OPPOSITION TOTHE INSPECTOR GENERALS REPLY

Sylvie Wamba

11497 Springfield Pike, Suite # 7

Springdale, OH 45246

Cell: (513) 609-8524 | Office: (513) 426-8492

sylviewamba@targethealthcare.org

Petitioner in pro per

united states department of health and human services

departmental appeals board

civil remedies division

NOW COMES Sylvie Wamba, Petitioner, and files this Opposition to the Inspector General’s Reply to Petitioner’s Brief, and hereby avers as follows:

1. On 02/01/2022, the Inspector General filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for exclusion of Sylvie from participation in Federal health care programs for five years.
2. On 02/28/2022, Sylvia filed a Response to the Inspector General’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. On 03/17/2022, the Inspector General filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Brief.
4. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a) provides: “A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense – or the part of each claim or defense – on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and any movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
5. The burden of proof is on the Inspector General to show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
6. Summary judgment is appropriate where the record demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Manfrin v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 805 So.2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
7. As the Florida Supreme Court held in, Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368,370 (Fla. 1979), a movant for summary judgment has the initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact.
8. When there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then a motion for summary judgment must be granted. Rule 1.510, Fla.R.Civ. P. Kuhnel v. Sledge, 306 So.2d 194 (1st DCA, 1975) cert. dismd., 336 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1975).
9. Once he tenders competent evidence to support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counterevidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue. The movant does not have the burden to exclude every possible inference that the opposing party might have other evidence available to prove his case. Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Haley, 175 So.2d 780 (Fla. 1965).
10. In order to meet his burden, the movant must offer evidence sufficient for finding in its favor upon every element of his claim for relief except those elements admitted by his adversary in his pleadings, or by stipulation, or otherwise during the course of pretrial.
11. The Inspector General has failed to fulfil his burden of proving that there exists no genuine issue of material fact. There exist several genuine issues of material fact as follows:
12. Whether Sylvie pled guilty to the correct charge of failure to conduct background checks on her new employees;
13. Whether the Inspector General used the correct provision of the Social Security Act to impose a mandatory exclusion to prohibit Petitioner from participating in Medicare, Medicaid and all other Federal health care programs; and
14. Whether the length of Sylvie’s term of exclusion is reasonable.
15. The foregoing issues have to be resolved so that the final judgment can be issued. The Inspector General filed the Motion for Summary Judgment to avoid the resolution of the issues by this Court.
16. By failing to fulfil his burden of proof, the Inspector General has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

REASONS WHEREFORE, Sylvie Wamba respectfully requests this Court to STRIKE the Inspector General’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant her such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.

Dated this 21^st day of March, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Sylvie Wamba,

Petitioner in pro per

VERIFICATION

I, Sylvie Wamba, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the foregoing Opposition to the Inspector General’s Reply to Petitioner’s Brief, and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.

_________________________________

(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)

Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of March, 2022.

______________________________

Notary Public

________________________________________

(Printed name of Notary Public)

My Commission Expires: ____________________

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )