Findings Of Fact Petitioner resigned from State Government on July 23, 1987. At the time of his resignation, Petitioner was covered under the Florida State Group Health Insurance Plan. His wife, who is a diabetic, was also covered under Petitioner's insurance. Upon termination Petitioner was eligible for continuation of coverage benefits under the federal COBRA Act. However, prior to receiving any notice of his COBRA rights, Petitioner elected to continue his State Employees' Insurance for two months from July 1, 1987 and then begin coverage under his new employer's insurance plan. 2/ Petitioner made advance payment on the 2 months additional coverage. The payments carried his State Employees' health insurance through September 1, 1987 when it was terminated. DOA notified Petitioner on August 27, 1987, of his right to elect continuation of coverage under the COBRA Act. This notice complied with the notice requirements under the COBRA Act. COBRA provides continued health insurance coverage for up to (18) months, after a covered employee leaves employment. However, coverage does not continue beyond the time the employee is covered under another group health plan. COBRA simply fills the gap between two different employers group health insurance plans so that an employee's group health insurance does not lapse while the employee changes jobs. Petitioner's new employer's health coverage began around September 1, 1987. After Petitioner had begun coverage under his new insurance plan, he discovered that his wife's preexisting diabetic condition would not be covered. However, no evidence was presented that Petitioner, within 60 days of September 1, 1987 requested the Division of State Employee's Insurance to continue his insurance coverage pursuant to COBRA. Moreover, Petitioner's COBRA rights terminated when he began his coverage under his new employer's health plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for continuation of coverage under COBRA. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of April, 1989.
The Issue The principal issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement under the State of Florida Group Health Insurance Plan for certain health care expenses she has incurred since she became a State employee and enrolled in the Plan. The Petitioner contends that she is entitled to reimbursement and to attorney's fees. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner is entitled to neither. The central factual dispute is whether the Petitioner's claim for benefits is barred by the provision in the Plan which excludes benefits for pre-existing conditions during the first 365 days of participation in the Plan. At the formal hearing in this case, the Petitioner testified on her own behalf and also presented the testimony of Donald M. Whitley, II, Ph.D. The Respondent presented the testimony of Mr. William Seaton. Both parties offered exhibits. Also, the parties stipulated to the filing of the transcript of the deposition of F. A. Munasifi, M.D., as a late-filed exhibit. Subsequent to the hearing both parties filed proposed recommended orders, which have been carefully considered during the preparation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by both parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on admissions Petitioner, Terri J. Ganson, (hereinafter "Petitioner" or "Ganson") enrolled in the State of Florida Group Health Insurance Plan (hereinafter "Plan") in January, 1986, and has been validly enrolled as a member in good standing since said date. The pre-existing condition exclusion appears as Subsection VIII.C. of the State Employees Group Self-Insurance Document and provides: For any accident or illness for which an insured received diagnostic treatment or received services within three hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days prior to the effective date of coverage, no payment will be allowed for services related to such accident or illness which are received during the three hundred and sixty-five (365) conse- cutive days subsequent to the effective date of coverage; however covered services related to such accident or illness which are received after three hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days of coverage are cover- ed by the plan. The Plan, at Subsection I.AE., defines "illness" as follows: "Illness" means physical sickness or disease, pregnancy, bodily injury, congenital anomaly or mental or nervous disorder. Illness for the purposes of this Plan shall entitle an insured to benefits for any medically nece- ssary services related to elective surgical procedures performed by a physician for the purpose of sterilization. By the terms of the Plan, the pre-existing condition paragraph of the Plan applied to claims filed by Petitioner for treatments received during the period from February 1, 1986, until January 31, 1987. Those claims submitted by Petitioner or on Petitioner's behalf for reimbursement under the Plan which were denied on the basis of the pre-existing condition exclusion and which are the subject of this dispute amount to a total of $5,682.15 for services provided by the following providers in the respective amounts shown: a. TMRMC $2,352.65 b. Dr. Shamis $225.50 c. Dr. Munasifi $50.00 d. Biomedical Ref. $50.00 e. Dr. Whitley $3,000.00 The services received by Petitioner for which reimbursement is in dispute were services actually received by Petitioner, Petitioner was charged for such services in the aggregate amounts specified, such services were medically necessary treatments, such services were rendered for the treatment of bipolar disorder, and such services were otherwise covered by the Plan. Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for the amount of the charges for such services, without limitation or exclusion, if said condition for which services were rendered did not constitute a pre-existing condition (i.e., an "accident or illness" for which Petitioner "received diagnostic treatment or received services within three hundred and sixty-five days prior to . . ." her enrollment in the Plan. Findings based on the testimony and the exhibits Prior to her enrollment in the Plan, the Petitioner had been diagnosed as having situational depression, for which she had received treatment prior to her enrollment in the Plan. Part of that treatment occurred within three hundred sixty-five days immediately preceding Petitioner's enrollment in the Plan. Prior to her enrollment in the Plan, the Petitioner had never been diagnosed as having bipolar affective disorder. Prior to her enrollment in the Plan, the Petitioner had never been treated for bipolar affective disorder. Bipolar affective disorder is believed to be caused by a deregulation of the chemical neurotransmitters in the brain. The primary treatment modality for bipolar affective disorder is the administration of lithium carbonate. The administration of lithium carbonate is specific for bipolar affective disorder and the use of lithium carbonate is one of the main differences between treatment for bipolar affective disorder and the type of depression for which Petitioner was treated prior to her enrollment in the Plan. Behavioral therapy may also be of assistance in the treatment of the symptoms of bipolar affective disorder, as it is in the treatment of the symptoms of other conditions which cause depression. Situational depression and bipolar affective disorder are separate and distinct conditions; they are not the same condition. Specifically, the former is not an earlier stage of the latter. The fact that both conditions have certain common symptoms (i.e., periods of depression) does not mean that they are the same condition.