Advertisement

May 25, 2013

Lawsuit Challenges ALJ Final Decision Authority in Medicaid Appeals

The first case to contest North Carolina’s move to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) final decisions in contested cases challenging administrative agency actions, is limited in scope and theory.  On February 8th, Piedmont Behavioral Healthcare (PBH), a multi-county area mental health, development disabilities and substance abuse authority, initiated a federal lawsuit seeking temporary and permanent injunctions requiring the Acting Secretary of the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services to render final decisions in appeals involving eligibility for certain Medicaid services and prohibiting ALJs in the N.C. Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) from making final decisions in such cases.  The lawsuit, PBH v. Albert A. Delia and Julian Mann, III, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, 5:12-CV-46, essentially asks the court to put a halt to the amended contested case process and have N.C. DHHS, rather than ALJs, make final decisions in these Medicaid appeals, unless and until the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services waives the requirement under the federal Social Security Act that a single agency must administer the State’s Medicaid program.  The request for such a waiver has been submitted to the feds, but not yet decided. 

In their March 1st responses opposing the preliminary injunction sought by PBH, the DHHS Acting Secretary and the Director of OAH argued that PBH failed to establish the necessary elements to support a preliminary injunction.  Among other things, their responsive arguments included: (1) PBH lacks standing to litigate its claims because its alleged harm is conjectural and hypothetical and it has not suffered any imminent, concrete injury;  (2) PBH’s ability to serve Medicaid recipients and receive payment for that service has not been impacted by the change in the law, and its position is the same regardless of which entity makes the final decision in Medicaid recipient appeals; (3) PBH failed to exhaust its administrative remedies in that it did not challenge rules promulgated by OAH to implement the statutory change in the contested case process; and (4) it is in the public interest to allow the amended appeal process to continue in effect and to allow the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to proceed with its review and decision of the requested waiver of the single State agency requirements for final administrative decisions.

The amended procedure for Medicaid contested cases, which is part of the regulatory reform legislation passed by the General Assembly last year, makes the ALJ’s decision final and eliminates the final agency decision step where our State’s Medicaid agency (the Division of Medical Assistance or DMA) previously was able to override or change unfavorable ALJ decisions.  As indicated by the PBH suit, DMA and those aligned with it would likely prefer to re-instate the agency’s final decision authority.  However, many health care providers participating in the State’s Medicaid program -- who sometimes find themselves at odds with DMA, likely welcome the amended process where the decision of the independent ALJ presiding over the administrative hearing in the appeal is final.  In any event, the revised procedure which took effect January 1, 2012 remains in effect for now.

© 2013 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Tom has been actively involved in Administrative Law issues since 1986 when he was among the first five people appointed to serve as a North Carolina Administrative Law Judge. While serving as an ALJ, he heard a number of cases involving health care and environmental penalties and licensure.

Since joining Poyner Spruill, Tom has focused on health care penalty and licensure cases, occupational licensure cases (Medicine, Nursing, Psychology, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Funeral, Alarm Systems), rulemaking proceedings before the North Carolina Rules Review Commission, and...

919-783-2897

About the Author

Partner

Pam represents businesses and professionals in administrative and civil litigation and appeals pertaining to a wide variety of regulatory compliance issues and professional licensure, as well as rulemaking proceedings before the North Carolina Rules Review Commission. Pam’s health care practice focuses on certificate of need (CON) litigation and appeals; regulatory compliance and professional licensure matters; and matters involving compliance with HIPAA privacy and security rules, the HITECH Act, and other privacy laws. She has assisted both covered entities and business associates...

919-783-2954

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.