Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

  • About HHS
  • Programs & Services
  • Grants & Contracts
  • Laws & Regulations
  • Radical Transparency
  • Big Wins
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. About
  3. Agencies
  4. DAB
  5. Decisions
  6. ALJ Decisions
  7. 2020
  8. In re CMS LCD Complaint: Surgical Dressings, DAB CR5603 (2020)
  • Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)
  • About DAB
    • Organizational Overview
    • Who are the Judges?
    • DAB Divisions
    • Contact DAB
  • Filing an Appeal Online
    • DAB E-File
    • Medicare Operations Division (MOD) E-File
  • Different Appeals at DAB
    • Appeals to DAB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
      • Forms
      • Procedures
    • Appeals to Board
      • Practice Manual
      • Guidelines
      • Regulations
      • National Coverage Determination Complaints
    • Appeals to the Medicare Appeals Council (Council)
      • Forms
      • Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA) Demonstration Project
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution Services
    • Sharing Neutrals
    • ADR Training
    • Other ADR Services
  • DAB Decisions
    • Board Decisions
    • DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions
    • Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions
  • Stakeholder Feedback
  • Careers
    • Open Career Opportunities
    • Internships & Externships

In re CMS LCD Complaint: Surgical Dressings, DAB CR5603 (2020)


Department of Health and Human Services
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Civil Remedies Division

In re CMS LCD Complaint:
Surgical Dressings

Docket No. C-20-382
Decision No. CR5603
May 1, 2020

DECISION DISMISSING UNACCEPTABLE COMPLAINT

Marcia K. Amaviska (the Aggrieved Party) submitted correspondence through her appointed representative which the Civil Remedies Division treated as a challenge to a local coverage determination (LCD) and docketed as C‑20‑382.  I was designated to review the purported LCD challenge.

The applicable regulations require that I first determine whether an aggrieved party filed an “acceptable” and “valid” complaint.  42 C.F.R. § 426.410(b).  Upon initial review, I noted that it appeared the Aggrieved Party had timely filed the request for hearing within 120 days of the initial denial notice.  However, I also noted that the Aggrieved Party had not filed an acceptable and valid LCD complaint under the applicable regulations.  Therefore, on March 19, 2020, I issued an Acknowledgment of Receipt and Order to Amend Unacceptable Complaint (Order) in which I informed the Aggrieved Party that she had one opportunity to submit an acceptable complaint.  See 42 C.F.R. § 426.410(c)(1).

The Order described the elements required to be included in an LCD complaint to make it acceptable.  I specifically directed the Aggrieved Party to provide all of the following information:

  • LCD-identifying information:  The Aggrieved Party’s initial complaint was unacceptable because she did not identify the LCD that she sought to challenge.  I therefore directed the Aggrieved Party to identify the LCD that she wished to challenge and the specific provision(s) of the LCD that adversely affect her.

Page 2

  • Aggrieved Party statement: The Aggrieved party’s initial complaint was unacceptable because, while she explained the service needed, she was required to provide a written statement explaining why she believes the LCD provision(s) is (are) invalid under the reasonableness standard.  I thus directed the Aggrieved Party to provide such a written statement.
  • Clinical or scientific evidence:  The Aggrieved Party did not provide copies of clinical or scientific evidence in support of her complaint.  Nor did she explain why she believes that this evidence shows that the LCD is not reasonable.  I therefore directed the Aggrieved Party to submit such evidence and explanation.

My Order directed the Aggrieved Party to file an amended complaint by April 20, 2020.  I advised the Aggrieved Party that if she did not submit an acceptable amended complaint by that time, I would issue a decision dismissing this action.  42 C.F.R. § 426.410(c)(2).

The Aggrieved Party has not filed a response since that time.  Therefore, her March 9, 2020 complaint remains unacceptable under 42 C.F.R. § 426.410(b).  I am required to dismiss an unacceptable complaint after giving an aggrieved party the opportunity to amend it.  42 C.F.R. § 426.410(c)(2).  Accordingly, I order this complaint dismissed.

/s/

Bill Thomas Administrative Law Judge

Back to top

Subscribe to Email Updates

Receive the latest updates from the Secretary and Press Releases.

Subscribe
  • Contact HHS
  • Careers
  • HHS FAQs
  • Nondiscrimination Notice
  • Press Room
  • HHS Archive
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Budget/Performance
  • Inspector General
  • Web Site Disclaimers
  • EEO/No Fear Act
  • FOIA
  • The White House
  • USA.gov
  • Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
HHS Logo

HHS Headquarters

200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Toll Free Call Center: 1-877-696-6775​

Follow HHS

Follow Secretary Kennedy