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order to the following effect: Reimbursing the Petitioner for her medical expenses in the amounts stipulated to by the parties, namely, $5,682.15; and Denying the Petitioner's claim for attorney's fees in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1987, 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 30th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-1654 The following are my specific rulings on all of the findings of the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1 (including subparts [a] through [f]): Accepted. Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of admitted facts. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Accepted in substance with most details omitted as unnecessary. Paragraph 6: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as unnecessary details. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of admitted facts. Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, and 18: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 19: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20 and 21: Accepted. Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 29: First sentence accepted in substance. Remainder of this paragraph rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 30, 31 and 32: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 33, 34, and 35: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of admitted facts. Paragraphs 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51: Rejected as consti-tuting summaries of argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of admitted facts, with exception of proposed finding regarding effective date of coverage. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance with unnecesary details deleted. Paragraph 8: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9 and 10: Rejected as unnecessary details in light of the admitted facts and also as not entirely consistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance as to date of first diagnosis. Rejected insofar as it suggests that Dr. Munasifi "refused" to make a particular statement. Paragraph 13: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 14: Accepted as to nature of diagnosis. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: First sentence is accepted. Second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Third and fourth sentences are rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 16 and 17: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 18: Rejected as irrelevant and as an over- simplification which suggests an inference not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence. Final unnumbered summary paragraph: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact and, in any event, as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Kranz, Esquire Eric B. Tilton, P.A. P. O. Drawer 550 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether petitioner owes respondent premiums on account of insurance coverage (Family I) under the State Employees Group Health Insurance Program from March 1, 1979, to August 31, 1981? If so, whether petitioner is obligated to pay the underpayment as a condition of continued insurance coverage?
Findings Of Fact Until December 6, 1978, petitioner, who has worked as a forest ranger for Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services since 1967 or 1968, was married to Betty R. Brogdon, the mother of his two children. Betty Brogdon was employed by Florida's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at the time of the dissolution of her marriage to petitioner. A provision of the dissolution decree required petitioner to maintain health insurance in effect for the children. During the marriage, in April of 1978, petitioner applied for, and received Family I insurance in the Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, continuing the coverage under a predecessor policy. Petitioner paid a premium for the Family I coverage reduced by certain employer contributions, after formally bringing to his supervisor's attention the fact that Betty R. Brogdon was also a state employee, and signing forms to that effect. Before August 1, 1979, the employer contributed 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage for each employee. From August 1, 1979, until August 1, 1980, the employer contributed, in addition, 25 percent of the family premium. On and after August 1, 1980, the employer contribution for each employee increased to 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage plus 50 percent of the family premium. Since this amount exceeds the total premium for Family I, families with this coverage in which both spouses work for state government have paid no insurance premium for Family I coverage since April 1, 1980. After the marriage ended, Betty Brogdon applied, on February 6, 1979, for Individual I health insurance, by submitting a form through the personnel office at the Sunland Center in Marianna, where she was employed. Since she had been a beneficiary under the family policy that her husband kept in force while they were married, her application reflected no change in that policy. When it reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration, it was indistinguishable from any other new application by an employee who had not signed up when beginning work. After medical approval on May 7, 1979, she received Individual I coverage for herself only. Petitioner works with four other forest rangers and a supervisor at a site seven miles west of Marianna. There is no "personnel technician" stationed there and none visits. He told his supervisor of the divorce and, on March 2, 1979, filled out a "personnel action request" form furnished by a district office of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Bonifay, Florida, indicating "[m]arital and dependent change," which reached the Director of the Division of Forestry on March 9, 1979. Like other forms of its kind, this form never reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration. The Bureau of Insurance did receive, however, on August 13, 1981, a "change of information" form reporting the Brogdons' dissolution of marriage on December 6, 1978. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Effective the following month, on advice of the Bureau of Insurance, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services subtracted from petitioner's paychecks the same insurance premium other employees not married to state employees paid for Family I coverage. The Bureau of Insurance lacks authority to make such deductions itself. Between March of 1980 and December 31, 1982, the only claims submitted under the policy were for petitioner himself. But for the $100.00 deductible, these claims were paid. The difference between what a state employee married to another state employee paid for Family I insurance coverage between July 1, 1979, and August 31, 1981, and what a state employee not married to another state employee paid for the same coverage amounts to $864.42.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent direct petitioner to pay the sum of eight hundred sixty-four dollars and forty two cents ($864.42) within ninety (90) days of entry of final order. If petitioner fails to make timely payment, that respondent cancel his Family I State Employees Group Health Insurance Program policy. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondent is obligated to remit to petitioner, administrator of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self-Insurance Program, an alleged underpayment of insurance premiums in the amount of $435.81, covering the period from October, 978,through June, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order requiring respondent to remit $435.81, for total insurance premium underpayments, within 90 days, failing which respondent's insurance coverage under the State Employees Insurance Program should be cancelled and the underpayment obtained through certified payroll deductions from any salary due the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wyatt Wyatt Department of English University of Central Florida Post Office Box 25000 Orlando, Florida 32816 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mr. Thomas P. O'Connell, at times pertinent hereto, was an employee of the Florida Atlantic University. From 1974 until January 1978, he and his wife were enrollees in the State of Florida Group Health Insurance Plan under the category of "family coverage." The Petitioner's wife had a health condition which resulted in her becoming eligible for social security disability benefits in 1976. In January 1978, she had to begin undergoing kidney dialysis treatments. She also became eligible for Medicare benefits at about this time. Petitioner's wife was 55 years of age at the time. In January 1978, Petitioner called the personnel office at the university to find out if, since she had become enrolled in the Medicare system due to her kidney ailment, if she was entitled to the State Group Health Insurance Plan Medicare supplement coverage, that is an increment of benefits which pays for the approximate twenty percent of medical and hospitalization bills which Medicare does not cover for Medicare eligible recipients. The Petitioner inquired in this regard of Mrs. Ethel Worthington of the Florida Atlantic University's Personnel Department. He was told that, because she was only 55 years of age, she could not be covered by the State Group Health Plan's Medicare supplement coverage. Mrs. Worthington or another employee of the university's personnel office told him, according to his understanding, that his wife could still be covered under the family plan but that he or they could not collect benefits both from Medicare and from the family plan. Mr. O'Connell thus believed that the family plan coverage for his wife was redundant and that Medicare would provide her needed benefits. He therefore canceled his State family plan coverage, opting instead for single individual health insurance coverage. The Petitioner had been aware prior to this, however, that Medicare did not pay the final twenty percent of a given bill. The employee he conversed with about this in the personnel office told him he was free to remain on family plan coverage. He mistook their advice that both benefits could not be collected to mean that the family plan would not pay for her at all if she were eligible for Medicare and that the State health plan would not provide a coordination of benefits with her Medicare coverage since she was under 65 years of age and thus not entitled to the State Medicare supplement coverage. Indeed, that was the case and the State's plan, both before and after the adoption of the self-insurance plan in May of 1978, provided for coordination of benefits between its own coverage and Medicare coverage such that the State plan would pay for an eligible family member who was under 65 years of age and eligible for Medicare up to, on a coordination basis with Medicare, a hundred percent of the charges. In other words, under the coordination of benefits concept in effect before and after May of 1978, the State plan would pay for that portion of hospital bills or other medical expenses which Medicare did not pay for, provided the Petitioner's wife was covered under the "family plan." Based upon this misunderstanding that no coordination of benefits was available for family members eligible for Medicare benefits until they reached age 65, the Petitioner elected to cancel his family coverage and opt for individual coverage under the State's plan in January 1978. On April 13, 1978, an open meeting was held to explain the new State Employee's Group Health Self-Insurance Plan, which Petitioner attended. This plan was ultimately adopted in May of 1978, and as stated above, included the coordination of benefits provision for family members eligible for Medicare who were not yet 65, provided family coverage was obtained by the eligible employees. On April 12, 1978, the Petitioner had enrolled in the new group health self-insurance plan for "individual I coverage"; thus, for purposes of this inquiry, continuing the individual coverage he had had since January of that year. At the meeting, it was explained that indeed the family plan coverage would provide coordination of benefits with Medicare or Medicare- eligible dependents of employees and thus pay for expenses not covered by Medicare. Mr. John Wallace, the Director of Personnel for Florida Atlantic University, was at that meeting