The Issue The issues are (1) whether certain medical expenses incurred by petitioners' daughter should be covered under the state group health insurance program, and (2) whether the state is estopped from denying the claim based upon erroneous misrepresentations made by its agent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Etta Aldridge, is a full-time employee of Sunland Training Center in Marianna, Florida and is a participant in the state group health insurance program (the plan). James Aldridge, her husband and also a petitioner in this cause, and Jerrilyn Aldridge, her daughter, are covered by the plan. On November 3, 1987, Jerrilyn, then around seventeen years of age, was severely injured in an automobile accident near her home in Greenwood, Florida. Among other things, she suffered a skull fracture, abrasions, crushed pelvis and hip, and punctured lungs and stomach. She was initially taken to a Marianna hospital for emergency treatment and then transferred to a Tallahassee hospital for longer-term care. While at the Tallahassee hospital, Jerrilyn was diagnosed by her neurologist as having a closed, diffuse brain injury and brain stem contusions. After Jerrilyn was treated in Tallahassee for two and one-half months, which included one month in the hospital and forty-five days at the hospital's extended care facility, her parents were advised that, due to her poor prognosis, they had a choice of putting her in a nursing facility or taking her to their home. Although Jerrilyn was still in a coma, petitioners decided to take her home and care for her in a bedroom which had been converted into a hospital room setting. After six or seven weeks at home, and contrary to earlier medical expectations, Jerrilyn opened her eyes, made noises and manifested some slight arm movement. Based upon these encouraging signs, petitioners sought further medical advice and were told that, given the foregoing signs of improvement, treatment in a facility that specialized in brain injury rehabilitation would improve their daughter's condition. Petitioners contacted the National Head Injury Foundation and were given a list of health care facilities in the state that provided rehabilitative services for brain injured patients. This list included Manatee Springs Nursing Center, Inc. d/b/a Mediplex Rehab-Bradenton (MRB), a facility licensed by the state as a skilled nursing facility but which specialized in rehabilitating brain injured patients. MRB is the largest brain injury rehabilitation facility in the southeastern united States. Since the Aldridges did not have the financial resources to pay for any additional treatment for Jerrilyn, it was essential that they selected a facility that would be covered by the plan. After James Aldridge spoke with and received information from most of the facilities on the list, and conferred with Jerrilyn's neurologist, he eventually narrowed his choice to several facilities, including MRB, which impressed him because of its good reputation and specialty in head injury rehabilitation. To confirm whether coverage would be provided for further treatment, James Aldridge telephoned the customer service unit of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (BCBS), the plan's administrator. He also contacted MRB and authorized it to make an inquiry with BCBS on his behalf. On March 28, 1989 Aldridge received favorable advice from a BCBS service representative concerning coverage and benefits for Jerrilyn at MRB. This advice was independently confirmed by MBR on the same date, and Jerrilyn was accepted as a patient at the facility effective March 31, 1988. Some three months later, and after some of the bills had been paid, BCBS advised MBR and petitioners that a "computer" error had been made and that the requested benefits applied only when rendered in a licensed hospital and not a skilled nursing facility. BCBS accordingly declined to pay the bills. That prompted petitioners to initiate this proceeding. The bills in question total over $225,000. The Insurance Plan The State has elected to provide a self-insured group health insurance program for its employees and their dependents. The legislature has designated respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Employees' Insurance (Division), as the responsible agency for the administration of the plan. To this end, the Division has entered into an agreement with BCBS to administer the plan. Among other things, BCBS provides verification of coverage and benefits, claims payment services, actuarial and printing services, and medical underwriting of late enrollee applications. Including dependents and retirees, there are almost 300,000 persons who are covered by the plan. Upon enrolling in the plan, all employees, including Etta Aldridge, were routinely given an insurance card with BCBS's telephone number and a brochure entitled "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Brochure" (brochure) containing a general description of the plan. The brochure warns the insured that the brochure is not a contract since it does not include all the provisions, definitions, benefits exclusions and limitations of the plan. It also contains advice that if the brochure does not answer an employee's question, he should telephone the Division's customer service section in Tallahassee. In actual practice, however, if an employee contacts the Division number, he is told to telephone BCBS's customer service unit in Jacksonville regarding any questions as to coverage and benefits, claims or other problems concerning the plan. The Division generally becomes involved only when an employee is unable to resolve a claims problem with BCBS. BCBS has established a service unit that deals exclusively with inquiries regarding coverage and benefits under the state group health plan. There are approximately twenty- eight service representatives in that unit. Each representative receives four weeks of training before being certified as a customer service representative. After being certified, a representative's primary responsibility is to respond to inquiries from state employees, health providers and physicians regarding verification of benefits and coverage under the state group policy. It should be noted that a distinction exists between verification of benefits and coverage. To verify coverage means to verify that a person has an active policy at the time services are rendered. To verify benefits means to confirm that a specific service is covered under the policy. In this case, there was an inquiry by the insured and provider regarding both benefits and coverage. In the event a representative is unsure as to the licensing status of a facility or provider, the representative has access to BCBS's master registry department which maintains the provider number and licensure status of every facility in the state. That registry identified MRB as a skilled nursing home. BCBS representatives have the authority to make decisions regarding benefits and coverage. It is only when an inquiry falls within a "grey area" that the final decision is referred from the unit to either the Legal or Medical Division of BCBS. The Division, with the assistance of BCBS, has prepared a seventy-five page benefit document (document) which governs all claims arising under the plan. However, the document is for BCBS in-house use only and is not given to state employees or providers. The document first became effective on May 1, 1978 and has been subsequently amended from time to time. When Jerrilyn was admitted to MRB, the document effective October 1, 1987 was controlling. The document was further amended effective July 1, 1988, which was three months after her admission to MRB. As is pertinent here, the July 1, 1988 amendments increased the deductibles and narrowed the definition of a "hospital". According to the state benefits administrator, the document is "the final word" on any dispute regarding coverage or claims. The BCBS service unit uses this document to verify coverage and benefits. Included in the document are numerous definitions that are used to resolve disputed claims. Relevant to this controversy is the definition of a hospital at the time Jerrilyn was admitted to MRB: "Hospital" means a licensed institution engaged in providing medical care and treatment to a patient as a result of illness or accident on an inpatient/outpatient basis at the patient's expense and which fully meets all the tests set forth in 1., 2., and below: It is a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals, or the American Osteopathic Association or the Commission on the Accreditation of Rehabilitative Facilities; It maintains diagnostic and therapeutic facilities for surgical or medical diagnosis and treatment of patients under the supervision of a staff of fully licensed physicians; It continuously provides twenty-four (24) hour a day nursing service by or under the supervision of registered graduate nurses. It is undisputed that, while MRB may have provided many services comparable to those rendered by a licensed hospital and is considered to be an atypical nursing home, MRB is still licensed by the state as a skilled nursing facility. Thus, MRB cannot qualify as a hospital under the benefit document. Payment for services in a skilled nursing facility, such as MRB, are much more limited and restrictive than for a hospital. To qualify for payment of benefits in a skilled nursing facility, the insured must have been hospital confined for at least three consecutive days prior to the day of hospital discharge before being transferred, upon a physician's advice, to a skilled nursing facility. Once admitted to such a facility, the insured's room and board reimbursement is limited to a maximum of $76 per day. Further, payment of services and facilities is limited to sixty days of confinement per calendar year. In contrast, benefits for hospital care include, for example, unlimited days of coverage per calendar year and much higher reimbursement rates for room, board and other services. In this case, besides having been admitted to MRB directly from her home, and not a hospital, Jerrilyn had already used up forty- five of the sixty days of annual benefits at the extended care unit of a Tallahassee hospital. BCBS also has a fee schedule that is used in paying all covered claims. However, the schedule was not introduced into evidence. Estoppel Before he made a final decision as to where to send his daughter, James Aldridge spoke by telephone with several BCBS representatives, including Michelle Sahdala and Rhonda Hall, the unit supervisor and considered its most experienced representative. 1/ Aldridge made these telephone calls because he wanted to positively confirm which facilities would be covered by the plan. During one conversation, Sahdala advised Aldridge that the proposed treatment would not be covered in several facilities named by the National Head Injury Foundation, including New Medico Rehabilitation Center of Florida in Wauchula, Florida and Capital Rehabilitation Hospital in Tallahassee. Aldridge advised BCBS that he might want to place his daughter in MRB, but only if such treatment was covered under his wife's insurance plan. He heard nothing further from BCBS until a week later. Aldridge contacted MRB on March 21, 1988 and advised an MRB representative that he wished to place his daughter in the facility if his wife's insurance covered the treatment at MRB. He also gave MRB the BCBS unit supervisor's name (Rhonda Hall) and telephone number. To verify coverage and benefits, MRB's admission coordinator, Patricia Dear, telephoned Hall on March 22, 1988. Such an inquiry is routinely made by the provider on behalf of the insured and before the patient is admitted to the facility. This is to ascertain if the prospective patient is insured, and if so, to verify the amount of benefits. Dear identified herself and advised Hall that she was requesting benefits information on Jerrilyn Aldridge, an insured. She told Hall that MRB was a skilled nursing facility and not a hospital, the nature of services that would be provided to Jerrilyn and her need to determine whether such services would be covered under the plan before Jerrilyn was accepted as a patient. When asked if she would need further information in hand concerning MRB before determining the amount of benefits, Hall responded affirmatively. Accordingly, Dear sent Hall by overnight mail a letter and brochure describing the facility's services. They were received by BCBS the next morning, or March 23. The letter included information concerning MRB, the fact that it was a skilled nursing facility and not a hospital, the type of services that MRB provided, a summary of the expected charges for treating Jerrilyn (from $600 to $850 per day), the average length of stay of a patient (3 to 9 months), and an offer to answer any additional questions that BCBS might have. When Dear heard nothing further from Hall within the next few days, she made a follow-up telephone call to Hall on March 28 to see if Hall had any questions and to verify benefits coverage. Hall acknowledged receiving the letter of March 22 with attachment. After Dear discussed each of the disciplines and types of services to be provided and their expected cost, including physician services, physical therapy, neuropsychology, central supply, pharmacy, laboratory services and a room and board charge of $351 per day, Hall advised Dear that the only policy exclusions on coverage would be occupational and speech/language therapy. She added that all charges would be subject to medical necessity, and ambulance costs to transport Jerrilyn to the facility would be covered. The two also discussed the fact that there were no time limitations under the policy and that almost $475,000 in lifetime coverage still remained. Hall represented that after the Aldridges satisfied their $1500 deductible on which BCBS paid only 80% of the bills, BCBS would thereafter pay 100% of all medically necessary charges. In making that representation, Hall did not disclose the fact that BCBS has a fee schedule and that all payments were subject to the limitations specified in that schedule. After verifying that Hall had cited all policy limitations, and consistent with her longtime experience in verifying benefits with other insurance carriers, Dear properly assumed that if the policy contained a provision which limited payment to something less than 100% of covered services, Hall would have said so. Dear asked Hall if there was any reason not to admit Jerrilyn and Hall replied "no." Dear also asked Hall if she (Hall) was in a position to verify benefits and Hall represented that she was. Dear then told Hall that Jerrilyn would be presented to the admissions committee the next day and, if clinically appropriate, she would be admitted. Dear ended the conversation by advising Hall that a letter confirming their understanding would be sent after Jerrilyn was admitted. After speaking with Hall, Dear had a clear understanding that coverage and benefits had been approved and, except for occupational and speech/language therapy, BCBS would pay 80% of all medically necessary charges until the Aldridge's $1,500 deductible was met, and then to pay 100% of all remaining medically necessary charges. 