The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to reimbursement under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan for $300.00 she spent for chiropractic treatment between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is and has been an employee of the State of Florida for a number of years. In February of 1974, she subscribed to the general group health insurance plan offered by the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under contract no. 264158282. Blue Cross of Florida Inc. and Blue Shield of Florida Inc. are the designated claims agent/administrator for the general plan and its options/addenda. Petitioner was first treated by Dr. Steven M. Willis, D.C., in January, 1983. She did not initially present to Dr. Willis, a chiropractor, for trauma but for symptoms of chronic sciatica and leg pain. She was treated the remainder of that month for sciatica but did not subscribe to the state group health plan until February 1, 1983. Although her application for chiropractic coverage was not offered or admitted in evidence, Petitioner testified that she answered all questions thereon and Respondent did not affirmatively raise any issues of lack of coverage due to effective date of coverage, or due to addendum changes, or due to concealment or due to fraud and on the basis of Petitioner's exhibits as a whole, I find that she acquired chiropractic coverage during a period of open enrollment and that from February 1, 1983 on, the plan took her as it found her and provided complete chiropractic coverage. In dispute in this cause are a series of chiropractic treatments and charges incurred by the Petitioner with Dr. Willis. Claims for the following dates of treatment were made in the name of a health care provider, Robert G. Hildreth, D.C." Dr. Hildreth made the formal claims upon Petitioner's assignment to the Centerville Road Chiropractic Clinic in which both chiropractors are partners. There is no dispute that the following treatments were rendered by Dr. Willis and properly assigned for payment by Petitioner: 11/16/83 - $20.00 12/21/03 - $6.44 11/22/83 - $20.00 12/29/83 - $20.00 11/28/83 - $20.00 01/03/84 - $20.00 12/05/83 - $20.00 01/06/84 - $20.00 12/09/83 - $20.00 01/13/84 - $20.00 12/14/83 - $20.00 01/17/84 - $20.00 12/19/83 - $20.00 01/19/84 - $20.00 12/21/83 - $20.00 01/23/84 - $20.00 Claims for some or all of these treatments/amounts were submitted by the chiropractors a number of times and rejected by Blue Cross/Blue Shield as the state administrator a number of times. Petitioner conceded at hearing that the 12/21/83 charge in the amount of $6.44 was properly rejected for lack of coverage of supplies costs. The first rejection of some of the other charges was for failure of the doctors' bookkeeper to include the correct diagnosis and procedure codes on the claims forms. This was corrected and resubmitted and thereafter all of the charges for treatment were rejected (either together or piecemeal) for payment upon grounds that 26 visits had already been paid for and that after the maximum number of 26 visits has been paid the state plan pays for no more chiropractic visits. Blue Cross/Blue Shield resumed paying for chiropractic treatment for the chronic back and leg problems on 1/27/84. In light of Blue Cross/Blue Shield's earlier response, Petitioner and Dr. Willis concluded that this must be because a new year was beginning and a new 26 visits would be paid annually. However, Respondent stipulated at hearing, that although private Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance plans may have such a maximum, the state plan has no such 26 visits annual maximum. Petitioner and Dr. Willis questioned Blue Cross/Blue Shield about its 26 visit annual maximum reason for rejection, so Blue Cross/Blue Shield sent a "review sheet" asking Dr. Willis to justify his diagnosis and treatment. His justification was supplied on the review sheet (R-1) dated February 27, 1984. After review, Blue Cross/Blue Shield advised Petitioner and Dr. Willis that payment for these treatments had been determined not to be "medically necessary" by its chiropractic board of review. Petitioner responded with a timely request for Section 120.57(1) hearing. Petitioner eventually paid for the treatments in question out of her own pocket. In support of her position that her treatments (all of which may be generically described as "spine adjustments") are "medically necessary, Petitioner offered the testimony of Dr. Willis, the treating chiropractor. In addition to relating facts, I find Dr. Willis by education, training, and experience is capable of giving expert opinions in the field of chiropractic medicine. Dr. Willis testified that he first saw Petitioner on 1/12/83 for sciatic pain in both legs. After taking a complete history revealing previous orthopedic treatment locally with Dr. Haney and previous podiatric treatment locally with Dr. Merritt, treatment with another doctor in Orlando and with another podiatrist in Texas, Dr. Willis initially diagnosed acute lumbosacral neuralgia and treated Petitioner 3 times per week for 6 weeks. He opined that Petitioner's case was unusual in that Petitioner wanted to remain as athletically active as possible, including but not limited to running 10-50 miles per week and participating in a number of sports. Dr. Willis subsequently revised his diagnosis to make it bilateral sacrilization at the L-5/S-1 vertebrae, anterior gravitational syndrome and hyperimbrication at the L4/L5 vertebrae. Put into laymen's terms, Petitioner's L-4 / L-5 vertebrae do not have full range of motion and this results in Petitioner's low back pain at that level. In Dr. Willis' opinion, due to a congenital abnormality, in Petitioner, her condition is not fully correctable. On 4/5/83, Petitioner came to Dr. Willis with back pain which he diagnosed as the result of a trauma occurring as a result of weight lifting Petitioner had done on 4/4/83, and subsequently she suffered a trauma to the unstable back while windsurfing. On 10/28/83, Petitioner reported pain in the medial aspect of her left foot which Dr. Willis diagnosed as tendonitis. In January, 1984 he referred her to Dr. Merritt, a local podiatrist for a severe left shin/ankle/ metatarsal problem. These various diagnoses, treatments, and referrals, are important to the instant issue involving spine adjustment treatments between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84 for chronic back pain at L-4 through S- 1 because they serve to illustrate diagnosis and treatment differences between trauma situations and continuing treatment for exacerbations of the chronic back and foot/leg problems for which cost of treatment reimbursement is sought. "Apparently, however, there was no problem with payment of any fees charged until 11/16/83 (the twenty-seventh visit in 1983), and clearly payments resumed as soon as the calendar rolled over to 1984. Dr. Willis further diagnosed concluded that there is pedal instability of Petitioner's foot resulting in ankle and shin problems and that these problems in turn create an imbalance; the imbalance in turn causes great wear and tear in the lumbar (low back) region. The low back is again exacerbated by increased periods of activity. During these periods of exacerbation he treats Petitioner's chronic back pain with spine adjustments. There may be long periods between exacerbations when treatments are not necessary. It is for the periods of exacerbation that the treatments in question were administered and for which Petitioner seeks reimbursement. Although Dr. Willis conceded on cross-examination that frequency of treatment in a case like Petitioner's is a matter of chiropractic judgment and also that opinions among health care providers and especially chiropractors may differ as to whether the treatments he has provided to Petitioner are medically necessary or not, he states emphatically that in his professional opinion they are medically necessary. Upon consideration of all the testimony and evidence, I find the treatments between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84 to be remedial as opposed to merely palliative in nature due to the considerable instability of both the back and foot which continued to be exacerbated by Petitioner's particular lifestyle. Both Petitioner and her doctor testified that chiropractic treatment sessions in her case have always included preventive counselling as well as therapeutic treatment. The goal of such counselling is to substitute non-exacerbating or less-exacerbating recreational activities for those Petitioner would otherwise pursue (i.e. weight training and swimming in place of running and wind surfing).