STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SOUTHEAST VOLUSIA HOSPITAL )
DISTRICT, et al., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 83-1067
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF INSURANCE, )
)
Respondent. )
) LEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 83-1068
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF INSURANCE, and FLORIDA ) PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND, )
)
Respondent. )
) ROBERT I. NILES, M.D., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 83-1198
)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, )
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William E. Williams, held a formal hearing in this cause on September 20, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners, Ben H. Wilkinson, Esquire
Southeast Volusia Pennington, Wilkinson, Gray & Dunlap Hospital, et al.: 325 John Knox Road, L-101
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
For Petitioners, Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Lee Memorial Martha J. Cook, Esquire
Hospital, et al.: Suite 410, Lewis State Bank
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent, David A. Yon, Esquire Department of Department of Insurance Insurance: 413-B Larson Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent, Richard B. Collins, Esquire Florida Patient's Perkins & Collins Compensation Fund: Post Office Drawer 5286
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Insurance Commissioner issued a Notice of Assessment numbered 83-FPCF- 02Y, dated March 14, 1983, announcing his intent to approve the Fund's request for deficit assessments and to distribute the total amount of the assessments among the health care providers that were members of the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund (hereinafter the "Fund") for 1980-81 fiscal years in accordance with Section 768.54(c), Florida Statutes. Petitions challenging this proposed action were filed by the Petitioners in the above-styled cases. All causes were consolidated into one proceeding and this Recommended Order is applicable to all such causes.
No live testimony was presented at the final hearing. However, joint Exhibits 1-40 were introduced and received into evidence and the Hearing Officer heard argument of counsel.
No appearance was made and no evidence submitted on behalf of Petitioner Robert I. Niles in Case 83-1198. A Motion to Dismiss the Petition filed in this case was granted at the hearing.
References to the joint exhibits hereinafter shall be in the form (exh.
). References to the Prehearing Stipulation hereinafter shall be in the form (P.H.S. V ).
FINDINGS OF FACT
In 1975 the Florida Legislature passed the Medical Malpractice Reform Act, Chapter 75-9, Laws of Florida, now codified in Chapter 768, Florida Statutes. Part of this legislative package included the creation of the Fund. This legislation was passed in response to a medical malpractice insurance crisis which arose when the primary underwriter for the Florida Medical Association sought to stop issuing medical malpractice policies in Florida, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for physicians or hospitals to obtain medical malpractice insurance coverage at reasonable rates. As a result of this problem, many physicians began to practice defensive medicine, curtail or abandon their practices or practice without coverage of any kind.
The Fund is a private not-for-profit organization, participation in which is totally voluntary for its member-health care providers. Insofar as Petitioners are concerned, membership in the Fund is but one of several options available to provide legally required evidence of financial responsibility in order to obtain licensure as a hospital facility in Florida. Physicians, hospitals, health maintenance organizations and ambulatory surgical centers who become members of the Fund must maintain at least $100,000 in primary
professional liability insurance. Membership in the Fund grants to each participant a limitation of liability above the $100,000 in primary coverage. To the extent that any settlement or judgment exceeds the primary coverage of the participant, it is paid by the Fund without limitation.
The Fund is operated subject to the supervision and approval of a board of governors whose membership is required by law to consist of representatives of the insurance industry, the legal and medical professions, physicians' insurers, hospitals, hospitals' insurers and the general public. The Department is charged by statute with certain regulatory functions concerning the Fund. As the law existed in 1980 a base fee for Fund membership was set by statute at
$500 for physicians, after an initial $1,000 enrollment fee for the first year of participation, and at $300 per bed for hospital members. The statute required the Department to set additional fees based upon the classifications of health care providers contained in the statute. In the event that base fees are insufficient to pay all claims asserted against the Fund for a given fund year, the Department is empowered, upon request of the Board of Governors of the Fund, to order assessments against Fund participants to meet any such deficiency.