assisting and explaining the new program and its benefits and provisions to employees. He does not recall the Petitioner asking questions, but also does not recall telling anyone present that a wife could not be covered under the State family plan if she was under age 65 and eligible for Medicare. Mr. O'Connell believes that at this meeting, he talked with Mrs. Ethel Worthington, a secretary at the university's Office of Personnel concerning his wife's coverage. Mrs. Worthington, however, did not attend any of those meetings. She does not recall conversing with the Petitioner at any time about his family coverage or other matter. An information packet (Respondent's exhibits) explaining the self- insurance plan including its family coverage aspect had been distributed to employees by mailing in March, 1978. Thus, the Petitioner elected to sign up for single or individual coverage (on April 12) after receiving the packet of explanatory materials and, thus, he did not have available to him only information from his telephone conversation with an employee of the personnel office in January, 1978 to consider when electing which coverage to apply for. Rather, he had an accurate explanation of the provisions of the new plan in March or early April, 1978, before he exercised his option to retain individual coverage on April 12, 1978. Further, the Petitioner did not rely on information supplied him at the April 13th meeting because he had already signed up for individual coverage the day before. The brochure contained in Exhibit 5 clearly shows that the family plan coordinates benefits with medicare coverage for dependents under that plan. The Petitioner may have been informed by unknown employees of the university's personnel office that single or individual coverage was substantially cheaper than family plan coverage, but it was not established that a representation was made to the effect that the State's family plan coverage and the Medicare coverage applicable to the Petitioner's wife's situation was redundant. In any event, under the new self-insurance plan, the Petitioner had until April 20, 1978, to enroll. As stated above, the Petitioner voluntarily enrolled in individual I coverage again on April 12, 1978, similar to the individual coverage he had elected to obtain when he dropped his family coverage in January, 1978. Because he had been an employee for longer than 31 days and because his wife had been a dependent for longer than 31 days (see below cited rule), the Petitioner was required to furnish medical proof of insurability for himself and all dependents (his wife). Because the kidney ailment had to be revealed on the medical forms submitted with the application for family-plan coverage, the carrier, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, exercised its right to refuse to assume that risk and would not provide coverage for the Petitioner's wife.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in this record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, thereupon RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner by Thomas P. O'Connell to be allowed to enroll in the State of Florida's group health self-insurance plan family coverage without being required to furnish medical proof of insurability for himself and his dependent be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: No names or addresses were attached
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive a refund of insurance premiums paid to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Division administers health plans, including COBRA, for the benefit of employees of the State of Florida. Petitioner was an employee of the State of Florida from 1991 until February 11, 2000, which was his last day on the payroll of the Office of the Attorney General. On May 27, 1998, Petitioner was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List by the U. S. Air Force. He was presented an identification card reflecting his rank as colonel. His identification card reflects that he was eligible for medical insurance. As a retired military person Petitioner was eligible for treatment at a military medical facility or through TRICARE. TRICARE is a comprehensive health insurance program for military personnel. TRICARE may be a primary provider or a secondary provider of health benefits. During his active employment with the state, however, the TRICARE coverage was secondary. This means that the state paid any claims to the extent of its policy limits and the remaining amount of any claim would be processed and paid in accordance with TRICARE coverage. Petitioner was aware that placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List was, as the name implied, a temporary situation. It was his expectation that subsequent to being placed on the list, the U. S. Air Force would determine either that he was disabled to the extent that he would receive disability retirement, and thus continue to be eligible for TRICARE, or that he would be denied disability retirement and would have to arrange for other medical insurance, or do without. During Petitioner's employment with the Florida Department of Legal Affairs, he was covered by the State Group Health Self Insurance Plan. On February 11, 2000, when Petitioner terminated his employment with the Florida Department of Legal Affairs, he was seeking to have the State of Florida declare him disabled. Pursuant to law, Petitioner's entitlement to the benefits of the State Group Health Self Insurance Plan continued until March 31, 2001. Without taking action to secure health insurance, Petitioner would have only TRICARE as an insurer. However, if the state determined him to have become disabled while employed by the state, he would be covered by the State Group Health Self Insurance Plan, retroactively. On May 11, 2000, the Florida Division of Retirement denied Petitioner's application for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. The effect of this determination was to terminate the possibility of coverage under the State Group Health Self Insurance Plan with the reduced premiums available to a person on disability retirement. The Florida Department of Legal Affairs failed to immediately notify the Division that Petitioner had terminated his employment. As a result, the Division did not send Petitioner a Notice of Continuation Coverage Eligibility until immediately after to May 11, 2000. The notice informed Petitioner of his right to have family continuation coverage in return for a premium of $517.96. It further informed him that he had until July 11, 2000, to elect coverage which would be retroactive to April 1, 2000. A second Notice of Continuation Coverage Eligibility, dated May 22, 2000, was sent to Petitioner. This notice similarly