Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division |
|
IN THE CASE OF | |
Lakewood Plaza Nursing Center, |
DATE: August 18, 2000 |
- v - |
|
Health Care Financing Administration.
|
Docket No.C-99-657 Decision No. CR691 |
DECISION | |
I dismiss the request for hearing filed in this case by
Petitioner, Lakewood Plaza Nursing Center; I do so pursuant to 42 C.F.R.
§ 498.70(b) because Petitioner has no right to a hearing. Additionally,
I deny Petitioner's motion to amend its hearing request. I. Background The material facts in this case are not disputed. Petitioner
is a long-term care facility that is located in Little Rock, Arkansas.
On May 25, 1999, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) sent
a notice to Petitioner advising Petitioner of HCFA's intent to impose
remedies. These remedies included civil money penalties totaling approximately
$130,000 and denial of payment for new admissions for the period which
ran from May 27, 1999 until July 4, 1999. On July 1, 1999, Petitioner requested a hearing before
an administrative law judge in order to contest HCFA's determinations.
The case was assigned to me for a hearing and a decision. I scheduled
an in-person hearing to be held beginning on April 4, 2000. However, on
March 28, 2000, HCFA sent a notice to Petitioner in which it advised Petitioner
that it was rescinding its determination to impose civil money penalties
against Petitioner, as well as its determination to deny Petitioner payment
for new admissions for the May 27 - June 4, 1999 period.
As a consequence of that notice, I postponed without date
the in-person hearing. I directed HCFA to file a motion to dismiss Petitioner's
hearing request. HCFA duly filed its motion and Petitioner opposed the
motion. HCFA submitted two exhibits (HCFA Ex. 1 and HCFA Ex. 2)
in connection with its motion to dismiss. These exhibits consist of a
letter which the Arkansas Department of Human Services delivered to Petitioner
on May 21, 1999 (HCFA Ex. 1) and HCFA's March 28, 2000 notice to Petitioner
(HCFA Ex. 2). HCFA also submitted an exhibit with its reply brief which
consists of a letter dated June 11, 1999 from Petitioner to HCFA. HCFA
designated this exhibit as HCFA Ex. 1. In order to avoid confusion, I
am redesignating the exhibit as HCFA Ex. 3. Petitioner has not objected
to my receiving HCFA's proposed exhibits into evidence. Therefore, I receive
into evidence HCFA Ex. 1, HCFA Ex. 2, and HCFA Ex. 3. I do not receive
into evidence any of the exhibits that the parties submitted as part of
their prehearing exchange in preparation for the in-person hearing that
I had scheduled to be held beginning on April 4, 2000. II. Issue, findings of fact and conclusions of
law
The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has a right
to a hearing.
I make findings of fact and conclusions of law (Findings)
to support my decision in this case. I set forth each Finding below as
a separately numbered heading. I discuss each finding in detail.
HCFA's March 28, 2000 notice to Petitioner plainly rescinds
all of the initial determinations that HCFA made in this case. The initial
determinations in this case consisted of HCFA's determination to impose
civil money penalties against Petitioner and its determination to deny
Petitioner Medicare payments for new admissions for the period running
from May 27, 1999 until July 4, 1999. Petitioner argues that HCFA did not, in fact, rescind
its determination to deny payments for new admissions. It contends that
it was precluded from admitting new residents during the May 27 - July
4, 1999 period. Petitioner argues that HCFA cannot now undo the denial
of payments or its consequences. Petitioner mischaracterizes HCFA's determination to deny
payments to Petitioner. Petitioner was not barred from admitting new residents
at any time. It is true that, until March 28, 2000, HCFA had denied payment
for new admissions of residents that Petitioner made between May 27 and
July 4, 1999. But, with the rescission of the determination, Petitioner
became eligible to claim payment for any admissions that it may have made
during this period. Moreover, there is no relief that I would be able to afford
Petitioner to compensate it for its not admitting residents during the
May 27 - July 4, 1999 period. I have no authority to order HCFA to compensate
Petitioner for residents whom it did not admit even if I were to find
that HCFA was without authority to impose the remedy of denial of payment
for new admissions. Petitioner argues additionally, that, as a consequence
of HCFA's determination to impose remedies against it, it lost its authority
to conduct nurse aide training for a period of two years. Petitioner argues
that this loss of authority is a determination to impose a remedy which
HCFA did not rescind. However, the denial of nurse aide training was not an
initial determination which HCFA could rescind. The regulations which
were in effect at the time that HCFA made its determinations in this case
state unambiguously that loss of approval for nurse aide training is not
an initial determination. 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(d)(10)(iii) (1998). It is true that, effective July 23, 1999, the regulations
were revised to provide that loss of nurse aide training was an initial
determination as to which a facility could request a hearing. However,
HCFA intended the revision to apply only to determinations that were made
after the revision's effective date. In publishing the interim version
of the final regulation, HCFA stated:
64 Fed. Reg. 39934, 39936 (1999) (emphasis added). The initial determination that is at issue in this case was made on May 25, 1999. That is based on a State notice that is dated May 21, 1999. These actions, and HCFA's determination to impose remedies, occurred prior to the effective date of the revised regulation.
The basis for any hearing request in a case involving
HCFA is an initial determination by HCFA to impose a remedy against the
affected party. See 42 C.F.R. §§ 488.408(g); 498.3; 498.5. There
is no right to a hearing where there is no determination to impose a remedy. In this case, HCFA's rescission of its determinations
to impose remedies against Petitioner extinguished those determinations.
The consequence of HCFA's action was to eliminate completely the remedy
determinations which were the basis for Petitioner's hearing request.
No remedy determinations exist now and there is
nothing extant which would give Petitioner a right to a hearing. Schowalter
Villa, DAB No. 1688 (1999). As I discuss above, prior to July 23, 1999, Petitioner's
loss of nurse aide training was not an initial determination. And, in
the absence of any initial determination concerning loss of nurse aide
training Petitioner has no right to a hearing to challenge its loss of
nurse aide training. Schowalter, DAB No. 1688. Thus, there now
exist no determinations from which Petitioner has a right to a hearing
and Petitioner never had right to request a hearing to challenge its loss
of nurse aide training.
Petitioner would have me extend the time within which
it could file its hearing request so that Petitioner may refile the request
it filed previously in this case. Petitioner's goal is to be able to date
its hearing request after July 23, 1999 so that it may challenge its loss
of nurse aide training pursuant to the revised regulation which permits
such a challenge if it is made after July 23, 1999. Petitioner has not established good cause for its motion
and I deny it. Petitioner's motion is essentially a tactical maneuver
on Petitioner's part. Granting the motion would frustrate the Secretary's
decision to distinguish between hearing requests that were made prior
to and after July 23, 1999. In effect, by granting the motion, I would
sanction a de facto retroactive application of a regulation that the Secretary
announced would be applied only prospectively. The fact that Petitioner's interests may be harmed by
my not granting Petitioner's motion is no basis for me to grant it. Here,
the Secretary made a decision to distinguish between hearing requests
that were filed before July 23, 1999 and those requests that were filed
after that date. I do not consider it appropriate for me to undermine
that authority as is urged by Petitioner.
Dismissal of a hearing request is appropriate where a party has no right to a hearing. 42 C.F.R. § 498.70(b). Here, dismissal is appropriate inasmuch as Petitioner has no right to a hearing. Therefore, I dismiss Petitioner's hearing request. | |
JUDGE | |
Steven T. Kessel Administrative Law Judge
|
|