I dismiss Petitioner's request for hearing. I do so because I have no authority to grant Petitioner the relief that he seeks.

I. Background

Petitioner is a physician in Northridge, California. On March 31, 1999, the Inspector General (I.G.) determined to exclude Petitioner from participating in Medicare and other federally funded health care programs. The rationale for the exclusion was that Petitioner had been convicted of a criminal offense related to the delivery of an item or service under Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program. The I.G. determined that Petitioner's conviction mandated his exclusion pursuant to section 1128(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (Act) and implementing regulations at 42 C.F.R. Part 1001. The I.G. determined that Petitioner should be excluded for a period of at least 15 years.

Petitioner requested a hearing from that determination and the case was assigned to me for a hearing and a decision. I tried it based on the parties' written submissions. On February 7, 2000 I issued a decision in which I found that the I.G. was required to exclude Petitioner pursuant to section 1128(a)(1) of the Act. However, I found that an exclusion of 15 years was excessive in view of evidence relating to aggravating and mitigating factors. I modified the exclusion to a term of not less than 10 years. Parvin D. Syal, M.D., DAB CR643 (2000).

Neither Petitioner nor the I.G. appealed my decision and it became administratively final. However, on September 20, 2004, Petitioner sent a letter to the Civil Remedies Division of the Departmental Appeals Board in which he asserted that he was appealing:

Essentially, Petitioner requested that his exclusion be ended and that he be reinstated to participate in Medicare and other federally funded health care programs. In his letter Petitioner reiterated many of the arguments he had made previously concerning the I.G.'s determination to exclude him and which I addressed in my decision in his case.

At my instruction the Civil Remedies Division treated Petitioner's letter as a hearing request and assigned a docket number to it. I then instructed the parties to brief the issue of whether Petitioner had a right to a hearing. The I.G. and Petitioner each filed a brief.

II. Issue

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has a right to a hearing.

III. Findings of fact and conclusions of law

I find that Petitioner has no right to a hearing. All of the issues in his original case are administratively final and Petitioner has not shown how I might reopen or reconsider my decision. Nor do I have the authority to order Petitioner's reinstatement. Consequently, I must dismiss his hearing request.

I afforded Petitioner full due process rights in adjudicating his 1999 hearing request. Petitioner had 30 days from the issuance of my February 7, 2000 decision in which to file an appeal. 42 C.F.R. � 1005.20(d). He did not exercise his right to appeal and, consequently, the fact findings and legal conclusions that I made in my decision are administratively final.

There is nothing in either the Act or implementing regulations that authorizes me to revisit Petitioner's case at this time. I am uncertain that I would have the authority to reopen Petitioner's case even if he offered newly discovered evidence that might arguably influence my findings on the merits. But, it is not necessary for me to conclude that I lack authority in every circumstance to reopen a decision because Petitioner has not offered new evidence that conceivably might affect the merits of his case. Rather, in his letter and in his brief, Petitioner essentially restates the same equitable arguments that he raised in connection with his first hearing request and which I ruled on in my February 7, 2000 decision.

Petitioner also argues that I should consider his September 20, 2004 letter as a request made pursuant to 42 C.F.R. � 1001.3001 to be reinstated to Medicare and other federally funded health care programs. The regulation establishes procedures by which an excluded individual may petition the I.G. for reinstatement. It does not authorize an administrative law judge to decide a reinstatement request. Nor does it allow for an appeal from a denial of a reinstatement request.

Steven T. Kessel

Administrative Law Judge