The Issue Whether the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan is responsible for paying medical expenses incurred by Petitioner's newborn child where Petitioner had only individual coverage in effect at the time of the child's birth.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida makes available to its employees several group insurance programs. In the area of health insurance, employees may choose to participate in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (State Group Plan), or they may enroll in other plans, such as HMOs. The State Group Plan is a plan of self insurance established by the State and administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. This plan is described in general terms by a Plan Brochure and is described in more detail by the contract of insurance contained in the State Self Insured Health Plan's Benefit Document (Plan Document). The State Group Plan is regulated by those rules contained in Chapter 22K, Florida Administrative Code. At the time employees begin their employment with the State, they may select which, if any, of the optional health insurance programs offered by the State they desire. Thereafter, employees may only join one of the insurance programs or switch between programs during an annual open enrollment period. An employee who elects coverage from the State Group Plan may purchase either individual coverage or family coverage. Individual coverage provides health insurance coverage for only the individual employee. Family coverage provides health insurance coverage for the individual employee and the employee's eligible dependents for whom the employee has elected coverage. Family coverage does not begin until after the application for coverage is processed and the premium for family coverage is paid. The monthly premium for family coverage is paid one month in advance. An employee can, but he does not have to, wait for an open enrollment period to switch from individual coverage to family coverage. An employee having individual coverage may change to family coverage at any time during the year prior to the acquisition of an eligible dependent or at a time that is within 31 days of the date of acquisition of any eligible dependent. If family coverage is requested after the acquisition of the dependent, there is a gap in the coverage of the dependent between the date of acquisition and the date coverage begins. There is no retroactive coverage. An employee who completes the pertinent application for family coverage, who submits the application, and who pays the first month's premium for family coverage prior to the acquisition of the dependent has family coverage in place at the time the dependent is acquired through birth, adoption, or other means. Consequently, there is no gap in coverage between the date of acquisition and the effective date of coverage for that dependent. Petitioner is an associate professor of management and Director of the Doctoral Studies Program in the College of Business Administration at Florida International University (FIU). Petitioner teaches courses in a variety of areas including business administration, wage and salary administration, and insurance benefits. Petitioner enrolled in the State Group Plan in 1982. Petitioner was knowledgeable about the State Group Plan and had, from time to time, compared its benefits to those of other plans. At the time of their marriage, Petitioner and his wife reviewed their insurance coverage and decided not to convert their individual policies to one policy with family coverage. From the date of his initial enrollment until April 1989, Petitioner had individual coverage. On March 8, 1989, Petitioner executed the forms that were necessary to change his individual coverage to family coverage. Petitioner's family coverage went into effect on April 1, 1989, after the application was processed and the premium was collected. In March 1988 Petitioner married Annette Wellinghoff. Petitioner and his wife retained their respective individual insurance policies after their marriage. Mrs. Kroeck was not a state employee so the insurance coverage she had was independent of her husband's coverage. In August 1988 Petitioner and his wife learned that Mrs. Kroeck was pregnant with an expectant due date in February 1989. In August 1988, Petitioner telephoned the personnel office at FIU to inquire as to obtaining coverage for the expected child. The general information given Petitioner in response to his questions was accurate. He was told that he could convert his individual coverage to family coverage, if he so desired, during the open enrollment period scheduled for December 1, 1988, through January 31, 1989. There was no evidence that Petitioner specifically inquired as to when he should begin family coverage in order to have the child's birth expenses covered. Likewise, there was no evidence that Petitioner was specifically told that he could convert his coverage to family coverage after the birth of his child and have the medical expenses covered from the time of birth. Petitioner did not request any written information about the conversion process, nor did he request an application form to effectuate the conversion. Petitioner did not know the name of the person with whom he was speaking, only that she was a representative of the personnel office. Petitioner did not contact the FIU Personnel Office again until after the birth of his son. Instead, Petitioner relied upon his wife to take care of securing health insurance. Petitioner delegated this responsibility to his wife because she was also experienced and knowledgeable in matters concerning employee benefits and health insurance plans. Mrs. Kroeck has had at least 3 years experience in health insurance benefits administration. In December 1988 general information relating to the open enrollment program was mailed to all state employees, including Petitioner. Included in the information package were a Plan Brochure for the State Group Plan and an enrollment form for the various insurance options offered to State employees. Mrs. Kroeck read the application form and a portion of the Plan Brochure. Neither Petitioner nor his wife read, prior to the birth of their child, the section of the Plan Brochure entitled "Purpose of This Brochure". That section states that the Plan Brochure is not intended to be a contract document, that it is intended to give a summary of available benefits, and that an employee should contact either his personnel office or the office of the Division of State Employees' Insurance for the answer to questions. The employee is told that the contract document is the Plan Document and that a copy of the Plan Document is on file at the employee's personnel office. That section also contains the following admonition: 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. On January 9, 1989, Mrs. Kroeck telephoned the personnel office at FIU with questions relating to listing the unborn child as a dependent on the application form that had been mailed to Petitioner in December. Her questioning centered on how to complete the name, date of birth and social security number for an unborn dependent. Clara Martinez, the employee in the personnel office to whom Mrs. Kroeck spoke, does not recall talking to Mrs. Kroeck on January 8, 1989. At