informed Petitioner of his right to have family continuation coverage in return for a premium of $517.96 but informed him that he had until July 22, 2000, to elect coverage which would be retroactive to April 1, 2000. The second page of the Notice of Continuation Coverage Eligibility informed Petitioner, inter alia, that coverage would be available for 18 months for voluntary or involuntary termination, 29 months for certain disabled qualified beneficiaries, and 36 months for all other qualifying events. The second page also informed Petitioner that coverage might end on the occurrence of several events. The event asserted to be pertinent to this case is the date the insured becomes covered by another group health plan which does not contain any limitation or exclusion with respect to a pre- existing condition. Petitioner filed a "Continuation of Coverage Enrollment" form dated July 21, 2000. This form noted that the date of the event that precipitated eligibility for coverage was February 11, 2000. Petitioner wrote on the form in his own hand, "I am permanently and totally disabled; I and my dependents am covered under TRICARE at present." At the bottom of the "Continuation of Coverage Enrollment" form, the Division authorized coverage dating back to April 1, 2000. Petitioner sent the Division a check in the amount of $517.96 to cover the initial premium. The date on the check was July 21, 2000. Sometime prior to August 24, 2000, he sent the Division another premium payment in the amount of $517.96. At the time Petitioner filed the "Continuation of Coverage Enrollment" form and submitted the premiums, he was covered by the regular military medical system, because he was considered to be retired by the U.S. Air Force. However, since the question of his disability with the U.S. Air Force had not been decided, he was aware of the possibility that his military health coverage could end at any time. By maintaining a COBRA policy, he was insuring that he would not find himself in a posture where he had neither COBRA nor TRICARE. On August 16, 2000, the U.S. Air Force determined that Petitioner was disabled and was entitled to the medical care provided by law for retired service persons, which includes TRICARE, presumably, for life. It was at this point Petitioner demanded the return of the premium he paid. Petitioner's theory for the refund is that he was, under the law, ineligible for COBRA coverage during the two months that he paid a premium with respect to it. On September 29, 2000, in a letter signed by Ria Brown, Benefits Administrator, the Division reiterated its refusal to refund the premiums and noted that Petitioner was covered under COBRA for the period April 1, 2000, through May 31, 2000. The letter informed Petitioner that, "Based on the information in your letter, you are eligible and entitled for TRICARE Standard coverage, but you did not indicate that you are actually enrolled." Ms. Brown also advised the following: Coverage at time of COBRA event: Section 4980(f)(2)(B)(iv) provides that a qualified beneficiary's right to COBRA continuation coverage may be terminated when the qualified beneficiary "first becomes," after the date of the COBRA election, covered under another group health plan (subject to certain additional conditions) or entitled to Medicare benefits. The final regulations provide that an employer may cut off the right to COBRA continuation coverage based upon other group health plan coverage or entitlement to Medicare benefits only if the qualified beneficiary first becomes covered under the other group health plan coverage or entitled to the Medicare benefits after the date of the COBRA election. Petitioner asserted in a reply, also dated September 29, 2000, that contrary to Ms. Brown's assertion, he was actually enrolled in TRICARE Standard during the operative period. In a letter dated October 3, 2000, Merrill Moody, the Division Director, informed Petitioner that his claim for refund was being denied because he had a contractual relationship with the Division and that he got the product for which he paid-- health insurance coverage for April and May, 2000. Mr. Moody also pointed out that the Division was required under law to allow active employees and their covered dependents, to participate in COBRA, notwithstanding their participation in other programs.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of State Group Insurance enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a refund of $1035.92. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia Forrester, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Morris Shelkofsky 3721 Crawfordville Road, No. 17 Tallahassee, Florida 32310-7074 Cynthia Henderson, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's health care expenses for a condition diagnosed on August 26, 1992, should be covered under his state employees' group health insurance, or whether coverage for the diagnosis should be denied under the pre-existing conditions limitation of the plan.
Findings Of Fact Before being hired by the University of South Florida (USF), St. Petersburg campus, to start August 1, 1992, the Petitioner taught college in Georgia. At his college in Georgia, the Petitioner was insured under a private employee group health insurance policy and had the option, under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), to maintain coverage under that insurance. The Petitioner visited his new campus on or about May 22 and June 28, 1992. While there in June, he filled out various personnel forms required in advance of his start date. Possibly because the chief USF personnel officer at the St. Petersburg campus was on vacation, he was not told about the available state employees' group health care plans or the requirement that, if he wanted to enroll in one before the next open enrollment period, he had to select one of within 31 days of his starting employment date. The Petitioner started work, as scheduled, on August 1, 1992. He first pay check was dated August 21, 1992, and covered the two-week pay period from July 28 through August 13, 1992. There were no deductions from the Petitioner's pay for health insurance, as he had not enrolled in any state employees' group health plan. On August 20-21, 1992, the Petitioner participated in a new faculty orientation program during which he became aware of the state employees' group health care plans and the requirement that he enroll within 31 days of beginning employment if he wanted to enroll in one before the next open enrollment period. Before taking any steps to enroll in any of the state employees' group health care options, the Petitioner took ill on or about August 24, 1993. His symptoms were new to him and included chest pain and rapid heart rate. The