This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper ve rsion filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
THI OF NEW MEXICO AT LAS CRUCES, LLC, 2 d/b/a, Las Cruces Nursing Center, 3 Petitioner-Appellant, 4

v. NO. 31,588 5 NEW MEXICO HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, 6 Respondent-Appellee. 7

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 8 Barbara J. Vigil, District Judge 9
Pregenzer Baysinger Wideman & Sale, PC 10 Marcy Baysinger 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 Schutjer Bogar LLC 13 Katie Maxwell, Pro Hac Vice 14 Dallas, TX 15 for Appellant 16 New Mexico Human Services Department 17 Robert J. Lennon, Assistant General Counsel 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellee 202 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 KENNEDY, Chief Judge. 2
{1} THI of New Mexico at Las Cruces, LLC (THI) operates the Las Cruces Nursing 3 Center (Nursing Center). THI filed an a pplication for Medicaid assistance on behalf 4 of one of its patients, Manue l Zuniga, which was denied. THI requested a fair hearing 5 on the denial, and the New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD) responded 6 that because THI was not a proper party to represent Zuniga’s interests, it could not 7 appeal the denial of the hearing on his behalf. THI appealed. Even tually, after a brief 8 hearing, the district court granted HSD’s motion to dismiss the appeal based on THI’s 9 lack of standing and the case being moot due to Zuniga’s death. We affirm the district 10 court’s decision because, at this point, THI cannot acquire the required social security 11 number for Zuniga, which precludes his eligibility from being established. 12 I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 13
{2} Zuniga, a quadriplegic patient requiri ng long-term skilled nursing care, was 14 admitted to the Nursing Center in November 2008. When admitted, THI asked that 15 he sign the Admission Agreement (Agreemen t), authorizing the Nursing Center to 16 apply for Medicaid assistance benefits on Zuniga’s behalf and appeal the denial of 17 benefits in the event that he or his repres entative is not available to act on his behalf. 181 THI represented in the hearing before the district court that it was willing to 16 produce the witnesses who were presen t when the documents were signed. 17 3 The Agreement was signed by Zuniga’s daughter, Susana Granada, followed by an 1 “X” for Zuniga. The Agreemen t states that, if “[Zuniga] is unable to physically sign 2 his . . . name, [he] will sign below by maki ng a mark” and that a witness must verify 3 that Zuniga was “aware that he . . . was signing [the] Agreement and that it was his . 4 . . intent to sign.” The Agreement designate d Granada as Zuniga’s “[d]urable [p]ower 5 of [a]ttorney for [h]ealth [c]are[,] . . . [l]egal [g]uardian[, and] . . . [r]esponsible 6 [p]arty” for admitting him to its facility. Z uniga’s capacity to make a mark in order 7 to contract with THI on his own behalf on this or any docum ent is unknown, as is 8 whether the “X” on the Agreement was execu ted by him. Neitherparty addresses 9 these issues, and we are agnostic as to their merits. 10
{3} Some time after Zuniga was admitte d, an Authorization Statement (the 11 Statement) was executed betw een the Nursing Center and Zuniga that authorized the 12 “Nursing Center, its employees, agents, and/or [THI’s attorneys,] Schutjer Bogar 13 LLC[,] . . . to take those actions that are required to secure Me dicaid benefits . . . 14 establishing . . . eligibility and filing necessary appeals to secure such benefits . . . on 15 [Zuniga’s] behalf.” The Statement and its Spanish language counterpart were again 16 signed with an “X” above Zuni ga’s name and contain the signatures of two witnesses. 1 172 Reimbursement for services that the Nursing Center provided is outside the 18 purview of this case. See NMSA 1978, § 27-2-45(B)(1) (1990) (permitting hospitals 19 to submit claims for “uncovered hospital charges . . . for an illness of a medically 20 indigent patient”). 21 4 The Statement assigned the right to appeal any adverse determination as to Zuniga’s 1 Medicaid application to THI. 2
{4} Although no copy appears in the record, it appears that Zuniga subsequently 3 submitted an application for Medicaid assist ance or services that was denied on July 4 14, 2009. A later document indicates that the application was denied “because of 5 problems with his household status.” After the denial, THI requested a fair hearing 6 on behalf of Zuniga to appeal the July 2009 denial of his eligibility on October 12, 7 2009. HSD responded, stating that THI had no right as a healthcare provider “to a 8 hearing to assert . . . Zuniga’s rights,” pursuant to 8.353.2.9 NMAC. 2 HSD would 9 accordingly dismiss the fair hearing appeal unless it received “a request for [a] hearing 10 from . . . Zuniga or his legal represen tative by [October 26, 2009].” (Emphasis 11 omitted.) The letter stated that, if the cas e was dismissed, THI could “seek judicial 12 review” of the dismissal in the distri ct court within thirty days. 13
{5} THI timely appealed the dismissal of the fair heari ng request to the district 14
court. HSD moved to dismiss the appeal. No action was taken in the district court for 15 another year-and-a-half, and ne ither side pursued judicial resolution of the case. On 16 May 13, 2011, following this delay, the case was reassigned to a new district judge, 175 who reviewed the file and issu ed an order requesting clarif ication of the record as to 1 HSD’s denial of a fair hearing. The distri ct court stated that, if no hearing had been 2 conducted since October 2009, HSD’s motion to dismiss would be denied, and HSD’s 3 denial of the fair hearing requested by THI regarding Zuniga’s eligibility would be 4 reversed. 5
