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
                              2018
                              Dr. Guillermo Munoz, DAB CR5108 (2018)
 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

                    




Dr. Guillermo Munoz, DAB CR5108 (2018)








  
  
    

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





Dr. Guillermo Munoz
	(NPI: 1023071669),
	Petitioner,
v.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Docket No. C-18-284Decision No. CR5108May 30, 2018

        
              
    

      DECISION
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), acting through its Medicare administrative contractor, Novitas Solutions (Novitas), denied Dr. Guillermo Munoz’s (Petitioner’s) Medicare enrollment application pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(3) and 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(4).  Novitas found that:  1) Petitioner was convicted of a felony that it determined was detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries; and 2) Petitioner failed to report final adverse actions, including suspension of his medical license and prior revocation from the Medicare program, on his enrollment application.  Petitioner challenges the enrollment denial.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that CMS is entitled to judgment affirming the denial of Petitioner’s enrollment application based on his submission of false or misleading information on the enrollment application.  Accordingly, I grant summary judgment in favor of CMS.
I.  Background and Procedural History
Petitioner is a physician practicing medicine in New Jersey.  CMS Exhibit (Ex.) 2 at 8.  Petitioner was arrested and charged with health care claims fraud in the third degree in
Page 2
violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:21-4.3.  CMS Ex. 1 at 1; Petitioner Exhibit (P. Ex.) 2 at 1.  Specifically, Petitioner was charged with receiving payments above fair market value for rental of office space to a diagnostic imaging group in exchange for referring his patients to that group for any diagnostic imaging services, which is a violation of N.J. Admin. Code § 13:35-6.17(c)(1).  CMS Ex. 1 at 6.  Petitioner entered into a plea agreement with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.  *Id.* at 3‐4.  Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner was to plead not guilty to the criminal charge and enter a State‐approved pre‐trial intervention program for a minimum of one year, pay restitution, complete community service, and execute a Consent Order with the State Board of Medical Examiners.  *Id.*  The Consent Order suspended Petitioner’s license to practice medicine for 10 months.  *Id.*  Petitioner signed the Consent Order on October 7, 2015.  *Id.* at 5‐15.  On October 29, 2015, the Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Morris, Criminal Division, entered an Order of Postponement in Petitioner’s case.  P. Ex. 3.  The Order of Postponement indicates that it occurred in the context of “Pretrial Intervention” pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43‐12 &13.  P. Ex. 3 at 1.  Petitioner did not enter a plea of guilty or *nolo contendere* to the charge.  *Id.*; *see also*CMS Ex. 1 at 3.  On October 29, 2016, the State dismissed the charge, with prejudice, following Petitioner’s successful completion of pre‐trial intervention.  P. Ex. 7.
Based on the suspension of Petitioner’s medical license, Novitas revoked Petitioner’s Medicare billing privileges effective October 7, 2015, and issued a one‐year reenrollment bar beginning January 16, 2016.  CMS Ex. 3 at 1‐3; P. Ex. 4 at 1‐3.  Upon reconsideration, Novitas upheld the revocation and one‐year reenrollment bar, but changed the effective date of the revocation to November 25, 2015.  CMS Ex. 3 at 11‐14; P. Ex. 8 at 13‐15.
After Petitioner’s reenrollment bar was lifted, Petitioner applied for reenrollment in Medicare by completing a Form CMS‐855I:  Medicare Enrollment Application – Physicians and Non‐Physician Practitioners (Enrollment Application).  CMS Ex. 4 at 27; P. Ex. 9 at 27.  Petitioner subsequently submitted an amended Enrollment Application to correct information concerning his billing company.  CMS Ex. 5; P. Ex. 10.  Section 3 of the Enrollment Application instructs applicants to report “all applicable final adverse actions . . . regardless of whether any records were expunged or appeals are pending.”  *See, e.g.,* CMS Ex. 4 at 13.  The instructions provide that an applicant must report the following adverse actions, among others:  “1.  [a]ny revocation or suspension of a license to provide health care by any State licensing authority . . . 5.  [a]ny Medicare revocation of any Medicare billing number.”  *Id.*  Petitioner responded “No” on both applications to the question “[h]ave you . . . ever had a final adverse legal action listed on page 12 of this application imposed against you?”  *See* CMS Exs. 4 at 14, 5 at 14; P. Exs. 9 at 14, 10 at 14.  Additionally, Petitioner signed certification statements attesting that the information
Page 3
contained in the applications was true, correct, and complete.  *See* CMS Exs. 4 at 27, 5 at 27; P. Exs. 9 at 27, 10 at 27.
By letter dated June 8, 2017, Novitas denied Petitioner’s enrollment application pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(3) based on his participation in the pre‐trial intervention program and pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(4) based on his failure to report that his medical license had been suspended and his Medicare enrollment revoked.  CMS Ex. 6 at 1‐3; P. Ex. 13.  Petitioner sought reconsideration.  CMS Ex. 6 at 4‐5; P. Ex. 17 at 1‐2.  Novitas upheld the enrollment denials pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(3) and (a)(4).  P. Ex. 14.
