- 12 -
consequently, the system does not qualify for the disabled access
credit. Respondent’s determination in this regard is therefore
sustained.4
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be
entered for respondent.
4 Respondent also argues that the purchase of the intraoral
camera system was an unreasonable and unnecessary expenditure for
the purpose of making aurally delivered materials available to
hearing-impaired patients. Sec. 44(c)(3). Because we have
determined that the system is not an “eligible access
expenditure”, we do not address this issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011