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
                              Christopher Galuardi, M.D., ALJ Ruling 2020-15 (HHS CRD Aug. 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

                    




Christopher Galuardi, M.D., ALJ Ruling 2020-15 (HHS CRD Aug. 4, 2020)








  
  
    

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





Christopher Galuardi, M.D.
(PTAN: 594816AG4C)
(NPI: 1396755286)
Petitioner,

v.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Docket No. C-18-638Ruling No. 2020-15August 4, 2020

        
              
    

      REMAND

Petitioner, Christopher Galuardi, M.D., is a physician anesthesiologist, practicing in Maryland.  Without his knowledge or consent, the Medicare contractor terminated the existing assignment of his billing privileges and reassigned them to another medical practice.  The contractor did not send Petitioner notice of the change and, when he brought the problem to the contractor's attention, the contractor refused to correct.  Instead, it directed Petitioner to submit a new application, which he did.  The contractor approved the application, but Petitioner suffered a gap in reimbursement.

Here, Petitioner challenges the erroneous reassignment and resulting gap in reimbursement.  CMS does not seriously dispute that the contractor improperly terminated the existing assignment and improperly reassigned Petitioner's billing privileges, but it argues that those transactions are not reviewable.  In CMS's view, the only issue before me is the effective date of the second reassignment.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

For the reasons set forth below, I deny both motions and remand this case to CMS.  I find, at a minimum, that Petitioner may challenge the effective date of the erroneous

**Page 2**

reassignment.  Moreover, it might behoove CMS to consider carefully whether it should sanction an obviously improper – if not fraudulent – act, which contravened the Medicare statute and regulations.

Discussion

The facts of this case are not in dispute.  Petitioner participates in the Medicare program as a supplier of services.  He is employed by KNJ Properties, and, prior to July 2017, his Medicare billing privileges were assigned to that practice.  CMS Ex. 1 at 2; *see* CMS Br. at 2; P. Br. at 1.  Another medical practice, Advanced Spine and Pain, PLLC, offered to purchase KNJ.  Negotiations ensued, and, in anticipation of the sale, Petitioner provided Advanced Spine with his Medicare enrollment information.

The negotiations reached an impasse, and the sale did not occur.  P. Br. at 1.  Nevertheless, without Petitioner's approval, authorization, or signature, on July 6, 2017, a representative from Advanced Spine affixed Petitioner's signature to electronic applications (Forms CMS-855R), asking to terminate the assignment of his billing privileges to KNJ and to reassign those privileges to Advanced Spine.  CMS Exs. 1, 8; P. Br. at 2.1

By letters dated August 1, 2017, the Medicare contractor, Novitas Solutions, indicated that it had granted the applications, effective July 1, 2017.  CMS Exs. 2, 3.  It terminated the assignment of Petitioner's benefits to KNJ Properties and approved a reassignment of benefits to Advanced Spine.  CMS Exs. 2, 3.  Although Petitioner's name is on the notice letters, they were not sent to him; they were sent to Advanced Spine.  CMS Ex. 2 at 1; CMS Ex. 3 at 1; P. Br. at 3; *compare* CMS Ex. 3 at 1 *with* CMS Ex. 7 at 1.

When Petitioner learned what had happened (after his payment requests were denied), he contacted the contractor and was advised to submit another application for reassignment of benefits.  CMS Ex. 8.  On August 16, 2017, he submitted his own application (Form CMS-855R), asking to reassign his Medicare billing privileges to his employer, KNJ Properties.  CMS Ex. 4.  In a letter dated September 20, 2017, the contractor advised Petitioner that it approved the reassignment with an effective date of August 9, 2017, resulting in a six-week coverage gap (July 1-August 9).  CMS Ex. 7.

Petitioner sought reconsideration.  CMS Ex. 8.  In a reconsidered determination, dated December 21, 2017, the contractor denied Petitioner an earlier effective date and, in fact, imposed a later date – August 16 – the date Petitioner filed his application to reactivate the reassignment (resulting in a lapse of almost nine weeks).  CMS Ex. 9.  Without any explanation or justification, the contractor also mentioned that the July 1 termination of

**Page 3**

Petitioner's assignment "was processed correctly," although the determination includes no indication that the contractor seriously reviewed the July 6 transactions.  CMS Ex. 9 at 3.

In fact, even assuming that the application forms submitted by Advanced Spine on July 6 were legitimate (and the undisputed evidence shows that they were not), the July 1 effective dates were incorrect.  As the contractor recognized when it changed the August effective date, the effective date can be no earlier than the date of filing a subsequently-approved enrollment application.  42 C.F.R. § 424.520(d).  The enrollment applications were filed on July 6, so the earliest effective dates would have been that date, not July 1.