2/ After receiving the favorable advice, Dear telephoned Aldridge the same day and told him the results of her conversation with Hall. Within a few moments after speaking with Dear, Aldridge received a telephone call from an unidentified female BCBS representative who informed him that BCBS would pay for his daughter's treatment at MRB. Jerrilyn was accepted as a patient by MRB's admissions committee on March 28, 1988. Both the provider and the insured relied upon Hall's representations in admitting Jerrilyn to the facility. Had Jerrilyn not been covered by the plan, the committee would not have approved her admission. Also, if the Aldridges had known that the treatment at MRB was not covered, they would have sent their daughter to another facility covered by the plan. On April 4, 1988, and pursuant to her last telephone conversation with Hall, Dear sent Hall by overnight mail the following letter: This is to confirm the admission of Jerrilyn Aldridge on March 31, 1988, to the specialized head trauma rehabilitation program at Mediplex Rehab-Bradenton, Florida. The following benefits information has been verified by you and Patricia Dear, R. N., Admissions Coordinator on March 28, 1988. Effective date: 10/1/79 Benefits: After $1,500 - out of pocket/yr- 100% coverage Days available: Unlimited days Monies available: $474,533.79 Exclusions: Occupational Therapy, Speech- Language Therapy Limitations: Treatment subject to "Medical Necessity" If I do not hear from you, I will consider you to be in agreement with the above information. Please place this in the client's file. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. (Emphasis supplied) Although BCBS's records reflect that Dear's letter was received, Hall did not advise Dear that there were any problems concerning Jerrilyn's coverage and benefits under the plan or that Dear's understanding of the benefits to be paid was inaccurate or in error. Of some note is the fact that Hall is considered one of the most knowledgeable BCBS representatives on state health plan benefits and recognizes that her statements concerning benefits are relied upon by providers. Even though Hall was specifically advised both orally and in writing that MRB was licensed as a nursing home, and she had access to BCBS's master registry to confirm MRB's licensure status, she failed to discern that a nursing home was not a covered facility for the requested services within the meaning of the plan. Indeed, she later acknowledged by deposition that she knew that "the state does not pay for nursing homes" and that she had made a mistake by failing to properly "investigate" the matter more thoroughly. By failing to convey accurate advice to James Aldridge and MRB and to note that the proposed treatment would not be covered if rendered by a nursing home, Hall failed to use reasonable care and competence in responding to the inquiry. Three months after Jerrilyn's admission, James Aldridge received notice that BCBS had changed its position and now asserted it was not going to pay for Jerrilyn's rehabilitation and treatment at MRB. Proposed agency action confirming this decision was later issued by the Division on October 21, 1988. Miscellaneous All medical services received by Jerrilyn were medically necessary within the meaning of the benefit document. The necessity of Jerrilyn's placement in a rehabilitation facility was established by Dr. James D. Geissinger, her Tallahassee neurologist, who based it upon Jerrilyn's improvement after leaving the Tallahassee hospital and made her a candidate for brain rehabilitation. Doctor Geissinger also noted that, as a result of receiving treatment at MRB, Jerrilyn had made "remarkable" improvement and was able to partially regain her language function, use her left arm and hand, and improve her "activities of daily living." There are expectations that she will be able to walk again within a year. Further, based upon the testimony of an MRB staff physician, the services and treatment received by Jerrilyn at MRB were medically necessary to facilitate her neurologic and functional recovery. Given the nature of her injury and MRB's nursing staffing ratios, the required intensive medical rehabilitation and monitoring of Jerrilyn's medical and neurological condition was comparable to care in a hospital intensive care unit. These matters were not contradicted. On April 1, 1988, the Aldridges executed a standard financial agreement with MRB whereby they agreed to indemnify MRB for all charges which were not paid by BCBS. As is normally done, they also authorized MRB to directly bill BCBS for all charges incurred by Jerrilyn while being treated at the facility. Finally, the Aldridges authorized MRB to make inquiries on their behalf with BCBS to verify insurance coverage and benefits for Jerrilyn. MRB submitted to BCBS all bills for services and treatment given to Jerrilyn during her five or six month stay at the facility. A summary of the dates of service, charges, payments made by BCBS and balance due is contained in petitioners' exhibit 17. In all, there are thirty-eight outstanding bills totaling $227,139.27. The parties have stipulated that the bills in exhibit 17 represent services that were actually performed and supplies that were actually received by the patient. As noted in finding of fact 21, all such supplies and services were medically necessary. For the reasons given in the conclusions of law portion of this recommended order, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies, and petitioners are entitled to be reimbursed for all unpaid bills filed with BCBS in accordance with the representations of agent Hall. These include room and board charges (at the intensive care room rate), physician services, neuropsychology, physical therapy, central supply, pharmacy and laboratory charges as more fully described in petitioners' exhibit 17. Such reimbursement should be not be subject to the limitations prescribed in the fee schedule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition of Etta and James Aldridge be GRANTED, and the Division order Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. to reimburse petitioners $227,139.27 as reflected in petitioners' exhibit 17. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of August, 1989.
Findings Of Fact THE PETITIONER: The first three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are accepted. The first three sentences of paragraph 4 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant, hearsay, argument or not supported by the record. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted. With the exception of the last two sentences, paragraph 7 is accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 7 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Dr. Rivera did acknowledge Ritodrine to be a tocolytic drug, the use of which should be monitored. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 and, with the exception of the last two sentences, paragraph 11 are accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 11 are rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. Paragraphs 6 through 11 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are accepted but are not controlling as the weight of the evidence in this case would suggest that the device is only investigational as it relates to diagnosis of pre-term labor, not as used in this case. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 16 through 19 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 20 through 29 are accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 31 through 34 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the facts and weight of the evidence of this case, or inconclusive based upon all facts and circumstances of this case. Paragraphs 35 through 37 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin J. Sperry SPERRY & SHAPIRO, P.A. Suite 300 805 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William A. Frieder Senior Attorney Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Augustus Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Carl Ogden Division Director Division of State Employee's Insurance 2002 Old St. Augustine Road Building B-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4811
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for insurance benefits for the AHUM as utilized under the facts of this case. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1990.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent’s certificate of authority to transact life insurance in the State of Florida should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Liberty National Life Insurance Company, is a foreign insurer licensed to transact life insurance in Florida under a Certificate of Authority issued by the state. The application for life insurance used by LNL is form A-250. This application is used for all regular and batch life insurance applications, except Career Life Plus and Group Term life insurance policies, which are not at issue in this proceeding. Form A-251 is the application used to apply for life insurance riders on an applicant's spouse or children. Both applications are used in multiple states and are intended to elicit information that may or may not be relevant or used in the state relevant to any given applicant. For instance, Question 16 in form A-250 asks, "Is the Proposed Insured a Citizen of the United States? (If "No" complete and attach A- 282-2.") Form A-282-2 is titled "Residency Questionnaire." The form elicits information related to whether an applicant is a legal resident of the United States, whether the applicant intends to remain a resident of the United States and what citizenship the applicant holds. Like the applications, the residency form is used in multiple states and is intended to elicit information that may or may not be relevant or used in the state relevant to any given applicant. For instance, the questionnaire asks whether the proposed insured has traveled outside the United States during the last 12 months. The applicant's response to the travel question was not intended to be used for underwriting purposes in Florida after it enacted a law prohibiting the denial of insurance based solely on an applicant's past travel or future travel plans. See § 626.9541(1)(dd)1., Fla. Stat. Importantly, Florida does not prohibit any insurer from asking about such travel and such inquiry does not violate Florida law. Each application, along with any required or additional information, is submitted by an agent to LNL's centralized underwriting department and is assigned to an individual underwriter. The underwriter reviews the application for completeness. If the application is not complete or if there are questions about the application, the underwriter either requests the information from the agent or requests a telephone interview be done. Activity on the application is entered into LNL's electronic processing system which maintains the electronic application file. How much detail support information is entered on any given application file varies by underwriter. None of the underwriters who made entries in the application files at issue in here testified in this proceeding. LNL's policy is to process most applications within two weeks, with some few applications taking up to 30 days. Pending applications are maintained on a pending applications list which is reviewed by upper management for compliance with LNL's processing policy. LNL’s underwriting guidelines for persons of foreign national origin residing in the United States were instituted in 2003 or 2004 over concerns the company had regarding the reliability of documents from certain countries and the potential for fraud based on such unreliable documents. Towards that end, LNL categorized foreign nations into four groups: “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” The basis for the categorization was the long-time, actuarially-recognized standard in the life insurance industry and the re-insurance industry that mortality risks are severe in “D” countries, somewhat severe in “C” countries, and moderate in “A” and “B” countries. In part, these mortality risks are derived based on the political stability of a country, crime rates, law enforcement, and access to good quality medical care and treatment in a given country. In general, C and D countries possess one or more of the factors that contribute to severe mortality risks. Additionally, political instability causes the authenticity and availability of birth and death records to be unreliable. These country code classifications are used throughout the life insurance industry. Importantly, these country codes are sustained by mortality statistics generally regarded as reliable by life insurance actuaries, and by the professional opinion of Mr. Himmelberger, the only expert life insurance actuary who testified at final hearing. LNL's underwriting guidelines for foreign nationals or foreign risks were reflected in a memorandum dated July 26, 2004, and sent to all of the company's district managers for dissemination. The memorandum stated as follows: If the proposed insured is from a country classified as A or B you should follow normal underwriting procedures. If a proposed insured is from a country classified as C or D, you must submit the following information. If the proposed insured is a U.S. Citizen: A copy of citizenship documents or A notarized statement verifying that the proposed insured is a citizen and providing the date citizenship was acquired. An IBU (Interview by Underwriter) is required on all cases. If the proposed insured is not a U.S. Citizen: Form A-282-2 . . . is required on all A-250/A-251 or batch applications. Copies of W-2 forms from the last three years are required. The ultimate face amount issued (if any) will be limited to the income for the most recent year. Attach a cover letter indicating the number of consecutive years the proposed insured has been in the United States (subject to rejection if less than 10 years, depending on other information submitted). An IBU . . . is required on all cases. Minor children of non-citizen parents will be underwritten as non-citizens. Applications for $100,000 and above will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The information above is required for all cases regardless of face