The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint of August 23, 1991, Respondent, Betty Claire Fiquette, was licensed in the State of Florida as a life and health (debit) insurance agent, as a life and health insurance agent, and as a general lines - limited to industrial fire insurance agent. (Pet. No. 1) At all times relative to the dates and occurrences set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Independent") as a life insurance agent. (Pet. No. 1, T. 201). FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO COUNT I OF PETITIONER'S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT On or about August 28, 1989, Respondent solicited and procured from Kelly Carroll of Tallahassee, an application for emergency hospitalization insurance for her son, Sean Carroll. (Pet. No. 3). This was the only hospitalization insurance which Ms. Carroll could afford at that time for her son; however, she advised the Respondent that she wanted insurance to cover doctor's visits. Independent issued an emergency hospitalization insurance policy, number 1816130A, to Kelly Carroll. (Pet. No. 3) On or about March 19, 1990, the Respondent called Ms. Carroll and told her that the company had a rider which would cover doctor's visits and prescription medications. (T 78,81,94). The Respondent procured from Kelly Carroll an application for an outpatient surgery rider for Independent policy number 1816130A. (T. 78, 81, 94). Said rider was issued by Independent. (Pet. No. 3). Said policy rider provided for payment by Independent for expenses for two doctor visits and outpatient surgery for Sean Carroll. It did not cover prescriptions. (Pet. No. 3, T. 205) Ms. Carroll subsequently had to take her son to the doctor. She had to pay for prescriptions and for doctor's visits in excess of the two covered visits. See T 78 et seq. Ms. Carroll did not testify that the Respondent represented to her that the policy would pay for all doctor's visits. The Respondent did not tell Ms. Carroll how many doctor's visits were covered. The Respondent did tell Ms. Carroll that the policy rider would pay for prescriptions. However, it is clear from Ms. Carroll's testimony that coverage for the prescriptions was not material to her decision to take out the coverage. No evidence was offered that Respondent intentionally misstated the prescription coverage to Ms. Carroll. FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO COUNT II OF PETITIONER'S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT On or about January 30, 1989, Respondent sold a health insurance policy to Melissa Schilb of Tallahassee. (Pet. No. 3). The policy sold by Respondent to Mrs. Schilb was a fixed-rate indemnity health insurance policy with preset payment amounts for each type of covered medical procedure. (Pet. No. 4). Mrs. Schilb was interested in purchasing health insurance at the time of said solicitation because she and her husband wished to have a baby. (T. 97). The Respondent went over the details of the policy coverage with the Schilbs. (T-101-102,104). Mr. Schilb could not afford the more expensive policy sold by his employer (T-103 and 105). Having explained the coverages amounts, the Respondent represented that the coverages would be sufficient to cover most of Mrs. Schilb's childbirth related medical expenses, and that the Schilb's would only have to pay a few hundred dollars. (T. 98, 100, 106, 109). The Schilbs' health insurance policy paid $800 to the hospital and $600-800 to the doctor for prenatal care. The Schilbs had approximately $3,000 in hospital expenses arising from the delivery of Mrs. Schilb's child and $2,000 in doctor's bills during the course of her pregnancy. (T. 102, 110). FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO COUNT III OF PETITIONER'S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT In 1988, Independent Life issued two graded life insurance policies to Leola Greene. Ms. Greene examined these two policies at the hearing, and identified her signature on the one issued 9/6/88. She denied the signature on the policy application dated 6/8/88 was her signature. On 5/22/89 Ms. Greene signed an application for a graded life insurance policy in the amount of $3,000.00. Ms. Greene identified her signature on this policy. On 6/18/90 Ms. Greene signed an application for a graded life insurance policy in the amount of $3,000.00. Ms. Greene identified her signature on this policy. Leola Greene's contradictory testimony was that she never had taken out a $3,000 graded life policy, although she identified her signature on two such policies. (T 121-123). ^ Ms. Greene admitted that the Respondent went over the policies with her every time Ms. Greene bought a policy, and the Respondent's descriptions of the policies was accurate. (T 126, 127). Ms. Greene let her policies lapse numerous times. (T 167, 217). Ms. Greene was afforded the opportunity by Independent Life to purchase $5,000 of insurance, but was unable to afford the premiums. Ms. Greene's $5,000 life insurance policies lapsed, and she purchased the $3,000 graded life policies. The allegations regarding the Respondent and Ms. Greene are not proven. FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO COUNT IV OF PETITIONER'S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Jackie L. Robinson had been buying various Independent insurance products from the Respondent since the 1980's. (T 129). He testified that he thought his two children were covered under health insurance which he had purchased. Mr. Robinson's testimony is vague as to the time of the purchase and the period the children were covered. Mr. Robinson was unable to identify the policies presented to him at the hearing. The Respondent admitted she had sold Mr. Robinson a health insurance policy, and a policy which covered the health of his children. However, Robinson let the policies on the children lapse. (T 131,221,222). Although the policies were introduced and their dates can be determined, Mr. Robinson's testimony was not specific about the time during which the children's medical bills were not covered. According to Mr. Brewster, Mr. Robinson did not make a claim against the policy on the children while it was in effect. The allegations regarding Respondent and Mr. Robinson are not proven.