DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-82,838
APRIA HEALTHCARE, LLC
BILLING DEPARTMENT
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS

Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand

On February 28, 2014, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the U.S. Department of Labor’s (Department’s) motion for voluntary remand for further investigation in Former Employees of Apria Healthcare, LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Case No. 13-00409.
On June 24, 2013, the state workforce office filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers of Apria Healthcare, LLC (hereafter referred to as “the subject firm”), Billing Department, Overland Park Kansas (TA-W-82,838; hereafter referred to as “the Billing Department”), and Apria Healthcare, LLC, Document Imaging Department, Overland Park, Kansas (TA-W-82,838A; hereafter referred to as “the Document Imaging Department”).
The initial investigation revealed that workers within the Billing Department were engaged in employment related to the supply of medical billing services; workers within the Document Imaging Department were engaged in employment related to the supply of patient record management services; workers within the two different departments were separately identifiable by services performed and, therefore, were treated as separate subject worker groups; and a significant number or proportion of workers within each subject worker group were totally or partially separated from employment.
Although certification was granted for the Document Imaging Department under TA-W-82,838A, a negative determination was initially made regarding the Billing Department under TA-W-82,838. The Department determined that the subject firm acquired from a foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive with those services provided by the workers within the Document Imaging Department. Consequently, workers within the Document Imaging Department were determined to be a group eligible to apply for TAA. The workers in the billing number, however, were not determined to be an eligible worker group. The negative determination issued under TA-W-82,838 was based on the Department’s findings that the subject firm did not shift to, or acquire from, a foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive with those supplied by the workers within the Billing Department and that the subject firm did not import services like or directly competitive services with those supplied by the workers within the Billing Department.
The negative determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for TAA under TA-W-82,838 was issued on September 5, 2013. The Department’s Notice of determinations was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61392).
By application dated September 19, 2013, a worker in the Billing Department requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative determination regarding TA-W-82,838. The request for reconsideration alleged 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, which included emails from Apria management to the worker, an explanation of the worker’s responsibilities, and the assertion that separations were due to outsourcing to “Emdeon and India.”
The Department carefully reviewed the information provided by the worker seeking reconsideration, previously-submitted information, and information regarding Emdeon, and 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.
The Department issued a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration on November 12, 2013. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2013 (78 FR 70580).
In the complaint filed with the USCIT, dated December 20, 2013, the plaintiffs allege that the subject firm has acquired from a foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive with those supplied by the workers of the Billing Department and identified specific functions within the Billing Department’s scope of work that had been shifted to a third party firm in a foreign country. New information was provided in the Complaint which had not previously been shared with the Department during the initial investigation or in the request for reconsideration. Based on a consideration of this new information, the Department determined that a voluntary remand should be requested in order to evaluate this material. The parties agreed to a voluntary remand for the Department to “seek clarification from plaintiffs regarding the relevance of the documents to their specific allegations and request that the subject firm address the contents of the documents.” Consent Motion at 3.
To apply for worker adjustment assistance under the requirements of the Act in effect for a petition filed on the date this petition was filed, June 24, 2013, Section 222(a), 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), provided that the following criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must have become totally or partially separated or be threatened with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied if either:

(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the workers’ separation or threat of separation. See section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

During the remand investigation, the Department obtained new information from the subject firm regarding the allegations in the Complaint, solicited input from the Plaintiffs via their counsel, and addressed the Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding a shift in the supply of Billing Department services to a foreign country by the subject firm.
Based on the new and additional information collected during the remand investigation from the subject firm in response to the new information provided in the Complaint, the Department determined that an acquisition by the subject firm from a foreign country of services like or directly competitive with the medical billing and related services supplied by the Billing Department was an important cause of the layoffs in the Billing Department, as described below.
During the remand investigation, the subject firm provided the Department with new information which revealed that, years prior to separations at the Billing Department, the subject firm had acquired from a foreign country a portion of the services like or directly competitive with those provided by the Billing Department and had continued to migrate more than a de minimus portion of the services following the initial acquisition of services.
Following a review of previously-submitted information and the new information collected in the remand investigation, the Department confirms that a significant number or proportion of the workers in the Billing Department was totally or partially separated. A significant number or proportion of the workers means at least five percent of the subject firm, or appropriate subdivision thereof, of the workers or fifty workers (whichever is fewer) or at least three workers in a workforce of fewer than fifty workers. 29 CFR 90.2
In addition, the Department has determined that the subject firm’s acquisition from a foreign country of a portion of services like or directly competitive with the services provided by the workers within the Billing Department contributed importantly to the afore-mentioned worker group separations. Contributed importantly means the cause (action or condition) is one “which is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause.” 29 CFR 90.16(b)(3)
Consequently, the Department determines that, with regard to workers within the Billing Department, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, that were in effect for TA-W-82,838, have been met.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained during the remand investigations, I determine that the workers’ firm has acquired from a foreign country a portion of services like or directly competitive with those supplied by the Billing Department, and the acquisition of such services contributed importantly to worker group separations at the Billing Department. In accordance with section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
"All workers of Apria Healthcare, LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas (TA-W-82,838), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 20, 2012, through two years from the date of certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended."
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 27th day of June, 2014