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding Petitioner's treatments in question "medically necessary and ordering the plan administrator (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) to reimburse her $300.00 therefor (amount claimed less the admittedly "not covered" $6.44 supplies charge on 12/21/83.). DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dara Houliston 2308 Notley Court Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Prior to the institution of this proceeding, Petitioner had undergone surgical sterilization through a procedure known as a vasectomy. Subsequent to the Petitioner having the vasectomy, Petitioner made a decision to have the procedure surgically reversed. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was a member of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (Plan). At some time prior to having the vasectomy surgically reversed the Petitioner obtained and reviewed the Brochure from the Plan (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Page 1 of the Brochure advises the members of the Plan (members) that the Brochure is "not a contract since it does not include all of the provisions, definitions, benefits, exclusions, and limitations" of the Plan and that its purpose is to furnish members a summary of the benefits available under the Plan and provides a regular telephone number and a SunCom telephone number for the Office of State Employees Insurance (OSEI) in Tallahassee, Florida for the members to call if there are any questions. Page 4 of the Brochure contains a paragraph entitled "Benefit Inquiries" and provides a regular telephone number and a SunCom telephone number for members to call the OSEI on questions concerning benefits. Page 12 of the Brochure contains a paragraph entitled "Claims Inquiries" and provides a TOLL FREE WATS LINE number for the Jacksonville Office of Blue Cross and Blue Shield for members to use when calling that office on questions concerning claims or claims problems. OSEI interprets "Claims Inquiries" to mean inquiries concerning payment, nonpayment or timeliness of claims as distinguished from whether certain services are covered under the Plan which would be "Benefit Inquiry". Page 9 of the Brochure contains a paragraph entitled "Limitations and Exclusions" wherein surgery to reverse surgical sterilization is listed as one of those procedures that the Plan finds necessary to limit or exclude payment. Immediately above the paragraph entitled "Limitations and Exclusions" on page 9 the Brochure advises the member that exclusions and limitations are contained in the Benefit Document on file in the individual's personnel office and the OSEI in Tallahassee, Florida. The Benefit Document is defined on page 2 of the Brochure as the document containing "the provisions, benefits, definitions, exclusions and limitations of the" Plan. Section VII, EXCLUSIONS, subparagraph P. of the State Employees Group Health Insurance Benefit Document (Document) (Respondent's Exhibit 3) specifically excludes surgery to reverse surgical sterilization procedures from coverage under the Plan. The Department of Administration has been designated by the Florida Legislature as the State agency responsible for the administration of the Plan and to make the final determination as what benefits are covered under the Plan in accordance with the Document. There was no evidence presented to show that this responsibility had been delegated to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (Administrator) who was selected by the competitive bid process to provide claims payment services, actuarial and printing services, and medical underwriting of late enrollee applications. Before having surgery to reverse surgical sterilization, the Petitioner contacted the Jacksonville Office of the Administrator and was advised by an unidentified person in that office that the Plan would cover the hospital costs for reverse surgical sterilization but would not cover the doctor's fee. The Petitioner did not at any time material to this proceeding contact the OSEI in Tallahassee or the local personnel office concerning the Plan's coverage of surgery to reverse surgical sterilization. Petitioner acted on the advice of the unidentified person in the Jacksonville Office of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, plus his reading of the Brochure, to come to the conclusion that there was a limitation on the benefits available under the Plan for surgery to reverse surgical sterilization rather than an exclusion of benefits for that procedure; the limitation being that the Plan would pay for hospital costs but not the doctor's fees. Prior to entering the hospital, the Petitioner's admission, being elective, was certified under the Plan's Preadmission Certification Program. However, the Petitioner was advised that the admission being certified did not mean that the services requested were covered under the Plan and that the services rendered would be subject to the limitations and exclusions listed in the Plan. On or about July 30, 1986, Petitioner was admitted to Fish Memorial Hospital where Dr. Youngman performed surgery to reverse surgical sterilization and was discharged on July 31, 1986. After surgery was performed, claims were made under the Plan and, the State of Florida, through the Administrator, made the following payments in connection with the surgery: (a) Fish Memorial Hospital - $935.10; (b) Southeast Volusia Radiology Associates - $19.10; (c) Clifford Chu, M.D. - $742.00 and; (d) Robert Charles Youngman, M.D. - 742.00 Although claims made by the different health care providers (providers) for the services rendered to the Petitioner indicated a diagnosis of Azoospermia which is defined as the absence of live spermatozoa in the semen, there was insufficient evidence to show that this diagnosis was the primary reason for payments being made in error to the providers by the Administra- tor for the services rendered in connection with Petitioner's surgery to reverse surgical sterilization. Subsequent to the health care providers being paid by the Administrator for services rendered to Petitioner under the Plan, the OSEI made a determination that none of the services rendered to the Petitioner to reverse surgical sterilization were covered under the Plan, and demanded reimbursement from the providers. All of the providers, with the exception of Dr. Youngman, reimbursed the Plan but, since the Petitioner had paid Dr. Youngman prior to the claim being made, the Petitioner had received Dr. Youngman's claim and subsequently reimbursed the Plan. Petitioner made a demand on the State to pay the providers since