Chipman v. Shalala, 95-3298
| Decision Date | 18 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-3298,95-3298 |
| Citation | 90 F.3d 421 |
| Parties | , Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 44,498 Marion W. CHIPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jean C. Owen, Mission, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jackie N. Williams, Acting United States Attorney, Robert A. Olsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Kansas City, Kansas (D. Samuel Borin, Acting Chief Counsel, Region VII, Department of Health and Human Services, Michael R. Fry, Assistant Regional Counsel, Kansas City, Missouri, of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellee.
Before EBEL, BARRETT, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Marion Chipman appeals the district court's order affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, partially denying plaintiff's claims for Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits under Part B of the Medicare statute, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises from 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the Secretary's decision de novo, but under a deferential standard. Looking at the administrative record as a whole, we may overturn the Secretary's decision only "if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law". Hennepin County Medical Ctr. v. Shalala, 81 F.3d 743, 748 (8th Cir.1996). Applying these standards, and after due consideration of the arguments presented on appeal, we affirm. 1
In 1990, plaintiff underwent jaw bone augmentation surgery which later permitted the placement of porcelain veneer crowns. Appellant's App., Vol. I at 15. The record is clear that, previous to these procedures, plaintiff was suffering from ulcers and jaw bone atrophy. Id. at 13. Further, the various doctors plaintiff consulted agreed that the surgery and porcelain veneer crowns were medically necessary due to those conditions and his inability to function with dentures. Id. at 100, 101, 106, 107. In 1991, plaintiff submitted Medicare claims for payment of both the surgery and the crowns. After an initial administrative denial and a second denial following a hearing before a hearing officer, plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ concluded that payment for the bone augmentation surgery was covered by Medicare, but payment for the porcelain veneer crowns was not. Id. at 12-16. Plaintiff's request for review with the Appeals Council was denied. Plaintiff then filed a complaint in federal district court. The district court affirmed the agency's decision, and plaintiff now appeals.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that payment for the porcelain veneer crowns should be covered by Medicare because 1) the crowns were part of a medically necessary procedure to treat his underlying medical conditions, 2) Congress did not intend that the dental exclusion under 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(a)(12) prevent coverage of dental procedures which are required to treat underlying medical conditions, and 3) the crowns were "incidental to and an integral part of" covered procedures to treat plaintiff's ulcers and jaw bone atrophy under provisions of the Medicare Coverage Issue Manual.
Plaintiff argued before both the ALJ and the Appeals Council that treatment of his underlying medical conditions rendered the dental implants medically necessary and therefore not excluded by the general dental services exclusion, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(a)(12). 2 Appellant's App., Vol I at 4, 72-74, 76-78. The ALJ concluded only that the porcelain veneer crowns were not covered. Id. at 15. The district court stated that the exception in § 1395y(a)(12) for underlying medical condition applies only to claims under part A of the Medicare statute, and noted that plaintiff's claim was submitted under part B. Appellant's App., Vol. II at 127. We agree, and plaintiff does not contend otherwise on appeal. Further, we agree with the district court that a characterization of the porcelain veneer crowns as medically necessary, without further authority or basis for an exception from the general dental services exclusion, does not support plaintiff's claim that payment for the crowns should be covered by Medicare. Id. at 126; see Goodman v. Sullivan, 891 F.2d 449, 451 (2d Cir.1989)(Medicare does not cover all medically necessary services). Plaintiff did not present his remaining two arguments on appeal to either the ALJ or the Appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama v. Shalala
...present this argument to the DAB. Consequently, the Secretary contends that this court may not consider this argument. Chipman v. Shalala, 90 F.3d 421, 423 (10th Cir.1996) (holding, in a dispute over Medicare insurance coverage, that a plaintiff waived arguments he did not present before th......
-
Willowood of Great Barrington, Inc. v. Sebelius
...by substantial evidence, or contrary to law.'" Currier v. Thompson, 369 F.Supp.2d 65, 68 (D.Me. 2005) (quoting Chipman v. Shalala, 90 F.3d 421, 422 (10th Cir.1996)). II. Because this case arises under section 1395ff(b)(1)(A), the court's factual review is limited to the administrative recor......
-
Bechtold v. Massanari
...Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 35-36, 73 S.Ct. 67 [1952]; and Beale v. Blount, 461 F.2d 1133, 1140 [5th Cir.1972]); see also Chipman v. Shalala, 90 F.3d 421, 423 (10th Cir.1996) (holding, in a dispute over Medicare insurance coverage, that the plaintiff waived arguments that he did not present before t......
-
Fournier v. Sebelius
...under Part B, so they cannot benefit from the coverage rules provided for inpatient care under Part A. Accord Chipman v. Shalala, 90 F.3d 421, 422–23 (10th Cir.1996). Any ambiguity in the inpatient-coverage provision does not reach Appellants. Appellants are in a third category. They receiv......