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts, and in view of the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the charges against the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1992. Petitioner's Facts ANNEX A CASE NO. 91-6053 Paragraphs 1 through 6 adopted. Paragraph 7 rejected "all of," adopted remainder. Paragraphs 8 and 9 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 10 adopted. Paragraph 11 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 12 through 16 adopted. Paragraph 17 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 18 through 22 rejected as contrary to facts. Paragraph 23 adopted. Paragraph 24 rejected as contrary to facts. Paragraph 25 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 26 through 28 rejected as contrary to facts. Paragraphs 29 through 31 adopted and restated. Paragraphs 32 and 33 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 34 and 35 rejected as contrary to facts. Paragraphs 36 through 39 rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 3 adopted. Paragraph 4 rejected as argument. Paragraphs 5 and 6 adopted. Paragraph 7 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 8 through 14 adopted. Paragraph 15 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 16 and 17 adopted. Paragraph 18 rejected argument. Paragraph 19 rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 20 rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 21 rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Samuel Lewis, Esquire 1017-A Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL 32303
The Issue This case involves a dispute as to whether the Petitioner underpaid the premiums due on his health insurance coverage and, if so, what action should be taken by the Department of Administration as a result of any premium underpayments. By notice dated March 18, 1988, the Department of Administration notified the Petitioner that the Department records "show a total underpayment of $1,117.81 for the coverage periods 9/86 through 9/87." At the formal hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner, the Department was permitted to offer evidence regarding the Petitioner's premium history (both the amounts due and the amounts actually paid) for the entire period of the Petitioner's employment with the State of Florida, a period which runs from May 1978 until October 1988. At the formal hearing the Department of Administration presented the testimony of one witness and offered several exhibits, all of which were received. The Petitioner did not present any evidence, but did present oral argument on his own behalf. The parties were allowed 10 days from November 3, 1988, within which to file their post-hearing submissions with the Hearing Officer. The Department of Administration timely filed Proposed Findings Of Fact. Those findings are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order. The Petitioner did not file any post-hearing submission.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. From May 1, 1978, until August 1, 1978, the Petitioner requested and received family coverage under the State Group Health Self-insurance Plan. From November 1, 1978, until November 1, 1985, the Petitioner requested and received individual coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan. From November 1, 1985, until the date of the hearing, the Petitioner requested and received family coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan. From May 1, 198, until July 1, 1984, the Petitioner was a part-time employee of the State of Florida, working .25 of a full-time equivalent position. Accordingly, his premiums for health insurance coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan during this period should have been paid on the basis of employment in a .25 full-time equivalent position. From July 1, 1984, until at least the date of the hearing, the Petitioner has been a part-time employee of the State of Florida, working .20 of a full-time equivalent position. Accordingly, his premiums for health insurance coverage under the State Group Self-Insurance Plan during this period should have been paid on the basis of employment in a .20 full-time equivalent position. During the period beginning May 1, 1988, and continuing through October of 1988, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals S1,116.36. 1/ During the period beginning March 1, 1986, and continuing through October of 1988, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals $861.74. During the thirteen-month period beginning with September 1986 and ending with (but including) September 1987, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals $258.36.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order to the following effect: Finding the Petitioner to be in debt to the State of Florida in the amount of $258.36 by reason of underpayment of premiums during the period of September 1986 through September 1987. Providing that the Petitioner's health insurance coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan will be cancelled unless within thirty (30) days following the entry of the final order the Petitioner either pays the full amount of $258.36 or enters into an installment payment program consistent with Rule 22K-1.049(1)(a)2., Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Insurance should discipline the Respondent on charges contained in the Administrative Complaint filed June 1, 1994. The Administrative Complaint charges that the Respondent failed to accurately disclose certain aspects of the true physical condition of two applicants for health insurance and failed to disclose to the applicants the existence of certain deductibles and a six-month waiting period for preexisting conditions.