Under the original legislation, all classes of health care providers could be assessed unlimited amounts to make up any deficiencies. As a result of legislative amendments which became effective July 1, 1976, the amount which participants, other than hospitals, could be assessed was limited to the amount each Fund member had paid to join the Fund for that particular coverage year.
1976 legislative amendments also required that each fiscal year of the Fund, which runs from July 1 through June 30, be operated independently of preceding fiscal years, and further required that occurrences giving rise to claims in a particular fund year be paid only from fees or investment income on those fees collected for that particular year. Thus, it is entirely possible for the Fund to experience deficits in a given year, and yet hold surplus funds for other years.
On March 14, 1983, the Department of Insurance issued a "Notice of Assessment for 1980-81 Fiscal Fund Year" (hereinafter called the "Notice of Assessment). (exh. 20) Notice of this Notice of Assessment was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, March 25, 1983, Vol. 9, no. 12.
The Notice of Assessment announced that the Insurance Commissioner intended to levy and authorize the Fund to collect an assessment in the amount of $23,684,511 from those health care providers that were members of the Fund in fund year 1980-81 (exh. 20).
Each of the hospitals named as Petitioners in the Petition for Administrative Proceedings in Case Dos. 83-1067 and 83-1068 were members of the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund during the fund year 1980-1981. (exh. 40;
P.H.S. V 1)
The chart below contains the following information concerning fund year 1980-81:
the amount of the total proposed assessment described in the Notice of Assessment (dated March 14, 1983);
the amount of the losses experienced by doctors and hospitals, respectively;
the amount of the fees originally paid
by doctors and hospitals; and
the amount of the proposed assessments for doctors and hospitals;
1980-1981 Fund Year - Total Assessment $23,684,511 DOCTORS HOSPITALS
Losses $19,086,800 Losses $29,798,500
Fees Paid 4,299,117 Fees Paid 6,015,827
Assessments 4,322,233 Assessments 18,734,918
(P.H.S. V 9)
The Department computed the portion of the assessment to be paid by the different classes of health care providers for the 1980-1981 fund year based upon an "indicated rate method." This method is represented by the following formula:
The Department started with the actuarially indicated rate for each class of health care provider as described in the October, 1981 Actuarial Report prepared by Tillinghast, Nelson, et al. This is called the "indicated rate by class."
The Department then applied the following formula for each class:
Indicated Rate by Class x No. of Members
in the Class = Total indicated fees by Class
Total Indicated Fees by Class divided by total Indicated Fees for ALL Classes = Percentage of Indicated Fee by Class
Percentage of Indicated Fee by Class x Total Expected Loss for ALL Classes = Expected Loss by Class
(Expected loss is ALL losses for the fund year including claims previously paid, reserves established on claims asserted and IBNR [incurred but not reported].)
(P.H.S. V 12)
The "indicated rate method" for allocating assessments among the various classes of health care providers was selected by the Department as the method which most fairly reflected the classifications prescribed in Section 768.54(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The record in this proceeding establishes that this method is the most feasible mechanism for fairly reflecting classifications established by statute, and, at the same time, providing immediate funds necessary to meet all claims against the Fund. (P.H.S. V 13)
The difference between the results derived by the "indicated rate method" and the amounts reflected in the Notice of Assessment is due to the application of the statutory cap on assessments against physician members, as applied by the Department of Insurance. (P.H.S. V 14)
Exhibit #17 shows (a) the calculations utilized by the Department in spreading the assessments for the 1980-81 fund year, (b) the amount each class would have paid under the "indicated rate method" for the fund year 1980-81 and
(c) the amount actually described in the 1980-81 Notice of Assessment of the Department of Insurance.
