A and K Medical Supplies v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al
Filing
30
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Medicare Appeals Council's ("MAC") dismissal of A&K's request for review and decision not to extend the time for filing was reasonable, consistent with the applicable regulations, and not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the Court affirms the MAC's decision and dismisses this action. See document for details. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (gk)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WESTERN DIVISION
11
12
Case No: CV 10-9453 CAS (AJWx)
A & K MEDICAL SUPPLIES,
13
Plaintiff,
14
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
vs.
15
16
17
18
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official
capacity as Secretary,
Defendant.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–1–
1
2
3
4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
A & K Medical Supplies (“A&K”) provides durable medical equipment
(“DME”) to Medicare beneficiaries. (A.R. at 48.)
2.
A&K submitted to Medicare carrier, Noridian Administrative Services
5
(“Noridian”), claims for DME that were provided to 34 Medicare beneficiaries
6
between October 24, 2005 and October 7, 2006. Id.
7
8
9
10
11
12
3.
Noridian initially paid these claims in full but later determined that there
was an overpayment. Id.
4.
In response to A&K’s request for reconsideration, Noridian issued
redetermination decisions adverse to A&K on all 34 claims. (A.R. at 167-409.)
5.
A&K submitted a request for reconsideration to River Trust Solutions, a
DME Qualified Independent Contractor (“QIC”). (A.R. at 114-19.)
13
6.
The QIC affirmed Noridian’s decisions. Id.
14
7.
On October 20, 2009, A&K submitted a request for hearing before an
15
16
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), contesting the QIC’s decision. (A.R. at 112.)
8.
After conducting a hearing, the ALJ issued a decision on April 9, 2010,
17
finding that Medicare would not cover the services rendered, that the overpayment
18
was properly issued, and that A&K was liable for the overpayment. (A.R. at 47-60.)
19
20
21
9.
On June 25, 2010, the Medicare Appeals Council (“MAC”) received
from A&K a request for review of the ALJ’s decision. (A.R. at 23.)
10.
On October 7, 2010, the MAC dismissed this request as untimely,
22
pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 405.1102, and found there was not good cause to extend the
23
time for filing. (A.R. at 18-20.)
24
11.
On October 19, 2010, the MAC received a letter from A&K requesting
25
that it vacate its dismissal on the basis that A&K had good cause for the untimely
26
filing. (A.R. at 10.)
27
28
12.
The MAC responded that it had denied A&K’s request for review
because A&K had failed to offer any explanation for the delay. (A.R. at 8.)
–2–
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
13.
hearing regarding its request to vacate dismissal of its claim. (A.R. at 3.)
14.
11
12
The MAC denied A&K’s request for an oral hearing and stated again that
its dismissal was binding and not subject to further review. (A.R. at 1-2.)
15.
Any finding of fact deemed to be a conclusion of law is hereby
incorporated into the Conclusions of Law.
16.
Any conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is hereby
incorporated into the Findings of Fact.
9
10
A&K then submitted another letter to the MAC, requesting a telephonic
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
The MAC’s dismissal of A&K’s request for review is not a “final
decision” over which the Court would have jurisdiction.
2.
The Social Security Act expressly limits judicial review of agency
13
actions to situations in which a party has obtained a “final decision” from the agency.
14
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(b)(1)(A) (incorporating § 405(g) by
15
reference and applying it to Medicare claims).
16
3.
The Ninth Circuit has held that agency decisions “to refrain from
17
petitions for review are not final decisions subject to review in federal court.”
18
Matlock v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 492-93 (9th Cir. 1990).
19
4.
A “final decision” refers to “a final decision on the merits,” and a
20
decision whether or not to allow an untimely request for review is not a decision on
21
the merits, but rather a discretionary opinion. Id. at 494.
22
23
24
5.
Even if the MAC’s dismissal of A&K’s request was a “final decision,”
that decision was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.
6.
On review, the Secretary’s findings “as to any fact, if supported by
25
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive…” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Mayes v. Masanari,
26
276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001).
27
28
7.
“‘Substantial evidence’ is more than a mere scintilla but less than a
preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
–3–
1
2
adequate to support a conclusion.” Mayes, 276 F.3d at 459.
8.
“A finding supported by substantial evidence must be affirmed by a
3
reviewing court even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the
4
evidence.” Id.
5
9.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the reviewing court must affirm
6
the agency’s determination unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
7
otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
8
10.
“A decision is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors
9
which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an
10
important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs
11
counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be
12
ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle
13
Mfr.’s Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
14
11.
Here, the applicable regulations require that a request for review must be
15
filed within 60 days from the date notice of the ALJ’s decision was received. 42
16
C.F.R. § 405.1102(a).
17
12.
The date of receipt of the ALJ’s decision or dismissal is presumed to be
18
five calendar days after the date of the notice of decision or dismissal, unless there is
19
evidence to the contrary. Id.
20
13.
Moreover, the regulations provide that the MAC will dismiss a request
21
for review when the provider fails to file a timely request for review and the MAC has
22
not extended the time for filing. 42 C.F.R. § 405.1114.
23
24
25
14.
The time for filing will be extended if good cause is shown. 42 C.F.R. §
405.1102(b).
15.
The MAC’s dismissal of A&K’s request for review and decision not to
26
extend the time for filing was reasonable, consistent with the applicable regulations,
27
and not arbitrary or capricious.
28
16.
Accordingly, the Court affirms the MAC’s decision and dismisses this
–4–
1
2
3
4
5
action.
17.
Any finding of fact deemed to be a conclusion of law is hereby
incorporated into the Conclusions of Law.
18.
Any conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is hereby
incorporated into the Findings of Fact.
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dated:
May 17, 2012
__________________________________
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–5–
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