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Blair John Reuther, is eligible for licensure and is licensed in Florida as an insurance agent. At the times referred to in this case, the Respondent was licensed to solicit health insurance on behalf of National States Insurance Company (National States). Some time prior to April, 1993, National States solicited health insurance from Earl and Jessie Lane, an elderly couple who lived in Ft. Pierce, Florida, and invited them to return a postcard in order to express their interest in more information about health insurance policies National States had to offer. They sent in the postcard, and their names were referred to the Respondent. Without an additional contact with the Lanes, the Respondent went to their home during the week preceding April 3, 1993, and asked to be permitted to talk with them about National States health insurance policies in which they had expressed an interest. The Lanes invited him in, and the Respondent discussed their existing coverage. At the time, the Lanes had a Level A Medicare Supplement policy, which carried the standard deductibles for such a policy. After some additional discussion, the Respondent promised to return with his proposals and with applications. On Saturday, April 3, 1993, the Respondent returned to the Lane home and proposed to sell each of them a National States Level A Medicare Supplement policy and a limited benefit medical expense policy. It is found, contrary to the Lanes' testimony, that the Respondent did not tell the Lanes that the National States policies would "cover everything," that the Respondent told the Lanes that the National States Medicare Supplement policies had deductibles (just like their previous Level A Medicare Supplement policies), and that there was a six-month waiting period for preexisting conditions under the National States limited benefit medical expense policies. (There was no waiting period for preexisting conditions under any of the Medicare Supplement policies.) After discussing the proposal, the Lanes decided to apply for the National States policies being proposed by the Respondent. It is found that the Respondent went over the applications for the National States policies with the Lanes and filled out the applications in accordance with the information given to him by the Lanes. As to the medical questions on the applications, it is found that the Respondent read the questions aloud and recorded the answers given to him by the Lanes. Specifically, question 5 on the Medicare Supplement applications asked, in pertinent part: Does the Applicant have or had within the past 5 years any of the following: (Underline condition) Tumor, cancer, malignancy or growth of any kind? * * * c. High or low blood pressure, varicose veins or disorder of the heart or circulatory system? * * * Amputation, because of sickness, paraplegia, disease of the back or spine? Disease of the rectum or intestine, stomach, kidney, prostate, urinary bladder, liver, gall bladder? Question 6.b. asked, "Has the Applicant been confined in a hospital in the last five years? The Lanes answered, "no," to all of the questions set out in the preceding paragraph. They also signed the applications, which state in part: "I agree that all answers above are true and complete to the best of my knowledge." Effective April 14, 1993, National States issued the limited benefit medical expense policies for which the Lanes had applied; the Medicare Supplement policies were issued with effective dates of April 18, 1993. All four policies were delivered on April 22, 1993. The Respondent returned to the Lane home on April 30, 1993, to go over the policies with the Lanes and answer any questions they had. During the review of the policies after delivery, the Lanes never expressed to the Respondent any dissatisfaction with any of the policies. To the contrary, they both signed a statement that they had reviewed their policies with the Respondent, who had explained them in full. Jessie Lane contends that she told the Respondent that she "had had a heart problem, a small heart problem." She testified that, at the time of her deposition, she had a pace maker but that, at the time of the application, she "wasn't that bad . . . I was just having--missing heart beats." She also testified that she has: "a light case of arthritis. . . . Not bad." She also testified that she had been hospitalized during the five years preceding the applications: "That's when I had my heart problem too." Earl Lane contends that he told the Respondent that he had a back injury that required hospitalization several times, but he did not testify that he told the Respondent that he was hospitalized, or that he continued to have back problems, within the five years preceding the application. He testified that he had a swollen prostate that required surgery, but he did not testify that the surgery was within the five years preceding the application. He testified that he had skin cancer "at one time," but that it "was successfully treated" and "didn't amount to nothing." He did not testify that the cancer or the treatment was within the five years preceding the application. He contended for the first time in his deposition testimony that he had a "rupture," but not that he had it within the five years preceding the application. He testified during his deposition: "I've been in the hospital in the last five years." Later during his deposition, he was asked: "How many times have you been in the hospital in the last five years?" He answered: "Just once, I guess, before he was here." He did not clearly testify that he had been hospitalized within the five years preceding the application. Earl Lane also contended for the first time in his deposition testimony that he told the Respondent that he had varicose veins, but he did not testify that they were not surgically removed or that he still had them within the five years preceding the application. The Lanes also filed a complaint listing other alleged violations by the Respondent: (1) that the Respondent misrepresented that the National States policies covered dental and eyeglasses; (2) that these coverages duplicated policies the Lanes already had; (3) that the National States policies were more expensive than policies the Lanes already had; (4) that the National States policies did not pay skilled nursing; and (5) that the Respondent tricked the Lanes into signing a bank draft agreement. The Department chose not to charge those alleged violations, presumably either because there was insufficient evidence that they were true or because they were not violations. It appears that someone helped the Lanes draft their requests for refunds from National States and their initial list of complaints against the Respondent. Although the evidence was not clear who helped, it may well have been the insurance agent whose Medicare Supplement policies were replaced by National States and who was trying to recover the business. In response to the Lanes' request, dated May 7, 1993, to cancel the policies, National States cancelled the Medicare Supplement policies as if the request had been made within the 30 day cancellation period and refunded all but 5 percent of the premium, which was retained as a processing fee. In their cancellation request, the Lanes' alleged: "Our health conditions were not accurately written on the applications by agent Blair Reuther and we will not take any chances on not being paid on future medical bills for misrepresentations by this agent." Nonetheless, National States refused to cancel the limited benefit medical expense policies. They remained in full force and effect until they lapsed a year later for failure to pay the premium when next due. There is no evidence that National States investigated the Lanes' true health status. During the year that the National States limited benefit medical expense policies were in effect, National States paid out more in claims under the policies than the Lanes paid in premiums.