If the finding is not resolved to the QIO's satisfaction as specified in § 1004.60(a), the QIO must—
(a) Submit its report and recommendation to the OIG;
(b) Send the affected practitioner or other person a concurrent final notice, with a copy of all the material that is being forwarded to the OIG, advising that—
(1) The QIO recommendation has been submitted to the OIG;
(2) The practitioner or other person has 30 days from receipt of this final notice to submit any additional written material or documentary evidence to the OIG at its headquarters location. The date of receipt is presumed to be 5 days after the date on the notice, unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary; and
(3) Due to the 120-day statutory requirement specified in § 1004.100(e), the period for submitting additional information will not be extended and any material received by the OIG after the 30-day period will not be considered; and
(c) Provide notice to the State medical board or to other appropriate licensing boards for other practitioner types when it submits a report and recommendations to the OIG with respect to a physician or other person whom the board is responsible for licensing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1987–1993 · leading case:
Lavapies v. Bowen, 687 F. Supp. 1193 (S.D. Ohio 1988).
Lavapies v. Bowen, 687 F. Supp. 1193 (S.D. Ohio 1988).
“42 C.F.R. § 1004.70 . In recommending a sanction, the PRO should consider the type of offense, its severity, the deterrent value of the sanction, and the availability of alternative health care services in the community.”
Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1992).
“42 C.F.R. § 1004.70 (1991). If the Inspector General agrees that a violation has occurred, it determines the appropriate sanction.”
Doyle v. Bowen, 660 F. Supp. 1484 (D. Me. 1987).
“” 42 C.F.R. § 1004.70 (c)(4). 8 . The Court is aware of the dicta in Bowen v.”
Papendick v. Bowen, 658 F. Supp. 1425 (W.D. Wis. 1987).
“42 C.F.R. § 1004.70 . In recommending a sanction, the PRO should consider the type of offense, its severity, the deterrent value of the sanction, and availability of alternative health care services in the community.”
Assar v. Crescent Counties Found. for Med. Care, 13 F.3d 215 (7th Cir. 1993).
“50 and did not submit a report to OIG as required by 42 C.F.R. § 1004.70 . The latter failure, according to Assar, prevented the administrative review process from going forward.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.