The Notices of Assessment issued by the Department of Insurance for fund years 1980-1981 allocated the "excess assessments" (which could not be applied to physician members because the 768.54(3)(c)'s limitation on the amount physicians could be assessed) among the other classes of health care providers based upon their percentage of "expected losses." (P.H.S. V 16)
The amounts of the assessments sought by the Fund, and described in the Notices of Assessment, were calculated by the Fund by using the following formula:
Total fees paid during the Fund Year
+ Investment Income attributable to the Fund Year
Expenses allocated to that Fund Year
Amount paid on claims for that Fund Year
Amount reserved for all known claims for that Fund Year.
(P.H.S. V 17)
The fees ordered by the Department of Insurance and collected by the Fund plus the interest income generated by such fees for fund year 1980-81 are inadequate to cover claims against the Fund for that year. (P.H.S. V 19)
Petitioners, for purposes of this proceeding, do not contest: (a) the method by which the Fund establishes reserves; (b) the amount of the reserves established for any individual claim file; or (c) the amount of the total deficit described in the Notices of Assessment dated March 14, 1983 for fund year 1980-1981. Nonetheless, Petitioners do not concede that the Fund needs all of the money described in the Notice of Assessment dated March 14, 1983 at this time. (P.H.S. V 33,34)
The record in this cause establishes that as of March 14, 1983, there existed a deficiency in the Fund's account for the 1980-1981 fund year of at least $23,684,511 for the payment of settlements, final judgments and reserves on existing and known claims. Approximately $19,405.00 of this deficit is directly attributable to one judgment - Von Stetina v. Florida Medical Center. This was a malpractice judgment against a hospital which has been affirmed on appeal by the First District Court. An appeal has been filed in the Florida Supreme Court. (exh. nos. 1, 2, 18, 19, 26, 27 and 38)
In view of the statutory cap on the amounts that may be assessed against physician members of the Fund, the foregoing dollar amounts for assessments for the 1980-81 fund year, and the manner in which they are proposed to be allocated among the remaining classes of health care providers are appropriate.
The original fees for the 1980-1981 fund year were set in June of 1980. The Fund by letter dated April 21, 1980 requested that the Department approve an increase in membership fees for physicians and surgeons in the amount
of twenty-five (25) percent and a redefinition of rate classes that would move eighteen (18) percent of the physicians and surgeons from Class 3 to Class 2.
The Department published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly and notified interested parties on its mailing lists that a public hearing was to be held on June 2, 1980. This hearing was held pursuant to 627.351, 768.54, and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the hearing was identified as "to afford the Fund an opportunity to present evidence and agreement in support of its filing and, further, to afford any affected person an opportunity to present evidence and argument relating to the filing."
A hearing was in fact held on June 2, 1980. The Fund presented evidence and argument in support of its request for twenty-five (25) percent increase in fees. No parties argued or presented evidence contending that the fees should have been higher. Subsequent to the hearing, the Department notified the Fund by letter dated June 12, 1980 that its request was approved.
Acting on the Department's approval, the Fund sent all prospective members of the Fund for the 1980-81 year membership forms. These forms notified each health care provider what the fees for membership for all health care providers would be. In order to join the Fund each health care provider was required to fill out and sign these forms, thereby agreeing to pay the membership fees and any future assessments which might be levied.
Both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not included in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues involved in this cause, or as not having been supported by evidence of record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 768.54(3)(c), Florida Statutes, which governs the imposition of fees and assessments by the Fund, provides in pertinent part as follows:
Annually, each health care provider, as set forth in subsection (2), electing to comply with paragraph (2)(b) shall pay the fees established under this act, for deposit into the fund, which shall be remitted for deposit in a manner prescribed by the Insurance Commissioner. The limitation of liability provided by the fund shall begin July 1, 1975, and
run thereafter on a fiscal-year basis. For the first year of membership, each participating health care provider shall pay a base fee for deposit into the fund
in the amount of $1,000 for any individual or $300 per bed for any hospital. Those entering the fund after the fiscal year has begun shall pay a prorated share of the yearly fees for a prorated membership.
