Aleesha A. Thomas, DAB No. 3004 (2020)

DETERMINATION TO DECLINE REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

After reviewing the record to evaluate the issues presented by Petitioner Aleesha A. Thomas in her appeal of the administrative law judge (ALJ) Dismissal in Aleesha A. Thomas, CRD Docket No. C-20-314 (March 18, 2020), we have determined that we need not render a separate decision.  The ALJ dismissed Petitioner’s hearing request under 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2(e)(1) because it was not timely filed and Petitioner failed to make a “reasonable showing” to rebut the presumption of receipt of the Inspector General’s exclusion notice five days after the date of the notice.  Cf. Kenneth Schrager, DAB No. 2366, at 4 (2011) (holding petitioner’s mere statement denying receipt of exclusion notice, without “sufficient explanation and corroborating evidence,” is insufficient to rebut presumption of receipt under 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2(c)).  On appeal, Petitioner raised no exceptions that were not already sufficiently addressed by the ALJ or prior Board decisions.1

Page 2

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 1005.21(g), we therefore decline review of and summarily affirm the ALJ’s Dismissal.

• 1Petitioner did not substantively challenge the ALJ’s conclusion that she failed to rebut the presumption of receipt of the exclusion notice mailed to her current address.  The “mail forwarding document” relied upon by Petitioner confirmed her current address (i.e., the Canyon Trail address), where a copy of the exclusion notice was sent.  Petitioner also failed to explain the contradictory statements made in her submissions to the ALJ.  Moreover, Petitioner’s contention that she should be permitted to join other healthcare workers on the “front lines” of the coronavirus pandemic, while admirable, provides no basis to excuse her untimely filing.  See Kenneth Schrager at 5 (“The regulations do not permit an ALJ or the Board to excuse a petitioner’s failure to meet the regulatory filing requirements based on equitable grounds.”); see also Boris Sachakov, M.D., DAB No. 2707, at 4 (2016) (holding that 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2(e)(1) mandates dismissal of an untimely hearing request); Gary Grossman, DAB No. 2267, at 5 (2009) (“[T]he ALJ was required to dismiss Petitioner’s hearing request if it was not timely filed.”).