42 C.F.R. § 1004.90

Basis for recommended sanction

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The QIO's specific recommendation must be based on documentation provided to the OIG showing its consideration of—

(a) The type of offense involved;

(b) The severity of the offense;

(c) The deterrent value;

(d) The practitioner's or other person's previous sanction record;

(e) The availability of alternative sources of services in the community; and

(f) Any other factors that the QIO considers relevant, such as the duration of the problem.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 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). · cites it 2× “42 C.F.R. § 1004.90 . If the OIG agrees that a practitioner has violated his or her obligations, the OIG must decide upon an appropriate sanction.”
Papendick v. Bowen, 658 F. Supp. 1425 (W.D. Wis. 1987). · cites it 2× “42 C.F.R. § 1004.90 . If the OIG agrees that a practitioner has violated his or her obligations, the OIG must decide upon an appropriate sanction.”
Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1992). “42 C.F.R. § 1004.90 (d) (1991). A provider has the right to an administrative review of the Inspector General’s determination.”
Assar v. Crescent Counties Found. for Med. Care, 13 F.3d 215 (7th Cir. 1993). “OIG then reviews the determination and recommended sanction ( 42 C.F.R. § 1004.90 ) and notifies both the provider and the public of its decision ( 42 C.”
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.