amount. These guidelines were also incorporated into the company’s instruction manual for its agents. The goal of these underwriting guidelines and the use of the country codes are to try to assess the risk of a person who was born outside of the United States permanently returning to their country of origin where, depending on the country, there may be a higher risk of mortality. An applicant’s connection to the United States, as evidenced by steady employment or family, and desire to permanently stay in this country, as evidenced by naturalization or length of legal residency, lowers the actuarial risk underwritten by LNL. The evidence demonstrated that these criteria were actuarially supported. Therefore, applicants who are foreign nationals born in “A” or “B” countries with lower mortality risks, and who legally reside in the United States or are naturalized United States citizens at the time they apply for insurance are underwritten using the same underwriting criteria as applied to United States citizens. The only extra information required is proof of residency or citizenship and a confirming interview by the underwriter (IBU) or by an outside subcontractor through a rapid interview process. Life insurance applications by foreign nationals from “C” or “D” countries who have become naturalized United States citizens at the time they apply for insurance are underwritten using the same underwriting criteria that LNL applied to United States citizens and require the same information as those from “A” or “B” countries. Applicants who are foreign nationals from “C” or “D” countries and who are not naturalized United States citizens, but reside in the United States at the time of application for insurance, are required to provide proof of legal residency for 1 year and annual income for three years. Both of these factors indicate a stronger connection to the United States and desire not to return to live in a country with a higher mortality risk. These applicants are also required to complete a telephone interview to confirm this information. Additionally, applicants from “C” or “D” countries who are legal residents in the United States at the time of application for insurance may be declined for coverage or have the coverage limited to the amount of the applicant’s income. However, whether the application is declined depends on other information (such as employment history and income) that shows a stronger connection to the United States. There is no requirement that the underwriter decline to issue or limit the amount of insurance to such an applicant simply because the person has not resided in the United States continuously for 10 years. Clearly, LNL’s underwriting guidelines do not cause LNL to refuse to issue insurance to applicants from “C” or “D” countries based solely on the applicant’s national origin. Rather, these underwriting rules and guidelines incorporate the political, social and economic climate of a country which leads to instability, crime and poor access to health care and relatively higher or lower risks of mortality. Additionally, these guidelines require the length, nature, and quality of the applicant’s residency in the United States to be considered to determine the strength, quality, and duration of the applicant’s ties to the United States. The additional underwriting information required for such applicants is designed to gather evidence of such matters so that LNL’s underwriters may make informed underwriting judgments about the underwriting risks associated with issuing insurance. These underwriting guidelines are consistent with the actuarial risks posed by higher mortality risks in “C” or “D” countries and the risk that applicants will voluntarily or involuntarily return to his or her country of origin to again take up residence there, and thereby be subjected to the high mortality risks associated with residing in a “C” or “D” country. The evidence demonstrated that these guidelines are consistent with generally accepted actuarial principles of risk classification. The limitation of coverage amount to the applicant’s most recent year’s income is likewise consistent with generally accepted actuarial principles of risk classification and risk management for life insurers. Indeed, there was no expert actuarial evidence offered by OIR to the contrary. Additionally, there was no substantive evidence that demonstrated LNL had an informal policy or practice of refusing to issue life insurance to applicants who are persons of “C” or “D” countries solely because of their national origin. The evidence clearly showed that LNL had issued policies to such applicants given the number of applications reviewed by OIR in its examination of LNL. On July 1, 2006, Florida’s “Freedom to Travel Act,” Section 624.9541(1)(dd), Florida Statutes, became effective. Around July 6, 2006, LNL sent a memorandum to its underwriters informing them of the passage of Florida’s “Freedom to Travel Act” and instructing them to comply with the act. The memorandum also informed the underwriters that they could no longer use an applicant’s past travel or future travel plans to underwrite life insurance on Florida applicants. However, as indicated earlier, the multi-state residency questionnaire asks about an applicant’s past travel. Such information is not used for underwriting purposes by LNL on Florida applications. After notification of Florida’s “Freedom to Travel Act,” it has been LNL’s policy, in respect to applications for life insurance from Florida residents, not to refuse life insurance or limit life insurance coverage based solely on the individual's past lawful foreign travel or future travel plans. Additionally, it should be noted that the term travel had a variety of meanings during the hearing. At times it referred to short-term travel and at other times it referred to an applicant’s more permanent return to a country to reside in that country. From June 23, 2008 through November 14, 2008, OIR conducted a "market conduct" examination of LNL pursuant to Section 624.3161, Florida Statutes. A market conduct examination is a review of the business practices and records of an insurer. The examination is designed to monitor marketing, advertising, policyholder services, underwriting, rating, and claims practices. The LNL examination covered the period from January 1, 2004, through March 31, 2008, and was conducted by Examination Resources, LLC, at the offices of LNL in Birmingham, Alabama. The purpose of the examination was to verify compliance by the company with the Florida Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 626.9541, Florida Statutes. Examination Resources assembled a team of examiners to conduct the survey. Some members were more experienced than others were in examining records of a company and in performing a market conduct survey. At least two of the team members, Terry Corlett and Todd Fatzinger, were certified financial examiners (CFE), certified insurance examiners (CIE) and fellows of the Life Management Institute (FMLI). One member of the examination team was a certified life underwriter (CLU). During the examination period, LNL’s underwriters reviewed approximately 1,500 life insurance applications per week from Florida, in addition to applications from other states. As a consequence, LNL received 101,461 applications for life insurance. Approximately 40,000 applications out of the total applicant pool were batch processed. Batch-processed applications are standard applications (A-250 and A-251) that are processed through an automated computer system with no further underwriting review and are either approved or disapproved based on information in the application for life insurance. The evidence indicated that some applications from applicants born outside of the United States were batch-processed applications. However, the batch process does not capture any information based on an applicant's country of birth or travel in the electronic file system used by LNL. Since the batch process does not capture country of birth or travel information, these applications were not reviewed by the examiners in the market conduct survey of LNL's records. Because these applications were not reviewed, it is unknown how many of these applicants were born outside of the United States. Out of the approximately remaining 61,000 applications, the team reviewed 7,040 life insurance applications received by LNL during the period of January 1, 2004 through March 31, 2008, that LNL identified as being from an applicant born outside the United States. No one member of the examination team reviewed all of the files. There was some evidence that the criteria or standards of review and interpretation of files by each examiner was not consistent during the exam process. Very few of the examiners conducted any interviews or took testimony from the people who made entries in or handled a particular file that was reviewed. More importantly, the evidence did not demonstrate that the information sought during these rare interviews of unidentified underwriters on an unidentified file had any relevancy to the issues or allegations involved in this case. The only testimony regarding these few and unknown underwriters was that they generally did not recall anything about the file beyond what was in the electronic records of LNL. Such generalizations do not otherwise provide support for the interpretation of data or information in these files by the examiners or the failure to adduce such evidence by going to the human source of the data or information contained in the electronic records of LNL. Moreover, conspicuously absent from the examination process was an expert in statistical analysis and sampling of data from a universal pool of applicants. Given this lack of expertise, there is no evidence which demonstrated that the group of 7,040 applications reviewed by the examiners was a valid sample of all the applications processed during the examination period. Examination Resources submitted their draft report of examination to OIR around mid-November 2008. The report contained a number of statistics and conclusions drawn from those statistics. However, because of the absence of any reliable or valid statistical analysis of the information gathered by the examiners, none of the statistics or conclusions drawn from such statistics that were contained in the draft report is probative of any of the alleged violations contained in the Petitioner's Order in this matter. In short, other than to list the electronic records of LNL that were examined, the market conduct study and report provide no credible or substantive evidence that demonstrates LNL violated any provision of Florida law. The report may have formulated a basis that warranted OIR to investigate LNL further, but it is insufficient on its own to establish by any evidentiary standard that any violations occurred. The evidence did not demonstrate that a draft report from the examiners was finalized by Examination Resources or OIR. However, no further examination of the files of LNL was done after the draft report was completed. Likewise, no further analysis of the data was completed after the submission of the draft report to OIR. Both of these facts indicate that the draft report was the final report. In any event, as a consequence of OIR's perception of the report as a draft, OIR did not furnish a copy of the draft examination to LNL and did not afford LNL the opportunity for an informal conference concerning the draft examination report’s allegations or an opportunity to correct any of the alleged violations referred to in the order. Such a conference would have been required by Section 624.319, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69N-121.066 if the report had been finalized with the Office. Instead, OIR used the report to issue its Order to suspend or revoke LNL's certificate of authority and required LNL to cease and desist from engaging in unfair trade practices as defined in Section 626.9541(1)(g)1., (x)1. and (dd), Florida Statutes, based on 35 counts involving 35 separate applications. Counts 17 (insurance issued to a 34-year-old Haitian- born female), 18 (insurance issued to an 18-year-old Haitian- born male), and 29 through 35 charged that LNL knowingly discriminated "between individuals of the same actuarially supportable class and equal expectation of life,” in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(g)1., Florida Statutes. These “actuarially supportable class” charges are addressed as a group. The remainder of the charges involving violations of Subsections 626.9541(1)(x)1. and 626.9541(1)(dd), Florida Statutes, are addressed below per each count. As to the actuarially-supportable class charges, OIR offered no competent substantial evidence defining or establishing what the actuarially supportable class consisted of or who the members of that class were. The only references to the alleged class were unsupported statements by OIR representatives and unqualified witnesses that the actuarial class was the whole world. Moreover, there was no evidence in the record that demonstrated that these members had the same life expectancy. Indeed, the only evidence in the record about the actuarial class was the testimony of Mr. Himmelberger who stated that the alphabetical classifications of countries established actuarial classes for persons born in those countries and that persons born in “C” or “D” countries residing in the United States are not in the same actuarially-supportable class as persons who are United States citizens (including United States citizens born in “C” or “D” countries), or as persons born in “A” or “B” countries residing in the United States. OIR presented no evidence to contradict Mr. Himmelberger's testimony. Even assuming arguendo that Mr. Himmelberger's testimony is not accepted, the fact remains that no other qualified actuarial expert provided this statutorily crucial evidence. Given these facts, OIR has not established that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(g)1., Florida Statutes, in Counts 17, 18, and portions of Counts 29 through 35 that pertain to Subsection 626.9541(1)(g)1., Florida Statutes, and those counts should be dismissed. COUNT 1 Count 1 of the OIR Order alleged that, in June 2004, LNL refused to issue a $100,000 life insurance policy to a 23- year-old female born in Haiti and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. At the time of the application, the applicant had resided in the United States for less than 10 years. The unrefuted evidence demonstrated that this applicant was declined insurance because she had no income. LNL’s underwriting rules limited the amount of insurance that could be issued to the prior year’s income. Since she had no income, the application was denied. However, in April 2006, when the applicant filed another application for life insurance and demonstrated that she had income, LNL issued a life insurance policy to her. OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely on the basis of her national origin since it had an independent basis for its action based on its underwriting guidelines. As discussed above, these guidelines have several actuarially-sound underlying factors that are not related to the particular national origin of an applicant. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 2 Count 2 of the OIR Order alleged that, in June 2004, that LNL refused on two separate occasions to issue life insurance policies to a 65-year-old male born in Haiti and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The applicant had originally applied for an $82,000 policy (A005491299) with his wife in April 2004. Later, in June 2004, the applicant applied for a $15,000 policy (A0050974020). At the time of the applications, the applicant had resided in the United States for less than 10 years. The first application required medical tests to be performed prior to approval. These tests included a paramedical examination, EKG, blood profile and urine sample. None of the medical tests were completed and no medical information was supplied prior to the time the underwriting decision to decline the application was made. Similarly, the medical underwriting information was not submitted with the second application. The evidence showed that LNL had a standard underwriting procedure that a second application cannot be processed unless all missing underwriting information required for a previous application is submitted with the second application. If such information is not submitted with the second application, the application is not processed and is closed or cancelled. As indicated, the second application was not submitted with the medical underwriting information required for the first application. Clearly, LNL did not refuse to issue insurance to this applicant solely because of his national origin. Its decision to decline to issue insurance on the first application was based on the lack of required medical information. The second application was not processed because the required medical information was not submitted with the second application. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 3 Count 3 alleged that, in June 2004, LNL refused to issue a $15,000 life insurance policy to a 23-year-old female born in Haiti and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. At the time of the application, the applicant had resided in the United States for less than 10 years. No proof of income was submitted with the application. Vague underwriting notes in the file indicate the underwriter referred to this application as a “Haiti case.” However, the underwriter did not testify as to what was meant by this reference. Ms. Saxon, the Chief Underwriter for LNL, testified that she interpreted the reference to be the underwriter’s shorthand method of noting that the underwriting guidelines for “C” and “D” countries applied to this application. OIR argues, without evidence, that the quoted phrase means that the underwriter based the decision to decline this application on the applicant’s national origin. Given the vagueness of this phrase, its presence in the file does not support a conclusion that LNL refused to issue insurance to this applicant based solely on national origin. The better evidence demonstrated that this applicant was declined insurance on her application because she had not resided in the United States for 10 consecutive years, and had provided no proof of income at the time the underwriting decision was made. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 4 Count 4 charged that, in May 2004, LNL refused to issue a $21,000 life insurance policy to a 32-year-old Haitian- born female who was residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. At the time of the application, the applicant had resided in the United States for less than 10 years and was a homemaker. The application file reflected the application was declined because the applicant failed to meet LNL underwriting rules after review by LNL’s legal department. No further explanation is contained in the file regarding the reason the application was declined. However, the evidence demonstrated that this applicant had also applied for a “critical illness policy” at the same time she applied for the $21,000 life insurance policy. The application was batch processed and the “critical illness policy” was issued to the applicant, indicating national origin was not a consideration for LNL. On the other hand, OIR, who has the burden of proof on this issue, offered no competent or convincing evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. To conclude that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, from the lack of information in the file is pure conjecture and inappropriate especially given that this file was underwritten in 2004. Given these facts and the lack of convincing evidence, OIR failed to establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 5 Count 5 in the OIR Order alleged that, in May 2004, LNL refused to issue a $50,000 life insurance policy to a 27- year-old female born in Haiti and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. At the time of the application, the applicant had resided in the United States for over 10 years, but had recently started her own business. The uncontradicted evidence demonstrated that this application was declined because proof of recent income was not supplied at the time of the underwriting decision. The applicant had supplied an affidavit from her former employer showing her income for 2002 and 2003. However, there was no information regarding her income since she had started her own business, leaving her ability to pay the premium in doubt. Again, OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 6 Count 6 charged that, in May 2004, LNL refused to issue a $20,000 life insurance policy to a 63-year-old Haitian- born male who resided in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. At the time of the application, the applicant had resided in the United States for more than 10 years and was retired. The unrefuted evidence showed that the application was cancelled and not processed by LNL because there was no documentation by the immigration authorities of the applicant’s legal residency status in the United States. Similarly, no proof of income was provided by the applicant. There was a notation in the file which read, “non[-]receipt of W2.” However, this phrase does not demonstrate that the applicant did not receive a W-2 or some other employer proof of retirement income or that LNL had any knowledge that the applicant was unable to provide such a document. In fact, in July 2004, the applicant submitted a second application for which a policy of life insurance was issued. Clearly, LNL did not refuse to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 7 Count 7 alleged that, in April 2004, LNL refused to issue a $25,000 life insurance policy to an 18-year-old Haitian- born female who resided in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The applicant had been in the United States for at least 12 months and was a student. A notation in the file indicated that the agent was requested to ask the applicant to provide information on how long she had been in the United States. However, for unknown reasons, the requested information was not provided. As a consequence, the file was not processed and was cancelled for incompleteness. Such cancellation does not demonstrate that LNL refused to issue insurance but that the processing of the application was stopped due to incomplete information. Handwritten notes in the file indicated that the application would be declined if the applicant had not been in the United States for more than 10 years. However, the note writer did not testify at the hearing. This handwritten note does not support the conclusion that LNL based its decision solely on the basis of the applicant’s national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 8 Count 8 of the OIR Order alleged that, in May 2004, LNL refused to issue a $50,000 life insurance policy to a 39- year-old Haitian-born female who resided in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The evidence demonstrated that this application was the applicant’s second application (A005491240). At the top of the computer information screen that summarizes actions taken on this file, there was a handwritten note, “Haiti.” At the bottom of this screen, by the initialing dates on the screen, there was a handwritten note “cancel.” There was no evidence that the two notes are associated with each other or were entered at the same time. Whoever wrote the notes did not testify at the hearing regarding these, otherwise vague, notes. The uncontradicted evidence demonstrated that the first application (A005458685), dated February 14, 2004, was not processed because the applicant did not provide proof of income and other underwriting information. The application was cancelled on March 15, 2004. Likewise, the second application, dated April 18, 2004, was not processed and was canceled for failing to submit an acceptable proof of income that was required on the first application. In this case, the applicant provided with the second application an affidavit from her employer that she had been employed since December 2003 and was paid $7.00 an hour. However, the employer’s affidavit was considered insufficient as proof of income because it did not show how many hours she worked. Such information was critical in calculating income for this applicant and the application was cancelled. Such cancellations do not constitute a refusal to insure by LNL, but only reflect that the application cannot be processed without the required or requested information. Later, in August 2005, the applicant applied for life insurance a third time (A006467227) and was issued a policy of insurance. Clearly, LNL did not refuse to issue insurance to this applicant solely because of national origin since the applicant’s national origin had not changed and they later issued such insurance. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 9 Count 9 of the OIR Order alleged that, in May 2004, LNL refused to issue a life insurance policy to a 52-year-old Haitian-born female who resided in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The evidence demonstrated that processing of this application was canceled because a telephonic interview to explore unclear and questionable written information submitted by the applicant was not completed and because proof of income was not submitted. Indeed, the file reflected that the telephone number for the applicant was disconnected when the telephone interview was attempted. The file also reflected that the person paying the premium did not have the same last name as the applicant which raised legitimate questions regarding the payor’s interest in the policy and the relationship between the payor and the applicant. It was appropriate for LNL to seek to clarify these discrepancies. The applicant's file, also, contained an “Underwriter Support Summary” computer screen. The screen contained handwritten notes stating, “Haiti, Cancel-unemployed, non-US citizen.” Again, the writer of these vague notes did not testify at the hearing and the notes do not support a conclusion that LNL refused to issue insurance to this applicant based solely on her national origin. As indicated, necessary underwriting information was not submitted by the applicant and processing of the application was stopped, and the application was cancelled. OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL either refused to insure this applicant or that such alleged refusal was solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 10 Count 10 of the OIR Order alleged that, in March 2004, LNL refused to issue a $50,000 life insurance policy to a 34- year-old Haitian-born male who resided in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The evidence demonstrated that the applicant had lived in this country for more than 10 years, was a permanent resident and was a self- employed taxi driver. The application file reflected that processing of this application was cancelled because additional information that the agent was requested to obtain was not returned. Additionally, no proof of income was submitted by the applicant. The file was not clear whether the additional information being sought was related to proof of income or medical issues. Later, blood work information was received that indicated this applicant had some medical risks that were outside of LNL’s underwriting guidelines. OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL either refused to insure this applicant or that such alleged refusal was solely because of national origin. Given these facts and the general lack of evidence in this applicant’s file, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 11 Count 11 of the OIR Order charged that, in May 2004, LNL refused to issue a $20,000 life insurance policy to a 61- year-old Haitian-born female who resided in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The applicant had resided in the United States for more than 10 years and had high blood pressure. She had applied for United States citizenship, but was unemployed. Her sister was listed as the person paying the premiums on the policy. The file also reflected that the applicant was single and that she was supported by her husband. This inconsistent information legitimately needed to be clarified in order for the underwriting process to continue. The underwriter requested an IBU. The request for the IBU was sent to a company that performs such interviews for LNL. The application file does not reflect whether the company attempted to perform the interview. However, information from that request was never submitted to LNL and processing of the applicant’s file was stopped, resulting in the cancellation of the application. As with other cancellations, terminating the processing of a file and cancellation of the application for lack of legitimate underwriting information was not a refusal by LNL to insure the applicant. The process simply could not move forward without the requested information. OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL either refused to insure this applicant or that such alleged refusal was solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 12 Count 12 alleged that, in February 2004, LNL refused to issue a $50,000 life insurance policy to a 47-year-old male born in Haiti and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. However, the evidence demonstrated that this application was declined due to the applicant’s announced foreign travel plans. At the time of this application, Florida’s “Freedom to Travel Act,” Subsection 626.9541(1)(dd), Florida Statutes, had not been passed and would not be enacted until July 1, 2006, some two years later. The Act has no retroactive effect. Therefore, declining to insure a Florida applicant for such plans before the effective date of the “Freedom to Travel Act” was not prohibited at the time of the underwriting action on this application. OIR argues that the absence of a specific notation in the file that it was declined based on foreign travel plans demonstrated that LNL refused to issue insurance based solely on national origin. However, this argument ignores OIR’s burden of proof in this case. The lack of such notation demonstrates nothing and does not provide either a clear or convincing basis to draw any inferences from the absence of such notations. Additionally, such an inference ignores the unrefuted testimony in this case that the application was declined based on the applicant’s foreign travel plans. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 13 Count 13 alleged that, in January 2004, LNL refused to issue a $100,000 life insurance policy to a 45-year-old female born in Haiti and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. Information in the file reflected that the applicant was a United States citizen. The evidence demonstrated that this application was declined because the applicant did not furnish proof of her United States citizenship. Additionally, the required telephonic interview was not completed. Again, OIR argues that the absence of specific notations in the file that the application was cancelled based on the missing information demonstrates that LNL refused to issue insurance based solely on national origin. As noted above, this argument ignores OIR’s burden of proof in this case. The lack of such notations does not provide a clear or convincing basis to draw any inferences to support OIR’s position. Additionally, OIR’s argument ignores the unrefuted testimony in this case that the application was cancelled based on the fact that required information was not supplied. Finally, the evidence demonstrated that this application was cancelled, not declined. As with other cancelled applications, such cancellations do not constitute a refusal to insure and OIR offered no other competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 14 Count 14 alleged that, in January 2004, LNL refused to issue a $50,000 life insurance policy to a 31-year-old female born in Haiti and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. At the time of the application, the applicant had not resided in the United States for more than 10 years. The applicant had also recently had a baby and was unemployed. As a consequence, the applicant’s mother was the person who would be paying the premium on the policy. The evidence demonstrated that LNL declined to issue insurance on this application because the applicant was not employed and had no income. As discussed earlier, LNL’s underwriting rules limit the amount of coverage that may be issued to an amount equal to the applicant’s annual income for the preceding year. Since the applicant reported no income, LNL’s underwriting rules did not permit the issuance of coverage. However, on April 10, 2006, the applicant submitted a second application (A007241169) that met OIR’s underwriting rules and LNL issued insurance to the applicant. Clearly, LNL did not refuse to issue insurance solely based on national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 15 Count 15 alleged that, in February 2004, LNL refused to issue a $25,000 life insurance policy to a 41-year-old male born in Haiti and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The evidence showed that a telephonic interview was required to be completed under LNL’s underwriting rules. Handwritten notes in the file state, “IBU ordered due to client being Haitian. Canceled-IBU not received.” Again, the writer of these handwritten notes did not testify at the hearing and they do not support a conclusion that LNL refused to issue insurance based on national origin. The evidence did demonstrate that because the telephonic interview was not completed as required, the application could not be processed further and the application was cancelled. Such a cancellation is not a refusal to insure. OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. There was no evidence that the IBU request was a ruse by LNL to cover up its alleged desire to refuse insurance based on national origin. Even in some of the Counts contained in this case, the evidence showed that LNL issued insurance to Haitian applicants when they met its underwriting rules. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 16 Count 16 alleged that, in February 2004, LNL refused to issue a $25,000 life insurance policy to a 63-year-old male born in Haiti and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The evidence demonstrated that processing of this application was canceled because the applicant had not completed a required telephonic underwriting interview. A handwritten notation on the file stated, “Find a way to cancel/decline.” The note was from the person who reviewed pending files that had not been handled within the timeframe established by LNL for life insurance applications. This application had exceeded those timeframes since it had been pending for six weeks. The note was intended to finalize the processing of the file and remove it from the pending files list. There was no evidence that the note demonstrated an intention to refuse to issue insurance based solely on the applicant’s national origin. Moreover, the evidence demonstrated that LNL reinstated a life insurance policy previously issued to this applicant after that policy had lapsed. Clearly, LNL did not refuse to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 19 Count 19 alleged that, in June 2004, LNL refused to issue a $100,000 life insurance policy to a 26-year-old male born in Colombia and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. Colombia was listed as a “D” country under the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. A residency questionnaire was also submitted with the application. The questionnaire revealed that the applicant was employed and had an annual income of $40,000. The application also indicated that the applicant was a permanent resident of the United States, but had lived in the United States for less than 10 years. The residency questionnaire reflected that the applicant was unsure of his VISA number and that it had either expired or was about to expire. The applicant hoped to have it reinstated next year. Additionally, the official Immigration and Naturalization Service residency status documentation that was provided with the application showed that the applicant’s residency status had expired. The applicant, therefore, had not submitted the required documentation that he was a current legal resident of the United States. However, because the application was for a $100,000 policy, LNL’s underwriting rules required that the application be submitted to a re-insurance company to insure the risk. Direct insurance companies often utilize re-insurance companies to shift the risk of an insurance application to the re- insurance company. Such companies follow their own underwriting rules to determine whether they will issue insurance on an application. This application was forwarded to one of the re- insurance companies that LNL utilizes for re-insurance. The re- insurance company declined to issue insurance on the application and returned the application to LNL. Thereafter, LNL declined to issue insurance on this application because the documentation submitted with the application showed that the applicant’s legal residency status in the United States had expired and the re- insurance provider utilized by LNL declined to re-insure the applicant. OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 20 Count 20 of the OIR Order alleged that, in May 2004, LNL refused to issue a $25,000 life insurance policy to a 20- year-old female born in South Africa and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. At the time of the application, South Africa was listed as a “D” country under the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. The applicant in this case was the daughter of an LNL insurance agent. At the time of the application, she was a full-time student, unemployed and had no income. The evidence showed that LNL’s underwriting rules limited the amount of coverage to an amount equal to the applicant’s annual income for the preceding year. Since the applicant had no income, LNL’s underwriting rules did not permit the issuance of coverage and the policy was declined. OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. Count 21 Count 21 of the OIR Order alleged that, in April 2004, LNL refused to issue a $100,000 life insurance policy to a 42- year-old male born in Colombia and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The evidence demonstrated that the applicant had lived in the United States for less than 10 years, but was a resident because he had received political asylum in the United States. Political asylum is a non-permanent status that could result in the resident being returned to his or her country of origin. Political asylum status was considered by LNL’s underwriters to constitute too tenuous a residency status in the United States to warrant undertaking the risk of issuing insurance to an individual who may at any time be returned to residency in his country of origin, with its attendant severe mortality risks. However, because the application was for a $100,000 policy, LNL sent the application to one of the re-insurance companies that it uses for re-insurance. The re-insurance company declined to issue insurance on the application based on the temporary nature of the applicant’s residency status and returned the application to LNL. Thereafter, LNL declined to issue insurance to this applicant because he had resided in the United States for less than 10 years and his residency in the United States was based on political asylum status. OIR offered no evidence to refute LNL’s position on political asylum and offered no competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. Count 22 Count 22 of the OIR Order alleged that, in April 2004, LNL refused to issue a $25,000 life insurance policy to a 17- year-old male born in Ghana and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. Ghana is listed as a “D” country under the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. The evidence showed that the applicant had indicated on his application that he had a work visa which permitted him to remain a resident of the United States. However, the applicant, also, indicated he was a full-time high school student. The file also indicated that his sister, who is a contingent beneficiary, paid the initial application amount. On the other hand, the application indicated that the applicant’s fiancée would be the person responsible for payment of the insurance premium. Because of these inconsistencies, a telephonic interview was requested, but, for unknown reasons, was not completed. Because the interview was not completed, LNL declined to issue insurance on this application because the information that would have been supplied in a telephone interview was not provided before the underwriting decision was made. Again, OIR argues that the absence of specific notations in the file that it was cancelled based on missing documentation demonstrates that LNL refused to issue insurance based solely on national origin. This argument ignores OIR’s burden of proof in this case. The lack of such notations does not provide either a clear or convincing basis to draw any inferences regarding the reason for not issuing a policy. Additionally, OIR’s argument ignores the unrefuted testimony in this case that the application was declined based on the lack of information that would have been supplied if the required telephone interview had been completed. Other than its argument, OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 23 Count 23 of the OIR Order alleged that, in August 2004, LNL refused to issue a $100,000 life insurance policy to a 27-year-old male born in Colombia and residing in the United States solely because of the applicant’s national origin in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes. The evidence showed that the applicant was a temporary resident based on a grant of political asylum he received in 2000. As with Count 21, LNL sent the application to one of the re-insurance companies that it uses for re-insurance. The re-insurance company declined to issue insurance on the application based on the temporary nature of the applicant’s residency status and returned the application to LNL. Thereafter, LNL declined to issue insurance to this applicant because he had resided in the United States for less than 10 years and his residency in the United States was based on political asylum status. Again, political asylum status is considered by LNL’s underwriters to constitute too tenuous a residency status in the United States to warrant undertaking the risk of issuing insurance to an individual who may at any time be returned to residency in his country of origin, with its attendant severe mortality risks. OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant solely because of national origin. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(x)1., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 24 Count 24 of the OIR Order alleged that LNL refused to issue life insurance or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 59-year-old male applicant who was born in Guyana and resided in the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(dd)2., Florida Statutes. Guyana was listed as a “D” country under the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. The unrefuted evidence demonstrated that underwriting review of this application (A007302898) was postponed because the applicant was going to be out of the country on a mission trip to Liberia and could not complete a required paramedical examination requested by the paramedical examination company until his return to the United States. For unknown reasons, the applicant’s agent submitted a new application (A007313656) when the applicant returned from his trip. Medical tests were completed which revealed the applicant had prostate cancer and abnormal blood lab results. The original application was cancelled and the second application was denied based on the medical risk posed by the applicant. Clearly, neither cancellation of the first application nor denial of the second application was based on the applicant's travel. OIR offered no competent evidence that LNL refused to insure this applicant, or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage available to them, based solely on past lawful foreign travel or future lawful travel plans. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(dd)1. or 2., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 25 Count 25 of the OIR Order alleged that in January 2007, LNL refused to issue life insurance or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 23-year-old male applicant who was born in Palestine and resided in the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. Palestine was listed as a “D” country under the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. The evidence demonstrated that the applicant applied for a $100,000 insurance policy. The applicant indicated that he traveled to Palestine every few years. The insurance policy was issued but contained a policy endorsement excluding coverage for foreign travel. The policy was also issued with a rate above what would be normally charged for the type of insurance issued. Clearly, LNL did not refuse to issue insurance based on this applicant’s past travel or future travel plans. However, LNL did limit the insurance issued because of the applicant’s future travel plans when it issued the policy with a foreign travel endorsement. This underwriting decision was made after the effective date of Florida’s “Freedom to Travel Act.” In this case, the application was submitted to one of the re-insurance companies used by LNL. The re-insurance company only agreed to re-insure the application if the policy included a foreign travel exclusion endorsement. LNL’s underwriting department was under the mistaken belief that LNL’s re-insurers were underwriting their risks according to the same Florida “Freedom to Travel Act” restrictions imposed by Florida on direct insurers such as LNL. Since the re-insurer to whom this application was submitted required a foreign travel exclusion endorsement, LNL assumed the exclusion was consistent with Florida travel underwriting requirements, and issued the policy with the foreign travel exclusion endorsement. The mistake was admitted by LNL and seems to be an underwriting error due to the inexperience of LNL’s underwriter’s in regard to the relatively new “Freedom to Travel Act.” There was no evidence that LNL’s decision was willful. However, LNL's decision was a violation of the Act. COUNT 26 Count 26 of the OIR Order alleges that in February 2007, LNL refused to issue life insurance or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 44-year-old male applicant who was born in Haiti and was a citizen of the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. The applicant had applied for a $150,000 policy and indicated in his telephone interview that he traveled to Haiti one or two times a year. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Saxon’s underwriting unit processes approximately 1,500 applications from Florida a week, in addition to applications from other states. Ms. Saxon admitted that, when she processed this application, she missed the fact that this application was from Florida and subject to the “Florida Freedom to Travel Act.” She issued an ALX policy for $15,000. An ALX policy limits benefits to a return of premiums should an insurable event occur during the first three years of the policy. There was no evidence that Ms. Saxon willfully violated Florida’s “Freedom to Travel Act,” but made a mistake in processing this application. However, LNL did limit the kind or extent of insurance based solely on this applicant’s travel plans, contrary to the Florida “Freedom to Travel Act.” COUNTS 27 AND 28 Count 27 and 28 of the OIR Order alleges around July or August 2006, LNL refused life insurance to or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage on two insureds who were married, filed applications at the same time and were born in Haiti based solely on their past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. The applications were submitted to LNL on June 12, 2006, prior to the effective date of the “Freedom to Travel Act.” The decisions to issue the policies were made on July 6, 2006, five days after the Act's effective date on July 1, 2006. However, the policies were made effective retroactively to July 1, 2006, the same day the Act came into effect. The insurance policies were issued at a reduced face amount of $33,000 due to the underwriting rule that limited the amount of a policy to an applicant's annual income. Additionally, and more importantly for these Travel Act charges, the policies were issued with a foreign travel endorsement required. Once the underwriting decisions were made, the applicants' files were sent to the issuance department of LNL for finalization of the paperwork on the policies. This process is the standard process used by LNL for the insurance policies it writes. No one from the issuance department testified at the hearing and the evidence was not clear whether part of the policy had been finalized or placed with the insured. However, on July 20, 2006, the foreign travel policy endorsements for the policies were sent to the branch office. Again, the evidence was not clear what the branch office was to do with these endorsements, but it appears that the expectation was to have the endorsements signed by the applicants and returned to the issuance department. The travel endorsements were not accepted or returned by the applicants and the policies were eventually cancelled by LNL. Again, the evidence was not clear why the endorsements were not returned. Based on these facts, the evidence was clear that LNL limited the kind or extent of insurance based solely on these applicants’ travel plans contrary to the Florida “Freedom to Travel Act.” However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these violations were willful given the timeframes involved in the files. COUNT 29 Count 29 of the OIR Order alleges that in June 2006, LNL refused to issue life insurance or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 54-year-old female applicant who was born in Honduras and was residing in the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. Honduras was listed as a "D" country on the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. In this Count, the applicant applied for a $50,000 policy. Her telephone interview reflected that her most recent annual income was $6,000. She, also, indicated that she might travel to Honduras in the future for Christmas. The unrefuted evidence demonstrated that the policy was issued at a reduced amount of $6,000 based on the income of the applicant. As discussed earlier, this reduction was in compliance with LNL's underwriting rules for the risks posed by non-citizen applicants who were born in a "C" or "D" country. There was no competent evidence that this reduction was related to the applicant's future travel plans. Based on these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(dd)1 or 2., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 30 Count 30 of the OIR Order alleges that in August 2006, LNL refused to issue life insurance or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 47-year-old male applicant who was born in Haiti and was residing in the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. As found earlier, Haiti is listed as a "D" country on the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. The applicant had applied for a $50,000 policy. His most recent (2005) tax return reflected an annual income close to $11,000. His telephone interview reflected a current income of 36,000. However, this income was not in line with either of the applicant's 2003 or 2004 tax returns which reflected income closer to the 2005 tax return. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the $36,000 income reported in the telephone interview reflected business income prior to subtracting any business expenses. The applicant also indicated that he had returned to Haiti for a three-month period approximately four years prior to the date of his application to visit his family, but had no travel plans to visit Haiti in the future. The better evidence demonstrated that this policy was issued at a reduced amount of $17,000 based on the best estimate of the most recent annual income of the applicant. As discussed earlier, this reduction was in compliance with LNL's underwriting rules for the risks posed by a non-citizen applicant who was born in a "C" or "D" country. There was no competent evidence that this reduction was related to the applicant's past or future travel plans. Based on these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(dd)1 or 2., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 31 Count 31 of the OIR Order alleges that in August 2006, LNL refused life insurance to or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 30-year-old female applicant who was born in Haiti and residing in the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. The applicant had applied for a $100,000 policy. Her W-2 statements reflected an annual income of $42,000. She also indicated that she had traveled to Haiti approximately two years prior to the application, but had no future plans to travel. The unrefuted evidence demonstrated that the policy was issued at a reduced amount of $42,000 based on the income of the applicant. As discussed earlier, this reduction was in compliance with LNL's underwriting rules for the risk posed by non-citizen applicants who were born in a "C" or "D" country. There was no competent evidence that this reduction was related to the applicant's future travel plans. Based on these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(dd)1 or 2., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 32 Count 32 of the OIR Order alleges that in September 2006, LNL refused life insurance to or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 60-year-old female applicant who was born in Colombia and was a resident of the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. Colombia was listed as a "D" country on the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. The applicant had applied for a $35,000 policy. The applicant indicated she had an annual income of $25,000. Her most recent W-2 showed income slightly under $24,000. The applicant also indicated that she traveled to Colombia within the 12 months preceding her application and that she traveled there about every 5 years. The unrefuted evidence demonstrated that the policy was issued at a reduced amount of $25,000 based on the income of the applicant. As discussed earlier, this reduction was in compliance with LNL's underwriting rules for the risk posed by non-citizen applicants who were born in a "C" or "D" country. There was no competent evidence that this reduction was related to the applicant's past travel or future travel plans. In fact, the file contains a specific handwritten note from LNL's legal department on a copy of the OIR's official notification regarding the effective date of the Travel Act that indicated the underwriter could not take adverse actions on the application based on the applicant's travel plans. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(dd)1 or 2., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 33 Count 33 of the OIR Order alleges that in September 2006, LNL refused life insurance to or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 36-year-old female applicant who was born in Thailand and was a resident of the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. Thailand was listed as a "D" country on the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. The applicant applied for a $75,000 policy. Her most recent income tax return reflects income of $40,000. She also indicated that she regularly travels to Thailand for one week about every five years and intends to continue to travel there. The unrefuted evidence demonstrated that the policy was issued at a reduced amount of $40,000 based on the income of the applicant. As discussed earlier, this reduction was in compliance with LNL's underwriting rules for the risk posed by non-citizen applicants who were born in a "C" or "D" country. There was no competent evidence that this reduction was related to the applicant's past travel or future travel plans. As with Count 32, the file contains a specific handwritten note from LNL's legal department on a copy of the OIR's official notification regarding the effective date of the Travel Act. The note indicated that the underwriter could not take adverse actions on the application based on the applicant's travel plans. Given these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(dd)1 or 2., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 34 Count 34 of the OIR Order alleges that in November 2007, LNL refused life insurance to or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 41-year-old male applicant who was born in India and was a resident of the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. India was listed as a "D" country on the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. The applicant had applied for a $100,000 policy. His most recent W-2 showed income of slightly more than $12,000. The applicant, also, indicated that he traveled to India every few years and had plans to travel there in the future. The evidence demonstrated that this application was submitted to one of the re-insurance companies used by LNL because the application was for a $100,000 policy. The re- insurance company declined to re-insure the risk based on the travel plans of the applicant and returned the application to LNL. However, LNL recognized that it could not decline the application for the reason the re-insurance company declined the re-insurance. LNL reviewed the policy based on its underwriting guidelines for applicants from "C" or "D" countries. The policy was issued at a reduced amount of $15,000 based on the income of the applicant and rated for a person with diabetes. This reduction was in compliance with LNL's underwriting rules for the risk posed by non-citizen applicants who were born in a "C" or "D" country. Additionally, the rating for diabetes was in line with LNL's underwriting guidelines for medical conditions. There was no competent evidence that either the reduction or rating were related to the applicant's past travel or future travel plans. Based on these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541(1)(dd)1. or 2., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed. COUNT 35 Count 35 of the OIR Order alleges that in March 2007, LNL refused life insurance to or limited the amount, extent, or kind of life