Parminderjeet Sandhu, DAB CR6111 (2022)

DECISION DISMISSING REQUEST FOR HEARING

I dismiss the request for hearing by Petitioner, Parminderjeet Sandhu, because Petitioner filed it untimely.

On February 28, 2022, the Inspector General (IG) mailed a notice to Petitioner, advising him that he was excluded from participating in Medicare, State Medicaid, and other federally funded healthcare programs for a minimum of 22 years.  The IG asserted that Petitioner had been convicted of crimes falling with the reach of the mandatory exclusion requirements of sections 1128(a)(1) and 1128(a)(3) of the Social Security Act.  The IG advised Petitioner that exclusion pursuant to these sections was for a minimum of five years.  The IG elected to exclude Petitioner for a 22-year period due to the alleged presence of certain aggravating factors including:  the duration of Petitioner's crimes and their financial impact.

Regulations allow an excluded individual to request a hearing before an administrative law judge.  To be entitled to a hearing, the excluded individual must file his or her hearing request within 60 days of his or her receipt of the exclusion notice.  42 C.F.R. §§ 1001.2007(b), 1005.2(c).  The regulations presume that an individual receives notice of an exclusion five days "after the date of such notice unless there is a reasonable

Page 2

showing to the contrary."  42 C.F.R. §§ 1005.2(c), 1005.12(b).  An individual is presumed to have filed an untimely hearing request if he or she files one after the 65th day from the date of the exclusion notice, excluding weekends and/or federal holidays.  Five days after the February 28 exclusion notice fell on Saturday, March 5, 2022, so it is presumed that Petitioner received the exclusion notice on March 7, 2022.

Petitioner had until May 6, 2022 to file a request for a hearing.  However, Petitioner did not file a hearing request until May 9, 2022, 68 days after the notice date.

The IG moved to dismiss Petitioner's hearing request on the ground that Petitioner filed the request untimely.  Petitioner did not reply to the IG's motion.

The 65-day presumption of receipt is just that, a presumption.  A party may rebut the presumption, but only by proving that he or she received the IG's exclusion notice more than five days after the notice date.  Proof must consist of credible evidence supporting the excluded party's assertion that he or she received the notice more than five days after the date listed on the notice.  See Kenneth Schrager, DAB No. 2366 at 3 (2011).

Petitioner offered nothing to show that he received the exclusion letter more than five days after the date of the notice.  Therefore, the regulatory presumption governs, and I find that Petitioner had until May 6, 2022 to file a hearing request.  Petitioner filed the request untimely on May 9, 2022.

Regulations afford me no choice.  I must dismiss Petitioner's hearing request because it is untimely filed.  42 C.F.R. § 1005.2(e)(1).