The base fee charged after the first year of participation shall be $500 for any individual, or $300 per bed for any hospital . . . In addition, after the first year of operation, additional fees
may be charged but shall be appropriately prorated for the portion of the year
for which the health care provider participated in the fund, based on the following considerations:
Past and prospective loss and expense experience in different types
of practice and in different geographical areas within the state;
The prior claims experience of the member covered under the fund; and
Risk factors for persons who are retired, semi-retired, or part-time professionals.
Such base fees may be adjusted downward for any fiscal year in which a lesser amount would be adequate and in which the additional fee would not be necessary to maintain the solvency of the fund. Such additional fee shall be based on not more than two
geographical areas with three categories which contemplate separate risk ratings for hospitals, for health maintenance organizations, for ambulatory surgical facilities, and for other medical facilities. Each fiscal year of the fund shall operate independently of preceding fiscal years.
Participants shall only be liable for assessments for claims from years during which they were members of the fund . . . The fund shall be maintained at not more than
$15,000,000 per fiscal year. Additional fees, assessments, or refunds shall be set by the Insurance Commissioner after consultation with the board of governors of fund . . . If the fund determines that the amount of money
in an account for a given fiscal year is in excess of or not sufficient to satisfy the claims made against the account, the
fund shall certify the amount of the projected excess or insufficiency to the Insurance Commissioner and request the Insurance Commissioner to levy an assessment against or refund to all participants in the fund for that fiscal year, prorated, based on the number of days of participation during the year in question. The Insurance Commissioner shall order such refund to, or levy such assessment against, such participants in amounts that fairly reflect the classifications prescribed above and are
sufficient to obtain the money necessary to meet all claims for said fiscal year. In no case shall any assessment for a particular year against any health care provider, other than those health care
providers defined in subparagraph (1)(b)1., 5., 6., and 7., exceed an amount equal to the fees originally paid by such health care provider for participation in the fund for the
year giving rise to such assessment. (Emphasis added.)
The above-quoted statutes provide the Fund with three mechanisms to obtain moneys with which to operate: "base" fees; "additional" fees; and "assessments." At all times material hereto, the amount of base fees was specifically set by statute at $1,000 for the fiscal year and $500 for subsequent years for physician members, and $300 per bed for hospital participants. The 1976 Legislature amended Section 768.54(3)(c), Florida Statutes, to prohibit any "assessment" against physicians, osteopaths, and podiatrists from exceeding the membership fees paid for the year giving rise to the assessment. It is specifically concluded, as a matter of law, that this amendment imposed a "cumulative" cap on the liability of physicians, osteopaths, and podiatrists, so that those participants are liable only for a maximum of either $1,000 or $500 in assessments, depending upon whether the year in question was their first year or a subsequent year of participation in the Fund. See, Southeast Volusia Hospital District, et al., v. State of Florida, Department of Insurance and Florida Patient's Compensation Fund, D.O.A.H. Case Nos. 82-530 and 82-776 (June 22, 1982); Southeast Volusia Hospital District, et al., v. State of Florida, Department of Insurance, case numbers 82-3128, 82- 3129, 82-3130, and 82-3134; and Department of Insurance, State of Florida, et al., and Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Southeast Volusia Hospital District, 438 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1983).
The Petitioners have asserted that the levying of "additional fees" pursuant to Section 768.54(3)(c), Florida Statutes, is a condition precedent to the collection of "assessments," so that Fund's request for the levying of assessments for 1976-1977 and 1979-1980 fund years should be denied. It is, however, specifically concluded that, based upon the entire legislative history of Section 768.54(3)(c), Florida Statutes, the Legislature intended that "additional fees" were to be utilized to adjust the amount of "base fees" upward prior to or at the beginning of a fund year, rather than as a condition precedent to the retrospective levying of "assessments" to cover insufficiencies in an account for a given fiscal year. Both the legislative history and the plain language of the statute support this conclusion for, since "additional fees" contain no statutory ceiling, to accept Petitioners' construction of the statute would render meaningless the "statutory cap" imposed by the Legislature in 1976 on amounts of assessments payable by physicians, osteopaths, and podiatrists. This statutory interpretation has been upheld by the Florida Supreme Court in Department of Insurance, State of Florida v. Southeast Volusia, Id at 5, 6 and 7.