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in this case. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the Department's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any): 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated; however, the Respondent was responding to a "lead" given to him by his employer after the Lanes returned a postcard expressing interest. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. (It was not clear from the evidence what the Respondent was told.) Accepted and incorporated; however, it is not clear from the evidence whether the Respondent should have answered the medical history questions on the application differently based on the information given to him by the applicants. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven that there were health conditions that should have been disclosed; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Blair John Reuther 8535 Blind Pass Drive, #202 Treasure Island, Florida 33706 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a health insurance agent should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Michael Halloran, was licensed and eligible for licensure as a health insurance agent by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). When the events herein occurred, respondent was licensed to solicit health insurance on behalf of National States Life Insurance Company (NSLIC) and Transport Life Insurance Company (TLIC). He was also under contract with Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida until that firm terminated his agency appointment on May 5, 1989. This proceeding involves the sale by respondent of various health insurance policies to four customers in January and February 1989. In 1987, Raymond H. Koester, a Largo resident, purchased from respondent a supplemental Medicare policy for both him and his wife. Their first policy was issued by American Integrity. A year later, respondent persuaded the Koesters to replace that policy with one issued by Garden State Insurance Company on the ground the latter policy represented an "improvement" over their existing policy. On January 10, 1989 respondent met with the Koesters for the purpose of selling them new health insurance coverage. During their meeting, respondent advised the Koesters that a new NSLIC policy would provide unlimited custodial and home health care, a type of coverage desired by the Koesters. Relying upon respondent's representation, the Koesters agreed to purchase two new policies. They filled out an application and paid Halloran $2,628 which was the premium for the first year. When the application was completed, respondent answered "no" to the question of whether the new policies were intended to replace existing coverage. This was a false representation. In June 1989 the Koesters learned that they had a problem with their new policies. This advice was conveyed to them by petitioner's investigator who advised them that the policies sold by Halloran loran did not provide any custodial or home health care benefits. Had the Koesters known this, they would not have purchased the insurance. On January 18, 1989 respondent visited Grace Miller, an elderly resident of Venice, Florida, for the purpose of selling her a health insurance policy. At that time Miller had an existing policy in force since 1983 which provided supplemental Medicare coverage. Respondent advised Miller that her existing coverage was inadequate and that more coverage was needed. More specifically, Halloran represented that a new NSLIC policy would supplement her basic Medicare coverage and increase her overall health insurance coverage. Based on that representation, Miller agreed to purchase a replacement policy issued by NSLIC. As it turned out, the policy sold to Miller was of little or no value to a Medicare recipient, such as Miller, and simply filled in the gaps on a major medical policy. Had Miller known this to begin with, she would not have purchased the policy. Respondent also persuaded Miller to purchase a long-term care policy from TLIC. She allowed respondent to fill out the application using information from her old policy. Without telling Miller, respondent misrepresented on the application her date of birth as December 2, 1921 when in fact she was born on December 2, 1911, or ten years earlier. By doing this, Halloran was able to reduce Miller's premium from $1,159.92 to $441.72. Had Miller known that she was responsible for paying a much higher premium, she would not have purchased the policy. On February 25, 1989 respondent accepted another check from Miller in the amount of $773.00 for an unknown reason. At about the same time, respondent submitted to NSLIC an application for a medical-surgical expense policy dated the same date purportedly executed by Miller In fact, Miller had not executed the policy and her signature was forged. NSLIC declined to issue a new policy to Miller since she already had a policy of that type in effect. On January 20, 1989 respondent visited Gertrude Simms, an elderly resident of Fort Myers. Simms desired to purchase a hospital expense insurance policy with a provision for dental insurance coverage. Simms desired such coverage because she had a medical condition that required her to have her teeth cleaned frequently to avoid an infection. Respondent was aware of this condition. Nonetheless, Halloran prepared an application with NSLIC for a limited medical-surgical expense insurance policy which did not provide any dental coverage. Respondent accepted a $1,100 check from