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
                              Vasan Haluthore Deshikachar, DAB CR6175 (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

                    




Vasan Haluthore Deshikachar, DAB CR6175 (2022)








  
  
    

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





Vasan Haluthore Deshikachar
(OI File No. B-21-41311-9),
Petitioner,

v.

The Inspector General.
Docket No. C-22-778Decision No. 6175October 14, 2022

        
              
    

      DECISION DISMISSING CASE

The Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Health and Human Services excluded Petitioner from participating in all federal health care programs for five years.  Petitioner concedes that he must be excluded.  However, Petitioner disputes the date when the exclusion should take effect.

My jurisdiction in these cases is limited to disputes as to whether an exclusion was properly imposed and/or the length of the exclusion is unreasonable.  Petitioner does not dispute the imposition of an exclusion or the length of the exclusion.  Therefore, I must dismiss this case because Petitioner has not raised any matters that I can adjudicate.

Petitioner disputes the date on which the exclusion became effective.  However, I do not have the authority to alter the effective date of an exclusion.  I issue this dismissal as a decision dismissing this case for the purpose of noting that Petitioner has preserved this issue should he wish to seek judicial review in the federal courts after exhausting his administrative appeals.

Page 2

I.   Petitioner’s Criminal Case

Petitioner is a physician.  On May 17, 2018, an Indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (District Court) that charged Petitioner with 25 counts of criminal conduct (Counts 1-25).  Electronic Filing System (E-File) Document No. 4 at 9.1  Count 1 charged “Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substance,” a felony, and Counts 2 through 25 charged “Controlled Substance – Sell, Distribute, or Dispense,” also felonies.  E-File Document No. 4 at 8.

On March 12, 2019, Petitioner entered into a plea agreement, which was filed with the District Court.  E-File Document No. 4 at 13.  In the plea agreement, Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment (i.e., a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841).  E-File Document No. 1 at 10; E-File Document No. 7 at 1.  The plea agreement stated that the elements of this offense were:

First:  That two or more persons conspired, or agreed, to commit the crime of unlawful distribution of controlled substances; and

Second:  That the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy;

Third:  The controlled substances involved in the conspiracy included but were not limited to the schedule II controlled substances Oxycodone HCl and Oxymorphone HCl.

E-File Document No. 1 at 11.  The plea agreement provided a factual basis for the plea in which Petitioner admitted that he willfully conspired with two or more persons “to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute controlled substances, including but not limited to the Schedule II drug Oxycodone HC1 and the Schedule II drug Oxymorphone HC1 in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.”  E-File Document No. 1 at 13.  The other individuals in the conspiracy would provide names and dates of birth to Petitioner who “prescribed controlled substances for patients he did not see or adequately examine,” and “knew he was not prescribing legitimately or in good faith.”  E-File Document No. 1 at 13.  Petitioner stipulated that he was a member of the conspiracy from on or about January 2015 through on or about March 2018, and that his conduct involved the distribution of more than 40,000 doses of Schedule II controlled substances.  E-File Document No. 1 at 14.  Petitioner also stated in the plea agreement that his conviction may “carry additional consequences under federal and state law, including the potential

Page 3

loss . . . and ability to hold certain licenses or to be employed in certain fields.”  E-File Document No. 1 at 23.

After filing the plea agreement, the District Court set and reset the sentencing hearing multiple times from 2019 to 2021.  E-File Document No. 4 at 13-16.  On October 21, 2021, the District Court held the sentencing hearing at which the District Court accepted the plea agreement.  E-File Document No. 4 at 16.  Federal prosecutors filed a § 5K1.1 motion for a “50% downward departure” in Petitioner’s sentence, from 87-108 months of imprisonment to a custodial sentence of 44 months.  E-File Document No. 1 at 4, 7.  The motion indicated that Petitioner aided in the investigation and prosecution of others in the conspiracy, including testifying at trial.  E-File Document No. 1 at 5-6.

On October 25, 2021, the District Court entered a Judgment in Criminal Case in which the District Court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Controlled Substances).  E-File Document No. 7 at 1.  The District Court sentenced Petitioner to two months of imprisonment with “Time Served,” and three years of supervised release.  E-File Document No. 7 at 2-3.  The District Court also ordered the forfeiture of a variety of cryptocurrencies that Petitioner possessed as well as entered “a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $1,500,000 . . . in favor of the United States.”  E-File Document No. 7 at 8.

II.   Petitioner’s Exclusion and Appeal of that Exclusion

In an August 31, 2022 notice, the IG stated that Petitioner was being excluded, effective 20 days after the date on the notice, from participation in all federal health care programs under section 1128(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(4)) for a period of 5 years.  The basis for the exclusion was “due to [Petitioner’s] felony conviction . . .  in the [District Court] of a criminal offense related to the unlawful manufacture, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of a controlled substance.”  E-File Document No. 1a at 1.

On September 7, 2022, Petitioner filed a request for hearing to contest the exclusion that the IG imposed.  Petitioner provided three arguments in the hearing request:  1) Petitioner met the criteria for a mitigating circumstance in 42 C.F.R. § 1001.102(c) because he provided extensive cooperation with federal law enforcement as evidenced by the motion in Petitioner’s criminal case for a downward departure in Petitioner’s sentence; 2) Petitioner’s sentencing was delayed by more than two years after the date he entered into a plea agreement “due to the fact he was a Cooperating Witness in the trial of his Codefendant”; and 3) Petitioner was unable to make use of the recent holding in *Ruan v. United States*, 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022), as a defense in his criminal case because he pleaded guilty years earlier.  E-File Document No. 1 at 1-3.  Petitioner also attached several documents in support of the hearing request.