the time of this conversation, Ms. Martinez knew that family coverage had to be in place prior to the acquisition of a dependent for the dependent to be covered as of the date of acquisition. If Ms. Kroeck had asked Ms. Martinez a question to which Ms. Martinez did not know the answer, Ms. Martinez would have contacted the office of the Division of State Employees Insurance in Tallahassee for the answer. The evidence fails to establish that Mrs. Kroeck was misinformed by Ms. Martinez or that she specifically inquired as to the effective date of the family coverage. On February 19, 1989, Mrs. Kroeck had her baby. The baby was admitted to the hospital in his own name and incurred, in his own name, expenses in the amount of $4,274.95, for which Petitioner and his wife were responsible. On March 8, 1989, Petitioner signed an application to change his individual coverage to family coverage. Family coverage became effective on April 1, 1989, after the application was processed and the premium for family coverage was collected. At the time of the birth of his son, Petitioner had individual coverage issued through the State Group Plan. Petitioner's son was not a beneficiary under the State Group Plan at the time the medical expenses which are at issue were incurred. Petitioner's request for payment of the medical expenses incurred by his son at birth was denied by Respondent and this proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Administration enter a final order which denies the claim for payment of the medical expenses incurred by Petitioner's son prior to the effective date of family coverage. DONE AND ENTERED this , 27th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 27th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4929 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. 2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. 4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. 5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. 6. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. 7. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in material part by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in material part by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence as to Ms. Alam and as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached as to Ms. Martinez. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 19 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 20 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 21 are adopted in material part by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 22 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 23 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in material part by paragraph 18 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 25 are adopted in material part by paragraph 16 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 26 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 27 are adopted in material part by paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kark G. Kroeck 9853 Costa del Sol Boulevard Miami, Florida 33178 Alette A. Lhutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 William A. Grieder, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to change from individual to family coverage under the State of Florida Employees' Group Insurance Plan more that thirty-one calendar days after the birth of her son and outside the open enrollment period.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) District IV in 1986. For the past 18 months she has worked in her present position with HRS District IV in Deland, Florida. She presently resides with her husband in Deltona, Florida. HRS District IV personnel office is located at 5920 Arlington Expressway in Jacksonville, Florida. Linda Boutwell is employed as the Insurance Coordinator for HRS District IV. Petitioner gave birth to a son on January 6, 1990. On January 8, 1990, Petitioner called Linda Boutwell concerning the addition of her son to her State Health Insurance which would require a change from individual to family coverage. Mrs. Boutwell advised Petitioner that she could change from individual coverage to family coverage, but that the child would not be covered until the form was returned and approved. Boutwell indicated she would send her the necessary paperwork to add her son as a dependent. Mrs. Boutwell prepared and mailed the paperwork on January 8, 1990. It was received by Petitioner on January 10, 1990. Although Petitioner received the required enrollment papers on January 10, 1990, she did not return them to her personnel office. Petitioner states she did not return the papers to her personnel office because she understood from conversation with Linda Boutwell that her son's hospital bills would not be paid by the State Plan, since the child was not enrolled in the State Plan prior to that date. Instead, Petitioner elected to enroll in family coverage under her husband's employer's carrier. On March 15, 1990, Petitioner again called Linda Boutwell to request her son to be added to her insurance. Boutwell explained that Petitioner's request could not be honored since the request was beyond 31 days of the birth of the child. Therefore, Petitioner had to wait until the annual open enrollment period to obtain insurance coverage for the child. Petitioner's March 15, 1990 request was prompted by her discovery that the hospital bill related to the birth of her son was covered under the State Plan, even though she had not yet converted to the family coverage provision of the State Plan. Petitioner never asked Boutwell whether her individual hospital bill was covered or not. Petitioner's conclusion that her son's hospital birth would not be covered was based partly on the statement of a close friend who called Petitioner on January 7, 1990, to warn her to "expect problems" with her State Plan coverage. Petitioner has received a copy of the Amended State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Benefit Document, dated July 1, 1988. However, she did not examine it during the period January-March, 1990. Section II of the Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan states in pertinent part: II. Covered Hospital and Other Facility Services: The following services shall be covered when ordered by a physician and are medically necessary for the treatment of an insured as a result of a covered accident or illness. Inpatient hospital services under Subsections A., B., and H., are in connection with the pregnancy of only the employee . . . shall also include nursery charges of the child during the hospital stay of the mother. Petitioner does not offer any credible explanation why she did not convert to family coverage prior to or at the time of the birth of her son or during the 1989 open enrollment period which occurred during Petitioner's seventh month of pregnancy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 26th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 through 11. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Millard, pro se 2391 Montano Street Deltona, FL 32725 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