Simms which he represented to her was the first year's premium. In fact, the first year's premium was only $506. Although respondent was supposed to return to Simms' home to explain the policy provisions, he never returned. At about this same time, TLIC received an application on behalf of Simms for a long-term care insurance policy bearing the signature of respondent as agent. However, Simms had no knowledge of the application and did not wish to purchase such a policy. The information contained in the TLIC application misrepresented Simms' age so that the premium was lower than it should have been. Although TLIC issued a policy and sent it to respondent, Halloran never delivered it to Simms. On February 1, 1989 respondent visited Velma Sonderman, who resided in Venice, Florida, for the purpose of selling her a health insurance policy. She had become acquainted with respondent through Grace Miller, who is referred to in finding of fact 4. Sonderman was then covered by a supplemental medicare insurance policy issued by United American Medicare. According to Sonderman, respondent gave a "snow job" and represented he could sell her better coverage through NSLIC. Sonderman agreed to purchase a new policy for supplemental medicare coverage to replace her existing policy and signed an application filled in by respondent. However, the application submitted by respondent was for a NSLIC limited benefit health insurance policy rather than the medicare supplement insurance policy Sonderman believed she was purchasing. Respondent also convinced Sonderman to purchase a long-term nursing home care policy issued by TLIC. When filling out the application on her behalf, but without telling Sonderman, respondent misrepresented Sonderman's birth date as July 11, 1915 instead of the correct date of July 11, 1911. By doing this, Sonderman's premium was reduced from $999.36 to $599.04 per year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's license as a health insurance agent be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 4 day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4 day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-3. Substantially used in finding of fact 1. 4-17. Substantially used in findings of fact 4, 5 and 6. 18-29. Substantially used in findings of fact 9 and 10. 30-33. Substantially used in findings of fact 2 and 3. 34-45. Substantially used in findings of fact 7 and 8. 46. Substantially adopted in finding of fact l. Copies furnished to: Honorable Tom Gallagher Insurance Commissioner Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 James A. Bossart, Jr., Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Mr. Michael Halloran 2519 McMullen Booth Road Clearwater, FL 34621 Donald A. Dowdell, Esquire Department of Insurance Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondents violated various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent The Administrators Corporation (hereinafter "TAC") has been an authorized administrator, and Respondent Charles N. Zalis (hereinafter "Zalis") has been licensed or eligible for licensure as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, and a legal expense insurance sales representative in the State of Florida. Zalis is the chief executive officer of TAC. TAC is not licensed in Florida as an insurer. An authorized administrator in Florida may engage in the solicitation, negotiation, transaction and/or sale of insurance in Florida if such activity takes place pursuant to an agreement between the authorized administrator and an authorized insurer. Life and Health Insurance Company of America (hereinafter "Life & Health"), which is not a party to this administrative proceeding, is an authorized insurer in Florida. On April 13, 1988, TAC entered into a contract with Life & Health to market and service group health insurance. The term of that contract was for four years and one month. Life & Health attempted to terminate its Administrator Agreement with TAC by letter dated March 16, 1989, effective immediately. The date on which the responsibilities under that Administrator Agreement terminated, if ever, is an issue in dispute between Life & Health and TAC. The Department takes no position on that issue. That issue is the subject of a civil lawsuit filed in Broward County, between Life & Health and TAC, which is currently being litigated. Although Life & Health's original position was that the contract between it and TAC terminated as of March 16, 1989, that position apparently changed because Life & Health continued paying claims up to July 1, 1989. TAC's position was that Life & Health's responsibilities under that contract did not terminate until September 26, 1989, when George Washington, an authorized group health insurance carrier in Florida, agreed to assume the risk for the block of business retroactive to July 1, 1989. TAC could have obtained a replacement carrier earlier than September 26, 1989, if the Department had advised TAC and Zalis as to the procedure involved to allow Summit Homes, an authorized property and casualty insurer, to broaden the scope of its certificate of authority to include group health insurance. The simple procedure could have been accomplished in as little as 24 to 48 hours. A group health insurance carrier remains on the risk to its policyholders until there has been a valid cancellation or termination of that coverage. In the pending Circuit Court litigation between Life & Health and TAC, the validity of the termination or cancellation and the date of same are ultimate issues in that law suit and have not yet been determined by the Court. On March 27, 1989, Life & Health sent a letter to agents informing them of its termination of its relationship with TAC and that it would not accept any new business written after March 16, 1989. The evidence in this cause, however, indicates that Life & Health did continue to accept new business after that date. The Department became aware of the dispute between Life & Health and TAC on June 8, 1989. The Department knew as of July 12, 1989, that TAC was continuing to write business on Life & Health "paper." At some point after the attempted March 16, 1989, termination of the contract by Life & Health, TAC and Life & Health informally agreed to a July 1, 1989, date after which Life & Health would no longer be responsible for any claims and TAC would have a replacement insurer