You are here: / / OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS...

OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS IN AN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN ITS WRITTEN NOTICE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the language of the written notice to petitioner from the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) did not allow the OMIG to seek the higher of two estimated overpayment reimbursement amounts. The terms of the final audit report (FAR) required a lower payment if the findings were not challenged, and a higher payment if the findings were challenged at a hearing. Petitioner did not request a hearing to challenge the findings, but did not make payment arrangements within the time allowed. The OMIG then notified petitioner it would withhold future reimbursement to pay off what was owed. Although the written notice of the withholding stated the lower amount would be withheld, petitioner was informed orally by OMIG the higher amount would be withheld:

Petitioner seeks to limit its Medicaid reimbursement overpayment liability, in connection with a final audit report [FAR] issued by respondent (OMIG), to the “lower confidence limit” amount of $1,460,914 set forth in the FAR. The FAR states that, although OMIG did not waive any available remedies, if petitioner did not remit payment or arrange a payment plan within 20 days, OMIG would withhold a percentage of Medicaid billings to “liquidate the lower confidence limit amount.” In the alternative, if petitioner challenged OMIG’s findings at a hearing, OMIG would seek to recover at the hearing the FAR’s higher point estimate of overpayments, which was $1,857,401. * * *

The actual FAR language states that, in the event a settlement is not reached within 20 days, OMIG will begin withholding “to recover payment and liquidate the lower confidence amount, interest, and/or penalty, not barring any other remedy at law” (emphasis added). FAR expressly states that if a settlement is not reached, OMIG will begin withholding to collect “the lower confidence amount” of $1,460,914. Thus, contrary to the dissent’s interpretation, the FAR expressly states that in the event there is no settlement, OMIG will withhold the lower confidence limit. West Midtown Mgt. Group, Inc. v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06111, 1st Dept 9-21-16

 

MEDICAID (OVERPAYMENT REIMBURSEMENT, OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS IN AN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN ITS WRITTEN NOTICE)

You might also like
IN AN ACTION BY CATERING WAITSTAFF SEEKING TIPS ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD BY THE EMPLOYER IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW, THE EMPLOYER CANNOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM A CONTRACTOR WHICH SUPPLIED CATERING STAFF TO THE EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
FOOTAGE FROM A POLICE OFFICER’S BODY-WORN CAMERA IS NOT A PERSONNEL RECORD AND THEREFORE IS NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-a (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE INVOICES FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES WERE “REASONABLE;” THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ACCOUNT-STATED ACTION IS WHETHER THE CLIENT OBJECTED TO THE AMOUNTS OF THE INVOICES (FIRST DEPT).
THE 30-DAY NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE NULLIFIED THE ACCELERATION (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT).
Witness’s Hearsay Statement Should Have Been Admitted as a Statement Against Penal Interest/No Need for Declarant to Be Aware of Specific Violation of Law
RARE CASE WHERE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE A DANGEROUS CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY. SCRAP METAL SALES OPERATION WAS NOT A TRANSFER STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF...