Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN-0000975. Respondent has been licensed to practice dentistry in this State since 1944, and there is no evidence in the record to indicate that he has previously been the subject of a complaint, investigation or license disciplinary action. Respondent was a participant in the Medicaid program, at all times material hereto. He executed a provider agreement with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, under the terms of which Medicaid paid a total of $300 for a set of upper and lower dentures, and he was allowed to bill the patient for a 5% co-payment in addition to the amount paid by Medicaid. Participants in the program specifically agreed to accept the Medicaid-payment in lieu of their usual and customary charges, and not to bill or accept payments from patients, with the sole exception of the 5% co-payment for dentures. Billings to Medicaid could only be made after services were rendered. The Medicaid program reimbursed providers $8.00 for a single surface amalgam restoration, $16.00 for two surfaces, and $24.00 for three of more surfaces. The maximum allowable fee under the Medicaid program for a complete upper set of dentures was $150.00, and for a complete lower set, $150.00. Alveolectomies were reimbursed at $35.00 per quadrant. Between November 4, 1983 and December 15, 1983, Respondent rendered dental services to Geraldine Jones, for which he subsequently billed, and was paid by, Medicaid. The billings were for extracting fifteen teeth, performing three alveolectomies, and fitting the patient with complete upper and lower dentures. Respondent did not perform any of these services for Jones. Therefore, the $423 paid to him by Medicaid was an overpayment, and a payment for services not performed. Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for dental services rendered to Velma Mondy between May 11, 1983 and June 16, 1983. The billings were for restoration of a total of eighteen tooth surfaces. On or about June, 1985, an examination of Mondy's teeth by Dr. Charles Kekich, dental consultant with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, who was accepted as an expert in dentistry, revealed that she had a total of only six surfaces restored. Therefore, Respondent billed and received an overpayment from Medicaid in the amount of $96.00 for services not rendered to this patient. Dental services which were allegedly rendered to Bridget Bryant by Respondent between September 12 and 26, 1983, were billed to Medicaid, and Respondent received payment for restoring twelve teeth, with a total of thirty surfaces. On or about June, 1985, an examination of Bryant by Dr. Kekich revealed that no more than fifteen restorations had been performed, resulting in an overpayment from Medicaid to Respondent of at least $120.00. Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for services rendered to Joyce Johnson between December 22, 1983 and January 1, 1984. These billings were for extracting three teeth and restoring ten, with a total of twenty surfaces. During June, 1985, Dr. Kekich examined Johnson and found that none of the work billed by Respondent had been performed. Therefore, an overpayment of $184.00 was made by Medicaid for services billed, but not rendered by the Respondent. Between January 25, 1984 and March 21, 1984, Respondent performed certain dental work on Ernest Macon, for which he billed and was paid by Medicaid for extracting two teeth and restoring nine teeth, with a total of twenty-three surfaces. Dr. Kekich's examination of Macon during June, 1985, revealed that only one tooth had been extracted and no more than four surfaces had been restored. Therefore, Respondent over billed and received payment from Medicaid for services not rendered to Macon in the amount of $159.00 Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for dental services rendered to Derrick Ealy between March 15 and 27, 1984. These billings were for restoring four teeth, with a total of eleven surfaces. An examination of Derrick Ealy by Dr. Kekich in June, 1985, revealed that only two surfaces had been restored, resulting in an overpayment by Medicaid of $72.00 for services billed, but not rendered. An examination of Kimberly Ealy in June, 1985, revealed that none of the dental services for which Respondent had billed and been paid by Medicaid had, in fact, been performed. Respondent had billed Medicaid for extracting one tooth and restoring a total of thirteen surfaces on five teeth between March 13 and 22, 1984. Therefore, an overpayment of $114 was made by Medicaid for services billed, but not rendered to Kimberly Ealy. Respondent performed dental services for Corey Oliver between March 27, 1984 and May 6, 1984, and in connection therewith, he billed Medicaid for extracting one tooth and restoring seven teeth with a total of seventeen surfaces. An examination of Oliver by Dr. Kekich in June, 1985, revealed that roots of the tooth supposedly extracted by Respondent remained, and that eleven of the surfaces for which bills had been submitted had not been restored. Therefore, an overpayment of at least $95.00 was made by Medicaid for services billed, but not rendered to this patient. From April 16, 1984 to August 7, 1984, Respondent extracted twenty- seven teeth from Lillian Corouthers, and fitted her for a full set of dentures. He billed Medicaid for a total of $1,215 for these services, and received payment from Medicaid of $620.35. In addition thereto, he billed and received from this patient a total of $269. This co-payment exceeds the allowable 5% co- payment under the Medicaid program by $236.35. There is no evidence that Respondent ever refunded any portion of this overpayment to Corouthers. Although Respondent billed and was paid by Medicaid for services performed on Shawn Smith between July 11 and 24, 1984, which allegedly consisted of restoring eight teeth with a total of twenty-one surfaces, an examination of this patient by Dr. Kekich in May, 1985, revealed that none of this work had been performed. Therefore, an overpayment of $168 was made by Medicaid for services not rendered by Respondent. Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for dental services rendered to Allan Smith between July 6 and 23, 1984. The billings were for extracting two teeth and restoring a total of seventeen surfaces. Dr. Kekich's examination in May, 1985, revealed that only one extraction had been performed, and no restorations. As a result, an overpayment of $146 was made by Medicaid for services not rendered to Allan Smith. Respondent pulled one tooth and provided a complete set of dentures to Mose Tobias in July, 1984. For these services Respondent billed Medicaid for a total of $490, and received payment from Medicaid in the amount of $321.10. He also billed and received payment from this patient in the amount of $119, which exceeds the co-payment allowable under the Medicaid program by $112.11. Between July 6 and August 14, 1984, Respondent performed dental services for Angela Pleas, and in connection therewith, he billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for two extractions and sixteen surface restorations. During a June, 1985, examination of Pleas, it was revealed that no more than one extraction and nine restorations had been performed, resulting in an overpayment by Medicaid of $82.00 for services billed but not rendered to Pleas by the Respondent. Callie Wilson was treated by the Respondent between August 2 and 23, 1984, and in connection therewith, he billed Medicaid a total of $470.00 for an examination, x-rays, and a complete set of dentures. Respondent received payment from Medicaid in the amount of $162.45 for these services. In addition thereto, Respondent billed and received from Wilson an amount that exceeds the allowable 5% co-payment under the Medicaid program. The exact amount of this overpayment, however, cannot be determined, but it appears to have been an overpayment of between $45.00 and $95.00. Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for extracting one tooth and restoring twenty-two surfaces for Maruise Woods between September 4 and 25, 1984. An examination of Woods by Dr. Kekich in May, 1985, revealed that no surface restorations had been performed. Therefore, an overpayment of $172 was made by Medicaid for services not rendered. Between September 21 and 27, 1984, Respondent claims to have performed dental services for Sharon Woods, for which he then billed and subsequently received payment from Medicaid for the restoration of four teeth, with a total of twelve surfaces. In May, 1985, Dr. Kekich examined Sharon Woods, and found that none of this work had been performed. Therefore, Respondent overbilled Medicaid $96 for services not rendered to this patient. Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for dental services rendered to John Aberdeen between September 27 and November 21, 1984. These billings were for extracting fifteen teeth, and providing a complete set of dentures. A June, 1985 examination of this patient by Dr. Kekich revealed that only one tooth had been extracted. Respondent received an overpayment from Medicaid in the amount of $389.85 for services not rendered to Aberdeen. Bills were submitted to Medicaid and payment received for services Respondent claims to have performed on Mercedia Lanier between October 1 and 19, 1984. These billings were for restoring seven teeth, with a total of eighteen surfaces. Dr. Kekich's examination of Lanier in May, 1985, revealed that none of the work billed by Respondent had been performed. Therefore, an overpayment of $144.00 was made by Medicaid for services not rendered to Lanier by Respondent. Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for dental services rendered to Patricia Hall between November 20 and December 7, 1984. These billings were for seven extractions, and the restoration of five teeth with twelve surfaces. In June, 1985, Dr. Kekich examined Hall and found that no more than four extractions, and five surface restorations had been done. Medicaid made an overpayment of $83.00 in connection with services billed, but not rendered to Hall. Claims were submitted to Medicaid by Respondent in connection with services allegedly performed on Eugenie Perry between January 17 and February 11, 1985. These billing were for the restoration of twenty-two surfaces, but Dr. Kekich found in May, 1985, that none of these restorations had been performed. As a result, Medicaid made an overpayment to Respondent of $176.00 for services not rendered. Tessie McRae was a patient of Respondent's in 1985, and claims were filed with Medicaid by Respondent for services between February 5 and March 28, 1985, consisting of ten extractions, four alveolectomies, and a complete set of dentures. When Albert Ravenna, special agent for Medicaid fraud with the Auditor General's Office interviewed McRae in June, 1985, she still had her own teeth and did not have dentures. Respondent did provide her with dentures subsequent to payment for these services by Medicaid. However, an overpayment of $401.55 was made by Medicaid since the services for which billings were submitted by the Respondent had not been performed prior to the filing of these claims. Respondent billed Medicaid for a total of $600 in connection with services he provided to Cora Griffin between February 3 and 11, 1985. Specifically, these bills were for an exam, x-rays and a complete set of dentures. Medicaid paid Respondent $311.60 for these services, and in addition thereto, he billed and collected from Griffin a total of $180. This amount paid by the patient exceeds the allowable co-payment under the Medicaid program. Respondent billed and subsequently received payment from Medicaid for services rendered to Kenneth Gainer between January 25 and March 22, 1985. The billings were for restoring ten teeth with a total of twenty-six surfaces. An examination of Gainer by Dr. Kekich in June, 1985, revealed that none of this work had been performed. Therefore, an overpayment of $208.00 was made by Medicaid for services not rendered. Billings were submitted to Medicaid by Respondent for services allegedly performed on Lawrence Harvey between March 14 and 19, 1985, and consisting of two extractions and eight surface restorations. Dr. Kekich found, upon examining the patient in June, 1985, that none of this work had been performed. Therefore, an overpayment of $84.00 was made by Medicaid for services not rendered. Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for services rendered to Brian Harvey between March 13 and 29, 1985. These billings were for restoring six teeth with a total of twelve surfaces. Respondent did not perform these services, and, therefore, the payment of $96.00 which he received for these services from Medicaid represents an overpayment for services not rendered. According to billings submitted by Respondent to Medicaid, he treated Felicia Harvey between March 21 and 29, 1985. These billings were for restoring four teeth, with a total of eight surfaces. An examination of this patient by Dr. Kekich in June, 1985, revealed that none of this work had been performed, and, therefore, an overpayment of $64.00 was made by Medicaid for services not rendered. On or about December 19, 1986, Respondent plead nolo contendere to seventeen counts of grand theft and five felony counts of public assistance fraud in violation of Sections 812.014 and 409.325, Florida Statutes, and was adjudicated guilty. The billings that Respondent signed and submitted to Medicaid, which are referenced in the above findings of fact, were prepared by his office receptionist, Ida Roundtree, who has been employed by him for twenty-two years, and who is responsible for the preparation and filing of all insurance claims based upon patient dental charts prepared by Respondent or his dental hygienist. Respondent testified that he does not consider it to be his responsibility to familiarize himself with the various requirements for insurance or Medicaid reimbursement. He relies entirely on Roundtree for this, and clearly does not consider the preparation of reimbursement or billing "paperwork" to be within the practice of dentistry. Roundtree admitted that she prepared Medicaid billings for work which was yet to be done in some cases. She would just fill in dates when the work supposedly had been done so that Medicaid would pay the claim. She testified she was unaware that Medicaid allowed a 5% co-payment only for dentures, and that no co-payment could be made for any other dental services under the program. Further, she admitted that she falsified billings by including services not performed so that Respondent would receive more money under the Medicaid program. The evidence does not establish that she was directed to falsify Medicaid billings by the Respondent or that she informed him of her practices, but it was established that he did not check, or in any way attempt to verify, the billings which she prepared before he signed them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's license for a period of THREE months, and imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $6,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 88-2961) Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-5. Rejected as unnecessary. 6-8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 9-16. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30 and 31. Rejected as unnecessary and as legal argument. 19-25. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30 and 31, but otherwise rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27-30. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4. 31-34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 5. 35-39. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. 40-42. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6. 43-45. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 7. 46-48. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 8. 49-51. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 9. 52-55. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 10. 56-62. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 11. 63-65. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 12. 66-68. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 13. 69-72. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 14. 73-76. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 15. 77-82. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 16. 83-86. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17. 87-90. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 18. 91-93. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 19. 94-97. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 20 98-100. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 21. 101-103. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 22. 104-109. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 23. 110-116. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24. 117-119. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 25. 120-122. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 26. 123-127. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 27. 128-130. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as unnecessary and duplicative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. (Note: In addition to adopting, in part, proposed findings of fact 27-130, as shown above, these proposed findings are otherwise rejected as unnecessary or as not based on competent substantial evidence.) Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. 5-7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 8. Rejected as irrelevant. 9-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 11-17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30 and 31. 18-19. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and otherwise as irrelevant. 22-23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 24. Rejected as irrelevant. 25-28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 29-30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 and 31. 31. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and otherwise as irrelevant. 32-36. Rejected as irrelevant. 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. 38-47. Rejected as irrelevant. 48-49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. 50-55. Rejected as irrelevant. 56-60. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 21, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as argument on the evidence, not a finding of fact. Rejected in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire 730 South Sterling Street, #313 Tampa, Florida 33609-4582 John A. Powell, Esquire Florida Federal Building One Fourth Street, North Suite 800 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document provides coverage for a maxillary subperiosteal implant surgical procedure under the circumstances described below.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been insured under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document, effective July 1, 1988 (the "Plan"). Dr. Clark F. Brown, Jr. is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of Florida. His specialty is dental implantology. The subperiosteal implant, which is the subject of this case, is a framework that rests on top of the bone underneath the tissue. Following the insertion of the framework, the tissue reattaches to the jawbone, thereby securing the framework to the bone. The implant procedure takes two days, but can be performed in Dr. Clark's office. On the first day, a direct bone impression is taken. In the process, the gum tissue is cut along the entire remaining ridge and lifted back almost to the base of the eye, floor of the nose, and palate. After the impression is taken, the incision is closed with sutures. On the next day, the stitches are removed, the implant is installed, and the incision again closed with sutures. On July 31, 1987, Petitioner visited Dr. Clark and complained of difficulties wearing his upper denture. Upon examination, Dr. Clark discovered that Petitioner lacked adequate bone to retain an upper denture. Lacking about 90% of the bone in the vicinity of the upper arch, Petitioner's upper denture was highly unstable. By letter dated August 8, 1987, Dr. Clark informed the Plan administrator of Petitioner's condition and proposed a full maxillary subperiosteal procedure for the installation of an orthopedic augmentation appliance. By letter dated December 11, 1987, the Plan administrator informed Dr. Clark that the proposed procedure was not covered under the Plan. The letter explains that dental services are a specific exclusion unless performed "as the result of an accident where a natural tooth has been damaged and the treatment is rendered within 120 days from the date of the accident." On December 17, 1987, Dr. Clark relined the denture that fit Petitioner the best. As he had warned Petitioner in advance, the procedure was unsuccessful. On June 26, 1988, Dr. Clark prepared a new upper denture in preparation for the installation of mucosal implants, which utilize the gum for support. Dr. Clark and Petitioner pursued this treatment largely because it was less expensive that the subperiosteal implant for which the Plan administrator had refused coverage. Dr. Clark later installed these implants, but they were unsuccessful due to the lack of bone. They were removed in November, 1988. At this point, the subperiosteal implant remained the only available treatment for Petitioner. On February 2, 1989, Dr. Thomas Priest, a physician licensed to practice in the State of Florida, examined Petitioner and found that his gums were severely receded, his alveolar ridge was absent, and his lower teeth were in poor shape. Considering the complaints of Petitioner concerning digestive disorders and weight loss, Dr. Priest determined that Petitioner would be a good candidate for, and might benefit from, the maxillary subperiosteal implant. Dr. Priest reached this conclusion based in part on the experience of other patients who had undergone similar procedures. Dr. Clark and the Plan administrator exchanged correspondence through the first half of 1989, at which time the administrator, in response to a threat of litigation, stated that "the preparation of the mouth for dentures is considered to be a dental procedure and non-covered." She then referred Dr. Clark to Respondent. The loss of bone was probably caused by Petitioner wearing loose upper dentures for an extended period of time. However, severe periodontal disease, which cannot be ruled out as a possible cause, could also result in the loss of bone. Another potential cause of the loss of bone is trauma from accidental injuries, such as those typically suffered in an automobile accident. However, this potential cause can be ruled out in Petitioner's case. No accident has necessitated the subject implant procedure, nor has any accident preceded the proposed procedure by 120 days. The Plan contains three coverage sections. Section II describes "Covered Hospital and Other Facility Services." Section III describes "Covered Medical--Surgical Benefits." Section IV describes "Other Covered Services." Section II deals with hospitals primarily and is not applicable to the present case. Subsections III.A. and D. provide coverage for "medically necessary inpatient/outpatient services provided to an insured by a . . . physician for the treatment of the insured as a result of a covered accident or illness." Section IV provides coverage for "medically necessary services when ordered by a physician for the treatment of an insured as a result of a covered accident or illness," including, at Subsection IV.D., "other medical supplies and prostheses . . . determined by the Administrator to be medically necessary for the treatment of an insured's condition." The phrase, "covered accident or illness," which is not defined in the Plan, apparently refers to accidents or illnesses that are not elsewhere excluded, such as in Section VII on Exclusions and Section VIII on Limitations. Section VII.A. excludes "services for cosmetic surgery or treatment unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.A." However, Subsection VII.A. adds that cosmetic surgery is covered if it is: a medically necessary procedure in the correction of an abnormal bodily function; [or) for reconstruction to an area of the body which has been altered by the treatment of a disease, provided such alteration occurred while the insured was covered under the Plan. Subsection VII.G excludes: Services and supplies in connection with dental work, dental treatment, or dental examinations unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.B., except that in no case shall orthodontia be covered. Subsection VIII.A. provides the following limitation upon coverage: Cosmetic surgery or treatment necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured covered by the Plan if such surgery or treatment is the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under the Plan and actually performed while the Plan is in force . . Subsection VIII.B. provides the following limitation upon coverage: Any dental work, dental treatment or dental examinations medically necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured is covered by the Plan only if such work, treatment or examination is (1) the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under this Plan and (2) rendered within . . . 120 days of the accident. . Subsection I.AX. defines a physician to include: a licensed dentist who performs specific surgical or non-dental procedures covered by the Plan, or who renders services due to injuries resulting from accidents, provided such procedures or services are within the scope of the dentist's professional license. Subsection I.AM(b). defines "medically necessary" to mean that: in the opinion of the Administrator the service received is required to identify or treat the illness or injury which a physician has diagnosed or reasonably suspects. The service must (1) be consistent with the diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition (2) be in accordance with standards of good medical practice, and (3) be required for reasons other than convenience of the patient or his/her physician. The fact that a service is prescribed by a physician does not necessarily mean that such service is medically necessary. Subsection I.AE. defines "illness" as: physical sickness or disease, . . . bodily injury, [or] congenital anomaly . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the proposed procedure, under the facts of this case, is covered by the Plan. DONE and ORDERED this 21 day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 21 day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 William F. Lennan 740 Hunan St., N.E. Palm Bay, FL 32907 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration is authorized to terminate the participation of Respondent, Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A., in the Medicaid program.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is designated as the single state agency authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, otherwise known as the Medicaid program. See §§ 409.902(1) and 409.901(2) and (14), Fla. Stat. AHCA is responsible for administering and overseeing the Medicaid program in the State of Florida. See § 409.913, Fla. Stat. AHCA’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (“MPI”) is the unit within AHCA that oversees the activities of Florida Medicaid providers and recipients. MPI ensures that providers abide by Medicaid laws, policies, and rules. MPI is responsible for conducting audits, investigations, and reviews to determine possible fraud, abuse, overpayment, or neglect in the Medicaid program. See §409.913, Fla. Stat. Dr. Ronald M. Marini established his dental practice, Ronald M. Marini, DMD, PA (Respondent), in 2002. Dr. Marini’s practice focuses primarily on the treatment of children who have dental coverage through Medicaid. Respondent holds an active Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA, and is assigned Medicaid Provider No. 076031500. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an enrolled Florida Medicaid provider authorized to provide dental care to Medicaid beneficiaries and receive reimbursement for covered services rendered to Medicaid recipients. A Medicaid provider agreement is a voluntary contract between AHCA and the provider. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Respondent is subject to the duly-enacted federal and state statutes, regulations, rules, policy guidelines, and Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into rule. See § 409.907, Fla. Stat. For services rendered to Medicaid recipients, AHCA pays Medicaid providers under an honor system. AHCA is authorized to monitor the activities of Medicaid providers and to recover “overpayments.” See §§ 409.913 and 409.9131(5), Fla. Stat. An “overpayment” includes “any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program, whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake.” § 409.913(1)(e), Fla. Stat. AHCA is also empowered to impose sanctions against offending Medicaid providers. § 409.9131, Fla. Stat. The dispute between AHCA and Respondent originated in 2014 when AHCA’s MPI unit initiated a review of Respondent’s claims for Medicaid reimbursement for the period of March 1, 2010, through August 31, 2012. Following the MPI unit review, AHCA issued a Final Audit Report on September 19, 2014, informing Dr. Marini that Respondent was overpaid for claims not covered by Medicaid in the amount of $590,008.15. In accordance with section 409.913 and rule 59G-9.070, AHCA notified Respondent that it intended to collect the full amount of the overpayment, plus an administrative fine. Respondent responded by requesting a formal administrative hearing to contest AHCA’s action. Respondent’s overpayment proceeding was eventually heard in DOAH as Agency for Health Care Administration v. Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A., Case No. 16-5641MPI (the “MPI Hearing”). The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Linzie F. Bogan who conducted a formal administrative hearing on June 28 and 29, 2017. During the MPI Hearing, AHCA presented the testimony (via deposition) of Mark Kuhl, D.M.D. AHCA requested Judge Bogan accept Dr. Kuhl as an expert in the area of rendering dental care and dental medical necessity with respect to Medicaid overpayment. AHCA also offered Dr. Kuhl as a “peer reviewer” pursuant to section 409.9131. On August 29, 2017, Judge Bogan issued a Recommended Order in the MPI Hearing siding with AHCA. Judge Bogan specifically concluded: As determined in the Findings of Facts, [AHCA] met its burden of proof and established for those claims identified herein that Respondent was paid for claims that failed to comply with the laws, rules, and regulations governing Medicaid providers. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, RO at 38. Thereafter, Judge Bogan recommended that AHCA enter a final order that: Revises the Final Audit Report consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein; Recalculates the total overpayment consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein; Requires Respondent to pay interest at the statutorily mandated rate on the recalculated overpayment; and Requires Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of 20 percent of the recalculated overpayment. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, RO at 39. In reaching his decision, Judge Bogan specifically noted that he accepted Dr. Kuhl as an expert “in the areas of rendering dental care and dental medical necessity with respect to Medicaid overpayment cases.” Judge Bogan further accepted Dr. Kuhl “as a peer reviewer pursuant to section 409.9131, Florida Statutes.” Judge Bogan also noted that Dr. Kuhl operates a general dentistry practice where he treats pediatric patients. However, he is not board-certified in any specialty. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, RO at 8. AHCA issued its Final Order on October 27, 2017. In its Final Order, AHCA adopted Judge Bogan’s findings of fact as set forth in his Recommended Order without modification. AHCA also adopted Judge Bogan’s conclusions of law without modification. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, FO at 16. Per Judge Bogan’s recommendations, AHCA calculated that Respondent must repay an overpayment of $424,031.64. AHCA further imposed a fine on Respondent of $84,806.33. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, FO at 16.2 Dr. Marini appealed AHCA’s Final Order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal on November 27, 2017. On April 16, 2019, the Fifth District affirmed the Final Order in a per curiam affirmed decision.3 On May 15, 2019, Dr. Marini appealed the Fifth District’s decision to the Florida Supreme Court. On May 23, 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed Dr. Marini’s appeal stating that the Court: lacks jurisdiction to review an unelaborated decision from a district court of appeal that is issued without opinion or explanation or that merely cites to an authority that is not a case pending review in, or reversed or quashed by, this Court.[4] As of the date of the final hearing, Respondent has not paid to AHCA the full amount of either the overpayment or the fine ordered by the Final 2 Pursuant to section 409.913(25)(c), Respondent was also responsible to pay interest on the overpayment amount of ten percent per year from the date of the Final Order. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, FO at 16. 3 Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 269 So. 3d 558 (5th DCA 2019), review dismissed sub nom. Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., No. SC19-843, 2019 WL 2238725 (Fla. May 23, 2019). 4 Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., No. SC19-843, 2019 WL 2238725 (Fla. May 23, 2019). Order (a total of $508,837.97). Neither has Respondent entered into an agreement with AHCA to repay the overpayment. Based on Respondent’s failure to reimburse the overpayment or enter into a repayment agreement, on or about January 29, 2020, AHCA initiated this action to terminate Respondent’s participation as a provider in the Medicaid program. AHCA pursues this action based on section 409.913(30), which directs that AHCA: [S]hall terminate a provider’s participation in the Medicaid program if the provider fails to reimburse an overpayment or pay an agency-imposed fine that has been determined by final order, not subject to further appeal, within 30 days after the date of the final order, unless the provider and the agency have entered into a repayment agreement. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-9.070(7)(s). In support of its case, AHCA called Shelby Sauls, a Management Review Specialist for AHCA’s MPI unit. As part of her responsibilities, Ms. Sauls supervises AHCA’s issuance of suspension and termination notices for Medicaid provider agreements. During the hearing, Ms. Sauls reviewed AHCA’s case financial history notes recording all Respondent’s Medicaid payment activity following the MPI Hearing in 2017. Ms. Sauls testified that Respondent still owes over $500,000 of the overpayment and fine ordered in AHCA’s Final Order. Ms. Sauls further relayed that AHCA and Dr. Marini have not entered into a repayment agreement to address the amount Respondent owes to AHCA per the 2017 Final Order. Katrina Derico-Harris also testified for AHCA. Ms. Derico-Harris is an Accounting Services Supervisor II and supervises the Medicaid Accounts Receivable Unit section of AHCA’s Bureau of Financial Services, which handles the majority of Medicaid overpayment collections. Ms. Derico-Harris stated that, as of the date of the final hearing, AHCA has received only one payment from Respondent in the amount of $24.49 on March 5, 2020. Ms. Derico-Harris declared that Respondent owes a current balance of $468,512.54 to AHCA to satisfy the full amount of the overpayment.5 Ms. Derico-Harris also confirmed that Respondent and AHCA have not entered into an agreement to repay the overpayment. Dr. Marini, in challenging AHCA’s decision to terminate Respondent from the Medicaid program, vigorously asserts that the calculation of an overpayment of $424.031.64 in AHCA’s 2017 Final Order was “spoiled fruit” from the beginning. Dr. Marini’s predominant argument is his strenuous objection to AHCA’s presentation of, and the presiding ALJ’s reliance upon, Dr. Kuhl’s testimony at the MPI Hearing. Dr. Marini asserts that the $424,031.64 overpayment amount was based on the testimony of an unqualified dental expert who used “an outrageous formula that turned a supposed overpayment of $3,500 into $590,000.” To support his position, Dr. Marini points to the fact that when Dr. Kuhl rendered his opinion, he was not a Medicaid Dental Provider, he never worked with a Medicaid Dental Provider, and he was not well versed in the use of the Florida Medicaid Dental Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. Further, Dr. Marini contends that Dr. Kuhl should never have been considered an expert in Medicaid dentistry or children’s dentistry due to the fact that his exposure to children’s dentistry was limited to one to two children per week as compared to the 60-80 children seen per day in Dr. Marini’s practice. Finally, Dr. Marini proclaims that Dr. Kuhl’s “knowledge and use of dental materials was opinion bias and against the acceptable standards presented by the American Dental Association and the manufacturers of dental materials.” 5 Ms. Derico-Harris added that this amount does not include interest from February 10, 2020, to present, for which Dr. Marini is also obligated to pay. Consequently, Dr. Marini argues that Dr. Kuhl’s testimony could not support the finding that Respondent was overpaid by Medicaid, and the ALJ should not have accepted Dr. Kuhl as an expert to testify regarding the validity of Medicaid claims for dental services. Therefore, Dr. Marini emphatically declares that the Final Order issued in 2017 was improperly decided and invalid. In requesting an administrative hearing in the present matter, Dr. Marini hopes to have a “properly vetted and qualified dental expert” review his Medicaid claims. Dr. Marini maintains that Respondent owes nothing more to AHCA than $24.49, which is based on two errors he found in Respondent’s Medicaid claims during the audit period. Dr. Marini voluntarily paid the $24.49 to AHCA on March 5, 2020, which he considers the full amount of the overpayment. Dr. Marini admits that Respondent has not reimbursed AHCA for any amount over the $24.49. Neither has Respondent entered into a repayment agreement with AHCA. At the final hearing, Dr. Marini testified that Dr. Kuhl has never been challenged or properly vetted as an expert. However, contrary to Dr. Marini’s assertions, the record in the MPI Hearing reveals that Respondent had a full and fair opportunity to attack Dr. Kuhl’s competency to testify with respect to Medicaid overpayment claims. Indeed, Dr. Marini (through his legal counsel) frequently and purposefully questioned Dr. Kuhl’s expertise, knowledge, and training.6 More to the point, as further discussed below, Respondent cannot 6 For example, before the final hearing, Respondent and AHCA participated in two depositions of Dr. Kuhl. Prior to Dr. Kuhl’s last deposition, Respondent filed an Objection to Notice of Taking Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony and Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark Kuhl, D.M.D. Following the deposition, Respondent filed another Motion in Limine to Strike Testimony of [AHCA’s] Expert Witness, Mark Kuhl, D.M.D., and Supporting Memorandum of Law. Finally, nine days after the final hearing, Respondent filed a Motion in Opposition to [AHCA’s] Tendering of Mark A. Kuhl, D.M.D., as an Expert in Rendering Dental Care and Dental Medical Necessity With Respect to Medicaid Overpayment Cases. In its motions, Respondent repeatedly urged the ALJ to exclude Dr. Kuhl’s testimony. Respondent argued that Dr. Kuhl did not specialize in pediatric dentistry, therefore Dr. Kuhl did not possess the knowledge, training, or expertise to testify relitigate these issues. AHCA’s Final Order is final and is now beyond appeal. Respondent’s recourse to raise issues regarding AHCA’s overpayment determination was by appeal, which he pursued and ultimately lost. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the record establishes that Respondent failed to reimburse AHCA for a Medicaid overpayment or pay a fine AHCA imposed by final order. The evidence further establishes that Respondent has not entered into an agreement with AHCA to repay the overpayment or the fine. Accordingly, AHCA met its burden of proving that section 409.913(30) authorizes the termination of Respondent’s participation in the Medicaid program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA issue a final order terminating Respondent’s participation in the Medicaid program. In its Proposed Recommended Order, AHCA requests that, as the prevailing party, it is entitled to recover all costs incurred in this matter pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a). To the extent that section 409.913(23)(a) applies, jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of an award of costs, if any. Within 30 days after entry of a final order, either party may file a request for a hearing to determine the amount of appropriate costs. Failure to request a hearing within 30 days after entry of the final order shall be deemed to indicate that the issue of costs has been resolved. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 16th day of July, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Marini, D.M.D, P.A. 2921 South Orlando Drive, Suite 146 Sanford, Florida 32773 Kimberly Murray, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mary C. Mayhew, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stefan Grow, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to coverage under the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan for dental treatment, as set forth in the Petition. This proceeding arose after denial of a supplemental claim by Petitioner for dental expenses under the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of one witness and testified in his own behalf. Petitioner submitted five exhibits in evidence. Respondent presented no witnesses and submitted two exhibits in evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact, and are specifically rejected.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Judge Harry Lee Coe, III, of Tampa, Florida, was insured by the Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan during 1981 and continues to be so insured. (Stipulation) During the month of June 1981, Petitioner had an accident in his home which caused a fracture to his left upper incisor and lower incisor, teeth numbers 9 and 25, respectively. He was treated by Dr. F. A. Priede, D.D.S., in June 1981, for the damage to his teeth. The treatment consisted of crowning the two chipped teeth. The accident also damaged the lateral incisor, tooth number 10, necessitating a root canal procedure by another dentist. Petitioner filed a claim with the Administrator of the State of Florida Employee Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and received payment in the amount of $321.88. (Testimony of Priede, Coe, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3-4) In February 1982, Petitioner fractured tooth number 9 to the extent that it required extraction. Dr. Priede replaced the tooth with a temporary bridge. A permanent bridge was placed in June 1982 replacing tooth number 9 and swinging to tooth number 10 which had been crowned. Although the cause of the fractured tooth number 9 was not established, Dr. Priede testified that it is common for such a weak small tooth to fracture later as a result of the initial damage and treatment to the tooth. (Testimony of Priede, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3) The cost of the supplementary dental treatment was in the amount of $400 and a claim was submitted to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. for that amount. The claim was denied on the basis that the dental services did not result from accidental injury. Petitioner's counsel requested reconsideration of the denial and enclosed a letter from Dr. Priede to him, dated May 10, 1983, explaining the course of dental treatment. By letter, dated June 3, 1983, he was advised by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. that the claim was not timely under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan because dental services must be provided within 120 days of the accident unless explanation from the dentist is submitted within that period stating the extenuating circumstances requiring the treatment to be performed over a longer period of time. Petitioner then requested an administrative hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Priede, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5) The contractual provisions of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan are set forth in summarized form in a booklet issued by the Department of Administration. Paragraph 23B of the booklet, effective May 1, 1978, provided as follows: 23. LIMITATIONS The following limitations shall apply under the plan. * * * B. Any dental work, dental treatment or dental examinations necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an Insured caused by an Accident shall be rendered within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the accident unless a written explanation from the dentist or Physician is submitted stating the extenuating circumstances which would require treatment to be performed over a longer period of time. Such extension must be approved by the Administrator. However, in no instance shall any services be covered unless such services are rendered within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the termination of the Insured's coverage. However, this provision was subsequently changed, as set forth in the booklet, effective July 1, 1982, to require that the dentist's written explanation regarding extended treatment must also he submitted within the 120-day period. (Respondent's Exhibits 1-2)
Recommendation That a final order be entered denying Petitioner's claim. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 16th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Nevin G. Smith Secretary, Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alex B. Vecchio, Esquire 620 Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 32602 Daniel Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
