Dominion Home Health Care, Inc., DAB CR6843 (2026)

DECISION

In an initial determination, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), through a CMS contractor, revoked the Medicare enrollment and billing privileges of Dominion Home Health Care, Inc. (Petitioner) based on Juliet Ogunyoye’s (Ms. Ogunyoye) felony conviction for conspiring to knowingly and willfully execute a scheme to defraud Medicare, failure to disclose the felony conviction, and failure to report the felony conviction to CMS within 90 days of its occurrence.  The CMS contractor also barred Petitioner from re-enrolling in the Medicare program for ten years and added Petitioner to the CMS preclusion list.  Petitioner requested reconsideration, but a CMS hearing officer upheld the initial determination.  Petitioner sought further review and requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ).  For the reasons stated below, I affirm CMS’s determination. 

I.  Background and Procedural History

Petitioner is a home health agency in Illinois that was enrolled as a provider in the Medicare program.  CMS Ex. 2 at 1-2.  Ms. Ogunyoye was listed as a delegated official / officer in Petitioner’s 855 enrollment record.  CMS Ex. 1 at 16.  In a May 9, 2024 initial

Page 2

determination, a CMS contractor revoked Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges, effective March 23, 2022, for the following reasons: 

42 CFR § 424.535(a)(2) – Excluded / Debarred from Federal Program

On October 19, 2023, Ms. Ogunyoye was excluded by the [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’] Office of Inspector General from the Medicare, Medicaid and any other federal health care program.  Juliet Ogunyoye is listed as a delegated official on [Petitioner’s] Medicare 855A enrollment record.  

42 CFR § 424.535(a)(3) – Felony Conviction

[CMS] has been made aware of Juliet Ogunyoye’s March 23, 2022, felony conviction, as defined in 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2, for Attempt and Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1349 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois.  Juliet Ogunyoye is listed as a delegated official on [Petitioner’s] Medicare 855A enrollment record. 

42 CFR § 424.535(a)(4) - False or Misleading Information

On [Petitioner’s] . . . 855A Illinois enrollment application, signed on April 1, 2024, [Petitioner] answered “no” in section six of the application, indicating that Juliet Ogunyoye did not have any adverse legal history.  However, Juliet Ogunyoye was convicted of a felony for Attempt and Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud on March 23, 2022.  A felony conviction is listed as an adverse legal action under 42 CFR § 424.502 that requires reporting on the 855A application.  Juliet Ogunyoye is listed as a delegated official on [Petitioner’s] 855 enrollment record. 

Additionally, CMS was made aware that on October 19, 2023, Juliet Ogunyoye had an exclusion imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service[s’] Office of Inspector General (OIG).  Any current exclusion imposed by the . . . OIG is listed as an adverse legal action under 42 CFR § 424.502 that requires reporting on the 855A application.

Page 3

Juliet Ogunyoye is listed as a delegated official on [Petitioner’s] 855 enrollment record.  

Therefore, CMS has determined that in failing to report Juliet Ogunyoye’s felony conviction and OIG exclusion, [Petitioner] certified as “true,” misleading or false information on the 855 enrollment application. 

42 CFR § 424.535(a)(9) - Failure to Report

[CMS] has been made aware of Juliet Ogunyoye’s March 23, 2022, felony conviction for Attempt and Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1349 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois.  Juliet Ogunyoye is listed as a delegated official on [Petitioner’s] Medicare 855A enrollment record.  

Additionally, on October 19, 2023, Juliet Ogunyoye was excluded by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) from the Medicare, Medicaid and any other federal health care program.  Juliet Ogunyoye is listed as a delegated official on [Petitioner’s] Medicare 855A enrollment record. 

[Petitioner] did not notify CMS of these adverse legal actions within 90 calendar days as required under 42 CFR § 424.516(e)(2).  