Page 4

On September 9, 2022, the Civil Remedies Division acknowledged receipt of the hearing request, notified the parties that I set a telephonic prehearing conference for September 29, 2022, and issued my Standing Prehearing Order and an informal “short-form” brief (Informal Brief) for Petitioner to complete and submit with his prehearing exchange after the prehearing conference.  E-File Document Nos. 2-2d.

On September 14, 2022, Petitioner filed the completed Informal Brief along with an exhibit.  In the Informal Brief, Petitioner indicated that he was convicted of a felony related to the unlawful manufacture, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of a controlled substance and agreed that it was an offense for which exclusion is required.  Petitioner also indicated that he did not have any witness testimony that he wanted to present at a hearing and believed that an in-person hearing was unnecessary.  In addition, Petitioner presented arguments from his hearing request in more detail concerning his cooperation with federal law enforcement and the fact that his cooperation delayed the conclusion of his criminal case, resulting in an exclusion that did not become effective until years after Petitioner had pleaded guilty.  Petitioner asserted that the result of this delay, caused by his cooperation, in effect extended the exclusion by approximately three years.  Therefore, Petitioner sought a retroactive effective date for the imposition of his exclusion.  In doing so, Petitioner noted that the regulations do not permit a party to appeal the effective date of an exclusion; however, Petitioner also indicated that he wanted to obtain “judicial intervention.”  E-File Document No. 4 at 1-5.

I held a telephonic prehearing conference on September 29, 2022, at which Petitioner and counsel for the IG were present.  When asked if he had hired an attorney, Petitioner stated that he was representing himself.  I informed Petitioner that he had the right to be represented by an attorney in this proceeding at his own expense.  *See* 42 C.F.R. § 1005.3(a)(1).  I also stated that Petitioner should tell me, at any point in the conference, if he decided that he wanted an attorney to represent him.

At the prehearing conference, I summarized the exclusion notice, Petitioner’s hearing request, and Petitioner’s Informal Brief.  I also explained that I had limited jurisdiction and that I could only determine whether 1) there was a basis for the imposition of the exclusion and 2) whether the length of exclusion was unreasonable.  *See* 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2007(a)(1).  I noted that the IG had imposed the mandatory minimum length of exclusion (five years) based on Petitioner’s felony conviction (*see* 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(4), (c)(3)(B); 42 C.F.R. §§ 1001.101(d), 1001.102(a)); therefore, I had no authority to review or alter the length of the exclusion imposed on Petitioner.  *See* 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2007(a)(2).  Further, I explained that, while it appears Petitioner’s cooperation with federal law enforcement constituted a mitigating circumstance that could reduce the length of exclusion (*see* 42 C.F.R. § 1001.102(c)(3)), a mitigating factor could only reduce the length of an exclusion that exceeded five years and could not shorten an exclusion to less than the mandatory minimum five-year period.  *See* 42 C.F.R.

Page 5

§ 1001.102(c).  As a result, Petitioner’s apparent mitigating circumstance could not reduce the length of his exclusion.  In addition, I informed Petitioner I could not consider whether the holding in *Ruan* could affect the outcome in his criminal case because I was bound by the judgment of conviction currently in effect.  *See* 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2007(d).  Petitioner would need for the District Court or another federal court to vacate his conviction for *Ruan* to affect his exclusion.  *See* 42 C.F.R. § 1001.3005(a)(1).  Finally, I confirmed that Petitioner was correct that I had no jurisdiction to consider the effective date of his exclusion because I was bound by the regulation that set the effective date as 20 days following the date on the exclusion notice.  *See* 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2002(b); *see also* 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(c)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 1005.4(c)(1).

After informing Petitioner of my limited jurisdiction, I stated that Petitioner had two options:  1) I could issue a decision dismissing this case, which Petitioner could administratively appeal to exhaust the administrative appeals process, at which point Petitioner could then seek judicial review of the exclusion’s effective date in federal court (*see* 42 C.F.R. §§ 1005.21(a), (j), (k); *cf. Seide v. Shalala*, 31 F. Supp. 2d 466, 468-69 (E.D. Pa. 1998)); or 2) I could allow Petitioner to amend his filings to dispute whether there was a basis for the imposition of the exclusion, in which case I would ultimately render a decision on that issue.  Petitioner responded that he concurred with my summary of his arguments and my lack of jurisdiction.  Petitioner stated that he would prefer for me to issue a decision dismissing this matter so that he could eventually seek judicial review of the effective date.  IG counsel also agreed with my summary and assessment as to my jurisdiction.  I informed the parties I would issue a decision dismissing the case and that I would do so in a manner that preserves Petitioner’s challenge to the effective date of the exclusion.  I also requested that IG counsel submit a copy of Petitioner’s judgment of conviction for the record, which counsel did after the conference.

III.   Dismissal of Petitioner’s Hearing Request

I am required to dismiss a hearing request when that “hearing request fails to raise any issue which may properly be addressed in a hearing.”  42 C.F.R. § 1005.2(e)(4).  As explained during the prehearing conference and summarized above, I may only consider whether there was a basis for the imposition of the five-year exclusion on Petitioner.  42 C.F.R. § 1001.2007(a)(1)-(2).  Petitioner’s hearing request did not dispute that there was a basis for imposing the exclusion and, in his Informal Brief, Petitioner admitted that there was a basis for imposing the exclusion.  Because there is no issue raised in the hearing request that I can adjudicate, I must dismiss the hearing request.

Endnotes

1 I cite to documents in this decision using the document number assigned by E-File and to the page that appears on the PDF counter when viewing the document.
  
          /s/
        Scott Anderson

                      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