FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOROTHY CALABRESE, M.D.; et al., No. 10-55755
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00152-CJC-
RNB
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MEMORANDUM **
HUMAN SERVICES, KATHLEEN
SEBELIUS, Secretary,*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 ***
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
*
Kathleen Sebelius is substituted for her predecessor, Charles E.
Johnson, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under Fed.
R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellants’
request for oral argument is denied.
Dorothy Calabrese, M.D., and her patients Harriet and Gene Fahl, appeal pro
se from the district court’s order affirming the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services’ decision that Calabrese must reimburse Medicare for
payments she received. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo the district court’s order. Maximum Comfort Inc. v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 512 F.3d 1081, 1088 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly affirmed the Secretary’s decision because the
Secretary’s finding that Calabrese failed to provide sufficient documentation to
warrant payment under Medicare was “supported by substantial evidence.” 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) (incorporated by reference in 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(b)(1)(A));
Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001); see also 42 U.S.C.
§ 1395y(a)(1)(A) (no payment may be made for services that “are not reasonable
and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury. . .”). Moreover,
the Secretary’s conclusion that Calabrese was not excused from liability because
she knew or should have known about the quality of patient records she was
required to maintain was not “‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or [in
violation of] law.’” Maximum Comfort, 512 F.3d at 1088 (citation omitted).
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-55755