CMS Ex. 1 at 19-20.  The CMS contractor also barred Petitioner from re-enrolling in the Medicare program for ten years, effective 30 days from the postmark date of the letter, or June 8, 2024.  Id. at 20.  Finally, the CMS contractor said it would add Petitioner to CMS’s preclusion list.  Id. 

On June 30, 2024, Petitioner timely requested reconsideration.  CMS Ex. 1 at 1.  Petitioner argued that it has been under new management since 2017 and that Ms. Ogunyoye was a delegated official under previous management.  CMS Ex. 1 at 3.  Petitioner argued that it made a mistake by not updating the information that previous management had included in the application.  CMS Ex. 1 at 24.  Petitioner did not expressly dispute its inclusion on the preclusion list. 

A CMS hearing officer issued a January 24, 2025 reconsidered determination upholding the revocation.  CMS Ex. 1 at 1.  Additionally, the CMS hearing officer upheld Petitioner’s inclusion on the CMS Preclusion List because its Medicare billing privileges are revoked, its Medicare enrollment is currently under a reenrollment bar, and CMS

Page 4

determined that the underlying conduct that led to revocation is detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program.  CMS Ex. 1 at 7-8. 

On March 19, 2025, Petitioner timely requested a hearing.  On March 21, 2025, the Civil Remedies Division (CRD) issued an acknowledgment of Petitioner’s hearing request and Administrative Law Judge Jacinta Alves’ Standing Order.1   On April 24, 2025, CMS filed its prehearing exchange (CMS Br.) that included two proposed exhibits.  Petitioner submitted a response (P. Br.) with two unmarked exhibits called “affidavits”, which I treat as two proposed exhibits. 

II.  Decision on the Record

Neither party objected to any of the other’s proposed exhibits; therefore, I admit CMS Exs. 1-2 and P. Exs. 1-2 into the record.  An in-person hearing would only be necessary if a party submitted the written direct testimony of a proposed witness and the opposing party requested an opportunity to cross-examine a witness.  See Vandalia Park, DAB No. 1940 (2004); Pac. Regency Arvin, DAB No. 1823 at 8 (2002) (holding that the use of written direct testimony for witnesses is permissible so long as the opposing party has the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses).  CMS did not offer witnesses or written direct testimony and CMS did not request to cross-examine the declarants of the affidavits at P. Exs. 1-2.  Therefore, there is no need for an in-person hearing, and I decide this case based on the written record. 

III.  Issues

1.  Whether CMS had a legitimate basis for revoking Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges under 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(2), (3), (4), and (9).2 

2.  Whether CMS had a legitimate basis for placing Petitioner on the preclusion list.  42 C.F.R. §§ 422.2, 422.222, and 423.100.  

Page 5

IV.  Jurisdiction

I have jurisdiction to decide this case.  42 C.F.R. §§ 498.1(g), 498.3(b)(17), 498.5(l)(2); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc(j)(8).  

V.  Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Analysis

My findings of fact and conclusions of law are set forth in italics and bold font. 

The Social Security Act (Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to establish regulations governing the enrollment of providers and suppliers in the Medicare program.  42 U.S.C. § 1395cc(j).  As a home health agency, Petitioner is a “provider” for Medicare program purposes.  See 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(u); 42 C.F.R. §§ 400.202 (definition of provider), 409.41.  Ms. Ogunyoye was listed as a delegated official / officer since July 1, 2016 in Petitioner’s 855 application. 

The Secretary delegated to CMS the authority to revoke a provider’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges.  42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a). 

1.  On March 23, 2022, Ms. Ogunyoye pleaded guilty to one felony count of Attempt and Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud, and, on that same date, was convicted of that crime in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois. 