The record in this proceeding affirmatively establishes that the amounts certified for fund year 1980-1981 dated March 14, 1983, "fairly reflect" the statutory classification contained in Section 768.54, Florida Statutes; that the amounts reflected therein are necessary to meet the claims made against the Fund for the fund years in question; and that the procedures used by the Department in spreading the assessments among the various health care providers in light of the aforementioned "statutory cap" are appropriate. To the extent
that Petitioners have questioned the amount of "fees" established for this fund year, their complaints are not determinable in this proceeding. In any event, the Petitioners were given a reasonable "point of entry" into the Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, process at the time base fees were levied for the 1980-1981 fund year and Petitoners' failure to contest the amount of those fees at the time they were levied constitutes a waiver of their ability to challenge those fees.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Insurance levying assessments in accordance with the Notice of Assessment dated March 14, 1983, for the fund year 1980-1981. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Department's Final Order grant the Motion to Dismiss Case No. 83-1198.
DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of April, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1984.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Martha J. Cook, Esquire
CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER, P.A.
Suite 410, Lewis State Bank Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Ben H. Wilkinson, Esquire Post Office Box 3985 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
C. Bruce Hill, Esquire ADAMS & HILL
1200 Hartford Building
200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Robert C. Ward, Esquire ADAMS, WARD, HUNTER, ANGONES,
& ADAMS
Ninth Floor, Concord Building
66 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
Richard B. Collins, Esquire PERKINS & COLLINS
Post Office Drawer 5286 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A.
646 Lewis State Bank Building Miami, Florida 33130
David A. Yon, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER
IN THE MATTER OF FLORIDA PATIENT'S
COMPENSATION FUND Case No. 83-FPCF-02Y DOAH Case No. 83-1067
Assessments for Fund DOAH Case No. 83-1068
Fiscal Year 1980-1981 DOAH Case No. 83-1198
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come on before the Insurance Commissioner for consideration, and the Insurance Commissioner having considered the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, dated April 12, 1984, the transcript of the formal hearing held on September 20, 1983, the exhibits submitted into evidence and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, William E. Williams of the Division of Administrative Hearings, dated April 1, 1984, is hereby adopted and fully incorporated by reference.
The following amounts are hereby levied as assessments against the respective classes of health care providers who were members of the Florida patient's compensation Fund for the fiscal year 1980-1981:
Class of Health Care providers Amount of Assessment
1. Physicians and Surgeons
(a) Class 1 $ 1,530,442
(b) Class 2 800,016
(c) Class 3 1,991,775
2. Hospitals 18,734,918
Health Maintenance Organizations 44,544
Ambulatory Surgical Centers 97,481
professional Associations 485,335
Each health care provider shall pay a pro rata share of the total amount of the assessment, based upon the amount of premium originally paid, as described in the above paragraphs levied against the class of health care providers of which they were a member. Health care providers that were members of the Fund for less than one year shall pay a prorated share of the assessment based on the length of period of membership.
Petitioners Lee memorial Hospital, et al. and Southeast Volusia Hospital District, et al., have filed their exceptions to the recommended Order of the Hearing Officer in a document entitled Petitioners' Exceptions to Recommended Order and served on April 30, 1984. These Exceptions are rejected on the following basis:
EXCEPTION NUMBER 1
Petitoners contest the Hearing Officer's conclusion that a reasonable point of entry was given into the chapter 120 process by the Department for the 1980 fee setting decision. While petitioners do not identify which conclusion or finding they are taking exception to, it is presumed that exception number 1 is in reference to Conclusion of Law number 5.
