Pain Care Providers Services to Medicare are not Unlimited
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6zb2a8-it-doesnt-pay-to-cheat-medicare.html and at https://youtu.be/b1924Ki2GQs, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In the People Of The State Of California ex rel. San Diego Comprehensive Pain Management Center, Inc. v. Jaysen Eisengrein and Sandra Love, No. 24-cv-01481-BAS-BJC, United States District Court, S.D. California (September 17, 2025) Defendants Jaysen Eisengrein and Sandra Love’s (“Defendants”) moved the USDC to Dismiss Plaintiff San Diego Comprehensive Pain Management Center, Inc.’s (“SDCPMC” or “Plaintiff”) Complaint.
Plaintiff is a medical provider located in San Diego County that treats Medicare beneficiaries with chronic pain, and this is the third action stemming from a suspension of its Medicare payments. Previously the USDC dismissed Plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it did not show that it had exhausted administrative remedies or show that the exhaustion requirement should be judicially waived.
BACKGROUND
Administrative Remedies
Although providers cannot appeal a temporary payment suspension, a suspension “may culminate in an appealable determination . . . if [reimbursement] claims are subsequently denied.” Before filing suit in court, a Medicare beneficiary must proceed through five levels of administrative review, described in regulations issued by the controlling agency, CMS, as follows:
1 an initial determination by the Medicare administrative contractor;
2 a redetermination by the Medicare administrative contractor;
3 reconsideration by a qualified independent contractor;
4 a hearing before an administrative law judge . . .; and
5 review by the Medicare Appeals Council.
If the beneficiary is dissatisfied with the Appeals Council’s decision, he or she may then seek judicial review.
The Prior Actions
In late 2021, Plaintiff and two related medical practices sued, among others, HHS and Qlarant Integrity Solutions, LLC (“Qlarant”) to remove the suspension and receive payments for their outstanding claims. The Court analyzed whether waiving the exhaustion requirement was appropriate and found waiver was not warranted. The Court consequently dismissed Plaintiffs’ action in SDCPMC I and SDCPMC II for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Present Action
Ultimately, Plaintiff’s Complaint in this present action is nearly identical to its Complaint in SDCPMC II.
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because this ground is decisive.
Defendants Mount Facial and Factual Challenges to Subject Matter Jurisdiction
As a threshold matter, the Court concluded that Defendants’ motion presents both a facial and a factual attack to subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants mount a factual attack. The Court recognizes that Defendants have raised a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s Complaint Recycles Allegations from SDCPMC II
First and foremost the subject matter jurisdiction analysis conducted in SDCPMC II does not change simply because Plaintiff now alleges that Medicare has terminated the suspension of payments in effect at the time.
Plaintiff may not seek judicial review without first obtaining a final agency decision subject to administrative appeal, and failure to exhaust one’s administrative remedies deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act. Plaintiff cannot circumvent this Court’s prior ruling by characterizing the termination of a payment suspension as a final agency decision.
The Court granted Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The court emphasized that even if diversity jurisdiction could be established, the Medicare Act’s provisions would still preclude subject matter jurisdiction without a final decision issued by the Secretary. Consequently, the case was dismissed without prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
Health care providers who improperly bill Medicare find CMS refuses to pay their claims for payment for services to Medicare patients. The law allows – indeed – requires that the provider seek administrative remedies before they can sue. The Defendants – health care providers – attempted three time to circumvent the need to fulfill administrative remedies only to find their attempts failed and the USDC dismissing their attempt three time by attempting recycle previous litigation. It didn’t work.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