On January 9, 2020, Ms. Ogunyoye was charged via superseding indictment with one felony count of Health Care Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and one felony count of Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.  CMS Ex. 1 at 71-83.  On March 23, 2022, Ms. Ogunyoye pleaded guilty to Attempt and Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois.  CMS Ex. 1 at 96.  On that same date, the District Court accepted Ms. Ogunyoye’s plea.  Id. at 69, 122.  The plea agreement outlined that Ms. Ogunyoye was part of a scheme to defraud Medicare from approximately 2010 until 2018.  Id. at 97.  The plea further explained that Ms. Ogunyoye submitted fraudulent claims to Medicare for home health services that were rendered to patients who did not qualify and for services that were not rendered.  Id. at 99.  As a result of the actions taken by Ms. Ogunyoye and her coconspirators, Medicare incurred a loss of approximately $1.3 million.  Id.  On December 16, 2022, the District Court dismissed all remaining counts, and sentenced Ms. Ogunyoye for the felony count for which she pleaded guilty.  Id. at 114. 

Ms. Ogunyoye was sentenced to six months imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $1,379,017.36 in restitution.  CMS Ex. 1 at 115-116.  She was also excluded from participation in all federal health care programs by the OIG.  Id. at 53.

Page 6

2.  Petitioner never informed CMS or a CMS contractor of Ms. Ogunyoye’s conviction. 

After Ms. Ogunyoye’s conviction, Petitioner filed a CMS-855A enrollment application for the purpose of updating information and revalidating enrollment.  CMS Ex. 1 at 12.  The section of the CMS-855A, entitled Final Adverse Legal Actions, asked, “[h]as this [authorized official], under any current or former name or business identity, ever had a final adverse legal action imposed against him/her?”  CMS Ex. 1 at 16-17.  On the section of the Form-855A enrollment application pertaining to Ms. Ogunyoye, Petitioner answered “No”.  Id.  Petitioner does not dispute that it did not inform CMS or a CMS contractor of Ms. Ogunyoye’s felony conviction. 

3.  CMS had a legitimate basis to revoke Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges based on Ms. Ogunyoye’s felony conviction, within ten years of the revocation, for attempt and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, which is a felony that is detrimental per se to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries under 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(3). 

The Social Security Act (Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to promulgate regulations governing the enrollment of providers and suppliers in the Medicare program.3 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc(j).  Providers must enroll in the Medicare program and receive a billing number to obtain payment for services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries.  42 C.F.R. § 424.505.  The Secretary has delegated the authority to revoke Medicare enrollment and billing privileges to CMS. 42 C.F.R. § 424.535.  CMS may revoke an enrolled provider’s Medicare billing privileges for any of the reasons specified in section 424.535(a).  Under paragraph (3) of section 424.535(a), CMS can revoke a provider’s billing privileges if its “owner or managing employee . . . was within the preceding 10 years, convicted (as that term is defined in 42 CFR 1001.2) of a Federal or State felony offense that CMS determines is detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.  42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(3)(i).  Paragraph (3) specifies general categories of offenses that CMS has determined by rulemaking to be detrimental per se to Medicare and its beneficiaries.  Id. at § 424.535(a)(3)(ii)(A-D).  

To summarize, the elements necessary for revocation pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(3) are: (1) the owner, manager, or officer was convicted of a federal or state felony offense; (2) the conviction occurred within the 10 years preceding the revocation action; and (3) the Secretary has specified that the conviction is per se detrimental in 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(3)(ii) or CMS has determined on a case-by-case basis under 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(3)(i) that the felony offense is detrimental to the best interests of the

Page 7

Medicare program and its beneficiaries. See Fady Fayad, M.D., DAB No. 2266 at 7-8 (2009).3 

The record establishes that, for revocation purposes, Ms. Ogunyoye, Petitioner’s delegated official, was convicted of a felony on March 23, 2022, when she pleaded guilty to one count of Attempt and Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and that, based on the plea, the District Court found her guilty/convicted her of that crime.  CMS Ex. 1 at 96, 114; 42 C.F.R. §§ 424.535(a)(3)(i), 1001.2 (defining “convicted”); Norman Johnson, M.D., DAB No. 2779 at 20 (2017) (applying the definition of “convicted” in 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2 to a revocation based on a 2008 no-contest plea).  