next day, August 25, 1992, he went to see the chief personnel officer at USF, St. Petersburg, to discuss his options and enroll in one of them. (At least by this time, he had available for his review an informational brochure summarizing the state employees' group health insurance plan.) He chose the state employees' group health insurance plan and enrolled. The personnel officer filled out the enrollment forms for coverage to begin September 1, 1993. In order to obtain a September 1st effective date of coverage, it was necessary to "triple deduct" employee contributions towards the insurance premiums in the Petitioner's next pay check so that the premium for coverage in September would be paid. (Normal deductions out of September's pay checks would go to pay the premiums for coverage in October, 1992.) The Petitioner discussed with the personnel officer whether it was possible to get an earlier effective date by paying the first month's premium by personal check. The personnel officer advised him that USF does not accept personal checks for this purpose and that, in any event, no effective date earlier than September 1, 1992, could be obtained in this way. The next day, August 26, 1992, the Petitioner went to see a physician who was on the state employees' group health insurance preferred provider plan for diagnosis and treatment of his condition. Not surprisingly, since the Petitioner had submitted his enrollment forms through his personnel office only the day before, the physician was unable to verify coverage, and the Petitioner paid the fees for services out-of-pocket. He anticipated that he would be reimbursed by his new insurance, or that his out-of-pocket expenditures would serve to fulfill, in whole or in part, the deductibles under his new insurance. On or about September 2, 1992, the Petitioner returned to his physician for additional health care services in connection with his condition. (Ultimately, it was determined that the Petitioner suffered from mitral valve prolapse and supraventricular tachycardia that was successfully treated with beta blocker therapy.) The physician's office still could not verify insurance coverage, and the Petitioner again paid the fee for services in cash. The Petitioner discussed the situation with the USF, St. Petersburg, chief personnel officer, and they decided that the information concerning the Petitioner's enrollment had not been entered in the computer system yet. Later in September, 1992, the Petitioner again returned to his physician for additional health care services in connection with his condition. The physician's office still could not verify insurance coverage. At the very end of September, the Petitioner received an explanation of benefits (EOB) from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), the plan administrator, indicating that the Petitioner's contract of insurance could not be located. The Petitioner again went to discuss the matter with the USF, St. Petersburg, chief personnel officer. She sent DSEI a memorandum, with the Petitioner's enrollment form attached, asking for verification that the Petitioner's coverage was in effect. Meanwhile, the Petitioner decided to postpone further health care services until he received a response from DSEI. Later in October, 1992, the Petitioner was advised by his physician's office that verification of the Petitioner's coverage had been received. The Petitioner returned to the physician's office for additional health care services in connection with his condition on or about October 9 and 19, 1992. At approximately the end of October, 1992, the Petitioner received an EOB form from BCBS, dated October 25, 1992, advising the Petitioner and his physician that BCBS needed and was awaiting verification, in the form of office records and the history and physical, of the condition for which the Petitioner was treated. On or about October 30, 1992, the Petitioner scheduled an appointment with the USF, St. Petersburg, chief personnel officer to discuss the Petitioner's insurance options. Open enrollment closed the next day, and the Petitioner had to decide whether to keep his coverage or switch to a health maintenance organization, or seek coverage under his wife's employee group insurance coverage and possibly drop his own insurance. He chose to keep his state employees' group health insurance. In early November, 1992, the Petitioner received another EOB form from BCBS, dated November 4, 1992, advising the Petitioner and his physician that BCBS still was waiting for additional information from the Petitioner's physician's office in connection with the services provided on September 2, 1992. At the end of December, 1992, the Petitioner received a statement from his physician's office indicating that DSEI was denying all of the Petitioner's claims as "pre-existing." In pertinent part, the state employees' group health insurance plan lists under its "limitations": For any accident or illness for which an insured received diagnostic treatment or received services within three-hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days prior to the effective date of coverage, no payment will be allowed for services related to such accident or illness which is received during the three hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days subsequent to the effective date of coverage; however, covered services related to such accident or illness which are received after three hundred and sixty-five (365) consecutive days of coverage are covered by the Plan. A verbatim reproduction of this limitation is included in the informational brochure which the Petitioner was provided and reviewed no later than August 25, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance, enter a final order denying the Petitioner's claims. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1993, 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 24th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3729 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Legal Argument 1 Understanding Accepted as to the earlier treatment, and incorporated; rejected as to the later treatment. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the facts found. (Both the "turn-around" and the insurance card provided this information. It also could have been verified by DSEI on telephone or written request.) Accepted and incorporated. Accepted that the information was disseminated, but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected that DSEI "discounted" it. Rejected that the provider "paid partial claims." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Once basic coverage was verified, the provider processed the claims, but the provider made no determination as to the pre-existing conditions limitation, nor did the provider have any authority to do so.) Rejected as not proven that none of the information was "available to new employees." (Some is distributed to new employees, and some is available in personnel offices upon request.) Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. (It was not proven and was not found that the triple deduction occurred during the first two weeks of August. She may have meant to say September.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (The term "performance date" is ambiguous.) Consideration 1.-2. Rejected as not proven and contrary to facts found. (Enrollment was effective September 1, 1992, as requested by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was unable to verify the enrollment date until October, 1992. The Petitioner got coverage effective September 1, 1992, subject to the plan's pre-existing conditions limitation (among others), a concept the Petitioner never fully understood. Performance Rejected as not proven and contrary to facts found. See above. Rejected as not proven and contrary to facts found. (The first claims were paid in cash, to be applied to the deductible. The EOB dated October 25, 1992, first raised the question of the pre-existing conditions limitation by requesting verification of the condition being treated on September 18, 1992.) Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (The provider is not authorized to approve claims and was assuming coverage without considering the pre-existing conditions limitation.) Accepted (for a September 1, 1992, effective date) and incorporated. Legal Argument 2 (The Petitioner's argument, that the DSEI defense is "mute," falls on deaf ears.) 1.-2. Rejected as not proven. (The typed form was not placed in evidence.) Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (The typed form was not placed in evidence.) Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Also, ambiguous, subordinate and unnecessary. Legal Argument 3 Rejected as not proven. Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. See above. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. (The provider has no authority to determine claims and obviously, like the Petitioner, did not have a full comprehension of the pre-existing conditions limitation in the state plan.) Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Cumulative. See above. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. As to a.), USF policies interfered with the operation of the insurance program in that respect; as to b.), cumulative. Cumulative. See above. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (The start date was August 1, 1992.) 2.-7. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: William Steve Lang 2233 Willowbrook Drive Clearwater, Florida 34624 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Management Services 2002 Old St. Augustine Road, B-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4876 William Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
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 This issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is responsible for payment of certain state employee health insurance premiums.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1986, Ms. Phyllis McCluskey-Titus became employed at Florida State University ("FSU"). She and her husband, John, moved to Tallahassee from outside Florida, so that she could accept her employment. At the time Ms. McCluskey-Titus became employed, Mr. Titus had not yet accepted employment. She appropriately enrolled in the state health insurance plan. Mr. Titus was listed as, and had coverage as, a dependent on her family coverage. In August, 1986, Mr. Titus accepted employment at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center ("TMRMC"). Although TMRMC offered an employee health insurance benefit, Mr. Titus retained his coverage on his wife's plan, because the couple believed the state plan's benefits to be more beneficial. Enrollment in the state health insurance plan requires the payment of premiums. Such premiums are generally paid through joint contributions, by the employee (through payroll deduction) and by the state. However, where spouses are both state employees, and one spouse is listed as an eligible dependent on the other spouse's family coverage, the state makes the full health insurance premium contribution (the "spouse plan"). In August, 1988, Mr. Titus became employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS"). Both FSU (Ms. McCluskey-Titus's employer) and DHRS are state agencies. Therefore, upon Mr. Titus' employment at DHRS, the couple became eligible for the spouse plan. On August 24, 1988, Ms. McCluskey-Titus went to her personnel office and completed the necessary forms to qualify for the spouse plan. At the time of his employment, Mr. Titus received a package of materials from DHRS. Included in the materials was a five page document entitled "EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INFORMATION PACKAGE". The document outlines various insurance benefits and lists premiums related to coverages. On the first page of the information document, under the heading "PREMIUMS (full-time employees)" is the following statement: "If you and your spouse are both employed with State Agencies, please contact the Personnel office for information on the Spouse Program. If you are eligible, the State will pay up to 100% of your premium". Believing that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient, Mr. Titus did not contact his personnel office for information. On the third page of the information document, is a form which was to be completed and returned to the DHRS personnel office. Contained on the form is the following statement: "If your spouse is employed with a State Agency in a Career Service position, please contact the Personnel office to request an application for the Spouse Program". Ms. McCluskey-Titus was not employed in a Career Service position. Mr. Titus believed that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient. He did not obtain or submit an application for the program. Neither form provided to Mr. Titus stated that both spouses were required to submit separate documentation. There is no evidence that either Mr. or Ms. Titus were informed, by either employer or the Respondent, that the failure to complete separate documentation would preclude enrollment in the spouse program and could result in an assessment of unpaid premiums. After Ms. McCluskey-Titus submitted the form to the FSU personnel office, the state discontinued deducting her contribution to the health insurance premium from her check. The couple believed that, since no premium deduction was being withheld, the spouse plan enrollment had been completed. In February, 1989, Mr. Titus was informed that, because he had not completed the appropriate form at the DHRS office, the couple was ineligible for the spouse plan. The Respondent requires that both spouses complete separate documentation in order to enroll in the spouse plan. He completed the form and by March 1, 1989, their coverage in the spouse plan became effective. The Respondent is now attempting to assess Ms. McCluskey-Titus for the $83.46 monthly family coverage premiums which were not deducted from her pay during the five month period preceding Mr. Titus' completion of the appropriate form. The total amount claimed by Respondent is $417.30. The evidence indicates that, but for Mr. Titus' failure to complete and submit the form, the couple would have been entitled to participate in the spouse plan and no premium contribution would be owed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, enter a Final Order dismissing the assessment against the Petitioner for additional insurance premiums in the total amount of $417.30. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 9th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-4943 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified, except for last sentence, rejected, argument, not appropriate finding of fact. Statement that prescription drug claims were covered is rejected, not supported by evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. Nature of communication between the respective personnel offices, rejected, not supported by evidence. Respondent Accepted. Rejected, not supported by evidence. 3-4. Accepted as modified. However, requirement that both spouses must submit forms, not supported by evidence. Accepted as to amount, rejected as to indicating that Petitioner was responsible for payment, not supported by evidence. Rejected. Paragraph 2E(2) of the Petition does not state that Mr. Titus failed to read the document, but states only that he took no action. Rejected, not supported by evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis McCluskey-Titus 2353 Skyland Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William A. Frieder, Esq. Department of Administration Room 438, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue The issues concern the question of Petitioner's responsibility to pay additional insurance premiums related to Family I coverage in the State Employees' Group Health Insurance program for the period February 1981 through April 1982, based upon alleged underpayments of required premiums. See Section 110.123, Florida Statutes and Rule 22K-1.20, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact According to the Florida law which has application in this dispute, when a husband and wife were employed by separate agencies of the State of Florida, cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan was defrayed by those state agencies. This is as contrasted with the circumstance in which one spouse would be responsible for contributing to the cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan, should the second spouse cease to be employed by the second state agency. The State of Florida, Department of Administration, has she responsibility for administering the State Group Health Insurance Plan, to include collection of necessary premium payments. Both Petitioner and his wife had been reported in the records of the Department of Administration as employed by the Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services respectively, as employees entitled to participate in the spouse program for payment of health care, i.e., the program in which no contribution is made by the employees toward payment of health insurance premiums. On October 28, 1982, the Petitioner informed the Department of Administration on a form provided by the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration that his wife, Caroline Wilson, had terminated her employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services effective March 23, 1982. This form was executed in cooperation with the Petitioner's employing agency. The second part of the form related to information to be provided by the wife and her employing agency on the question of her employment was not completed by the spouse nor signed off by her employing agency. A copy of this item or form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. As a result of information he provided, Petitioner was informed of an underpayment of premiums for the period May 1982 through November 1982, related to his wife's lack of eligibility for contribution from her employing agency and the responsibility of the Petitioner to substitute as payor of those premiums. This referred to the point of departure identified by the Petitioner allowing for a grace month of April 1982, thereby making the period of underpayment May 1982 through November 1982. The amount of nonpayment was $280.06, which was eventually reimbursed by the Petitioner. Subsequently, in January 1984, Respondent, Bureau of Insurance, in an attempt to ascertain why Health and Rehabilitative Services had not contributed the full amount of its share to the insurance related to Caroline P. Wilson in times before March 23, 1982, discovered that the wife, Caroline P. Wilson, had terminated her employment some time before March 23, 1982. As was revealed in the final hearing, the last day of employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services was January 3, 1981. After that date, Mrs. Wilson did not return to her job at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, and was eventually considered to have abandoned that job. (It was the first impression of the Department of Administration that she had last been employed in December 1980 and as a consequence this case pertains to the claim of the Department of Administration that there is an underpayment related to the family coverage which starts on February 1, 1981 and runs until April 1, 1982, allowing for a credit of overpayment in the amount of $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total claimed of $382.64. It is this amount that Petitioner took issue with and requested a timely formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes' hearing to resolve.) Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the date from which the responsibility of the husband to contribute the premiums share no longer being provided by Health and Rehabilitative Services would be January 1981, as opposed to December 1980. Allowing for the grace month of February 1981, the payments would be due for March 1, 1981, through April 1, 1982, allowing credit again for the $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total due and owing in the way of underpayment of $353.90.