he had been informed by the Administrator that the services, at least the hospital costs, were covered under the Plan. Respondent, at Petitioner's request, reviewed its denial of coverage and determined that costs incurred for surgery to reverse surgical sterilization was not covered under the Plan. By letter dated September 25, 1987, received by Petitioner on October 1, 1987, Respondent advised Petitioner of that decision and of his right to a hearing should he desire one. Petitioner was also advised that he had twenty-one (21) days to file a petition and failure to timely comply would result in the action contemplated in the letter becoming final. A Petition For Formal Proceedings and Notice of Appearance was received by the Respondent on October 26, 1987 bearing a certificate of service dated October 23, 1987. The petition was mailed by Petitioner and received by the Respondent more than 21 days after receipt of the letter by the Petitioner on October 1, 1987. Respondent's ore tenus Motion For Remand Or, In The Alternative, To Dismiss The Petition citing Petitioner's failure to timely file his petition was filed at the hearing on May 12, 1988 some five and half (5 1/2) months after Respondent's receipt of the petition. Upon the Respondent determining that the Petitioner's surgery to reverse surgical sterilization was not covered under the Plan, Petitioner became responsible for all costs incurred for the surgery rather than just Dr. Youngman's fee which resulted in Petitioner being responsible for $3,057.70, in addition to Dr. Youngman's fee. Had the surgery been covered under the Plan, the Petitioner would have only been responsible for $91.90, plus Dr. Youngman's fee.
Recommendation HAVING considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order DENYING Petitioner payment for the costs incurred for the surgery to reverse surgical sterilization requested in his Petition for Formal Proceedings. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 20th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1452 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were submitted in unnumbered paragraphs but, for clarity, I have numbered them 1 through 18. The first two sentences of paragraph one are rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Although an employee of the Administrator represented to Petitioner that the procedure was covered, there was no approval in that the Administrator did not have that authority. The last two sentences of paragraph one are adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 16, and 17. The first two sentences of paragraph 2 are adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but clarified. The last two sentences in paragraph two are adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. (4-7) Rejected as immaterial to irrelevant except the last sentence of paragraph 7 which is adopted in Finding of Fact 11 but clarified to show the 800 number being provided under "Claims Inquiries". Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 14 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24 but clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 13 but clarified. The first sentence of paragraph 17 is adopted in Finding of Fact 8 and although there is a difference in the meaning of "limitations" and "exclusions", there was no substantial competent evidence in the record that the Brochure and Document were inconsistent in this regard, therefore the last sentence is rejected. Rejected as a restatement of a witness' testimony and not a finding of fact but additionally, rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent (1-6) Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 6, respectively. (7-8) Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. (9-10) Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. (11-14) Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 12, 11 and 13, respectively. (15-16) Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. (17) Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See Finding of Fact 17. (18-19) Adopted in Findings of Fact 18 and 19, respectively. (20) Rejected as a restatement of a witness' testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also, it would be rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. (21-22) Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. (23) Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. (24-25) Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. (26-28) Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Lester A. Lewis, Esquire P. O. Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding concern whether the licenses of each Respondent should be subjected to disciplinary action for violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaints. If the violations, or any of them, are proven, it must be established what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with the licensure and regulation of insurance agents of all types and the regulation of the practice of insurance agents, agencies, the business of selling insurance policies, and the insurance industry generally. The Respondents have been licensed by the Department at all times pertinent hereto. Mills Sr. is licensed as a non-resident life and health insurance agent and as a non-resident general lines insurance agent. Mills Jr. has been licensed at all times pertinent hereto as a non-resident life and health insurance agent. The Respondents have been charged with various violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as more particularly delineated in the Amended Administrative Complaints and as discussed with particularity in the Conclusions of Law below. It is undisputed that Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. is a corporation organized and licensed under laws of Florida. It was purchased by Mills Sr. in 1988. Both Respondents have a pecuniary interest in Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. That corporation was a Florida insurance agency engaged in the solicitation and sale of property and casualty insurance, but not in the business of sale of policies of life and health insurance. The corporation ceased doing business on June 1, 1993 and was formally dissolved on August 13, 1993 at the behest of Mills Sr., who was the principal owner, board chairman, and chief executive officer. Mills Jr. was a shareholder and president of the corporation. Mills Sr. has held a Florida non-resident life insurance agent's license and a Florida non-resident health insurance agent's license for many years, since approximately 1956. In 1991, Mills Sr. applied for and received a license as a Florida non-resident general lines agent. General lines agency includes the right to sell property and casualty insurance. Statements made by Mills Sr. in three license applications admitted into evidence in terms of the situs of his principal place of insurance business (Atlanta, Georgia) and the disclosure of his pecuniary interest in Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. have been shown to be true and correct. In spite of the disclosure as to his pecuniary interest in Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc., upon his application for the non-resident general lines agent's license, the Department nevertheless and mistakenly issued the general lines non-resident agent's license. Upon graduation from college in the late 1940's, Mills Sr. went to work for Atlanta Insurance Company. Except for five years spent in the insurance business in Texas, Mills Sr. has lived in Georgia until the events mentioned hereinbelow. Most of his Georgia career has been associated with the Atlanta, Georgia, area, where