The regulation at 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(3)(ii)(B) expressly deems a conviction for financial crimes to be per se detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.  It is undisputed that Ms. Ogunyoye’s felony conviction was detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries because it was a financial crime. 

The record also establishes that Ms. Ogunyoye was listed as a delegated official / officer in Petitioner’s 855 application.  As noted above, the regulation permits CMS to revoke an enrolled provider’s Medicare enrollment if an officer of the provider was convicted of a felony within the last 10 years.  42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(3)(i).  As a result, it is clear that CMS acted within its authority when it revoked Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges based on Ms. Ogunyoye’s 2022 felony conviction for an offense that CMS determined was detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.  

Petitioner instead argues that listing Ms. Ogunyoye on its April 2024 enrollment application was a clerical error and that Ms. Ogunyoye was not affiliated with Petitioner at the time of her conviction.  Petitioner argues that any relationship with Ms. Ogunyoye was terminated in 2017.  However, Petitioner raised similar arguments at the reconsidered determination level and the hearing officer did not find them to be persuasive.  CMS Ex. 1 at 4.  The hearing officer found instead that Ms. Ogunyoye had pleaded guilty to a conspiracy that involved Petitioner with dates spanning from 2010 to June 2018 leading to the conclusion that any arguments that their relationship ended in 2017 were unreliable.  Id. at 3-4; see also id. at 114 (offense end date of June 1, 2018).  Further, to the extent Petitioner’s argument is for equitable relief based on a clerical error, I do not have authority to consider it. 

Page 8

Accordingly, I conclude that CMS had a legitimate basis to revoke Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges under 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(3). 

4.  There is a legitimate basis for CMS to revoke Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges under 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(9), because Ms. Ogunyoye’s felony conviction in the District Court constituted an adverse legal action, and Petitioner did not report that adverse legal action to CMS within 90 days as required by 42 C.F.R. § 424.516.  Additionally, Petitioner did not report Ms. Ogunyoye’s exclusion by the Office of the Inspector General. 

The regulation at 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(9) provides that CMS may revoke a provider’s Medicare billing privileges for failure to comply with the reporting requirements specified in 42 C.F.R. § 424.516(e)(2).  That regulation requires providers and suppliers to report, within 90 days, any adverse legal action to their Medicare contractor.  42 C.F.R. § 424.516(e)(2).  Failure to timely report is a basis to revoke a supplier’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges.  42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(9). 

The regulations define a “final adverse action” to include “[a] conviction of a Federal or State felony offense (as defined in § 424.535(a)(3)(i)) within the last 10 years preceding enrollment, revalidation, or re-enrollment.”  42 C.F.R. § 424.502.  As explained above, Ms. Ogunyoye’s felony conviction on March 23, 2022 satisfies this definition and, as a result, was a reportable final adverse action.  Thus, Petitioner was required to report Ms. Ogunyoye’s felony conviction to the CMS contractor by June 21, 2022, which was 90 days from her March 23, 2022 conviction. 

Additionally, Ms. Ogunyoye was excluded by the OIG on October 19, 2023.  Ms. Ogunyoye’s exclusion is also a reportable final adverse action.  42 C.F.R. § 424.502.  Petitioner similarly did not report the exclusion to the CMS contractor by January 17, 2024, which was 90 days from her October 19, 2023 exclusion. 

Petitioner does not assert that it reported Ms. Ogunyoye’s felony conviction or IG exclusion to CMS within 90 days of the conviction or exclusion, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 424.516(e)(2). 