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.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Sections 120.68 and 766.311, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. See Section 766.311, Florida Statutes, and Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Carreras, 598 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the son of Floyd Goins, an enrollee of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, is an eligible dependent under the provisions of such plan, and therefore eligible for insurance benefits.
Findings Of Fact Background Floyd Goins (the "Insured") has been employed by the State of Florida, Dade County State Attorney's Office, for approximately 11 years, and was, at all times material hereto, a participant in the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan (the "Plan"), with family coverage. On January 17, 1988, the Insured's son, Ronald Goins (Ronald), date of birth March 7, 1965, was involved in an automobile accident in which he sustained serious injury. As a consequence, Ronald was admitted to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he apparently underwent extensive treatment. As a result of the accident, Ronald suffered severe physical handicap, in that he cannot walk or talk, and is not capable of self sustaining employment. Currently, Ronald resides with his parents, and is wholly dependent upon them for support. As a consequence of the medical expenses incurred on behalf of Ronald, a request for reimbursement was made to respondent, Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance (Department), under the Plan. Upon review, the Department, relying upon the provisions of Rule 22K- 1.103, Florida Administrative Code, concluded that Ronald, since he was over the age of 19 at the time of the accident and was not enrolled in and attending a school, college or university as a full-time student at the time of the accident, was ineligible for coverage as a dependent under the Plan. Accordingly, the Department denied the request for reimbursement. Thereafter, the Insured assigned to petitioner, The Public Health Trust of Dade County, Florida d/b/a Jackson Memorial Hospital, his interest in any benefits payable for services rendered by such facility as a consequence of Ronald's admission, and further authorized Jackson Memorial to take whatever legal action might be necessary to collect such benefits. As a consequence, petitioner filed a request for formal hearing to contest the Department's conclusion that Ronald was ineligible for coverage under the Plan. 1/ The issue of coverage. Under the provisions of the Plan, an employee's "eligible children" are included within the definition of "eligible dependents" who are eligible to participate in the Plan, provided family coverage has been selected. Rules 22K- 1.103(5) and 22K-1.201(2), Florida Administrative Code. "Eligible children" are defined by Rule 22K-1.103(4), Florida Administrative Code, as follows: "Eligible children" shall mean the employee's . . . own children . . . Such children are eligible for coverage as follows: From their date of birth to the end of the month in which their nineteenth (19th) birthday occurs; From their nineteenth (19th) birthday to the end of the month in which their twenty-third (23rd) birthday occurs, if they are enrolled in and regularly attending on a full-time basis any school, college or university which provides training or educational activities, and which is certified or licensed by a state or foreign country. Such children who are mentally or physically handicapped shall be eligible to continue coverage after attainment of the above age limits and while the employee's or retiree's family coverage is in effect provided such children are incapable of self- sustaining employment by reason of such mental or physical handicap and chiefly dependent upon the employee, retiree or supervising spouse for support and maintenance. (Emphasis added) And, Rule 22K-1.103(9), Florida Administrative Code, defines "full-time basis", as follows: (9) "Full-time basis" shall mean the number of hours required by the school, college or university to qualify an eligible child as a full-time student. In no case shall an eligible child be considered attending on a full-time basis unless such child is currently enrolled and attending, or has, during the previous twelve (12) month period, attended as a full-time student, two (2) semesters, three (3) quarters or eight (8) months at such school, college or university. (Emphasis added) Here, petitioner contends that Ronald was an eligible dependent of the Insured, and therefore covered by the Plan because he was "enrolled in and regularly attending on a full-time basis" Bauder College, an institution licensed by the State of Florida, at the time of his accident or, alternatively, because such accident rendered him "physically handicapped." The proof fails, however, to support the conclusion that Ronald was an eligible dependent of the Insured, at the time of the accident, on either basis. Ronald's educational pursuits. Regarding Ronald's educational pursuits, the proof demonstrates that his public education was interrupted in or about 1984 when he was incarcerated in the State prison system, and that he remained so incarcerated until the later part of 1987. While incarcerated, Ronald apparently pursued some educational program, although no specifics were offered at hearing from which any conclusion could be drawn regarding its "full-time" nature, since the Department of Education awarded to him a high school diploma on December 12, 1984. Ronald apparently also pursued, while incarcerated, a course of study in electronic repair through Sumter Vocational School, during the period of November 1, 1985 to September 20, 1986. [Petitioner's Exhibit 1]. Again, no specifics were offered at hearing from which any conclusion could be drawn regarding the "full- time" nature of this program, but Ronald was awarded a certificate upon its completion. In sum, the proof fails to support the conclusion that Ronald, while incarcerated, was enrolled in and regularly attending any school on a "full-time basis", as that term is defined by Rule 22K-1.103(9), Florida Administrative Code. Moreover, there is no proof of record that Ronald pursued any educational program after September 20, 1986, a date in excess of 12 months prior to his automobile accident, excepting his enrollment at Bauder College. Regarding Ronald's enrollment at Bauder College, the proof demonstrates that on November 3, 1987, Ronald executed an enrollment agreement with Bauder College whereby he elected to pursue an educational program in electronic engineering technology. According to the enrollment agreement, the program was to start January 19, 1988, and the school calendar [Respondent's Exhibit 1] confirms that January 19, 1988, was "ORIENTATION/REGISTRATION - FIRST DAY" of the 1988 Winter Quarter. Ronald was, however, hospitalized on January 17, 1988 as a consequence of his automobile accident, and never started his course of training. 2/ Therefore, Ronald, although enrolled, was not yet "regularly attending" school when injured and, therefore, was not at the time of his accident an eligible dependent of the Insured. 