[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70580-70581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28331]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-82,838]


Apria Healthcare LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated September 19, 2013, a former worker of Apria 
Healthcare LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas (TA-W-82,838) 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's 
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers 
of Apria Healthcare LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas 
(hereafter referred to as ``Apria-Billing''). Workers of April-Billing 
are engaged in activities related to the supply of medical billing 
services. On September 5, 2013, the Department issued a negative 
determination applicable to workers and former workers of Apria-Billing 
and issued a certification applicable to workers and former workers of 
Apria Healthcare LLC, Document Imaging Department, Overland Park, 
Kansas (TA-W-82,838A). The Department's Notice of determination of TA-
W-82,838 and TA-W-82,838A was published in the Federal Register on 
October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61392).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the 
decision.
    The negative determination applicable to workers and former workers 
of Apria-Billing was based on the Department's findings that neither 
increased of billing services like or directly competitive with the 
medical billing services supplied by the subject workers, a shift in 
the supply of such services to a foreign country by the workers' firm, 
nor an acquisition of such services from a foreign country by the 
workers' firm, contributed importantly to worker group separations at 
Apria-Billing. In addition, the investigation revealed that the 
petitioning worker group did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 
222(a) and Section 222(e) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
    The request for reconsideration states that the separated worker 
``did the N and K report which was electronic rejections from India and 
my job was to tell them how to get the claim to go through. Lots of 
times the claims had to be dropped onshore (meaning United States) . . 
. I do have documentation and emails . . . to support my facts.'' 
Following the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department received several electronic messages (emails) from the 
separated worker with additional information, which included emails 
from Apria management to the worker, an explanation of the worker's 
responsibilities, and the assertion that the worker's separation was 
due to outsourcing to ``Emdeon and India.''
    The Department has carefully reviewed the information provided by 
the worker seeking reconsideration, previously-submitted information, 
and information regarding Emdeon, and has determined that the request 
for reconsideration did not supply facts not previously considered and 
did not provide additional documentation indicating that there was 
either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not previously 
considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying 
reconsideration of the initial determination.
    Based on these findings, the Department determines that, with

[[Page 70581]]

regards to the immediate application for administrative 
reconsideration, 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application for reconsideration and 
investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or 
misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify 
reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. 
Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of November, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-28331 Filed 11-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P