Petitioner instead makes identical arguments to those that were discussed above and asserts that any inclusion of Ms. Ogunyoye as an officer or delegated official was merely a clerical error.  As was previously discussed, these arguments are equitable in nature and I am not authorized to overturn a legally valid agency action on equitable grounds nor am I authorized to grant equitable relief.  Wendell Foo, M.D., DAB No. 2904 at 25 (2018) (citing Foot Specialists of Northridge, DAB No. 2773 at 18 (2017)).  I may only review whether the regulations authorize CMS’s actions. 

Page 9

Therefore, CMS had a legitimate basis to revoke Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges under 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(a)(9). 

5.  CMS properly set the effective date for revocation as March 23, 2022, because Ms. Ogunyoye, Petitioner’s delegated official, was convicted on that date.  

The regulation at 42 C.F.R. § 424.535(g)(2)(ii) states that when a revocation is based on a felony conviction, the revocation of the supplier’s billing privileges is effective as of the date of the felony conviction, which occurred on March 23, 2022. 

6.  I do not have the authority to review the length of the re-enrollment bar. 

Whenever CMS has properly imposed revocation on a supplier, CMS must also determine how long the supplier will be barred from seeking re-enrollment as a supplier. 

In this case, the CMS contractor imposed a ten-year re-enrollment bar on Petitioner.  Petitioner has not directly asserted that the ten-year re-enrollment bar is excessive.  In any event, the length of the re-enrollment bar CMS imposes is not a determination subject to review by an ALJ.  Vijendra Dave, M.D., DAB No. 2672 at 9 (2016) (“our authority in a revocation case does not extend to reviewing the length of the reenrollment bar imposed by CMS.”). 

Finally, as discussed above, to the extent that any of Petitioner’s arguments may be construed as a request for equitable relief, I have no authority to provide it with any form of equitable relief.  See US Ultrasound, DAB No. 2302 at 8 (2010).  I am also required to follow the Act and regulations and have no authority to declare statutes or regulations invalid.  1866ICPayday.com, L.L.C., DAB No. 2289 at 14 (2009). 

7.  CMS had a legitimate basis to add Petitioner to the CMS preclusion list. 

On July 22, 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) was enacted, and its stated purpose was to “authorize the Attorney General and Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to address the prescription opioid abuse and heroin use crisis, and for other purposes.”  Pub. L. No. 114-198, 130 Stat. 695 (2016).  Section 704 of the CARA called on the Secretary to establish a program to prevent prescription drug abuse under Medicare Parts C and D.  130 Stat. 695 at 742-52.  Among other things, Section 704 amended the Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395w-104(c)) to require the Secretary to implement a drug management program to limit access to controlled substances for at-risk Medicare beneficiaries.  130 Stat. 695 at 742-48.  Section 704(g) of the CARA directed the Secretary to promulgate regulations implementing the provisions of that section of the act.  130 Stat. 695 at 751-52.  Section 704(g)(1) directed that “amendments made by this section shall apply to prescription drug plans . . . for plan

Page 10

years beginning on or after January 1, 2019.”  130 Stat. 695 at 751.  Additionally, Section 704(b)(2) of the CARA specifically amended the Act, at 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-104(c), to add a provision for a “utilization management tool to prevent drug abuse,” and required that the Secretary conduct a “[r]etrospective utilization review to identify . . . providers of services or suppliers that may facilitate the abuse or diversion of frequently abused drugs by beneficiaries.”  130 Stat. 695 at 748. 

The Secretary issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the CARA on November 28, 2017.  82 Fed. Reg. 56,336 (Nov. 28, 2017).  As relevant here, the Secretary proposed that a Medicare Advantage (MA) organization may not make payment for an item or service that is furnished by an individual or entity on a newly established preclusion list, and likewise, that a Part D plan sponsor must reject pharmacy claims for Part D drugs if the prescriber is on the same preclusion list.  82 Fed. Reg. at 56,340.  The Secretary explained that individuals, entities, and prescribers would be placed on the preclusion list if certain requirements were all met, to include having engaged in conduct that is detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.  82 Fed. Reg. at 56,340.  The Secretary “note[d] also that [his] proposal is of particular importance when considering the current nationwide opioid crisis” and that “the inclusion of problematic prescribers on the preclusion list could reduce the amount of opioids that are improperly or unnecessarily prescribed by persons who pose a heightened risk to the Part D program and Medicare beneficiaries.”  82 Fed. Reg. at 56,444.  With respect to the Part C program, the Secretary remarked that “we believe that an appropriate balance can be achieved between this program integrity objective and the desire to reduce the burden on the provider and supplier communities” and “propose[d] to utilize the same ‘preclusion list’ concept in MA that we are proposing for Part D.”  82 Fed. Reg. at56,448.  The Secretary further remarked that “[w]e believe this approach would allow us to concentrate our efforts on preventing MA payment for items and services furnished by providers and suppliers that could pose an elevated risk to Medicare beneficiaries and the Trust Funds, an approach, as previously mentioned, similar to the risk-based process in § 424.518.”  82 Fed. Reg. at56,448.  In his final rule, the Secretary established a January 1, 2019 effective date for the preclusion list, which is consistent with the CARA’s mandate.  83 Fed. Reg. 16,440 (Apr. 16, 2018). 

The regulation established a single list of individuals and entities for whom MA plans cannot provide reimbursement for items and services they provide, and for prescribers to whom Medicare Part D plans cannot provide reimbursement for any prescriptions the individuals write.  42 C.F.R. §§ 422.222, 423.120(c)(6). 

Page 11

As applicable to this case, in order for CMS to include an individual, entity, or prescriber on its preclusion list, all of the following three requirements must be met: 

(i) The [individual, entity, or prescriber] is currently revoked from Medicare for a reason other than that stated in [42 C.F.R.] § 424.535(a)(3) of this chapter. 

(ii) The [individual, entity, or prescriber] is currently under a reenrollment bar under [42 C.F.R.] § 424.535(c). 

(iii) CMS determines that the underlying conduct that led to the revocation is detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program.  In making this determination under this paragraph . . . , CMS considers the following factors: 

A.  The seriousness of the conduct underlying the . . . revocation. 

B.  The degree to which the . . . conduct could affect the integrity of the Medicare [Part D] program. 

C.  Any other evidence that CMS deems relevant to its determination.  

42 C.F.R. §§ 422.2, 423.100. 

CMS added Petitioner to its preclusion list because its Medicare billing privileges were revoked, it was under a ten year re‑enrollment bar, and CMS determined that the underlying conduct that led to its revocation was detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program.  CMS Ex. 1 at 7, 20.  

In its reconsidered determination, the CMS hearing officer reasoned that Petitioner’s underlying conduct that led to the revocation was serious in nature and that the conduct was detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program.  CMS Ex. 1 at 7. 

Petitioner requests that it be removed from the preclusion list based on its arguments that Ms. Ogunyoye’s conviction should not have resulted in its revocation because her inclusion on its 855A application was done in error.  However, Ms. Ogunyoye’s felony conviction is per se detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries; therefore, the underlying conduct that resulted in her revocation was detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program.  Petitioner’s Medicare billing privileges were revoked effective March 23, 2022, and it is currently under a re-

Page 12

enrollment bar.  I have upheld that revocation in this decision.  If CMS establishes a basis for placing Petitioner on the preclusion list, I must uphold the decision.  See Foo, DAB No. 2904 at 3; Wassim Younes, M.D. and Wassim Younes, M.D., P.L.C., DAB No. 2861 at 8 (2018) (citing Patrick Brueggeman, D.P.M., DAB No. 2725 at 15 (2016)). 

Therefore, I uphold CMS’s decision to include Petitioner on the preclusion list.  

VI.  Conclusion

I affirm CMS’s determination to revoke Petitioner’s Medicare enrollment and billing privileges, effective March 23, 2022.  I also affirm CMS’s determination to include Petitioner on the preclusion list.