his insurance business, residence and domicile has historically been located. The insurance agency owned and controlled by Mills Sr. in Atlanta, Georgia, is called Institutional Managers of America, Inc. In 1986, he sold that business to Monumental General Insurance Company, effective January 1, 1987. The transaction included a three-year management agreement from Mills Sr. In 1987, Mills Sr. started construction of a residence in Gulf Breeze, Florida, where Mills Sr. had earlier owned a summer home. In February, 1989, for unrelated business or financial reasons, Mills Sr. was forced to purchase the insurance business back from Monumental General Insurance Company. Mills Sr. had planned to retire after the expiration of the three-year management agreement responsibility but elected not to retire after he had to purchase the business back. Mills Sr. owns the building in which his agency is located at 395 Johnson Ferry Road N.E., Atlanta, Georgia. He directs the staff in that agency from a room in that office. His toll-free telephone number is for incoming calls to that office. All advertising materials of his business show the Atlanta address. Mills Sr. spends most week nights in his Roswell Road apartment in Atlanta, except for approximately one night every other week spent in his Gulf Breeze, Florida, residence, as well as nights spent on the road when traveling in Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina, where Mills Sr. holds non-resident agent licenses. Mills Sr. owns a farm near Yatesville, Georgia, where he spends some weekends, especially during hunting season. Most other weekends are spent at his residence at 3017 Bay Street, Gulf Breeze, Florida. Mills Sr. and his wife spend some weekends in Atlanta because their social life revolves around Atlanta and he has family in the Atlanta area. The records of the Georgia Insurance Department show that Mills Sr. is licensed as a resident agent in the State of Georgia for life, accident and sickness, property and casualty, surety, and allied lines of insurance. On February 15, 1988, Mills Sr. signed a sworn application seeking Florida homestead property tax exemption and filed that application with the Santa Rosa County property appraiser, listing his address as 3017 Bay Street, Gulf Breeze, Florida. The application stated that Mills Sr. became a permanent resident of Florida on or about June, 1987. Pursuant to that application, Mills Sr. was granted homestead property tax exemption for his property, a residence, located at 3017 Bay Street, Gulf Breeze, Florida. On May 9, 1988, Mills Sr. registered to vote in Santa Rosa County, Florida. In conjunction with that registration, Mills Sr. provided the supervisor of elections of Santa Rosa County with his home address as being 3017 Bay Street, Gulf Breeze, Florida. On January 7, 1989, Mills Sr. signed a renewal application for homestead property tax exemption. On that application, he affirmed that his status as a permanent resident of Florida had not changed since he submitted his original application for tax exemption. Pursuant to the aforementioned renewal application, Mills Sr. was granted continued tax exemption for his property located at 3017 Bay Street, Gulf Breeze, Florida. On January 9, 1990, Carmelia Mills, the wife of Mills Sr., signed an application for homestead property tax exemption for property owned jointly with Mills Sr. applying for the transfer of homestead property tax exemption from the property located at 3017 Bay Street, Gulf Breeze, Florida, to the property located at that address as joint owners (presumably by operation of law as tenants by the entireties). Pursuant to that application, Mills Sr. and his wife were granted the maximum allowable homestead property tax exemption. The maximum allowable homestead property tax exemption for the county is granted only when all owners of the property are permanent residents of Florida. In 1988, when Mills Sr. applied for homestead exemption for the home owned in Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa County, Florida, he was informed by the office of the property appraiser that he would need to register a car in Florida and register to vote in Florida. Mills Sr. did both and was afforded the homestead exemption mentioned above. He is the owner of a 1989 four-door Chevrolet currently registered in Florida and he remains registered to vote in Florida. He holds a Florida driver's license. He and his wife have enjoyed the benefits of homestead exemption with regard to the above-referenced real estate and residence in Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa County, Florida, in the manner and for the times referenced in the above Findings of Fact concerning the application for and the granting of the homestead exemption. Mills Sr., and presumably his wife, resided in their home in Atlanta until sometime in 1990 when the home was sold. Mills Sr. then moved into an apartment at 5143 Roswell Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia, in 1990 and to this date, resides in that apartment when he is located in Atlanta. In light of the above facts concerning his location and the residences he has maintained with his wife, Mills Sr. has believed that his residence is co-extensive with the situs of his insurance agency business, that is, that it is located in Atlanta, Georgia; and that was his belief at the time he executed all applications for insurance relevant to these proceedings. On August 30, 1976, Mills Sr. applied for licensure as a Florida non- resident life and health insurance agent. The application listed his address as 5910 Garber Drive, Atlanta, Georgia. Pursuant to that application, he was licensed as a non-resident life and health insurance agent. The last paragraph of that application contains a statement by Mills Sr. that "in further support of my application...I do not or will not maintain a place of business in the State of Florida for the purpose of soliciting insurance...". On February 13, 1990, Mills Sr. filed a corporation annual report with the Secretary of State of Florida stating that Mills Sr. was the president, director, and registered agent of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. On February 11, 1991, Mills Sr. filed such an annual report with the Secretary of State for that corporation, which stated that he is the president, director, and registered agent of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. This report indicated that Mills Sr. had changed his address from 5910 Garber Drive, Atlanta, Georgia, to 3017 Bay Street, Gulf Breeze, Florida. On May 30, 1991, Mills Sr. applied for licensure as a Florida non- resident general lines insurance agent. That application listed his home address as 5143 Roswell Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia. On that application, at paragraph 16, Mills Sr. disclosed to the Department that he was part owner of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. In spite of this application, in which Mills Sr. provided his Atlanta, Georgia, address and provided the disclosure that he was part owner of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc., an insurance agency, the Department, by mistake, licensed Mills Sr. as a non-resident general lines insurance agent. On February 27, 1992, Mills Sr. filed a corporation annual report with the Secretary of State which stated that he was still the resident agent of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. and that he had become the chief executive officer of that corporation. Mills Sr. has filed no notification to the Department of any change of address nor any disclosure to the Department that