45 C.F.R. § 201.13

Action on audit and review findings

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

(a) If the audit results in no exceptions, the State agency is advised by letter of this result. The general course for the disposition of proposed exceptions resulting from audits involves the submittal of details of these exceptions to the State agency which then has an opportunity to concur in the proposed exceptions or to assemble and submit additional facts for purposes of clearance. Provision is made for the State agency to appeal proposed audit exceptions in which it has not concurred and which have not been deleted on the basis of clearance material. After consideration of a State agency's appeal by the Administrator, the Administration advises the State agency of any expenditures in which the Federal Government may not participate and requests it to include the amount as adjustments in a subsequent statement of expenditures. Expenditures in which it is found the Federal Government may not participate and which are not properly adjusted through the State's claim will be deducted from subsequent grants made to the State agency.

(b) If the Federal or State reviews reveal serious problems with respect to compliance with any Federal requirement, the State agency is required to correct its practice so that there will be no recurrence of the problem in the future.

[35 FR 12180, July 29, 1970, as amended at 53 FR 36579, Sept. 21, 1988]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1975–1991 · leading case: Cnty. of Alameda v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Etc., 520 F.2d 344 (9th Cir. 1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cnty. of Alameda v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Etc., 520 F.2d 344 (9th Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “12 ) and “deductions from subsequent grants made to the State agency” to compensate for “Expenditures in which it is found the Federal Government may not participate” ( 45 C.F.R. § 201.13 (a)), the purpose of such audits and deductions is not to implement a retroactive…”

Georgia Dep't of Med. Assistance v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., & Margaret Heckler, Sec'y, 708 F.2d 627 (11th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “1983); 45 C.F.R. § 201.13 (1982), GDMA asked the Departmental Grant Appeals Board to reconsider HHS’s decision.”

Solomon v. Califano, 464 F. Supp. 1203 (D. Maryland 1979). “If a non-conformity arises and the HEW Administrator decides to withhold further payments to the State or reduce the rate of federal financial participation, the Administrator must give notice to the State and an opportunity for a hearing pursuant to procedures outlined in 45…”

Perales v. Heckler, 611 F. Supp. 333 (N.D.N.Y. 1984). “” 45 C.F.R. § 201.13 (1983) also requires that adjustments be made for claims in which it is determined that the federal government may not participate.”

Johnson v. Sullivan, 758 F. Supp. 1496 (N.D. Ga. 1991). “§ 1316 (d); 45 C.F.R. § 201.13 . Challenges of decisions by the Grant Appeals Board are likewise subject to review in federal court.”

Perales v. Heckler, 762 F.2d 226 (2d Cir. 1985). “” Moreover, 45 C.F.R. § 201.13 (1984) provides: *228 After consideration of a State agency’s appeal [of proper audit exceptions] by the Administrator, [HCFA] advises the State agency of any expenditures in which the Federal Government may not participate and requests it to…”

Massachusetts v. Departmental Grant Appeals Bd. of the United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 698 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1983). “” 45 C.F.R. § 201.13 . These are specific and isolated payments; the particular homes are limited in number and identified by name; the purported disallowance grew out of a routine audit.”

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.