insurance coverage to a 34-year-old male applicant who was born in Nepal and was a resident of the United States based solely on past lawful foreign travel experience or future lawful travel plans, in violation of Subsections 626.9541(1)(dd)1. and 2., Florida Statutes. Nepal was listed as a "D" country on the country code classifications used by LNL for underwriting purposes. The applicant had applied for a $200,000 policy. His most recent W-2 showed income around $10,000. The telephone interview reflected annual income of about $30,000 since he was self-employed. The applicant, also, indicated that he traveled to Nepal about every two years and had plans to travel there in the future. The evidence demonstrated that this application was submitted to one of the re-insurance companies used by LNL because the application was for over $100,000 policy. The re- insurance company declined to re-insure the risk based on the travel plans of the applicant and returned the application to LNL. Again, LNL recognized that it could not decline the application for the reason the re-insurance company declined the re-insurance. The policy was issued at a reduced amount of $30,000 based on the income of the applicant. This reduction was in compliance with LNL's underwriting rules for the risk posed by a non-citizen applicant who was born in a "C" or "D" country. There was no competent evidence that this reduction was related to the applicant's past travel or future travel plans. Based on these facts, the evidence did not establish that LNL violated Subsection 626.9541 (1)(dd)1. or 2., Florida Statutes, and the Count should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Counts 1 through 24 and 29 through 35 of OIR’s June 3, 2009, Order be dismissed. As to Counts 25, 26, 27, and 28 of OIR’s June 3, 2009, Order it is further RECOMMENDED that OIR enter a Final Order finding four violations of Section 626.9541(1)(dd), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 per violation and ordering Respondent to underwrite the applications of the four affected individuals, and to offer to issue coverage to them from the date the policies were declined in such amount as is consistent with LNL’s underwriting guidelines, in compliance with the underwriting restrictions in Section 626.9541(1)(dd), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that OIR issue a cease and desist order to LNL regarding violations of Section 626.9541, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED Amanda Allen, Esquire Elenita Gomez, Esquire Office of Insurance Regulation Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Kevin M. McCarty, Commissioner Office of Insurance Regulation Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Steve Parton, General Counsel Office of Insurance Regulation Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the expenses incurred by Petitioner incident to admission to Town & Country Hospital on December 11, 1999, resulted from an intentional self-inflicted injury, to wit: attempted suicide, and are therefore excluded from coverage under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Petitioner, Sarah Nuding, was employed by the University of South Florida and was a participant in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (PPO). Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI), administers the state's self- funded group insurance plan for employees and has secured the services of BCBS as its third party administrator. On December 11, 1999, Petitioner called the Hillsborough County Sheriff's office after ingesting a handful of Wellbutrin and four tablets of Neurontin. Deputy Sheriff Midarst initiated involuntary examination pursuant to Section 394.463, Florida Statutes, (Baker Act), and Petitioner was admitted through the emergency room to Town & Country Hospital, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner was placed in the Hospital's Intensive Care Unit for observation of her seizure activity and remained there under observation and treatment until her release on December 13, 1999. Upon admission and after examinations, Petitioner was diagnosed with chronic anemia by the admitting physician who ordered consultation with the treating physician before medical services and treatment were provided. The admitting and treating physician, after review of Petitioner's hematocrit and hemoglobin levels which were above that normally requiring hospitalization, determined that Petitioner should be treated for the anemia condition before her discharge on December 13, 1999. Petitioner's State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document excludes coverage for services rendered for treatment of self-inflicted wounds, in pertinent part provides: The following are not Covered Services and Supplies under the Plan. The Participant is solely responsible for the payment of charges for all such services, supplies or equipment excluded in this Section. 5. Any services and supplies received due to the following circumstances: (b) Resulting from an intentional self- inflicted injury whether the Participant was sane or insane. An injury is intentionally self-inflicted if the Participant intended to perform the act that caused the injury regardless of whether the Participant intended to cause the injury. On or about July 31, 2000, BCBS notified DSGI that of the Hospital's statement totaling $8,244.00 for services and supplies rendered December 11-13, 1999, only $1,030.25 were directly related to a diagnosis of "anemia"; the remaining charges are for the diagnosis of "drug overdose" and are not covered expenses under the State PPO Plan. The decision by both BCBS and DSGI, to pay those charges related to Petitioner's diagnosis and treatment for anemia and to not pay those charges related to the suicide attempt, including two days intensive care unit cost of $1,150.00 per day, are supported by preponderance of the evidence, and is in accord with the terms and conditions of the insurance plan exclusion provision. Petitioner's position is that her prolonged hospital stay, medical treatment and supplies were: (a) not at her request and consent, (b) that her anemia condition was a pre- existing, and therefore, a covered condition, and (c) intensive care placement ($1,500.00 per day for two days) was not necessary to treat her pre-existing anemic condition, therefore, only her first day hospitalization expenses should have been excluded. However, Petitioner's position ignores the fact that her hospital admission was for a suicide attempt, and her stay resulted from the requirements of the Section 394.463, Florida Statutes, to wit: mandatory involuntary placement for 72 hours.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, issue a final order dismissing with prejudice the petition for administrative review. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 14th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sarah C. Nuding 15501 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard Apartment 3705 Tampa, Florida 33647 Cynthia Henderson, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Mallory Roberts, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, at all times pertinent hereto was an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering the group self-insurance health insurance program and other insurance programs such as life insurance and is the agency charged with accepting or rejecting applications for coverage under those programs, such as the application at issue. On January 11, 1980 the Petitioner commenced employment with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a District Intake Counselor in District eleven of the Department. Shortly after commencing employment the Petitioner attended an orientation meeting during which all insurance benefits and other benefits available for state employees were explained. Ernestine Thurston, the HRS employee who conducted the orientation session on January 11, 1980 informed all employees present at that orientation meeting, including the Petitioner, of the available benefits and the means by which they were to avail themselves by proper application, of those benefits, including the fact that the Petitioner had thirty days to enroll in the State Group Health Insurance Program without the necessity of obtaining medical approval for insurability. A second orientation meeting was held during which insurance benefits were explained for a second time to the employees whose names were depicted on the recruitment log, which names include the Petitioner 's. The Petitioner was present at both orientation sessions. At the first orientation session on January 11, 1980 the Petitioner received an HRS Employee Handbook which included the following language concerning insurance benefits: "Employees may enroll within 30 days of date of employment without evidence of insurability. "Application at a later date requires proof of insurability. Consult your supervisor, personnel manager, or district/central personnel office for additional information." The Petitioner admitted that she signed a receipt on January 11, 1980 acknowledging receipt of a complete copy of that Employee Handbook and which receipt included the following language: "I understand that it is my responsibility to review the pamphlet in detail and request any clarification needed from my supervisor or personnel office." Petitioner conceded that she did not read the pamphlet or handbook, but instead put it in her desk drawer at her office. On January 14, 1980, knowing of the need to apply for insurance benefits within 30 or 31 days of her employment during the open enrollment period, the Petitioner applied for various insurance -overages and submitted the pertinent enrollment forms through her District 11 personnel office. She applied for and received State Supplemental Health Insurance coverage through the Gulf Life Insurance Company (then called the "20/20" plan). This supplemental health insurance coverage was designed to complement the overall state group health insurance program or plan. The Petitioner at that time was covered under the overall state group health insurance plan (The Plan) through her husband's family coverage since he was an employee covered under that plan at the time. The Petitioner also timely applied for and received coverage under the state life insurance program as well. The Petitioner did not submit a new enrollee form requesting to participate in the State of Florida Employee's Group Health Self Insurance Plan within 31 calendar days of January 11, 1980. The Hearing Officer has considered the Petitioner's testimony as well as that of Ms. Thurston and the other evidence surrounding the circumstances of her initial employment, the explanation of insurance coverage benefits, including the time limit for the open enrollment without medical approval which the Petitioner did not avail herself of insofar as the group health self-insurance plan is concerned. The Petitioner did not apply for the overall group health self-insurance plan because she was already covered under that plan through her husband's coverage and not because, as Petitioner maintains, that it was never explained that she had 30, or actually 31, calendar days from January 11, 1980 to apply for that plan. Indeed it was explained to her as Ms. Thurston established and Respondent admits receiving the handbook further explaining the time limit to apply for that coverage without medical approval. She signed a receipt acknowledging her responsibility to read that pamphlet or manual and ask for clarification, if needed, concerning coverage benefits and she admitted that she did not read it. Thus it is found that at the time of her initial employment all pertinent insurance benefits and entitlements were explained to the Petitioner both verbally and in writing and she failed to avail herself of the automatic coverage provision referenced above in a timely way, for the reason stated above. In any event, on July 28, 1980 the Petitioner elected to submit a new enrollee form which was submitted with a medical statement form requesting participation in the State Plan. After correspondence with the State Plan administrator requesting additional medical information, on October 22, 1980 the Department of Administration, by letter, advised the Petitioner that she had not been approved by the plan administrator and she was denied coverage for medical reasons. Accordingly, on October 24, 1980 the Petitioner enrolled in the South Florida Group Health, Inc. Plan which is a health maintenance organization plan (HMO) and she was allowed enrollment in that plan without regard to her current medical condition. The Petitioner remained enrolled in the HMO and requested and was granted leave of absence without pay from her employment position commencing May 29, 1981. Her employing agency advised her that it was her individual responsibility to forward premium payments for the HMO health insurance premiums as well as the state life insurance coverage herself. In other words, she was to pay by cash or her own personal check for this coverage during the time she was not being paid by the state, that is, the premiums for that coverage were not being payroll deducted because she was temporarily off the payroll. Her employment with the State did not lapse during this period commencing May 29, 1981, rather she remained employed, but was on leave without- pay status. The Petitioner knew of her responsibility to pay the premiums for the HMO coverage and the state life insurance coverage itself during the period she was on leave of absence without pay as evidenced by the check she and her husband submitted in June 1981 to pay the premiums on her state life insurance coverage. The Petitioner and her husband moved from Miami to Fort Myers during early June 1981 and the Petitioner remained on leave of absence without pay. When her husband changed employment and moved to the Fort Myers area in June 1981 the Petitioner was a covered dependent under the health insurance coverage available to her husband through his new employment. I n August 1981 the South Florida Group Health, Inc., the HMO in the Miami are of which Petitioner was a member, terminated the Petitioner's health insurance coverage effective August 1, 1981 due to the Petitioner's failure to pay the premiums for that coverage. Shortly thereafter the Petitioner interviewed with personnel officials of HRS in District 8 in Fort Myers and obtained an employment position as a district intake counselor for District 8. She became an active payroll employee of HRS in District 8 by transfer in August 1981. Before the effective date of her transfer the Petitioner was interviewed by Judy Graham, an HRS employee assigned to process her transfer from her former active employment in District 11 in Miami. The Petitioner failed to advise Judy Graham at the time of the interview of her HMO coverage, merely inquiring of Ms. Graham concerning the details of continuation of her state life insurance coverage and concerning her credit union membership. Thereafter, more than 31 calendar days after the effective date of her transfer, (August 24, 1981), indeed, in excess of two years later, the Petitioner completed a new enrollee form again and applied for the state employee's group self- insurance plan benefits. The Department of Administration denied the Petitioner participation upon the determination that she was not medically approvable for insurability by the Plan's claims administrator, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. In any event, the Petitioner's continuous employment with the state and with HRS had never lapsed since she was initially hired January 11, 1980. She was merely on inactive/leave-without-pay status as a state employee from May 29, 1981 until August 24, 1981, as that relates to any right to a second 31-day open enrollment period.