he is a resident of Florida, as of the time of this hearing. In 1985, Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. was incorporated. Mills Sr. owned a partial interest in the corporation at that time. Later, he bought out the other owners, becoming sole owner. Lee Newcomb is a director in the corporation and acted as the Florida licensed agent for the company until on or about May 1, 1992. The corporation did business in the Tampa area with an office in Brandon. The corporation had a Seffner, Florida, mailing address. Mills Sr. owned his interest in Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. until it ceased doing business on June 1, 1993 and Mills Sr. dissolved the corporation in August of 1993. Mr. Newcomb acted as the Florida resident agent for the corporation and as manager of the agency from its inception. On May 1, 1992, Mills Sr. and Mills Jr. became aware that Mr. Newcomb had suddenly resigned effective April 30, 1992. It was learned from office personnel that Mr. Newcomb may have taken some personal property and records of the agency with him upon leaving. On May 4, 1992, Mills Jr., being concerned with this situation, left Atlanta, Georgia, and drove to Brandon, Florida, where he found that Mr. Newcomb had, indeed, taken certain records of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. with him. Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. had a non-competitive agreement with Mr. Newcomb during his tenure as resident agent and managing agent. Upon his arrival in the Brandon, Florida, office and shortly thereafter, Mills Jr. began interviewing perspective replacement resident agents. He hired a resident licensed agent who commenced working as the resident licensed agent for Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. after giving proper notice to her former employer. She began working in approximately the last week of May, 1992 for Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. originating all insurance business and managing and operating the agency after that time. It was learned by Mills Jr. from a secretary in the office that Mr. Newcomb, while he was employed by Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc., was sending in certain applications for insurance coverage to a number of carriers or insurers. Copies of those insurance applications were not in the records of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc., the implication being that Mr. Newcomb had taken those documents with him when he left. The secretary, Dolores Olrey, prepared as best she could duplicates of those applications from memory. Mills Jr. attempted to find out from the insurance carriers involved if they had received the applications for insurance coverage from Mr. Newcomb as originating agent, in order to find out if Mr. Newcomb had violated the non- competitive agreement by submitting applications for insurance coverage as a separately operating agent or agency while he was actually still working for Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. Mills Jr. testified that he was told that the companies did not have time to look through their records of recent business to determine if Mr. Newcomb had submitted such applications in that fashion. According to Mills Jr., the companies involved advised him that if he merely submitted a duplicate application for the same coverage for the condominiums involved (property and casualty coverage), he would know if another application had previously been submitted, since the later applications would be automatically rejected if that were the case. Accordingly, Mills Jr. instructed Ms. Olrey to affix his signature stamp on an application by Northeast Heights Condominium of Tamarac, Florida, to the Public Service Mutual Insurance Company of New York, as well as on an application for insurance for the Altamonte Woods Condominium Association of Altamonte Springs, Florida, to MCA Insurance Company of New Jersey. Those were the two applications believed by Ms. Olrey to be replicas of those prepared earlier and submitted by Mr. Newcomb in supposed violation of the non- competitive agreement. These condominium associations were customers of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. Mills Sr. sent his applications in for the purpose of acquiring information which could be used against Mr. Newcomb if the Mills and Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. later attempted to assert that he violated the non-competitive agreement. Mills Jr., however, could have determined by direct contact with those condominium association customers whether or not they had previously submitted an application for insurance through Mr. Newcomb, rather than attempting to find that out indirectly by submitting the applications for insurance involved to the companies. Mills Jr. genuinely believed that both insurance applications would be rejected because he believed that Mr. Newcomb had already sent in the original applications in violation of the non-competitive agreement. In fact, however, only one of the applications was rejected. The application for insurance for the Northeast Heights Condominium Association eventually resulted in a policy being issued by the Public Service Mutual Insurance Company. The effective date of that policy, as requested by the application, was from June 30, 1992 through June 30, 1993. Geraldine Corbitt became the duly-licensed resident agent of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. in the last week of May, 1992; therefore, the coverage became effective under her tenure as the appropriate resident agent for Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc., although Mills Jr. actually originated the application which resulted in that policy coverage. The application submitted for the Altamonte Woods Condominium Association was rejected by the insurer because its information, provided to Mills Jr., was that another agent had already received a quote from the company on that business on May 7, 1992, implicitly Mr. Newcomb. On March 2, 1989 through February 27, 1992, annual reports were filed with the Florida Secretary of State for Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. which stated that Mills Jr. was the vice-president and director of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. and lastly, was the president and the director of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. For a period of approximately two weeks in May of 1992, as referenced in the above Findings of Fact, Mills Jr. directly operated and controlled the offices of Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. due to the abrupt departure of the resident insurance agent, Mr. Newcomb. On both policy applications submitted by Mills Jr., the signature of Mills Jr. appears in the space marked "producer's signature" on a policy which was ultimately issued by Public Service Mutual Insurance Company under Policy No. 78-0047889 to Northeast Heights Condominium Association, effective June 30, 1992. The broker was listed as Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. and "Bill Mills" was listed as the "contact person." Mills Jr. testified and acknowledged that although the policy was issued for the application he submitted, Ms. Corbitt had finalized the transaction after he sent the application to the insurer. The policy bearing the above number does not contain any indication that Ms. Corbitt sold the policy, originated the coverage, nor does her name appear anywhere on the policy. These policies were for the obtaining of coverage for property and casualty insurance in the State of Florida. The transaction or solicitation of property and casualty insurance in the State of Florida requires a general lines insurance agent's license. Mills Jr. holds no such license. Mills Jr. testified at the final hearing that he did not submit the applications for the purpose of transacting insurance business but to determine whether Mr. Newcomb was in violation of the covenant not to compete with Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. Mills Jr. was a life and health insurance agent, and his experience was totally in the field of life and health insurance. He had no experience in the submission of applications for casualty insurance. Mills Jr. had submitted his application for licensure as a non-resident life and health insurance agent on March 15, 1982. Pursuant to that application, he was licensed in Florida as a non-resident life and health insurance agent. In that application, there was contained the statement executed by Mills Jr. that "in further support of my application...I do not or will not maintain a place of business in the State of Florida for the purpose of soliciting insurance...." Florida Insurance Counselors, Inc. is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of insurance agency and is an insurance agency for the purpose of property and casualty insurance. It does not engage in the business of soliciting and selling life and health insurance.
Recommendation In consideration of the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents, William Dewberry Mills, Sr. and William Dewberry Mills, Jr., guilty of the violations as determined in the above Conclusions of Law and that the remaining counts and statutory violations, found above not to have been proven, should be dismissed in their entirety. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent, William Dewberry Mills, Sr.'s licenses as a non-resident insurance agent in Florida be revoked, without prejudice to his re-application as a resident Florida insurance agent should he so desire, for the same level of licensure or other licensure for which he is, by education and demonstrated competency, qualified. The Respondent, William Dewberry Mills, Jr.'s Florida licenses should be suspended for a period of three (3) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 4th day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2350 and 93-2351 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-38. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the same subject matter in those instances where the Hearing Officer's findings of fact may differ. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter to the extent that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact may differ. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Dunphy, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Rollin D. Davis, Jr., Esquire SHELL, FLEMING, ET AL. Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598-1831 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
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 owes respondent premiums on account of insurance coverage (Family I) under the State Employees Group Health Insurance Program from March 1, 1979, to August 31, 1981? If so, whether petitioner is obligated to pay the underpayment as a condition of continued insurance coverage?
Findings Of Fact Until December 6, 1978, petitioner, who has worked as a forest ranger for Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services since 1967 or 1968, was married to Betty R. Brogdon, the mother of his two children. Betty Brogdon was employed by Florida's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at the time of the dissolution of her marriage to petitioner. A provision of the dissolution decree required petitioner to maintain health insurance in effect for the children. During the marriage, in April of 1978, petitioner applied for, and received Family I insurance in the Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, continuing the coverage under a predecessor policy. Petitioner paid a premium for the Family I coverage reduced by certain employer contributions, after formally bringing to his supervisor's attention the fact that Betty R. Brogdon was also a state employee, and signing forms to that effect. Before August 1, 1979, the employer contributed 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage for each employee. From August 1, 1979, until August 1, 1980, the employer contributed, in addition, 25 percent of the family premium. On and after August 1, 1980, the employer contribution for each employee increased to 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage plus 50 percent of the family premium. Since this amount exceeds the total premium for Family I, families with this coverage in which both spouses work for state government have paid no insurance premium for Family I coverage since April 1, 1980. After the marriage ended, Betty Brogdon applied, on February 6, 1979, for Individual I health insurance, by submitting a form through the personnel office at the Sunland Center in Marianna, where she was employed. Since she had been a beneficiary under the family policy that her husband kept in force while they were married, her application reflected no change in that policy. When it reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration, it was indistinguishable from any other new application by an employee who had not signed up when beginning work. After medical approval on May 7, 1979, she received Individual I coverage for herself only. Petitioner works with four other forest rangers and a supervisor at a site seven miles west of Marianna. There is no "personnel technician" stationed there and none visits. He told his supervisor of the divorce and, on March 2, 1979, filled out a "personnel action request" form furnished by a district office of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Bonifay, Florida, indicating "[m]arital and dependent change," which reached the Director of the Division of Forestry on March 9, 1979. Like other forms of its kind, this form never reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration. The Bureau of Insurance did receive, however, on August 13, 1981, a "change of information" form reporting the Brogdons' dissolution of marriage on December 6, 1978. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Effective the following month, on advice of the Bureau of Insurance, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services subtracted from petitioner's paychecks the same insurance premium other employees not married to state employees paid for Family I coverage. The Bureau of Insurance lacks authority to make such deductions itself. Between March of 1980 and December 31, 1982, the only claims submitted under the policy were for petitioner himself. But for the $100.00 deductible, these claims were paid. The difference between what a state employee married to another state employee paid for Family I insurance coverage between July 1, 1979, and August 31, 1981, and what a state employee not married to another state employee paid for the same coverage amounts to $864.42.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent direct petitioner to pay the sum of eight hundred sixty-four dollars and forty two cents ($864.42) within ninety (90) days of entry of final order. If petitioner fails to make timely payment, that respondent cancel his Family I State Employees Group Health Insurance Program policy. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resigned from State Government on July 23, 1987. At the time of his resignation, Petitioner was covered under the Florida State Group Health Insurance Plan. His wife, who is a diabetic, was also covered under Petitioner's insurance. Upon termination Petitioner was eligible for continuation of coverage benefits under the federal COBRA Act. However, prior to receiving any notice of his COBRA rights, Petitioner elected to continue his State Employees' Insurance for two months from July 1, 1987 and then begin coverage under his new employer's insurance plan. 2/ Petitioner made advance payment on the 2 months additional coverage. The payments carried his State Employees' health insurance through September 1, 1987 when it was terminated. DOA notified Petitioner on August 27, 1987, of his right to elect continuation of coverage under the COBRA Act. This notice complied with the notice requirements under the COBRA Act. COBRA provides continued health insurance coverage for up to (18) months, after a covered employee leaves employment. However, coverage does not continue beyond the time the employee is covered under another group health plan. COBRA simply fills the gap between two different employers group health insurance plans so that an employee's group health insurance does not lapse while the employee changes jobs. Petitioner's new employer's health coverage began around September 1, 1987. After Petitioner had begun coverage under his new insurance plan, he discovered that his wife's preexisting diabetic condition would not be covered. However, no evidence was presented that Petitioner, within 60 days of September 1, 1987 requested the Division of State Employee's Insurance to continue his insurance coverage pursuant to COBRA. Moreover, Petitioner's COBRA rights terminated when he began his coverage under his new employer's health plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for continuation of coverage under COBRA. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1989.
The Issue Whether Mr. Wills is entitled to reimbursement from the State Group Health Insurance Plan for health services provided by an otolaryngologist and a speech pathologist for vocal therapy.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida makes available to employees several health insurance programs. One of the options available to employees is the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Employees may also enroll in a number of different health maintenance organizations depending upon the county in which the employee resides. The Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan was established by the Legislature, and its benefits are described in the Benefit Document. The Plan as a whole is administered by Blue Cross-Blue Shield, which did not write the terms of the Plan. When an employee chooses to participate in the Plan, the State contributes to the employee's insurance cost by paying a portion of the premium for the employee in order to be covered by the Plan. Mr. Wills is employed by the State of Florida as the Chief Assistant Public Defender for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida. Mr. Wills is a Senior Trial Attorney in the Public Defender's Office and a senior administrator who needs his voice to carry on his professional duties. He was a member of the Plan at all times relevant to this proceeding. The case revolves around whether Mr. Wills is entitled to reimbursement for expenses he incurred when he was diagnosed in June 1990 as having a vocal chord lesion, also known as a contact ulcer or granuloma of the vocal fold, and participated in a course of medical treatment for this condition. For example, Mr. Wills would attempt to speak, but portions of words could not be heard. Mr. Wills ultimately was treated by Dr. W. Jarrard Goodwin. Dr. Goodwin is a specialist in diseases of the ear, nose and throat (i.e., an otolaryngologist), and teaches at the University of Miami School of Medicine. Dr. Goodwin was of the view that the lesion was caused by the mechanical banging together of the vocal chords, and that surgery was not an appropriate treatment for him. Instead, he prescribed an antibiotic and three weeks vocal rest. He had a second consultation with Mr. Wills on August 14, 1990, at which time Dr. Goodwin referred Mr. Wills to Donna S. Lundy, a speech pathologist in the Department of Otolaryngology at the University of Miami Medical School, for voice therapy. A contact ulcer or granuloma can result from the pitch of the voice being too high or too low, from speaking too loudly, or from not breathing from the diaphragm. All of these can be treated with behavioral voice therapy through exercises, either to raise or lower the pitch of the voice, or to breathe from the diaphragm and relax the vocal chords in order to decrease effort and strain near the lesion. Mr. Wills saw Ms. Lundy for sessions of vocal therapy at Dr. Goodwin's office on August 11, September 13, October 5, November 11, and December 27, 1990, and Mr. Willis practiced the exercises he was given between appointments. Even if Mr. Wills had had surgery, i.e., a stripping of the vocal chords, an alternative treatment for the contact granuloma, he still would have had vocal therapy following that surgery to modify his vocal habits to prevent a recurrence of the lesion. As a result of the vocal therapy, Mr. Wills' condition has improved, and he no longer suffers from the contact granuloma. Speech therapy treats abnormalities of speech production, language formulation and processing, such as articulation disorders, stuttering, language delay, and disorders of neuromuscular control. It is not the same as voice therapy. Five claims for health services were submitted on behalf of Mr. Wills by Donna S. Lundy, under procedure code 92507. Code 92507 on the approved fee schedule covers "Speech, Language or Hearing Therapy, with Continuing Medical Supervision, Individual." Dr. Goodwin, also submitted one claim under procedure code 92507 for services provided to Mr. Wills on August 14, 1990. All such claims were rejected by the Department. The State of Florida, Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan benefit document contains exclusions. The applicable exclusion, according to the Department, is Section VII(Q): VII. Exclusions The following exclusions shall apply under the plan: * * * * Q. Occupational, recreational, edu-cational, or speech therapy, orthoptics, biofeedback, contra-ceptives, telephone consultation, cardiac rehabilitation exercise programs, or visits for the purpose of exercise by bicycle, ergometer or treadmill. Benefit Document, page 46. There is no further explanation of the term "speech therapy" found in exclusion VII(Q) in any other portion of the Benefit Document. The approved fee schedule for the Group Health Self-Insurance Plan has a procedure code for "speech, language or hearing therapy, with continuing medical supervision, individual." That the approved fee schedule has such an entry at all is an indication that there are circumstances where speech language or hearing therapy is covered. Otherwise, the entry would be wholly inconsistent with the Department's position that Section VII(Q) flatly prohibits any payment for "speech therapy". Ms. Lundy is licensed speech-language pathologist in the State of Florida. Unless a person qualifies for licensure as a speech-language pathologist, a person may not describe him or herself using a number of terms. Among these forbidden terms are "speech pathologist", "speech therapist", "language pathologist", "voice therapist" and "voice pathologist". Section 468.1285(1)(b), Florida Statutes, (1990 Supp.). The Department relies upon the definition for the practice of speech-language pathology in the Professional Practice Act, Chapter 468, Part I, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), to argue that any services provided by a licensed speech-language pathologist must necessarily fall within the exclusion found in Section VII(Q) of the Benefit Document. The Department's argument that because the term "speech therapy" is not defined in the Benefit Document, it should determine the meaning of the term by looking to see how the term "speech-language pathology" is defined in Section 468.1125(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), the professional practice act for speech-language pathology, is unpersuasive. There was no testimony that the Benefit Document was written with all definitions found in various professional practice acts in mind. There is certainly no proof that the Legislature crafted the miscellaneous professional practice acts in Chapter 468 with an eye towards using the definitions in those acts for determinations under the Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan. The Benefit Document and the professional practice acts have little or nothing to do with each other, and neither shed light upon terms used in the other.