This exception is denied because Conclusion of Law number 5 is legally correct and is supported by competent substantial evidence. First, the Hearing Officer correctly held that the proceedings before him dealt with assessments and not fees. Therefore arguments made and evidence presented concerning the appropriateness of the initial fees for 1980-1981 year were not properly before him. This finding is consistent with previous orders of the Department and prior recommended orders of the Hearing Officer (See proceedings and final orders in cases number 82FPCF-01B, 82FPCF-02B, 82FPCF-03B and 82-FPCF08Y, 82- FPCF-09Y). It is also consistent with the Supreme Court's rejection of the Petitioner's argument in Southeast Volusia Hospital District, et al. v.
Department of Insurance, 438 so.2d 817 (Fla. 1983) that the setting of "additional fees" is a condition precedent to levying assessments. Petitioners' exception is therefore rejected.
In any event, the Hearing Officer's finding that a reasonable "point of entry" was given, was supported by competent substantial evidence. In paragraphs 21-23 of the Findings of Fact, the Hearing Officer found that notice
of a hearing on the setting of fees for the 1980-81 year was published in the Florida Administrative weekly and sent to all interested parties on the mailing list and that a hearing was held pursuant to 627.351, 768.54 and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the hearing was identified as to "afford the Fund an opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of its filing and, further to afford any affected person an opportunity to present argument and evidence relating to the filing." A hearing was in fact held during which evidence and argument were presented supporting an increase in the base fee by
25 percent. The Hearing Officer also found that Petitioners joined the Fund with full knowledge of the fees, signing a form agreeing to pay them and any future assessments which might be levied. Petitioners have now had the benefit of membership in the Fund and its protection for almost four years. Petitioners have therefore waived any right they might have had to contest the fees. The Hearing Officer's Conclusion that Petitioners received a reasonable "point of entry" and waived any right to a hearing, other than that held on June 2, is supported by competent substantial evidence and Petitioners' exception must be rejected.
It should also be noted that Petitioners have not shown they have standing to contest the fees since they have not established that they were substantially affected parties prior to joining the Fund.
EXCEPTION NUMBER 2
Petitioners also contend that the Hearing Officer erred by failing to find that the fees established for the 1980-81 fiscal year were invalid.
This exception must also be rejected. First, the issue of the appropriateness of the fees was not properly before the Hearing Officer. Petitioners' argument is no more than a collateral attack on the Department's decision made in 1980 after the hearing. The Hearing Officer did not have jurisdiction to consider such a collateral attack.
Second, the Notice of Assessment which set the perimeters for this proceeding dealt only with the issue of assessments, and the appropriateness of those assessments was the only issue properly before the Hearing Officer.
Therefore a ruling on the validity of the fees would have been outside the scope of these proceedings and improper.
Finally, even if the fee issue could properly be considered, Petitioners ignore the fact that no party to the 1980 fee hearing "argued or presented evidence contending that the fees should have been higher". (Finding of Fact number 22, Recommended Order.) There is simply no competent substantial evidence in this record to support that conclusion.
EXCEPTION NUMBER 3
In this exception, Petitioners contend that the Hearing Officer erred by finding that the assessments fairly reflected the statutory classifications. As a basis for this exception, the Petitioners state that hospitals are being asked to bear a portion of physician's share of the losses.
This exception is without merit and must be rejected. The Supreme Court in Southeast Volusia, supra, clearly held that assessments which placed a part of the cost of physicians losses on hospitals was proper and constitutional under 768.54(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer found that the Department spread the assessment based upon the indicated rate method. Once the physicians
had been assessed as much as allowed under the statute, the excess portion was then spread back to the hospitals based on their proportionate share of expected losses. This is the same method used in all prior proceedings and which was approved in Southeast Volusia.
DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1984.
BILL GUNTER
Insurance Commissioner and State Treasurer
Assistant Insurance
Commissioner and State Treasurer
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 18, 1984 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 12, 1984 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 18, 1984 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 12, 1984 | Recommended Order | Petitioners did not contest assessment when levied and thus waive their right to challenge fees. |