3/ Ronald's handicapped status. Here, petitioner also contends that, as a consequence of his handicap, Ronald was an eligible dependent under the Plan. Such contention is rejected as contrary to the provisions of Rule 22K-1.103(4), Florida Administrative Code. Handicap, under the facts of this case, is not a factor which renders a person eligible for coverage. Rather, handicap is a factor which permits the child of the insured "to continue coverage" after attainment of the age limits for coverage. Rule 22K-1.103(4)c), Florida Administrative Code. Ronald, not having been a covered dependent at the time he suffered his handicap, had no coverage to continue. Estoppel Notwithstanding the rules which govern eligibility to participate in the Plan, petitioner contends that the Department should be estopped to apply such rules in the instant case. 4/ The predicate for petitioner's argument lies in a brochure [Petitioner's Exhibit 7] that was provided the Insured, and which defines eligible dependents as follows: Your own children . . . ; if they are under the age of 19, if they are full-time students under the age of 23, or if they are determined by the administrator to be mentally or physically handicapped, incapable of self- sustaining employment, chiefly dependent upon your support, and otherwise insurable. Petitioner's claim of estoppel is unpersuasive for a number of reasons. First, the brochure does not purport to replicate the Plan, but to summarize it, and advises all recipients that it "is not a contract since it does not include all of the provisions, definitions, benefits, exclusions and limitations" of the Plan. Under such circumstances, it would not be reasonable to rely solely on the brochure for any definition of coverage. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the proof is not persuasive that the Insured relied upon the referenced provision of the brochure or that he made any change in position as a consequence of such provision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds that Ronald Goins is not covered by the Plan, and which dismisses the petition with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December 1991.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent's license as an insurance agent, and his eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in Florida should be disciplined for violation of certain provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-215.210, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Respondent, ROBERT DARREN CARLSON, at all times material hereto, was eligible for licensure and was licensed in Florida as a life insurance agent, life and health insurance agent, and variable annuity contracts salesman. Respondent was initially licensed in 1992. Respondent's license is currently under emergency suspension as a result of the actions alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case. Respondent is thirty years old, married with one son, and resides in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1993 Respondent became a shareholder and vice-president of National Consultants International, Inc. (National), a Florida corporation operating as an insurance agency in Pinellas County, Florida. National was incorporated on November 29, 1993, and dissolved on August 24, 1994. The principal shareholder and president of National was Coreen McKeever. At National Coreen McKeever was also responsible for the administrative functions of the agency. Respondent became an agent for National in March 1994. Respondent's duties were to contact potential customers, discuss the customer's insurance needs, explain products that might address the customer's needs, and write policies if purchased by the customer. Respondent collected the premiums, but as a usual practice at National, would turn the premium checks over to Coreen McKeever for administrative processing. Respondent was also authorized to make deposits and withdrawals on National's premium trust account at Republic Bank in Seminole, Florida. Findings as to Count III - Ralph Cody Ralph Cody is an eighty-nine year old retired school maintenance worker from Kentucky. Mr. Cody retired to Florida in 1980, and currently lives with his wife, Edna, in Pinellas County. Mr. Cody is in good health, but has difficulty with his eyesight and hearing. Mr. Cody no longer drives. Mr. Cody first met the Respondent approximately two years ago. At that time Respondent sold Mr. Cody an insurance policy with a company called United American. Mr. Cody was satisfied with this insurance policy. Subsequent to his initial contact with Respondent, Mr. Cody became interested in obtaining an insurance policy which would provide for in-home health care. Mr. Cody was particularly interested in such an insurance policy because of his concern for his wife's deteriorating health, and his desire that health care be provided at home for him and his wife, and not in a nursing home. Because of his interest in obtaining an in-home health care insurance policy, Mr. Cody met with Respondent. Respondent suggested, and Mr. Cody agreed, to the purchase of a policy called Fortis Long Term Security Home Health Care (Fortis), which was underwritten by Time Insurance Company (Time) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Respondent was an agent with Time. Mr. Cody believed the Time policy would meet his insurance needs. On or about March 31, 1994, Respondent received from Mr. Cody a check for $3,164.40. This sum was intended by Mr. Cody to be the premium payment for the Fortis home health care insurance policy underwritten by Time. Pursuant to Respondent's directions, the check from Mr. Cody was made payable to Respondent's agency, National, not to Time Insurance Company. Respondent directed this procedure because at this time, National had limited experience with Time, and National did not have "netting" privileges. "Netting" privileges allow an insurance agency to deduct its commission prior to forwarding a premium check to the underwriting company. Because of National's limited experience with Time, and the lack of netting privileges, Respondent did not believe it was unusual to make the Cody check payable to National, or to deposit the Cody check into National's account. Time has a general policy requiring that premium checks be made payable directly to Time; however, Time, on occasion, will accept premium checks from agencies. Time also requires that an application and premium check be immediately sent to the company for processing. Respondent deposited the Cody check into National's account at Republic Bank. Respondent took the Cody application back to National, entered the information into the computer and delivered the Cody application for the issuance of the Fortis policy to Coreen McKeever. Neither the Cody check, nor the Cody application for issuance of the Fortis policy was received by Time. Within three weeks of depositing the check and delivering the application, Respondent inquired of Coreen McKeever as to the status of the Cody application. Respondent was informed by Coreen McKeever that the application had been denied by Time because of Mrs. Cody's health problems. Contrary to Ms. McKeever's report, Time did not consider nor decline the application for issuance of the Fortis policy to the Codys because of Mrs. Cody's health or any other reason. Respondent did not personally check on the Cody application, and did not contact Time regarding the issuance of the policy to the Codys. Respondent had no personal knowledge whether the Cody application had