in place to take over the block of business. That agreement was based upon TAC and Life & Health each agreeing to cooperate with each other and to take certain actions to facilitate the transfer of the book of business. Both the Department and the Circuit Court were aware of the informal agreement whereby Life & Health agreed to remain on the risk for the block of business at least through July 1, 1989, and Zalis and TAC would issue no further policies on Life & Health "paper" and would not remain involved in the processing or payment of claims after July 1, 1989. Prior to July 12, 1989, those matters required to take place in connection with the July 1, 1989, "cutoff" date had not been accomplished, and Zalis and TAC continued writing new business on Life & Health "paper" believing that Life & Health was still legally responsible. Zalis informed the Department's investigator on July 12, 1989, that he was writing and that he intended to continue to write new business on Life & Health "paper." No evidence was presented to show that the Department notified Zalis or TAC that they could not do so, and the Department took no action to stop that activity. Additionally, Life & Health took no action to enjoin TAC or Zalis from writing new business on Life & Health "paper." The evidence does suggest that Life & Health may have continued to accept the benefits and liabilities. The premiums for policies written by TAC on Life & Health "paper" after July 1, 1989, were not forwarded to Life & Health; rather, they were retained by TAC in a trust account. Zalis and TAC offered to deposit those monies with the Circuit Court in which the litigation between TAC and Life & Health was pending or to transmit those monies to the Department to insure that the monies would be available for the payment of claims. Pursuant to an agreement with the Department, the monies representing those premium payments were transmitted to the Department On September 26, 1989, George Washington Insurance Company, an authorized health insurance company in the State of Florida, agreed to take over the block of business from Life & Health, retroactive to July 1, 1989. Life & Health, however, had not yet signed the assumption agreement to transfer its responsibility to George Washington Insurance Company as of the time of the final hearing in this cause. TAC and Zalis did not place any Florida insurance business with any companies not authorized to do business in Florida. Respondent Zalis has been in the insurance business for 26 years and enjoys a good reputation for honesty and integrity. Zalis and TAC have never had prior administrative action taken against them. As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, there had been no Circuit Court determination of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Life & Health's termination of the Administrators Agreement nor of the date of that termination, if any.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause and dismissing the Order to Show Cause filed against them. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-5981 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6-9, 14-17, 20, 21, and 25-27 have been adopted either in substance or verbatim in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 5 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 11, 13, and 22 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 19 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 18, 23, and 24 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter D. Ostreich, Esquire Office of Treasurer and Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Jerome H. Shevin, Esquire Wallace, Engels, Pertnoy, Martin, & Solowsky, P.A. CenTrust Financial Center 21st Floor 100 Southeast 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Davis, Marks & Rutledge, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physicians such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Medicine has found probable cause exists to suspect that the physician has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. In or around 2002, Petitioner issued Respondent a restricted medical license that was thereafter converted, on June 19, 2004, to an unrestricted license to practice medicine in the State of Florida (number ME 90680). Instant Allegations On May 22, 2008, Respondent was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida with nine criminal charges, all but one of which were ultimately dismissed. Count Two of the indictment——to which a guilty plea was later entered——alleged that Respondent, in violation of 18 § 1349, conspired with a fellow physician to commit health care fraud, an offense prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1347. In relevant part, Count Two provided: COUNT 2 Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) Paragraphs 1 through 9 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. From in or around November 2002, through in or around April 2004. . . the defendants, CARLOS CONTRERAS and RAMON PICHARDO, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to violate Title 18, Untied States Code, Section 1347, that is, to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a health care benefit program . . . by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, money and property owned by, and under the custody and control of, said health care benefit program, in connection with the delivery of and payment for health care benefits, items, and services. PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRACY It was a purpose of the conspiracy for CARLOS CONTRERAS, RAMON PICHARDO, and their co-conspirators to unlawfully enrich themselves by, among other things, (a) submitting false and fraudulent claims to Medicare; (b) offering and paying cash kickbacks and bribes to Medicare beneficiaries for the purpose of such beneficiaries arranging for the use of their Medicare beneficiary numbers by the conspirators as the bases of claims filed for HIV infusion therapy; (c) concealing the submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, the receipt and transfer of the proceeds from the fraud, the payment of kickbacks; and (d) diverting proceeds of the fraud for the personal use and benefit of the defendants and their co-conspirators. MANNER AND MEANS The allegations in paragraphs 4 through 10 of the Manner and Means Section of Count 1 of this Indictment are incorporated as though fully set forth herein as a description of the Manner and Means of this conspiracy. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349. (emphasis added). As indicated above, Count Two of the indictment incorporated the general allegations contained in paragraphs one through nine of the charging instrument, as well as paragraphs four through ten of the "Manner and Means" section of Count One. Those incorporated paragraphs alleged, in relevant part: General Allegations At all times relevant to this Indictment: The Medicare Program was a federal health care program providing benefits to persons who were over the age of 65 or disabled. Medicare was administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") . . . . Medicare was a "health care benefit program," as defined by Title 18, United States Code, Section 24(b). "Part B" of the Medicare program paid Medicare providers and suppliers for covered goods and services, including medically necessary Human Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV") infusion therapy, that were provided and ordered by physicians, clinics, and other qualified health care providers. . . . Payments under the Medicare program were often made directly to a provider of the goods or services, rather than the beneficiary. This occurred when the provider accepted assignment of the right to payment from the beneficiary. In that case, the provider submitted the claim to Medicare for payment, either directly or through a billing company. Physicians, clinics, and other health care providers that provided services to Medicare beneficiaries were able to apply for and obtain a "provider number." A health care provider who was issued a Medicare provider number was able to file claims . . . to obtain reimbursement for services provided to beneficiaries. . . . C.N.C. Medical Corp. ("CNC Medical") was a Florida corporation, purportedly doing business . . . [in] Miami, Florida. . . . CNC Medical was a medical clinic that purported to specialize in treating patients with HIV by providing infusion therapy. From in or around November 2002 through in or around April 2004, approximately $6.8 million in claims were submitted to the Medicare program for HIV infusion services allegedly rendered at CNC Medical. Defendant Contreras, a resident of Miami-Dade County, was a medical doctor who purported to order and provide HIV infusion services to Medicare beneficiaries at CNC Medical. Contreras was also the president, director, and registered agent of CNC Medical. Defendant RAMON PICHARDO, a resident of Miami-Dade County, was a medical doctor who purported to order and provide HIV infusion services to Medicare beneficiaries at CNC Medical. From in or around November 2002 through April 2004, CNC Medical submitted claims to Medicare under the provider number of [Respondent's co-defendant], which was 03813. * * * MANNER AND MEANS The manner and means by which Carlos Contreras, Ramon Pichardo, and their co- conspirators . . . sought to accomplish the objects and purpose of the conspiracy included, among other things as follows: CARLOS CONTRERAS would cause the establishment and incorporation of CNC Medical in the State of Florida and serve as president, director, and registered agent of CNC Medical. CARLOS CONTRERAS would work as a physician at CNC Medical, and be an authorized signer on the CNC Medical bank accounts. RAMON PICHARDO would work as a physician at CNC Medical. CARLOS CONTRERAS, RAMON PICHARDO, and their co-conspirators . . . would cause unnecessary tests to be ordered, medical forms to be signed, and treatments to be authorized to make it appear that legitimate services were being provided to Medicare beneficiaries at CNC Medical. CARLOS CONTRERAS, RAMON PICHARDO, and their co-conspirators . . . would cause the payment of cash kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries in exchange for the patients signing documents at CNC Medical stating that they had received the treatments that were billed to Medicare, when those treatments were not provided and were not medically necessary. CARLOS CONTRERAS, RAMON PICHARDO, and their co-conspirators . . . would cause the submission of approximately $6.8 million in claims to the Medicare program under the provider number of CNC Medical, for services that were never provided and services that were not medically necessary. After reimbursements from Medicare were deposited into CNC Medical's bank accounts, CARLOS CONTRERAS and his co-conspirators . . . would cause to transfer approximately $1.7 million to sham management, marketing and investment companies owned and operated by their co-conspirators, and approximately $244,000 to other fraudulent HIV infusion clinics owned and operated by their co- conspirators. On or about September 11, 2008, Respondent entered into a plea bargain whereby he agreed to plead guilty to Count Two of the indictment; in return, the government agreed to dismiss Respondent's 11 remaining charges at the conclusion of the sentencing process. Attached to the written plea agreement is a two-page statement signed by Respondent that, by its terms, was made "knowingly and voluntarily and because [Respondent is] in fact guilty of the crimes charged." Consistent with the allegations contained in the indictment, Respondent admitted credibly in the statement, among other things, that he: willfully conspired to commit health care fraud with Dr. Contreras and other individuals; approved costly and medically unnecessary HIV infusion treatments in furtherance of the conspiracy; signed documents that contained false information about treatments purportedly provided to beneficiaries; and approved, in conjunction with Dr. Contreras, fraudulent medical bills totaling approximately $6.8 million. Finally, Respondent acknowledges in the statement that approximately $4.2 million in fraudulent claims were ultimately paid to CNC Medical by the Medicare Program. Subsequently, on November 20, 2008, was adjudicated guilty of Count Two of the indictment and sentenced to a 48- month prison term, to be followed by three years of supervised release. In addition, Respondent was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $4.2 million.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine: Finding that Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count One of the Complaint; Revoking Respondent's license to practice medicine; and Imposing a fine of $10,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2013.