Petitioner timely filed a request for hearing and the case was assigned to me.  I issued an Acknowledgment and Pre‐Hearing Order (Pre‐Hearing Order) on December 8, 2017, establishing a schedule for the parties to file briefs and documentary evidence.  Pursuant to the Pre‐Hearing Order, CMS submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment (CMS Br.) and six exhibits (CMS Exs. 1‐6).  Petitioner filed a brief in response (P. Br.), along with eighteen exhibits (P. Exs. 1‐18).  Neither party objected to the exhibits offered by the opposing party.  Accordingly, in the absence of objection, I admit CMS Exs. 1‐6 and P. Exs. 1‐18 into the record.
Petitioner offered his own written direct testimony as P. Ex. 18.  As my Pre-Hearing Order explained, I will hold a hearing only if a party offers admissible written direct testimony and the opposing party requests cross-examination.  Pre-Hearing Order ¶ 10.  In the present case, CMS has not requested to cross‐examine Petitioner; thus, a hearing is not necessary.  Moreover, a hearing is not necessary because I grant CMS’s motion for summary judgment.
II.  Issues
The issues in this case are:
Whether CMS is entitled to summary judgment; and
Whether CMS had a legitimate basis to deny Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment application.
III.  Jurisdiction
I have jurisdiction to hear and decide this case.  42 C.F.R. §§ 498.3(b)(17), 498.5(*l*)(2); *see also* Social Security Act (Act) § 1866(j)(8) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc(j)(8)).
Page 4
IV.  Discussion
**A. Statutory and Regulatory Background**
As a physician, Petitioner is a prospective supplier of health care services for purposes of the Medicare program.  *See* Act § 1861(d) (42 U.S.C. § 1395x(d)); 42 C.F.R. §§ 400.202 (definition of supplier), 410.20(b)(1).  In order to participate in the Medicare program as a supplier, an individual must meet certain criteria to enroll and receive billing privileges.  42 C.F.R §§ 424.505, 424.510.  CMS may deny a prospective supplier’s enrollment application for any reason stated in 42 C.F.R § 424.530.
CMS or its contractor may deny a prospective supplier’s enrollment application for Medicare billing privileges for providing false or misleading information, among other reasons:
(4)  *False or misleading information.*  The provider or supplier has submitted false or misleading information on the enrollment application to gain enrollment in the Medicare program.  (Offenders may be referred to the Office of Inspector General for investigation and possible criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions.)
42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(4).
**B. Conclusions of Law and Analysis**
***1. Summary judgment is appropriate in this case.1***
An administrative law judge may resolve a case, in whole or in part, by summary judgment*.  See, e.g., Lebanon Nursing & Rehab. Ctr*., DAB No. 1918 at 3 (2004).  Summary judgment is appropriate and no hearing is required where either:  there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the only questions that must be decided involve application of law to the undisputed facts; or the moving party prevails as a matter of law even if all factual disputes are resolved in favor of the party against whom the motion is made.  *Mission Hosp. Reg’l Med. Ctr.*, DAB No. 2459 at 5 (2012) (and cases cited therein).  In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact for trial, the reviewer must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non‐moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.  *Id.*The party requesting summary judgment bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact for trial and/or that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  *Id.*Generally, the non‐movant may not defeat an adequately supported summary judgment
Page 5
motion by relying upon the denials in its pleadings or briefs but must furnish evidence of a dispute concerning a material fact, i.e., a fact that would affect the outcome of the case if proven.  *Senior Rehab. & Skilled Nursing Ctr.*, DAB No. 2300 at 3 (2010) (and cases cited therein);*see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.*, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
CMS moves for summary judgment only on the ground that Petitioner’s application included false or misleading information, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(4).  CMS Br. at 6‐10.  I conclude that summary judgment is appropriate in this case as it pertains to CMS’s determination to deny Petitioner’s enrollment application pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(4).  There are no genuine disputes of material fact.  The issues raised by Petitioner must be resolved against him as a matter of law and the case can be resolved by applying the law to the undisputed facts.  For purposes of summary judgment, I draw all inferences in favor of Petitioner.  Even though not material to the outcome, I accept as true that Petitioner received conflicting and often confusing information from Novitas.  P. Br. at 1‐5.  I further accept as true that Petitioner had no intention to provide false or misleading information on his application based on his assumption that “given his ongoing discussions and written communications, including repeated disclosures” about his revocation and re‐enrollment bar, Novitas was aware of these issues.  *Id.* at 10.  However, even if these facts are true, summary judgment is still appropriate.
