I dismiss the hearing request in this case because it was not filed timely.

The hearing request in this case was filed on November 14, 2005. It challenged a local coverage determination (LCD), identified in the hearing request as L14294, governing ambulance services. The hearing request alleges that, as a consequence of the operation of the LCD, an individual on whose behalf the request was filed, was unreasonably denied coverage for an ambulance service that had been provided to him.

Regulations governing hearings concerning challenges to LCDs are at 42 C.F.R. Part 426. These regulations provide that an aggrieved party may challenge an LCD by filing a hearing request within 120 days of that party's receipt of an initial notice denying him or her coverage for a service that the party had received. 42 C.F.R. � 426.400(b)(2). The regulations provide further, at 42 C.F.R. � 426.444(b), that an administrative law judge:

(Emphasis added).

The regulation makes it plain that I have no discretion in deciding whether to dismiss a hearing request that is not timely filed. I must dismiss an untimely request even if there may exist equitable grounds for excusing a party's failure to file his or her request timely. Here, counsel for the aggrieved party admits that the hearing request was not filed within 120 days of the initial notice denying that party coverage for ambulance services that he had received previously. Counsel argues that there are equitable reasons justifying the failure to make a timely request. These reasons may, in fact, exist. However, I am without choice in the matter. I must dismiss the hearing request.

At a pre-hearing conference that I held on January 9, 2006 counsel for the aggrieved party advised me that the aggrieved party had also filed an appeal directly from the denial of Medicare benefits for the ambulance service that he had received. My decision to dismiss the hearing request in this case has no bearing on that separate action.