Court Opinion

ID: 9746852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:41:17.516903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:17.645912
License: Public Domain

KENNETH L. BUETTNER, P.J.,
concurring in result:
186 I agree that this case should be remanded and Appellant should be allowed to present evidence. I disagree with the opinion insofar as it holds that constructive notice may satisfy the State's notice obligation under 42 C.F.R. § 488.335(c)(2). In this case, the Attorney General opened its case December 17, 2008, investigated the allegations and issued its report May 4, 2004, and closed its case May 12, 2004 with a decision not to prosecute. It is unclear why the Attorney General's report was not sent to the Department until November 5, 2005. The Department then says it finished its investigation May 15, 2005 and sent written notice to Appellant by letter dated May 19, 2005 but mailed June 2, 2005.
T 37 Simply being aware of the allegations, or even that the State has commenced an investigation does not satisfy the notice requirement.