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: 1. That the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated May 6, 1992, In the Matter of Judith Rhea Deutsch (now known as Judith Rhea Samberg) be dismissed as the Department was unable to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged violation took place. The complaining witness failed to appear at hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Michael Samberg, Qualified Representative 4747 West Waters Avenue #3003 Tampa, FL 33614 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil Deputy General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an upgrade in her insurance coverage from individual to family status should be granted with a retro-active effective date of October 13, 1994; the date of birth of Respondent's son.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner was initially employed and covered under the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan on July 1, 1993. Petitioner selected individual coverage and completed the appropriate forms indicating such coverage. Effective January 1, 1994, Petitioner's coverage for the 1994 Plan Year continued with individual coverage. Petitioner became pregnant in April, 1994, with an estimated due date of December 6, 1994. However, she went into premature labor on October 12, 1994, at 32 weeks gestation. Attempts to stop her labor were unsuccessful and she delivered a son, Gavon K. Brown, by caesarean delivery on October 13, 1994. On October 22, 1994, Petitioner completed the required forms to change from individual coverage to family coverage. Respondent changed Petitioner's coverage to family coverage effective December 1, 1994. Other Facts Petitioner did not inform the personnel office at her place of state employment, Columbia Correctional Facility in Lake City, Florida of her pregnancy. Petitioner saw a private physician in Gainesville, Florida. The physician was concerned about Petitioner's excessive weight and referred her to the Park Avenue Women's Center in Gainesville sometime near the end of April, 1994. The Park Avenue Women's Center, associated with the University of Florida College of Medicine, treats women with at risk pregnancies. Petitioner was seen there by Dr. Kenneth Kelner, also a professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University of Florida College of Medicine. As a registered nurse, Petitioner was aware that she was at an increased general risk for difficulty with her pregnancy as a result of her excessive weight. On August 5, 1994, as a result of problems with getting a medical bill paid by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Petitioner called offices of the administrator of the Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) in Jacksonville, Florida. In the course of her telephone conversation, Petitioner maintains that she was told she could switch to family coverage in order to cover expenses of her unborn child as late as 30 days prior to the birth, estimated and expected to occur on December 6, 1994. Petitioner had previously received The Benefit Payment Schedule on July 13, 1994, which contained a warning to pregnant women policyholders that single or individual coverage did not include coverage for a child following its birth and that family coverage would need to be in effect prior to the month of the child's birth to afford coverage for the child. During the August 5, 1994 telephone conversation with the representative of BCBS in Jacksonville, Petitioner inquired regarding the amount of the monthly premium for family coverage. Petitioner was referred to the Division of State Employees' Insurance (DSEI) and provided with that telephone number in order to acquire coverage for her unborn child and get further detailed information. Petitioner did not call DSEI. On October 12, 1994, in the course of a routine check-up, it was determined that Petitioner's cervix was dilated. Subsequently, Petitioner gave birth to her son at 1 a.m. on October 13, 1994. On October 13, 1994, Petitioner called the personnel office at her place of employment with the Department of Corrections and informed that office of the birth of her son. Although Petitioner maintains that she was told at that time by someone in the personnel office that her son would immediately be afforded insurance coverage, Petitioner presented no direct admissible evidence in corroboration of this allegation and her testimony in this respect is not credited. On October 22, 1994, while sitting in the hospital lobby waiting to visit her son, who remained in hospital care following his premature birth, Petitioner signed the required papers and forms to change from individual to family coverage. The forms, bearing an effective date for coverage change of December 1, 1994, were returned to Petitioner's personnel office without an accompanying check or other payment for any employee premium co-payment which would have permitted a construction that an earlier coverage effective date should have been assigned the policy change. Based upon the timing of the election made by Petitioner, expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child prior to December 1, 1994, were not covered by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing Susie Simone Brown's petition in this matter. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 6th day of September, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-24. Adopted, not verbatim. 25.-28. Rejected, unnecessary. 29.-40. Adopted by reference. 41.-42. Rejected, unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's proposed findings consisted of one paragraph requesting that Respondent provide coverage for Petitioner's son effective on the date of his birth, October 13, 1994. The proposed finding is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Chief Department of Management Services Division of State Employees' Insurance 2002 Old St. Augustine Rd., B-12 Tallahassee, FL 32301-4876 Susie Simone Brown 2931 Bay Rd. Orange Park, FL 32065 William H. Linder Secretary Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 307 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell General Counsel Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 312 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
