Why is this Lena Lasher, aka Lena Contang, aka Lena Congtang who is guilty person associated with DATA443!?
Department of Health and Human Services
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Appellate Division
Lena Lasher, aka Lena Contang, aka Lena Congtang
Docket No. A-17-52
Decision No. 2800
June 28, 2017
FINAL DECISION ON REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
Lena Lasher, aka Lena Contang, aka Lena Congtang (Petitioner) appeals the January 30,
2017 decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lena Lasher, aka Lena Contang,
aka Lena Congtang, DAB No. CR4780 (2017) (ALJ Decision). The ALJ sustained the
determination by the Inspector General (I.G.) of the Department of Health & Human
Services to exclude Petitioner from participation in all federal health care programs for
10 years, effective April 20, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the ALJ
Decision.
Background
The I.G. excluded Petitioner pursuant to section 1128(a)(3) of the Social Security Act
(Act), 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(3), which requires the I.G. to impose an exclusion of at
least five years for convictions for felony offenses related to fraud, theft, embezzlement,
breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct in connection with the
delivery of a health care item or service. The I.G. determined that a 10-year exclusion
was warranted based on the aggravating factors at 42 C.F.R. § 1001.102(b)(2) and (b)(5)
that may be a basis for lengthening the period of exclusion and on the absence of any
mitigating factors.
Petitioner was convicted of five felony offenses, including mail fraud, wire fraud and
conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud. ALJ Decision at 1, 7. The ALJ
concluded that Petitioner’s “convictions [were] undoubtedly related to fraud” since they
“related to her role in a scheme to illegally dispense drugs” and included “actual
commission of fraud” as well as “conspiracy to commit fraud.” ALJ Decision at 7. The
ALJ also concluded that Petitioner’s “criminal offenses were in connection with the
delivery of a health care item or service” because the “crux of Petitioner’s criminal
offense was that she was dispensing drugs in a manner contrary to law.” Id. at 7-8. The
ALJ further concluded that the aggravating factors in sections 1001.102(b)(2) and (b)(5)