But this error is minor compared to the more serious problems with the contractor's handling of the July applications.  CMS has not come forward with any evidence suggesting that Advanced Spine was authorized to submit the July applications nor that they were signed by the physician or an *authorized or delegated* official, as required by CMS rules.  Medicare Program Integrity Manual (MPIM) CMS Pub. 100-08, Ch. 15 § 15.5.14.2.  For this reason, CMS's reliance on the Departmental Appeals Board's decision in *Sandra E. Johnson, CRNA*, DAB No. 2708 (2016) is misplaced.  There, although the physician blamed her employer's "billing person" for errors in her Medicare application, she conceded that she had, in fact, *signed the application*, albeit without reviewing its contents.  The Board held that the physician was responsible for reviewing the content of her applications before she attested to their accuracy and that, *by her signature*, she affirmed that she had done so.  *Johnson*, DAB No. 2708 at 14.  In contrast here, Petitioner could hardly have reviewed the applications or affirmed their accuracy since he was not even aware of them.

Equally important, the Medicare statute and regulations generally preclude a supplier from reassigning his Medicare claims.  Social Security Act § 1842(b)(6); 42 C.F.R. § 424.80(a).  There are exceptions, but none of them apply here:  1) Petitioner is not employed by Advanced Spine; 2) he has no contractual arrangement with Advanced Spine; 3) Advanced Spine is not a government agency; 4) reassignment was not established by court order; and 5) Advanced Spine was not acting as Petitioner's agent.  *See* 42 C.F.R. § 424.80(b).  By reassigning the benefits to an entity that was unrelated to Petitioner, the contractor violated the statute and regulation.

CMS does not seriously argue that the contractor appropriately approved the July applications.  Instead, it focuses almost exclusively on Petitioner's August application, arguing that the August 16 effective date is correct.  With respect to the July 1 termination of assignment and reassignment, CMS refers to the decision of an administrative law judge and argues that termination of an assignment of benefits is not reviewable.  *Pueblo Family Physicians*, DAB CR4661 (2016).  Putting aside the fact that another ALJ's decision does not bind me (*Donald W. Hayes, D.P.M.*, DAB No. 2862 at 6 n.8 (2018)), *Pueblo Family* was a narrowly-decided case that does not stand for the proposition that changes in reassignment (CMS-855R applications) are not reviewable.

**Page 4**

There, CMS revoked a physician organization's Medicare enrollment pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(4), because the practice purportedly made false or misleading statements on its CMS-855R enrollment applications.  The ALJ quoted the exact language of section 424.535(a)(4), which requires "misleading or false information on the enrollment application **to be enrolled or maintain enrollment in the Medicare program**."  *Pueblo Family*, DAB CR4661 at 8.  Although considered and labeled an enrollment application (*see* CMS Ex. 10 at 1), the ALJ determined that the 855R was an enrollment application **to reassign Medicare benefits, not to enroll or maintain enrollment**.  *Id.* at 9.  He therefore concluded that the practice's Medicare enrollment could not be revoked based on section 424.535(a)(4).  *Id.* at 7-10.  *Pueblo Family* was thus limited to revocation actions brought under section 424.535(a)(4).

Moreover, while I agree that not every administrative action is subject to appeal, Petitioner was unquestionably entitled to notice of the July 1 reassignment and the opportunity to appeal the effective date of that reassignment.  42 C.F.R. § 498.3(b)(15); *Gaurav Lakhanpal, MD*, DAB No. 2951 at 2 (2019).2
  Because he was denied that opportunity, I remand this matter to CMS to consider the validity of the July 2017 enrollment applications, and, if necessary, to provide Petitioner an opportunity for the review to which he is entitled.

Finally, CMS is correct that my review authority is limited – although perhaps not as limited as CMS maintains.  However, I am not necessarily the final decision-maker here, and a federal court might expect that CMS would adhere to the statute and regulations and would not sanction an unauthorized effort to transfer Medicare billing privileges to an entity that was not entitled to accept it.  If a federal court were to review the contractor's actions here, CMS might not be happy with the result.  Even more important, Congress has afforded CMS broad discretion to administer the Medicare program, expecting the agency to do so fairly.  Without regard to any outside review, CMS should not abuse that discretion.

Conclusion

Petitioner was not given proper notice of the July 1 termination of the assignment of his Medicare benefits to KNJ and the reassignment of those benefits to Advanced Spine; nor was he afforded his appeal rights.  The reassignment to an entity unrelated to Petitioner contravened the statute and regulations.  I remand this matter to CMS to correct its errors.  42 C.F.R. § 498.56(d).


          /s/
        Carolyn Cozad Hughes

                      Administrative Law Judge
      1. Form CMS-855R reassigns the practitioner's billing privileges to a Medicare-eligible entity, which may submit claims and receive payment for Medicare services provided by the practitioner. back to note 1
                      2. Arguably, he could show that the effective dates were wrong because the applications were invalid and the contractor was not authorized to approve them. back to note 2 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