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Secretary of the Department of Administration enter a Final Order requiring the Division of Employees' State Insurance to pay all claims submitted by Donna S. Lundy and the claim of Dr. Goodwin which have been denied. The Benefit Document does not clearly exclude voice therapy for a contact granuloma, and in the absence of a clear exclusion, the law requires that those claims be paid. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY 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 24th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5324 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Discussed in Finding 5. Rejected as unnecessary. See, Conclusions of Law. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected. See, Conclusions of Law. Adopted in Finding 5. Rulings on findings proposed by Mr. Wills, treated as if the paragraphs had been numbered: Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Findings 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 7. Generally adopted in Finding 9. Generally adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Findings 5 and 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Michaelson, Esquire 9326 Northwest 18th Drive Plantation, FL 33322 John M. Carlson, Esquire Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 John A. Pieno Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Petitioner should be required to pay back premiums for chiropractic coverage under his family health insurance with the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan for the period August, 1981, to December, 1982. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and the Respondent called one witness, Ms. Barbara Power. Petitioner had marked for identification eight exhibits. Exhibits 1 through 5 and Exhibit 7 were admitted and Exhibit 6 was withdrawn. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 was a copy of Rule 22K-1.20, Florida Administrative Code, and it was marked for identification only. The Respondent had marked for identification 10 exhibits. Respondent offered and had admitted Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Both the Petitioner and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were considered by the Hearing Officer and to the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the facts contained herein, they were considered to be not supported by the evidence or were rejected as being unnecessary to the disposition of this cause.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1978, the Petitioner, Owen Sellers, enrolled in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan) . At the time of his enrollment, the Petitioner elected coverage for himself and his eligible dependents, including coverage for chiropractic services. Under the Plan, a portion of the premium for the health insurance coverage is paid by the state agency who employs the individual and the remaining portion is paid by the employee through payroll deduction. In approximately November, 1980, the Petitioner'S spouse also became a full time state employee entitled to the health insurance benefit. As a result of the entitlement of both family members, the state began paying the entire cost of the Plan, except for chiropractic coverage. In order to obtain chiropractic coverage, an employee in 1981 and 1982 was required to pay an additional premium for such coverage. From August, 1981, to December 1, 1982, the Petitioner and his family were covered by the Plan including chiropractic coverage. On or about November 4, 1982, the Petitioner, Owen Sellers, submitted a Change of Information form dropping chiropractic coverage. This change became effective December 1, 1982. At no time prior to this had the Petitioner requested such a change. Because of an error on the part of the employing agency, the premium for chiropractic coverage was not deducted from Mr. Sellers' pay from August, 1981, through October, 1982. The total amount of premiums due for that period for chiropractic coverage is $92.20. The error was discovered in November, 1982, and at that time, the Petitioner was notified of the underpayment. Petitioner refused to pay the $92.20 and requested an administrative hearing. During the time period August, 1981, through October, 1982, the Petitioner did not file a claim for any benefits under the chiropractic coverage. However, claims were submitted for non-chiropractic medical treatment received by the Petitioner or other members of his family.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order directing the Petitioner to pay the sum of ninety-two dollars and twenty cents ($92.20) within ninety (90) days of entry of the Final Order. In the event Petitioner fails to make timely payment, that Respondent cancel his coverage under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 3rd day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Owen Sellers 1874 Woodleigh Drive West Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Nevin G. Smith Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the following facts: The petitioner received payment of $1,920 from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for the purchase of an EBI bone healing system. Blue Cross/Blue Shield also paid $2,000 to EBI Medical Systems, Inc., the provider, for the purchase of the same equipment. The petitioner was not covered by his state health insurance plan at the time of the purchase of the equipment, because he had failed to pay his premiums while he was on leave without pay from his state employment position. The petitioner has not remitted payment for the purchase of the EBI equipment to the respondent agency. The petitioner owes the State of Florida the sum of $1,920.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Administration requiring that the petitioner, Gregory Chrishon, pay the Department of Administration, Office of State Employees' Insurance, the sum of $1,920 in accordance with a payment schedule to be agreed upon by the respondent and the petitioner, and to provide that such payment will constitute the total amount due to the respondent from the petitioner arising out of the claim for reimbursement for services received related to the purchase of the subject equipment. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: T. Patterson Maney, Esquire, P.A. 123 Staff Drive Post Office Drawer 1628 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Andrea R. Bateman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis M. Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