been declined and received no written notification regarding the Cody application. Respondent did not question the representations made by Coreen McKeever in this regard. Shortly thereafter, Respondent informed Mr. Cody that the application to Time had been declined. Respondent met with Mr. Cody and suggested that Mr. Cody consider purchasing a product offered by a company called Secure Care Home Services, Inc. (Secure Care), which also provided home health care and was approximately the same purchase price as the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Respondent at that time represented to Mr. Cody, and Mr. Cody was under the belief, that the Secure Care product was substantially equivalent to the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Mr. Cody was aware that the Secure Care product was not insurance. Secure Care is a corporation located in Seminole, Florida. Secure Care is not an insurance company, but offers "membership agreements" marketed primarily to elderly persons to contractually provide in-home health care services to its members. Coreen McKeever (a/k/a Coreen J. Morgan) is a director of Secure Care, and has an interest in Secure Care. Secure Care is currently under a Cease and Desist Order suspending its business operations. The Cease and Desist order was entered by the Petitioner on March 13, 1995. On or about May 18, 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Cody entered into a membership agreement with Secure Care. The initial cost of the membership for both of the Codys as reflected in the agreement was $3,027.00; however, the record reflects that the ultimate cost to the Codys for the Secure Care membership actually totalled $3098.40. Respondent signed the agreement as an authorized agent for Secure Care. On May 26, 1994, Respondent met with the Codys at their home. At this time Respondent offered to refund to Mr. Cody the purchase price of the Time policy. To this end, Respondent tendered check number 1191 drawn on National's account in the amount of $3,164.40 to Mr. Cody; however, because the purchase price of the Codys' membership in Secure Care which Mr. Cody had already agreed to purchase was almost as much as the Time policy, Mr. Cody requested that Respondent apply the check for the Time policy to the Secure Care membership, and refund Mr. Cody the difference. Respondent accordingly on May 27, 1994, issued a check number 1189 drawn on National's account to Mr. Cody the amount of $65.70, which represented the difference in the cost of the two products. Several months after his purchase of the Secure Care membership, Mr. Cody became aware that some of his neighbors were dissatisfied with the home health care provided by the company. Thereafter, Mr. Cody became concerned that the Secure Care membership would not meet his or his wife's needs. At this time Mr. Cody had no personal experience with Secure Care. Neither Mr. Cody nor his wife ever used, or sought to use their Secure Care membership. Mr. Cody complained to Petitioner regarding Secure Care. Mr. Cody also contacted Time and discovered that his application and check had not been received. Respondent learned of Mr. Cody's concerns with Secure Care after Mr. Cody complained to Petitioner and a departmental investigation of this matter had been undertaken. Respondent then contacted Mr. Cody who told Respondent he wanted a refund of the purchase price of the Secure Care membership. Respondent contacted Secure Care, but learned that the company was not giving refunds at that time. Respondent suggested that Mr. Cody then attempt to deal with Secure Care directly. Mr. Cody was unable to obtain a refund of the cost of the Secure Care membership. The Codys obtained no benefit from their Secure Care membership. The Secure Care membership was not substantially equivalent to the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Secure Care was not an established company and did not have the resources or capability to provide the services offered by Time. Count II - Leila G. Smith Leila G. Smith is a widowed ninety-one year old retired first grade school teacher, originally from Georgia. Mrs. Smith currently resides with her niece, Miriam Enright, in Seminole, Florida. Brenda Blager is Miriam Enright's daughter, and Mrs. Smith's great-niece. Ms. Blager currently resides in Champagne, Illinois. Mrs. Smith receives a monthly income from her teacher's pension and Social Security benefits. Mrs. Smith is in generally good health for a person of her age, but has experienced a significant loss of vision, is totally blind in her left eye, and cannot read without the aid of a magnifying glass. Mrs. Smith moved to Florida approximately three years ago. Respondent was first introduced to Mrs. Smith by Mrs. Enright to whom Respondent had previously sold annuities. Respondent visited the Enright home and met with Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Enright, Ms. Blager, and also Mrs. Smith's nephew, Robert Smith, to discuss Mrs. Smith's insurance and investment needs. At that time Mrs. Smith purchased an annuity in the amount of $100,000 from Respondent. Approximately one month later Mrs. Smith purchased a second annuity in the amount of $100,000 from Respondent, and gave Robert Smith $60,000 for the purchase of an annuity. The interest payments from the second annuity purchased by Mrs. Smith were sent to Robert Smith. Brenda Blager usually reviewed and consulted Mrs. Smith regarding Mrs. Smith's personal finances; however, after moving to Florida and meeting Respondent, Mrs. Smith also began to rely on and trust Respondent with regard to advising her in her personal financial matters. Prior to moving to Florida, Mrs. Smith's investments consisted primarily of her home and certificates of deposit in banks and savings institutions in Georgia. Mrs. Smith was conservative in her investments, had never purchased stocks or bonds, and only wanted to place her savings in "safe" investments. Subsequent to her purchase of annuities, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Enright contacted Respondent to discuss other financial concerns. Specifically, Mrs. Smith had sold her home in Georgia and was interested in moving her certificates of deposit to Florida, achieving a higher rate of return, addressing tax problems associated with the payment of the annuity interest to her nephew, and purchasing a new Cadillac automobile. Whenever Respondent met with Mrs. Smith to discuss her finances and investments, Mrs. Enright, or another member of Mrs. Smith's family was also present. Respondent reviewed several financial documents relating to Mrs. Smith's Georgia certificates of deposit. Mrs. Smith's financial records were disorganized. Respondent advised Mrs. Smith that there would be substantial penalties if she prematurely removed her funds and invested in certificates of deposit. Despite the penalties and Respondent's advice to the contrary, Mrs. Smith decided to cash in her Georgia certificates of deposit and relocate her funds to Florida. Respondent assisted Mrs. Smith in cashing in the Georgia certificates of deposit. Respondent also assisted Mrs. Smith in using some of these funds to purchase a Cadillac automobile. Mrs. Smith had initially been interested in leasing the automobile; however, Respondent reviewed the lease