a qualified Medicaid provider implicates a protected property interest and that total debarment from government contracting implicates a corporation’s protected liberty interest. See ABA 40 F.Supp.3d at 165, 2014 WL 1863944, at *8 (citing Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia, 314 F.3d 641, 643 (D.C.Cir.2003); Patchogue Nursing Ctr. v. Bowen, 797 F.2d 1137, 1144-45 (2d Cir.1986)); see also Vencor Nursing Centers v. Shalala, 63 F.Supp.2d 1, 10 (D.D.C.1999); Cleanmaster Industries, Inc. v. Shewry, 491 F.Supp.2d 937, 943 (C.D.Cal.2007). A provider’s property interest in Medicaid participation is nonetheless only triggered when it is decertified, its provider number is terminated, and it is correspondingly terminated from the program. See ABA 40 F.Supp.3d at 165-66, 2014 WL 1863944, at *8-9 (<HOLDING>). Providers, furthermore, have no property
holding that foreclosure on mortgage not state action and thus could not trigger due process clause scrutiny holding that due process protections do not apply where a public employee is not fired holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding temporary suspension pursuant to credible allegation of fraud does not trigger due process protections holding that negligence in the context of a tort claim relating to bodily injuries allegedly sustained by an inmate because of lack of maintenance of a prison stairway does not constitute a violation of constitutional due process but reserving the question of whether recklessness or gross negligence is sufficient to trigger the protections of constitutional due process