Elderwood at Cheektowaga v. Zucker

188 A.D.3d 1578

136 N.Y.S.3d 581

In the Matter of ELDERWOOD AT CHEEKTOWAGA, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.Howard A. ZUCKER, M.D., as Commissioner of New York State Department of Health, and Dennis Rosen, as Medicaid Inspector General of State of New York, Respondents-Appellants.

533

CA 19-00633

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: November 13, 2020

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP, ROCHESTER (BRIAN M. FELDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously vacated, the determination is confirmed without costs, and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), made after a hearing, affirming two determinations of the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) after two final audits of Medicaid claims paid to petitioner. Specifically, the ALJ affirmed OMIG's determinations finding that the New York State Department of Health is entitled to recover from petitioner Medicaid overpayments for certain therapy services determined not to be medically necessary. Supreme Court granted the petition on the ground that the ALJ's decision was, inter alia, affected by an error of law and was arbitrary and capricious, annulled the determination of the ALJ, and remitted the matter to the ALJ for a new determination in accordance with the court's judgment.

As a preliminary matter, we note that petitioner correctly concedes that the court should have transferred the entire proceeding to this Court, rather than first disposing of certain contentions of the parties. The petition raises a question of substantial evidence, and the remaining points made by the parties are not objections that could have terminated the proceeding within the meaning of CPLR 7804 (g). We therefore vacate the judgment, and we will treat the proceeding as if it had been properly transferred and review the parties' contentions de novo (see Matter of Hope Day Care, LLC v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 162 A.D.3d 1639, 1640, 80 N.Y.S.3d 753 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 905, 2018 WL 4440623 [2018] ; Matter of Quintana v. City of Buffalo , 114 A.D.3d 1222, 1223, 979 N.Y.S.2d 760 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 902, 987 N.Y.S.2d 2, 10 N.E.3d 190 [2014] ).

We agree with respondents that their interpretation of 18 NYCRR 518.3 (b), accepted by the ALJ, as requiring petitioner to produce interdisciplinary documentation in the residents' medical records to establish the medical basis and specific need for the therapy services is not irrational or unreasonable (see Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care, Inc. , 33 N.Y.3d 152, 174, 100 N.Y.S.3d 612, 124 N.E.3d 162 [2019] ; Matter of County of Oneida v. Zucker , 147 A.D.3d 1338, 1339, 46 N.Y.S.3d 741 [4th Dept. 2017] ). We reject petitioner's position that respondents' interpretation constitutes an unpromulgated rule (see Bloomfield v. Cannavo , 123 A.D.3d 603, 606, 999 N.Y.S.2d 397 [1st Dept. 2014] ; see also Matter of Elcor Health Servs. v. Novello , 100 N.Y.2d 273, 279, 763 N.Y.S.2d 232, 794 N.E.2d 14 [2003] ), and we likewise reject...