arrangement, and advised Mrs. Smith that a purchase was in her best interest. Mrs. Smith followed Respondent's advice in this regard. Mrs. Smith trusted Respondent. To assist Mrs. Smith in relocating her funds to Florida, and also achieve a higher rate of return, Respondent presented Mrs. Smith with proposals to invest in promissory notes with two local firms, Zuma Engineering and Allstate Finance. (Allstate Finance is not associated with Allstate Insurance Company). Zuma Engineering (Zuma), is a start-up company located in Largo, Florida, engaged in the business of recycling tires. The rubber in the tires is converted to crumb rubber to be resold and used in asphalt roads, playground resurfacing and other products. Respondent first became aware of Zuma at a seminar in July of 1994 through another agent, Michael Mann, who was then raising funds for Zuma. Mr. Mann took Respondent to the Zuma facility and introduced Respondent to the president of the company. Thereafter, Respondent regularly toured the facility, inspected Zuma's existing and revised business plans, attended business meetings, and reviewed the company's monthly financial reports. The Zuma physical facility consisting of a warehouse and processing plant appeared to be consistent with the business plan. Respondent also obtained documents from Zuma reflecting that the company had initiated a research and development program associated with the University of South Florida. Respondent observed independent auditors at the Zuma facility, and reviewed financial documents that indicated Zuma had made progress toward a private stock offering. Respondent took reasonable actions to examine the operational and fiscal soundness of Zuma. When Respondent met with Mrs. Smith he presented her with documents including the Zuma business plan, and explained the investment opportunity in Zuma. Mrs. Smith does not recall Respondent explaining the Zuma investment proposal, nor does Mrs. Smith recall reading any documents or other material relating to Zuma. Given Mrs. Smith's extremely poor vision and the technical nature of the Zuma business plan, it is highly unlikely that Mrs. Smith read the business plan or any other documents pertaining to Zuma. Mrs. Smith did not comprehend the nature of the investment opportunity in Zuma. Although Mrs. Smith did not comprehend the nature of the Zuma investment, between September 26, 1994 and May 31, 1995 she nonetheless made several purchases of promissory notes payable by Zuma. Specifically, Mrs. Smith signed checks payable to Zuma as follows: September 26, 1994, two checks, one in the amount of $10,000, and another in the amount of $20,000; December 6, 1994, in the amount of $70,000; March 10, 1995 in the amount of $10,000; March 29, 1995 in the amount of $10,000; and, May 31, 1995 in the amount of $90,000. Mrs. Smith did not actually write the checks. Because of her poor eyesight, Mrs. Smith signed the checks in blank, and Respondent filled in the date, payee, and amount. Respondent remitted Mrs. Smith's checks to Zuma. In exchange, Zuma issued promissory notes to Mrs. Smith. The Zuma promissory notes were not insurance products. No interest has been paid on the Zuma promissory notes, and several of the notes are now in default. Mrs. Smith has not received any of the principal of the promissory notes back from Zuma. The prospectus of Zuma states that securities in Zuma are speculative, carry a high degree of risk, and "...should not be purchased by anyone who cannot afford the loss of his or her entire investment." Mrs. Smith did not understand the high risk involved in purchasing securities in Zuma. In addition to Mrs. Smith, Respondent sold promissory notes issued by Zuma to approximately thirty other investors. Subsequent to selling the Zuma notes to Mrs. Smith, Respondent met with an investigator from the Florida Comptroller's Office, and was informed that due to fiscal irregularities at Zuma, Respondent should refrain from selling Zuma securities. Respondent was not aware of the problems with Zuma prior to his meeting with the Comptroller's investigator. At the same time that Respondent presented Mrs. Smith with the Zuma proposal, Respondent also presented Mrs. Smith with information from Allstate Finance. Allstate, which is not related to the Allstate Insurance Company, is a company located in Tampa, Florida, in the business of automobile financing. Mrs. Smith purchased at least one promissory note in the amount of $40,000 from Allstate. The Allstate promissory note purchased by Mrs. Smith was not an insurance product. Mrs. Smith has received, and continues to receive, monthly interest payments from Allstate. In June of 1995, Mrs. Smith allowed the Allstate promissory note to renew for another year. In July of 1995, Brenda Blager received a telephone call from her mother, Miriam Enright, requesting assistance in reviewing Mrs. Smith's investments. Ms. Blager has worked in a financial planning office, but is not a certified financial planner. Prior to that time Ms. Blager had no knowledge of Zuma. Ms. Blager obtained a Dunn & Bradstreet report on Zuma and became very concerned regarding Mrs. Smith's investment in Zuma. Ms. Blager then came to Florida from Illinois for the purpose of reviewing Mrs. Smith's investments. After reviewing the Zuma and Allstate promissory notes, Ms. Blager met with an attorney and attempted to recover Mrs. Smith's funds; however, Ms. Blager was unable to do so. As a result of Respondent's actions, Mrs. Smith has cashed in all of her certificates of deposit to purchase the Zuma and Allstate promissory notes, and her Cadillac automobile. Mrs. Smith has no other savings or investments. While Mrs. Smith did want to relocate her funds from Georgia, Respondent was aware that Mrs. Smith desired and intended to place her funds in safe, low risk, investments. Respondent's advice and assistance, which resulted in placing Mrs. Smith's funds in a high risk security such as a Zuma promissory note, was not appropriate for an elderly woman in Mrs. Smith's circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER enter a final order finding Respondent, ROBERT DARREN CARLSON, in violation of the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth above, and that Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure be SUSPENDED for a period of fifteen (15) months. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON, 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 21st day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4947 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted as to Zuma was a start-up company, recycling tires. Rejected as to Mrs. Smith's knowledge and consent. Accepted as to Mrs. Smith wanting safe investments. Rejected as to Respondent being employed by Zuma. 7.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11.-12. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith desired safe investments. 13.-21. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-6. Accepted and incorporated. 7.-13. Accepted and incorporated. 14.-16. Rejected as to Respondent's reasonable basis for believing the representations of Coreen McKeever. 17. Accepted, except to the extent that Mr. Cody was led to believe Secure Care was equivalent to Time. 18.-25. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not necessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not an accurate assessment of Mr. Cody's testimony. 29.-30. Accepted and incorporated. 31.-32. Accepted; Time's general policy allowed checks from agencies. 33.-35. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 36.-43. Accepted and incorporated. 44. Accepted except to the extent that Zuma and Allstate promissory notes were not appropriate investments for Mrs. Smith. 45.-54. Accepted to the extent that Respondent investigated Zuma, reviewed fiscal reports, and believed Zuma to be a viable start-up company. 55.-57. Accepted and incorporated. 58. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith had document relating to Zuma; rejected to the extent that Mrs. Smith understood the nature of the Zuma investment. 59.-63. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith allowed the Allstate not to renew. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith wanted her certificates of deposit moved from Georgia. Rejected to the extent that Respondent knew, or should have known, the investments were high risk. Accepted to the extent that Ms. Blager is not a certified financial planner. Rejected to the extent that Zuma has defaulted on several of Mrs. Smith's notes, and not returned any interest or principal. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire NEWELL & STAHL 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Does the Prescription Drug Services Plan administered by the Division of State Group Insurance provide coverage for the drug Xenical as prescribed to the Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact The Plan The Division of State Group Insurance is authorized to provide health insurance coverage to employees of the State of Florida through a fully insured plan or a self-insured plan. The decision to offer a self-insured plan is explained in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefits Document (the "Plan Booklet and Benefits Document"): As is the case with many major employers, the State of Florida determined that a self- insured plan would result in significant savings to the participating members, and, therefore, implemented the current self- insured program in 1978. Being self-insured means that Claims are paid directly from funds belonging to the State of Florida, with the State earning interest on all fund balances. In addition, the Plan avoids charges normally charged by insurance companies such as retentions, reinsurance, risk factors, and other insurance related charges. (Petitioner's Ex. 7, p. 2.) Denominated the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Insurance Plan, the Plan has both a Servicing Agent and a Prescription Drug Program Administrator. At the time the events leading to this case arose, the Servicing Agent was Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and the Prescription Drug Program Administrator was Eckerd Health Services ("EHS"). By designation of the Florida Legislature, however, the Division is responsible for the administration of the Plan. In the capacity of Plan Administrator, "the Division . . . has full and final decision-making authority concerning eligibility, coverage, benefits, claims, or interpretation of the Benefit Document." (Id.) Mr. Magee, Diabetes and Hypercholesteremia Dennis J. Magee is an employee of the Department of Corrections. He has been covered by State Health Insurance since he commenced his employment with the state in 1971. Mr. Magee has participated in numerous health insurance plans over the course of his employment. For the past three or four years, at least, he has participated in the State of Florida Group Health Self-Insurance Plan administered by the Division. Approximately twelve years ago, Mr. Magee was diagnosed with diabetes. Since the initial diagnosis, his diabetes mellitus type 2 has become complicated by microangiopathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, hypercholesterolemia (elevated serum cholesterol) and obesity. With regard to obesity, Mr. Magee was determined near the time of hearing to have a body mass index of 32.25, an index beyond the threshold for obesity. Dr. Croom and Xenical Mr. Magee's physician is William P. Croom, M.D. Dr. Croom is an endocrinologist specializing in the treatment of types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. On July 22, 1999, Dr. Croom prescribed Xenical, a drug used in the control of obesity, at a dosage of 150 milligrams for Mr. Magee. The prescription was medically necessary in Dr. Croom's view because Mr. Magee "has been unsuccessful in managing his obesity with diet and exercise" (Petitioner's Ex. 2) and because "his diabetes and hyperlipidemia [elevated cholesterol] are driven by his obesity . . . ." (Petitioner's Ex. 3). Attempt to Fill the Prescription Mr. Magee presented the prescription to Express Pharmacy Services. It was not honored. On August 3, 1999, Express Pharmacy Services wrote to Mr. Magee that "[t]his item is not covered by your insurance. Please contact your benefits rep. if you have questions." Petitioner's Ex. 4. Appeal to the Division Eckerd Health Services, the Prescription Drug Program Administrator, affirmed the denial of the prescription. Mr. Magee appealed the decision to the Division. The Department of Management Services has an appeals committee, which reviews all denials of coverage by EHS. The appeals committee is composed of three members within the Division: the director, the assistant director and the Policy and Development Bureau Chief. The Director, at the time Mr. Magee's appeal was considered, Mr. Slavin, is a diabetic. The appeals committee looked into Xenical as a treatment for diabetes. It obtained information through literature and internet research and from consultation with physicians at Blue Cross/Blue Shield. On the basis of the research, the committee concluded that Xenical is used only for the treatment of obesity and not for the treatment of diabetes. The appeal resulted in the letter from Director Slavin (referenced in the Preliminary Statement of this order) in which the Director wrote, "I am writing in response to your appeal of the decision by Eckerd Health Services (EHS) to deny coverage for Xenical [and] [r]egrettably, we must concur with EHS' determination." The Plan Booklet and Benefits Document Basis for the Denial The Division's concurrence with EHS that coverage for Xenical should be denied was based on the Prescription Drug Program Section of the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document. The program is described in Part XXVIII, Section W. Subsection 1., Covered Drugs, on p. 57 lists "(a) [f]ederal legend drugs" and "(b) [s]tate restricted drugs" as among those drugs covered. Among the list under Subsection 5., entitled "Exclusions," however, is "(c) [a]nti-obesity drugs." The listing of anti- obesity drugs under Part XXVIII, Section W., Subsection 5, the "Exclusions" subsection, ultimately, is the basis for the Division's denial of coverage of Xenical as prescribed for Mr. Magee. The Plan Booklet and Benefits Document is prepared on an annual basis by the Division. Typically, the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document is "enacted by the Legislature every year through the appropriation[] process of Section 8 of the Appropriations Act." (Tr. 54). For example, the Conference Report on Senate Bill 2500, General Appropriations for 1999- 2000, under Specific Appropriation states: 9) All State Group Health Insurance Plan benefits as provided in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document effective January 1, 1998, . . . shall remain in effect. Changes to the benefits provided by the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document are normally initiated by submission of the Governor in his Legislative Budget Request. Benefit changes must be approved by the Legislature. The Plan Booklet and Benefit Document provides, among many, the following definitions: "Covered Services and Supplies" shall mean those health care services, treatments, therapies, devices, procedures, techniques, equipment, supplies, products, remedies, vaccines, biological products, drugs, pharmaceutical and chemical compounds which expenses are covered under the terms of the Benefit Document. The Administrator has final authority to determine if a service or supply is covered or limited by the Plan. * * * "Medical Supplies or Equipment" means supplies or equipment that must be: ordered by a Physician; of no further use when medical need ends; usable only by the Participant patient; not primarily for the Participant patient's comfort or hygiene; not for environmental control; not for exercise; manufactured specifically for medical use. (Petitioner's Ex. 7, Definitions 21 and 50, pgs. 17 and 23, respectively.) Drugs are services as defined by the Plan Booklet and Benefits Documents. But drugs that are excluded from coverage, such as anti-obesity drugs, are not "covered services" as defined by the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document since by definition, an exclusion prevents them from being "covered." As a "service," moreover, Xenical is not covered by virtue of Section G. of the Benefits Document, also entitled "Exclusions." Petitioner's Ex. 7., p. 38. With regard to services "related to obesity and weight reduction," the Benefits Document states the following: G. EXCLUSIONS The following are not Covered Services and Supplies under the Plan. * * * All services and supplies related to obesity or weight reduction except: Medically Necessary intestinal or stomach by-pass surgery; or medically related services provided as part of a weight loss program when weight loss of a Participant is required by the surgeon prior to performing a Medically Necessary surgical procedure. (Petitioner's Ex. 7, pgs. 38, 41.) Xenical and Section 627.65745, Florida Statutes Subsection 627.65745(1), Florida Statutes, states: A health insurance policy or group health insurance policy sold in this state, including a health benefit plan issued pursuant to 727.6699, must provide coverage for all medically appropriate and necessary equipment, supplies and diabetes outpatient self management training and educational services used to treat diabetes, if the patient's treating physician or a physician who specializes in the treatment of diabetes certifies such services are necessary. Xenical, a drug, is obviously not "equipment." Nor would it fall under the category of "self management training and educational services used to treat diabetes." It does not fall under the category of "supplies" either. Under the coding system developed by the Health Care Financing Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the standard coding system for the payment of health claims, drugs are not supplies. Examples of supplies include prosthetics, testing supplies, artificial limbs, ventilators, needles, and insulin pumps. Update of the Basis for the Prescription In a letter dated June 13, 2000, Dr. Croom more fully explained the basis for the prescription. Xenical is medically necessary for the treatment of diabetes and is not for cosmetic purposes. Xenical is a part of Mr. Magee's outpatient management program which consists of other medications and education. Despite these medications, his most recent hemoglobin A1C is 9.1 significantly higher than the recommended target of 7.0. The use of Xenical would be instrumental in reducing this parameter. In my opinion, Xenical is medically appropriate and necessary. (Petitioner's Ex. 3). The appeals committee did not have the benefit of Dr. Croom's June 13, 2000, letter in which Dr. Croom opined that in the case of Mr. Magee, "Xenical is medically necessary for the treatment of diabetes and is not being used for cosmetic purposes." Other Purpose for the Prescription That a drug's effectiveness is primarily for the treatment of an excluded purpose may not necessarily exclude it from coverage if it were prescribed for some other purpose. This point was elicited during testimony of the Division's witness, C. Merrill Moody, the Division's Assistant Director: (Tr. 81). MR. MOODY: If [Xenical] was being prescribed for obesity, it would be excluded; if it was not, it would not. And I'll give you an example. We have a direct exclusion for contraceptives for contraceptive use . . . [b]ut contraceptives can be used for other purposes. . . . [P]articipants are required to provide us with a letter from the doctor describing what the contraceptive is being used for. We then cover that contraceptive. Mr. Moody went on to explain that oral contraceptives, because of certain properties, are used also in the management of conditions not related to prevention of contraception. For example, oral contraceptives are prescribed in the treatment of menopause because of their ability to maintain the levels of certain hormones. If prescribed for that purpose, then, despite the fact that they are oral contraceptives and normally excluded from coverage, they are covered because of the non-contraceptive basis for the prescription. The Division's position with regard to oral contraceptives is consistent with the exclusion contained in Section W.5. of the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document. There the "Exclusions List" states "(a) Oral contraceptives for contraception." Petitioner's Ex. 6, p. 59. In other words, it is not some policy of the Division that provides coverage for oral contraceptives when the prescription is for a purpose other than contraception. The coverage is provided by the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document, itself. If oral contraceptives are prescribed "for contraception" then they are excluded from coverage. If prescribed for some other medical purpose, then the exclusion contained in Section W, 5(a) does not prevent coverage of oral contraceptives.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that: the Division of State Group Insurance in the Department of Management Services enter a final order denying coverage of Dennis J. Magee's prescription for Xenical; and, the Division present to the Legislature the Plan Booklet and Benefits Document amended so as to allow coverage of anti-obesity drugs for diabetics if such drugs are prescribed as medically necessary for management of the subscriber's diabetes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 28th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis J. Magee Post Office Box 636 Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 Cindy Horne, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Thomas D. McGurk, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