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P



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 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, D.C., this 12th day of November, 2013

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,838

APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC
BILLING DEPARTMENT
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS

TA-W-82,838A

APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC
DOCUMENT IMAGING DEPARTMENT
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS

Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and
(e). For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for
workers under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a),
the following criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm
must have become totally or partially separated or be
threatened with total or partial separation.

(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm
must have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the
component part produced by the workers’ firm was
directly incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article
into which the component part produced by the
workers’ firm was directly incorporated have
increased.
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation
or threat of separation and to the decline in the
sales or production of such firm.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or
supply of services like or directly competitive with
those produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign
country by the workers’ firm of articles/services that
are like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the
acquisition of articles or services described in
clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker
certification under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2272(b), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the
following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
the workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially
separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such
supply or production is related to the article or
service that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph
(2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the
production or sales of the workers’ firm;
or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the
firm described in paragraph (2) contributed
importantly to the workers’ separation or threat of
separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in a category of determination that is
listed in Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section
705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and
1673d(b)(1)(A));

(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the
President by the International Trade Commission
under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the
affirmative determination described in paragraph
(1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under
section 202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described
in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and

(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on June 21, 2013 by a state workforce office on behalf of
workers of Apria Healthcare LLC, Billing Department, Overland
Park, Kansas (TA-W-82,838) and Apria Healthcare LLC, Document
Imaging Department, Overland Park, Kansas (TA-W-82,838A).
Workers are separately identifiable by department. The workers
of Apria Healthcare LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park,
Kansas (TA-W-82,838) are engaged in activities related to the
supply of medical billing services. The workers of Apria
Healthcare LLC, Document Imaging Department, Overland Park,
Kansas (TA-W-82,838A) are engaged in activities related to the
supply of patient record management services.
The petitioner alleged that the services provided by
workers from the billing department and the document imaging
department were being outsourced to India, resulting in the
worker separations at the subject firm.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
The investigation revealed that workers of Apria
Healthcare LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas (TA-
W-82,838) do not meet the criteria for certification.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of services like or
directly competitive with medical billing services have not
increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
services like or directly competitive with medical billing
services to a foreign country or acquire like or directly
competitive services from a foreign country. Rather, the
investigation confirmed that the worker separations are
attributable to a reduction of work and the implementation of
work efficiencies in the billing center.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Apria Healthcare LLC, Billing
Department, Overland Park, Kansas is not a Supplier or
Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers
who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied because the workers’
firm has not been publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative finding
of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or
threat thereof.
The investigation further revealed that workers of Apria
Healthcare LLC, Document Imaging Department, Overland Park,
Kansas (TA-W-82,838A) meet the criteria for certification.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm have
become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to
become totally or partially separated.
Section 222(a)(2)(B) has been met because the workers’
firm has acquired from a foreign country services like or
directly competitive with the document imaging services
supplied by the workers which contributed importantly to
worker group separations at Apria Healthcare LLC, Document
Imaging Department, Overland Park, Kansas.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met for workers of
Apria Healthcare LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas
(TA-W-82,838) and, therefore, deny the petition for group
eligibility of Apria Healthcare LLC, Billing Department,
Overland Park, Kansas (TA-W-82,838), who are engaged in
activities related to the supply of medical billing services to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
In addition, I determine that workers of Apria Healthcare
LLC, Document Imaging Department, Overland Park, Kansas (TA-W-
82,838A), who are engaged in activities related to the supply
of patient record management services meet the worker group
certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
“All workers of Apria Healthcare LLC, Document Imaging
Department, Overland Park, Kansas (TA-W-82,838A), who
became totally or partially separated from employment on or
after June 20, 2012 through two years from the date of
certification, and all workers in the group threatened with
total or partial separation from employment on the date of
certification through two years from the date of
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.”
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 5th day of September, 2013.


/s/ Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 4 -