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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
