Doctor concerned with health care law

Breaking news and expert analysis on legal and compliance issues

[Back To Home][Back To Archives]

From Health Law Daily, October 2, 2018

Temporary restraining order denied for home health care provider during appeal

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The federal district court in Orlando, Florida has denied a request for a temporary restraining order enjoining HHS from recouping more than $800,000 from a home health provider during the pendency of an administrative appeal. The court concluded that the home health provider, with approximately 20 employees and 35 patients, failed to show irreparable injury to warrant a temporary restraining order over the billing dispute. The court found that the provider failed to show that it had been forced to lay off employees or face similar immediate financial impacts for actual and imminent injury (Alpha Home Health Solutions, LLC v. HHS, September 27, 2018, Byron, P.).

Alpha Home Health Solutions, LLC is a home health care service provider with approximately 20 employees providing medical services to approximately 35 patients in their homes, at assisted living facilities, and in retirement communities. On December 29, 2016, a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) requested that the provider repay $1,418,503. On April 30, 2018, the provider received a "partially favorable" reconsideration decision, resulting in a reduced overpayment amount of $707,981. As of July 27, 2018, $101,767 of interest had accrued, thus the provider owes a total of $809,748.

The provider requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) and also applied for a five-year repayment plan. The provider alleged that it would need to wait between three and five years for an ALJ hearing due to a current backlog of cases. The provider contended enforcement of the alleged debt would effectively bankrupt the company causing it to shut down, resulting in employees losing their jobs and patients losing their home health care provider. The provider sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin HHS from enforcing the alleged debt during the pendency of an administrative appeal.

The court found that the potential injuries inflicted to employees and patients are not considered under the irreparable injury prong of the TRO test. Rather, those injuries are considered under the public interest factor. The provider failed to show that it had been forced to lay off employees or faced similar immediate financial impacts. The court also found that the provider’s allegations that it will be forced to close absent a TRO are too speculative. The court distinguished other cases where courts found irreparable injury where movants had been forced to terminate employees. While going out of business can be sufficient evidence of irreparable injury, the court found that the provider failed to show sufficient evidence of an actual and imminent threat. Therefore, the court denied the request for an ex parte TRO.

The case is No. 6:18-cv-01577-PGB-TBS.

Attorneys: Jonathan Seth Robbins (Fowler White Burnett, P.A.) for Alpha Home Health Solutions, LLC.

Companies: Alpha Home Health Solutions, LLC

MainStory: TopStory CaseDecisions CMSNews BillingNews HomeNews MedicareContractorNews PaymentNews FloridaNews

Back to Top

Health Law Daily

Introducing Wolters Kluwer Health Law Daily — a daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys — providing same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity.

A complete daily report of the news that affects your world

  • View full summaries of federal and state court decisions.
  • Access full text of legislative and regulatory developments.
  • Customize your daily email by topic and/or jurisdiction.
  • Search archives for stories of interest.

Not just news — the right news

  • Get expert analysis written by subject matter specialists—created by attorneys for attorneys.
  • Track law firms and organizations in the headlines with our new “Who’s in the News” feature.
  • Promote your firm with our new reprint policy.

24/7 access for a 24/7 world

  • Forward information with special copyright permissions, encouraging collaboration between counsel and colleagues.
  • Save time with mobile apps for your BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, Android, or Kindle.
  • Access all links from any mobile device without being prompted for user name and password.