The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Delores Berg’s and Thomas DiCecco’s petition for certiorari on a class action suit contending that the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual misinterprets the dental exclusion provisions of 42 USC 1395y(a) and 42 CFR 411.15. Berg and DiCecco suffer from autoimmune disease, which has destroyed their salivary glands, teeth, gums, and has led to life-threatening infections. However, according to the HHS manual, oral surgery is not included in their coverage. “When an excluded service is the primary procedure involved, it is not covered regardless of its complexity or difficulty,” states the manual. The district court and Ninth Circuit accorded Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. deference to the Secretary’s interpretation and rejected Berg and DiCecco’s claims.
According to the petition, Congress never intended for the dental exclusion to deny coverage in instances of extraordinary oral surgical work, but for routine dental care. “The committee bill provides a specific exclusion of routine dental care to make clear that the services of dental surgeons covered under the bill are restricted to complex surgical procedures. Thus,… a routine annual or semi-annual checkup would not be covered…Similarly, too, routine dental treatment – filling, removal, or replacement of teeth or treatment of structures directly supporting the teeth, would not be covered,” stated Senate Report No. 89-104 (1965). However, the Ninth Circuit found that the dental exclusion provisions were ambiguous and found the Secretary’s interpretation to be reasonable under Chevron.
In their petition, Berg and DiCecco argued that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari because the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with other appellate court rulings that preclude Chevron deference in instances where agency actions lack the “force of law.” Specifically, they argued that Medicare Appeals Council decisions and manual provisions lack precedential authority, and therefore cannot be subjected to Chevron deference. Further, Berg and DiCecco asserted that the Ninth Circuit’s decision “establishes an irrational policy and misconstrues” Barnhart v Walton. “Nothing in Barnhart alludes to or suggests that a ‘process of adjudication’ supports Chevron deference to an administrative review system’s decisions that lack the force of law,” stated the petition. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court denied the petition.