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Administration denying the Petitioner's requested enrollment in the State Group Health Insurance Plan without medical approval. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1985, 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 31st day of December, 1985. APPENDIX The following specific rulings are made on the Proposed Findings of Facts submitted by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate and not material to disposition of the issues at bar. Accepted, but subordinate and not material to disposition of the issues at bar. Accepted, but subordinate and not material to disposition of the material issues at bar. Rejected as not being in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not being in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted, but this Proposed Finding of Fact in itself is not dispositive of the material issues of fact and law resolved herein. Accepted. Rejected as not in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony adduced. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Facts The Respondent failed to number its Proposed Findings of. Fact, therefore its Proposed-Findings of Fact will be specifically ruled upon in the order the various paragraphs containing its Proposed Findings of Fact were presented. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gilda Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Curtright C. Truitt, Esq. Post Office Box 2706 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Richard L. Kopel, Esq. Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, administrator of the State of Florida group health insurance policy, should pay all covered medical expenses incurred by the Petitioners for non-PPC providers on behalf of their dependent daughter that exceed $3,000 1/ maximum out-of-pocket expense stop loss provision of the policy, despite the part of the stop loss provision that subjects it to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers.
Findings Of Fact Pertinent History of the Insurance Plan. The State of Florida offers group health insurance to its employees, including employees of the State University System, as an optional fringe benefit. Since 1978, the State has self-insured this coverage. The group health insurance coverage is administered by the Respondent, the Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance. The Respondent contracts with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida as a third party administrator of the insurance coverage. The State pays part of the premium required for the coverage; the balance of the premium is paid by the employee. Depending on their county of residence, state employees can choose membership in one of several approved health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in lieu of coverage under the State's health insurance plan. When an employee joins an approved health maintenance organization in lieu of the state health insurance plan, the State contributes to the cost of membership to the same extent that it contributes to an employee's insurance premium under its group health insurance plan. Since the State began to self-insure in 1978, coverage under the state group health insurance contained limits on the maximum amount the plan would pay for hospital room and board. The plan also differentiated between the amounts that would be paid under the plan for services rendered by pre-approved "preferred providers" (PPCs). From time to time through the years, the Florida Legislature changed the maximum amounts the plan would pay for various services, and the plan was changed accordingly. But in each version of the plan, there was a distinction made between services rendered by a PPC versus services rendered by a non-PPC. When the State began to self-insure its employee group health insurance benefit on May 1, 1978, it mailed a new, 25-page certificate of insurance to each employee covered by the plan. Whenever a change in the coverage under the state group health insurance plan was occasioned by new legislation, a revised certificate of insurance was mailed to each employee covered by the plan. This occurred in July, 1982, (a 40-page booklet), in August, 1983, (an eight-page addendum), in August, 1985, (a 13-page booklet), and in July, 1988 (a 13-page booklet). Consistent with the master group health insurance policy to which they refer, each of these certificates of insurance are clear that the maximum out- of-pocket "stop loss" feature is subject to certain limitations. In particular, all make clear that the feature is subject to a maximum payment for room and board. Each of these certificates of insurance contains language cautioning the employee that the certificate is not a contract of insurance, that the purpose of the certificate is only to summarize the insurance plan, and that the certificate does not include all covered and non-covered benefits. Each also advises that a copy of the complete contract (the master policy), and the administrative rules under which the plan is administered, could be inspected in the office of the Respondent, as well as in the employee's personnel office. Each advises employees to present questions to their agency personel office or to the Office of State Employee's Insurance. The August, 1985, certificate of insurance reflects a change in the policy to differentiate between PPC and non-PPC providers. It also clearly states that the maximum out-of-pocket stop loss feature of the policy is subject to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers. The July, 1988, certificate also clearly provides that the maximum out-of-pocket stop loss feature of the policy is subject to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers. Both of these certificates were entitled the "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Brochure." In addition to the certificates of insurance, Blue Cross Blue Shield also printed an abbreviated version of the July, 1988, insurance certificate called the "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefits." It is a seven-page document intended for distribution, along with information concerning the various available state-approved HMOs, to all new state employees, who have the opportunity to choose to enroll in the state group health plan, in one of the HMOs, or neither. It also was intended for distribution to all employees during open enrollment periods, when employees have the opportunity to change from an HMO to the state group health insurance, or vice versa, or to drop the benefit. The purpose of the "benefits" document was to give employees information on which to make that choice. Since it was anticipated that it would be mailed to many state employees who ultimately would choose against the state group health insurance plan, the information was condensed to shorten the document to save mailing costs. Only if a new employee (or an old employee during the open enrollment period) chose the insurance would the employee get mailed a certificate of insurance in the mail. Among the information contained in the July, 1988, "benefits" document was an item entitled "Maximum Out of Pocket Expense" that simply listed: "$1500 individual coverage" and "$3000 family coverage." Omitted from the "benefits" document were the limitations on the maximum out-of-pocket stop loss feature (Finding 7, above) and the language cautioning that it was not a contract (Finding 6, above). Under the heading "Exclusions and Limitations," it states: "Complete list in employee brochure." The last two pages of the document contains two lists, one entitled "Limitations," and the other entitled "Exclusions." Neither list specifies the limitations on the maximum out-of- pocket stop loss feature (Finding 7, above). On the cover of the document, it states: "This brochure replaces any other brochure or booklet printed prior to July 1, 1988, relative to the Plan and shall remain in effect until further notice." The Saffs' Insurance Decision. Edward B. Saff has been a mathematics professor at the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, Florida, for 22 years. The Saffs did not prove that they did not receive copies of the May 1978, July, 1982, August, 1983, August, 1985, and July, 1988, certificates of insurance. The Saffs' daughter Lisa, who was born on April 24, 1970, had been diagnosed in June, 1985, as having acute lymphoblastic leukemia. She was treated at the University of South Florida through June, 1988, and seemed to have been cured. During the summer of 1988, the Saffs had occasion to consider the question whether they should obtain health insurance other than, and in addition to, their family coverage under the State employees' group health insurance. Although the Saffs did not prove that they had not received their copies of the May 1978, July, 1982, August, 1983, August, 1985, and July, 1988, certificates of insurance, they apparently did not retain them or at least did not have them readily available to consult. As a result, Dr. Saff asked his secretary to get information on the state employees' group health insurance coverage from the USF personnel office. The evidence was that the Department of Administration has made a copy of the master group health self-insurance policy, and copies of the certificate of insurance, available in all state agency personnel offices, including in the USF personnel offices, for inspection by state employees. The July, 1988, certificate of insurance states: "The agency personnel office will provide needed assistance to State officers and employees enrolling in the Plan; however, such officers or employees should take care to assure that they receive the coverage applied for and that proper deductions are made." But there was no evidence specifically what Dr. Saff told his secretary to ask of his USF personnel office. Dr. Saff's secretary did not testify, and there was no evidence from which a finding can be made as to what the secretary asked for or what the secretary was told by the USF personnel office. But the secretary returned with a copy of the abbreviated version of the July, 1988, insurance certificate (the "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefits.") Cf. Findings 8 and 9, above. Based exclusively on the information relayed by Dr. Saff's secretary, i.e., on the abbreviated version of the July, 1988, insurance certificate (the "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefits"), with its incomplete information under the heading entitled "Maximum Out of Pocket Expense," the Saffs decided that they did not need any additional health insurance coverage for their daughter Lisa. They reasoned that they could afford the maximum out of pocket expense referenced in the document. They did not seek any further information about the policy before making this decision. The Saffs' Insurance Claim. In August, 1990, Lisa Saff underwent a routine gynecological examination, and a pelvic mass was discovered. The mass was removed surgically at Humana Women's Hospital in Tampa. Cancer of the ovaries was diagnosed, but at first the type of cancer was not identified. After more tests, it was determined that Lisa had suffered a recurrence of her previous cancer, but it was highly unusual for that type of cancer to recur in the ovaries. Since the physicians at Humana Women's and at USF were unfamiliar with the recurrence of the cancer in the ovaries, they recommended that Saffs seek medical care at Sloan-Kettering Hospital in New York City, where Lisa began treatment in the early part of September, 1990. Since starting treatment at Sloan-Kettering, Lisa has been under the care of Dr. Timothy Gee. She was hospitalized at Sloan-Kettering three times in 1990 and approximately twice in 1991. Fortunately, she has responded to treatment and is now on the maintenance portion of her protocol, receiving treatment as an outpatient of the hospital. Sloan-Kettering charges $700 a day for a hospital room and also charges for some other medical services in excess of the PPC fee and charge schedule under the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance policy. In all, the Saffs have incurred $46,870 for medical treatment for Lisa for 1990. As of the date of the final hearing, they incurred $14,439 for medical treatment for Lisa for 1991. They continue to incur medical expenses for Lisa under her maintenance protocol. They have submitted claims for payment under the state group health insurance policy, including all medical expenses during both 1990 and 1991 by which their out-of-pocket expense exceeded $3000 per calendar year. 2/ The Respondent's Position. In response to the Saffs' claims, the Respondent has taken the position that, in accordance with the master policy and the certificate of insurance, the maximum out-of-pocket stop loss feature of the policy is subject to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers. Cf. Finding 7, above. In accordance with that position, the Respondent has paid $18,554 of the Saffs' 1990 claims and $2,162 of the Saffs' 1991 claims. (The Saffs have paid $14,089 of the balance of their 1990 claims and $9,250 of the balance of their 1991 claims.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, enter a final order (1) giving effect to the provision of the group health self-insurance plan that subjects the maximum out- of-pocket stop loss feature of the policy to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers and (2) paying $18,554 of the Saffs' 1990 claims and $2,162 of the Saffs' 1991 claims. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1991, 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 19th day of September, 1991.
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
