(a) A party sanctioned under any criteria specified in parts 1001, 1003 and 1004 of this chapter may request a hearing before an ALJ.
(b) In exclusion cases, the parties to the proceeding will consist of the petitioner and the IG. In civil money penalty cases, the parties to the proceeding will consist of the respondent and the IG.
(c) The request for a hearing will be made in writing to the DAB; signed by the petitioner or respondent, or by his or her attorney; and sent by certified mail. The request must be filed within 60 days after the notice, provided in accordance with § 1001.2002, § 1001.203 or § 1003.109, is received by the petitioner or respondent. For purposes of this section, the date of receipt of the notice letter will be presumed to be 5 days after the date of such notice unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary.
(d) The request for a hearing will contain a statement as to the specific issues or findings of fact and conclusions of law in the notice letter with which the petitioner or respondent disagrees, and the basis for his or her contention that the specific issues or findings and conclusions were incorrect.
(e) The ALJ will dismiss a hearing request where—
(1) The petitioner's or the respondent's hearing request is not filed in a timely manner;
(2) The petitioner or respondent withdraws his or her request for a hearing;
(3) The petitioner or respondent abandons his or her request for a hearing; or
(4) The petitioner's or respondent's hearing request fails to raise any issue which may properly be addressed in a hearing.
[57 FR 3350, Jan. 29, 1992, as amended at 65 FR 24418, Apr. 26, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Lasher v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 369 F. Supp. 3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
· cites it 4× “§ 1320a-7(f)(1) ; 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 (a), "on the issues of whether: (i) [t]he basis for the imposition of the sanction exists, and (ii) [t]he length of exclusion is unreasonable.”
Seide v. Shalala, 31 F. Supp. 2d 466 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
“42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 . Plaintiff contended that Defendant, acting through the Inspector General, acted unreasonably by waiting 26 months to give Plaintiff notice of his exclusion and that this delay in effect caused the exclusion to be extended from five to seven years.”
Lasher v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C. 2019).
· cites it 2× “§ 1320a-7(f)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 (a), “on the issues of whether: (i) [t]he basis for the imposition of the sanction exists, and (ii) [t]he length of exclusion is unreasonable.”
Lane v. Azar (D. Maryland 2020).
· cites it 2× “42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 (c) (2020). Individuals subject to exclusion may seek review of their exclusion by filing a request for a hearing with HHS’ Civil Remedies Division.”
Malik v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (E.D. Va. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 (c). If the OIG receives no response within the prescribed time limits, the OIG delivers a final notice of exclusion effecting the prior proposed exclusion.”
Fuentes v. Azar (D.D.C. 2020).
“§ 1320a-7(f)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 (a). She may challenge “[t]he basis for the imposition of the sanction,” and, if the term is longer than the five-year minimum, “[t]he length of exclusion.”
Ali v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“§ 1320a-7 (f)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 (a). An excluded individual may request a hearing before an ALJ only on two issues: whether the Inspector General has a basis for the imposition of exclusion and whether the length of the exclusion is unreasonable.”
North Carolina Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Azar, II (E.D.N.C. 2021).
“See 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 . The ALJ’s decision on the sanction may be appealed to the Departmental Appeals Board (“DAB”), which may “decline to review the case, or may affirm, increase, reduce, reverse or remand any penalty .”
Baxter v. Becerra (E.D. Va. 2024).
“The operative regulations provided Plaintiff the right to request a hearing, 42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 , “[p]resent and cross-examine witnesses,” id.”
Figueroa v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (M.D. Fla. 2025).
“42 C.F.R. § 1005.2 . The only issues the ALJ can determine on appeal are whether the “basis for the imposition of the sanction exists” and the “length of the exclusion is unreasonable.”
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.