***2. The undisputed facts show that Petitioner did not disclose on his enrollment application that his license to practice medicine had been suspended or that his Medicare enrollment and billing privileges had previously been revoked; accordingly, CMS had a legal basis to deny Petitioner’s application to enroll in the Medicare program under 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(4).***
Under 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(4), CMS may deny a prospective Medicare supplier’s enrollment application if the prospective supplier submitted false or misleading information on the application.  Here, it is undisputed that Petitioner’s medical license was suspended for 10 months pursuant to the Consent Order he entered into with the State Board of Medical Examiners.  CMS Ex. 1 at 5‐15.  It is further undisputed that Petitioner’s Medicare billing privileges were revoked as a direct result of his license suspension.  CMS Ex. 3.  Nonetheless, on both of his enrollment applications, Petitioner indicated that he had no final adverse actions to report.  CMS Exs. 4 at 14; 5 at 14.  Each prospective supplier who files an enrollment application must certify that the application is accurate, and the prospective supplier is responsible for all of the contents of that application.  *Facundo B. Dovale, M.D.*, DAB CR4952 at 2 (2017).  By indicating that he had no final adverse actions to report, Petitioner submitted false and misleading information on his Medicare enrollment application.
Page 6
Petitioner argues that he did not intend to submit false or misleading information because he was under the impression that Novitas was aware of his prior license suspension and revocation and thus, he had no further need to report this information again.  P. Br. at 10.  However, an appellate panel of the Departmental Appeals Board has held that a supplier may be found to have violated Medicare enrollment requirements without regard to his subjective intent:  “[sanction] does not require proof that [a supplier] subjectively intended to provide false information, only proof that [he] *in fact provided* misleading or false information that [he] certified as true.”  *Mark Koch, D.O.*, DAB No. 2610 at 4 (2014) (emphasis in original).  Moreover, Petitioner has the burden to disclose adverse legal actions; it is not the contractor’s duty to draw inferences or make deductions.  *Dovale*, DAB CR4952 at 3.  The only issue here is whether CMS had a lawful basis to deny Petitioner’s enrollment application.  The undisputed facts show that Petitioner submitted an application without disclosing his license suspension or prior Medicare revocation.  CMS therefore had a sufficient basis to deny the application.
To the extent Petitioner argues that denial of his enrollment application is “inequitable” because “he did not intend to provide false or misleading information” (P. Br. at 10‐11), I may not consider this argument.  Similarly, there is no basis to “evaluate” Petitioner’s argument “in light of Novitas’ and [CMS’s] own errors throughout this lengthy ordeal.”  P. Br. at 10.  I have no authority to grant Petitioner equitable relief.  *US Ultrasound*, DAB No. 2302 at 8 (2010).
***3. I need not decide whether CMS had a legitimate basis to deny Petitioner’s enrollment application under 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(3).***
Having concluded that CMS had a legitimate basis to deny Petitioner’s enrollment application based on his submission of false and misleading information, I need not decide whether CMS also had a basis to deny Petitioner’s enrollment application under 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(3), based on an alleged felony conviction.2
 It is unnecessary for
Page 7
me to do so because the enrollment denial under 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(4) is supported by the record.  *See, e.g.*,*Daniel Wiltz & Family Healthcare Clinic, APMC*, DAB No. 2864 at 12 (2018) (if one basis for sanction is established, CMS’s action would be sustained “regardless of any additional bases”).  Thus, even if I were to conclude that CMS did not have a basis to deny Petitioner’s enrollment application based on 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(3) because he was not convicted of a felony offense, this would not result in a favorable outcome for Petitioner.  For these reasons, I do not decide whether CMS had a legal basis to deny Petitioner’s enrollment application based on a felony conviction in accordance with 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(3).
V.  Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, I affirm CMS’s determination to deny Petitioner’s application for Medicare enrollment and billing privileges.


          /s/
        Leslie A. Weyn

                      Administrative Law Judge
      1. My conclusions of law appear as headings in bold italic type. back to note 1
                      2. To establish a basis to deny enrollment pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(3), CMS must show, among other things, that an individual was convicted of a felony offense within the preceding 10 years.  The regulation defines conviction by cross-referencing the definition at section 1128(i) of the Act.  Section 1128(i)(4) provides that an individual who enters into a “deferred adjudication” arrangement is “convicted.”  There is some authority for the proposition that a “deferred prosecution” is not equivalent to a “deferred adjudication” and therefore is not a “conviction” for purposes of section 1128(i).  See Travers v. Shalala, 20 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 1994).  While the record is not fully developed on this issue, it could be argued that disposition of Petitioner’s criminal case under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-12 is a “deferred prosecution” arrangement, rather than a “deferred adjudication” arrangement.  If so, then the disposition of his criminal case may not represent a conviction under 42 C.F.R. § 424.530(a)(3). 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