ’s dismissal of Petitioner’s hearing request.

Page 5

The ALJ’s dismissal of Petitioner’s request for hearing is supported by the governing regulations and Board precedent.  An ALJ may dismiss a request for hearing if the petitioner “is not a proper party or does not otherwise have a right to a hearing.”  42 C.F.R. § 498.70(b).  Indeed, not every determination made by CMS or its contractors is subject to ALJ review.  Providers and suppliers are entitled to a hearing before an ALJ if they are “dissatisfied with a *reconsidered determination*.”  *Id*. § 498.5(*l*)(2) (emphasis added).  The Board has long held that “the regulations plainly require that CMS or one of its contractors issue a ‘reconsidered determination’ before the affected party is entitled to request a hearing before an ALJ.”  *Rollington Ferguson, M.D.*, DAB No. 2949, at 3 (2019) (quoting *Cap. Dist. Behav. Health Psychs., PLLC*, DAB No. 2866, at 4 (2018) (quoting *Hiva Vakil, M.D.*, DAB No. 2460, at 5 (2012))); *see also* *Denise A. Hardy, D.P.M.*, DAB No. 2464, at 4 (2012) (“[O]nly reconsidered determinations related to the denial or revocation of billing privileges are eligible for ALJ review.”).  Thus, absent a reconsidered determination, Petitioner has no right to an ALJ hearing, and its arguments concerning an alleged change of address and lack of timely notice have no bearing on this matter.  *See Joseph L. Russino, M.D.*, DAB No. 3057, at 6 (2022) (holding supplier had no right to ALJ hearing absent a reconsidered determination where supplier contested receipt of revocation notice and CMS dismissed reconsideration request as untimely and lacking good cause for late filing);*Haissam Elzaim, M.D.*, DAB No. 2501, at 4-5 (2013) (holding supplier had no right to ALJ hearing without a reconsidered determination where revocation notice was allegedly sent to old address and reconsideration request was denied as untimely); *Better Health Ambulance*, DAB No. 2475, at 4-5 (2012) (holding supplier had no right to ALJ hearing absent a reconsidered determination where contractor dismissed supplier’s reconsideration request as untimely).

Moreover, Petitioner is not entitled to ALJ review of CMS’s dismissal of Petitioner’s request for reconsideration or its determination that Petitioner failed to show good cause for the late filing.  *See Russino* at 6-7 (holding that CMS’s dismissal of a request for reconsideration as untimely was not a determination subject to ALJ review); *Ferguson*at 4 (holding that dismissal of untimely request for reconsideration was not a determination subject to ALJ review); *Karthik Ramaswamy, M.D.*, DAB No. 2563, at 7 (2014) (holding that the regulations do not authorize ALJ review of the dismissal of a reconsideration request as untimely); *Better Health Ambulance* at 4-5 (concluding that the ALJ erred in reaching the question of whether there was “good cause” for supplier’s untimely request for reconsideration because the dismissal of a reconsideration request is not a reconsidered determination subject to ALJ review).  Here, Petitioner concedes CMS did not issue a reconsidered determination.  Thus, the ALJ had no authority to review the merits of either CMS’s dismissal of Petitioner’s reconsideration request or Palmetto’s initial determination revoking Petitioner’s enrollment and billing privileges.  *See* *Russino* at 7 (citing *Ramaswamy*and*Ferguson*).  The absence of a reconsidered determination renders Palmetto’s initial determination dated October 13, 2020, binding and administratively final.  42 C.F.R. § 498.20(b).

Page 6

Still further, Petitioner’s constitutional arguments, including its contention that it was denied due process, cannot be resolved in this forum.  *See Russino* at 9-10.  ALJs and the Board “are bound by the regulations and may not declare them unconstitutional or decline to follow them on that basis.” *Mohammad Nawaz, M.D., et al*., DAB No. 2687, at 15 (2016) (citation omitted), *aff’d*, No. 4:16-cv-386, 2017 WL 2798230 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2017), *aff’d sub nom.*,*Shah v. Azar*, 920 F.3d 987 (5th Cir. 2019).  Moreover, ALJs and the Board may only review issues “specifically identified” in the regulations as “appealable administrative actions.”  *Nawaz* at 15(citation omitted).  “ALJs are not free to disregard applicable laws and regulations based on constitutional arguments.”  *Russino* at 10 (collecting cases).  “Accordingly, the ALJ had no authority to decline to follow or declare unconstitutional the regulations governing the ALJ’s limited jurisdiction in this case.”  *Id*.

Lastly, we reject Petitioner’s vague request, under 42 C.F.R. §§ 498.95(c) and 498.40(c), for “an extension of time for filing the request for hearing.”  RR at 2, 3.  The ALJ did not dismiss Petitioner’s request for hearing because it was untimely, but because the ALJ had no jurisdiction absent a reconsidered determination.  ALJ Dismissal at 2.  Section 498.95(c) authorizes the Board to grant an extension of time for a party to seek judicial review of a Board decision and has no application here.  Section 498.40(c) is also inapplicable.  As explained in *Russino*, section 498.40(c) authorizes an ALJ to extend the time for a party entitled to an ALJ hearing to request a hearing; it does not authorize an ALJ to extend the time for a supplier or provider to request reconsideration of an initial determination.  *See Russino* at 7-8.  In short, neither regulation cited by Petitioner authorizes an extension of time that would confer the ALJ with jurisdiction or provide a basis for vacating the ALJ’s dismissal of Petitioner’s hearing request.

Page 7

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the ALJ’s dismissal of Petitioner’s request for hearing.


          /s/
        Christopher S. Randolph

                      Board Member
          /s/
        Constance B. Tobias

                      Board Member
          /s/
        Michael Cunningham

                      Presiding Board Member
      1. Under 42 C.F.R. § 400.202, the term “provider” includes a home health agency, such as Petitioner, “that has in effect an agreement to participate in Medicare.” back to note 1
                      2. The background section is drawn from the ALJ Dismissal and the record before the ALJ. back to note 2
                      3. Petitioner submitted three documents with its Request for Hearing but labeled only the first of the documents as an exhibit (Exhibit A).  See Docket No. C-22-40.  We cite to each of these three documents with a brief description followed by a reference to the ALJ docket number as it appears in DAB E-File. back to note 3
                      4. Palmetto calculated the deadline to be 65 days after the date of the revocation notice because the date of receipt is presumed to be five days after the date on the notice, unless there is a showing that the notice was, in fact, received earlier or later.  See 42 C.F.R. § 498.22(b)(3). back to note 4
                      5. Petitioner did not include a copy of its reconsideration request with its submission to the ALJ.  In any event, Petitioner does not dispute that CMS received its reconsideration request on August 2, 2021. back to note 5
                      6. Based on the date of the revocation notice (October 13, 2020), Petitioner’s request for reconsideration was due on December 17, 2020. back to note 6
                      7. Petitioner also repeats several conclusory arguments challenging the merits of its revocation.  RR at 1-2 (¶¶ 2-3); RFH at 2 (¶¶ 2-3).  We do not reach those issues because the only issue before the Board is whether the ALJ’s dismissal of Petitioner’s hearing request was legally correct. back to note 7 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