{6} HSD responded to this order by stati ng that, since October 2009, THI had 6 submitted additional information to HSD with regard to Zuniga’s eligibility. HSD had 7 issued a second denial of eligibility on January 24, 2011, becausea “social security 8 income has not been verified.” (Emphasis omitted.) THI had submitted another 9 request for a fair hearing on the denial, which HSD stated was still pending. HSD had 10 acknowledged the fair hearing request and set a schedule for submitting evidence and 11 setting a decision due date of June 21, 2011. None of these responses to the district 12 court’s order mentioned that Zuniga died on September 28, 2010. 13
{7} Upon learning of Zuniga’s death, HSD moved to dismiss for mootness and lack 14 of standing. THI responded by asserting that, because Zuniga had “irrevocably” 15 assigned his right to make claims for and receive Medicaid assistance or services to 16 THI, the right did not expire with him. THI further alleged that, had HSD timely 17 accorded Zuniga a hearing to which he was entitled for the first denial of eligibility, 18 the mootness argument would not exist. 196 {8} The district court held a hearing and granted HSD’s motion to dismiss. The 1 district court found that the right to a hearing and appeal of HSD’s decision were 2 statutory rights belonging to the Medicaid recipient, Zuniga, that are neither 3 transferable nor assignable. The district court also found that the Agreement “did not 4 legally or properly assign [Zuniga’s] rights to pursue Medicaid benefits to THI” and 5 rejected the Statement as impermissible under state law because it was “irrevocable.” 6 Further, the district court found that “thepayment of Medicaid benefits . . . would 7 require . . . Zuniga to have a valid social security number [and] . . . THI would not be 8 able to secure [one] . . . on [his] behalf.” The district court concluded that THI’s case 9 was moot and failed for lack of standing and dismissed the case with prejudice. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 {9} We note that the issues of standing and THI's authorization to pursue an 12 eligibility claim on behalf of Zuniga are deemed recognized without being ruled upon 13 by the Court, because we reso lve the case on the sole issue of Mr. Zuniga's failure to 14 have a valid social security number at th e time of his death. Thus, even if we 15 determined that THI could pursue Mr. Zuniga's eligibility claim, it would ultimately 16 fail for the lack of a valid social security number. “A court’ s interpretation of an 17 administrative regulation is a question of law that we review de novo.” Truong v. 18 Allstate Ins. Co. , 2010-NMSC-009, ¶ 24, 147 N.M. 583, 227 P.3d 73. 19 {10} A social security number appears in the record in several places attached to a 20 motion by HSD. One such location is on HSD’s acknowledgment of hearing request, 217 which includes a social security number and lists the reason for denial of eligibility 1 as “your social security income has not been verified.” (Emphasis omitted.) 2 However, despite “income” be ing listed as the reason for the denial, and the presence 3 of a social security number, no party disputes that Zuniga’s application still requires 4 a new social security number. 5 {11} At the hearing before the district court, THI confirmed that it was attempting 6 to get a number on behalf of Zuniga, which was proving difficult after his death. “A 7 medicaid applicant/recipient must furnish his/her social security account number.” 8 8.281.400.12 NMAC. Although the applicant does not have to receive the number 9 before applying, “[p]resentati on of an application for a social security number or proof 10 that an application has been made at a social security administration office is 11 considered as meeting this requirement.” Id. In addition to an application, the Social 12 Security Administration “will require the applicant to furnish documentary evidence, 13 as necessary, to assist [the Social Security Administration] in establishing the age, 14 U.S. citizenship or alien status, true iden tity, and previously assigned social security 15 number(s) . . . . A personal interview may be required of the applicant.” 20 C.F.R. 16 § 422.103(c)(1) (2006). At the hearing, THI st ated that they were trying to get a new 17 number for Zuniga, but that an in -person interview was required. In light of Zuniga’s 18 death, such a requirement will be impossible to fulfill. Therefore, despite the lack of 19 clarity about why the new number is necessary , we affirm the district court’s decision 20 to the extent that it is based on a determination that THI will ultimately be unable to 21 secure the necessary valid soci al security number for Zuniga. 228 {12} We briefly note that there is no merit to HSD’s assertion in its initial rejection 1 letter that THI could not represen t Zuniga based on 8.353.2.9 NMAC. This 2 regulation, relied on by HSD in their fi rst letter rejecting THI, deals with 3 administrative matters between healthcare providers and HSD, such as “providers who 4 disagree with HSD decisions concerning thei r [providers’] participation in the New 5 Mexico medicaid program, recoupment of overpayments due to provider billing error, 6 and imposition of sanctions.” Id. It tracks the provision of Section 27-2-9(C), which 7 entitles hospitals to a hearing should they disagree with HSD’s determination of the 8 reimbursement due for caring for a Medicaid eligible patient. It states nothing about 9 the rights or eligibility of a patient, or th e patient’s ability to pursue an application 10 through his or her representativ e. We conclude that the regulation is not material to 11 a determination of whether Zuniga’s repres entative has any ability to seek “a hearing 12 to assert . . . Zuniga’s rights.” 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 {13} Because THI admits that it cannot proc ure the required new social security 15 number for a decedent such as Zuniga, we affirm the distri ct court’s decision. HSD’s 16 denial of THI’s request for a fair hearing will stand. 179 {14} IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

____________________________________ 2 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judg e 3

WE CONCUR: 4

___________________________ 5 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 6

___________________________ 7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 8