Current Issue

Cover Story

Software/Technology FAQ

With last month's competitive bidding delay, the home medical equipment industry...

HomeCareXtra

Cover Story

Respiratory Issues

It is no wonder providers of home respiratory care are having trouble catching their breath...

Marketplace

Judge Offers Final Ruling in CMN Case

REDDING, Calif.--After eight months of waiting, HME owner Tom Lambert of Maximum Comfort--who won a favorable preliminary ruling last year in a suit contending a CMN is sufficient proof for supplier reimbursement--received a final ruling March 7.

In this ruling, Judge Lawrence Karlton of the Eastern District of California stated again that "the plain language of [the law] provides that any medical necessity information required from medical equipment suppliers may be submitted to the Secretary only by way of a Certificate of Medical Necessity, and not by other means, such as obtaining Medicare beneficiaries' medical records."

The case began when Lambert appealed, then filed suit against, a Medicare decision that the government overpaid Maximum Comfort because of inadequate documentation for power chair claims. The preliminary ruling, issued last June, was in Maximum Comfort's favor. Lambert was instructed to make a request to get back the money Medicare had recouped during claims appeal--an amount he determined at $425,000 in principal and interest.

But in his recent ruling, Judge Karlton said the court does not have the power to tell the government how much it owes Maximum Comfort. Due to legal precedent, he wrote, a district court "must now remand the case to the Secretary for a final determination on the calculation of the underpayment amount due to [Maximum Comfort]."

In other words, Lambert's fate once again rests with the government, which will determine how much money he will get back.

Since the district court ruling is now final on the matter of a CMN's sufficiency for claims reimbursement, the government has 60 days from March 7 to file an appeal, Lambert said. "The U.S. attorney said they were going to," he added, "but who knows now? If they appeal it and lose, they take a risk of making [the ruling] national policy rather than just in the Eastern District of California."

For more on the Maximum Comfort case, visit the July 12, 2004, HomeCare Monday by clicking here, and the July 19, 2004, edition by clicking here.

Back to Top

Browse previous Issues

August 2008

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008