OPINION

Bryan Frantz, D.M.D., appeals the decision of the District Court affirming the decision of the Medicare Appeals Council to deny him additional reimbursement for procedures performed on Joseph DeMarco, a Medicare beneficiary. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

DeMarco needed post-cancer dental implant surgery. He sought approval to have the implants covered by Medicare and after an initial denial of benefits, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held that the post-cancer dental implants were medically necessary and covered by Medicare. Dr. Frantz performed the surgery and infixed seven dental implants into DeMarco on March 27, 2001. Dr. Frantz then submitted a claim to a Medicare insurance carrier for $14,000 to cover the cost of the procedures. His claim was initially denied because he was not a Medicare provider. The record indicates that after Dr. Frantz resubmitted the claim, he was given a Medicare provider number and was paid $4,752.80 under Medicare’s multiple surgery payment rule. ** Dr. Frantz appealed.

An ALJ determined that while Dr. Frantz received a Medicare provider number and submitted a claim under that number, he was not a member of the Medicare Program and should be paid at a different rate than subscribers under the Program. Based on that determination, the ALJ concluded that additional reimbursement should be paid to Dr. Frantz under Part B of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as amended.

The Medicare Appeals Council reviewed the ALJ’s decision and reversed. Dr. Frantz appealed and the magistrate judge issued his Report & Recommendation affirming the Medicare Appeals Council’s determination. The District Court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation after reviewing the record de novo. Dr. Frantz timely appealed to this Court. ***

As far as we can tell, Dr. Frantz’s primary argument is that equity demands that he be compensated in full. However, at no point was he told that he would receive 100% compensation for the procedures. Dr. Frantz fails to point to any language of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as amended, that would clearly entitle him to more than the fee schedule would allow. Dr. Frantz does argue that he was not a member of the Medicare Program and that the treatment he rendered should not be considered “multiple surgeries” subject to the multiple surgeries payment rule. However, there is substantial evidence in the record to support *161 the determination that Dr. Frantz was a physician assignee who assumed his patient’s right to reimbursement under Medicare by filing the claim with a provider number. Further, a court must afford substantial deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. Morrison v. Madison Dearborn Capital Partners III L.P., 468 F.3d 312, 315 (3d Cir. 2006). Dr. Frantz presents no argument as to why we should not defer to the agency’s interpretation of “multiple surgeries,” **** other than that the ALJ determined otherwise. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.