Opinion ID: 612907
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Duration of Penalties

Text: Golden did not contest the Appeal Board's decision regarding the duration of noncompliance in its initial brief. See Sanborn v. Parker, 629 F.3d 554, 579 (6th Cir.2010) (arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived). However, without arguing it was waived, Respondent fully briefed the issue and Golden responded in its Reply Brief. Because both parties fully briefed the duration issue, we will address it. This Court may only reverse the duration of noncompliance if it is left with a definite and firm conviction that the Secretary committed a clear judgment error in reaching its conclusion after weighing the relevant factors. United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715, 720 (6th Cir.2002). Golden does not contend the violations ended at some other point; instead, Golden argues that failure to provide appropriate care for a single resident during her 18-day stay cannot support an 80-day duration of noncompliance. [6] However, the burden is upon the facility to prove it has resumed compliance and Golden has not shown that it fully complied at an earlier date. Moreover, Golden's treatment of R1 is indicative of its practices in general and sheds light on the risk to all Golden residents resulting from poor recording of ailments, improperly executed lab requests, and inadequate care plans. Given the severity of the violations described above, the fact that these violations likely affected Golden's other residents, and the necessity to revisit the facility to confirm compliance, there is adequate support for the Secretary's decision. This Court finds no clear judgment error in the duration of the penalty.