Findings Of Fact In December of 1985, the Petitioner and his dependents were covered by the State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Robert S. Coughlin, the Petitioner's nineteen-year-old dependent, was hospitalized in an out-of-state hospital from December 24, 1985, to December 26, 1985. The total expense for the hospitalization was $935.00. A claim for insurance benefits to cover the expense was received by the Insurance Plan administrator on August 10, 1987. The claim was filed by the hospital on behalf of the insured dependent, Robert S. Coughlin. The administrator for the Respondent refused to pay the claim as it was not submitted within the sixteen-month period set forth in the contract of insurance. The contract, which is referred to as the benefit document, contains a policy exclusion which provides that no payment shall be made under the Plan for claims made after the expiration of the sixteen-month time limit which begins to run from the date medical expenses are incurred. The hospital did not timely file the claim because a mix-up had occurred during the hospital admission concerning the patient's insurance coverage. The dependent, Robert S. Coughlin, was unconscious during his emergency out-of-state hospital admission. Either the hospital personnel or the dependent's friends mistakenly used the information on another insurance card located in the patient's wallet as the applicable insurance. As the hospital directly filed the claim with the first insurance company, processing delays within the first company caused the hospital to miss the filing deadline for the actual insurance benefits. The Petitioner, Charles R. Coughlin, was not made aware of the situation until after the sixteen-month dime period had expired, and the claim for payment had been refused by the Respondent.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner, Daniel O. Cobb, is entitled to payment of claims for surgery performed on Ms. Cobb, Susan Catherine Cobb, his spouse, on November 11, 1985, and whether Respondent, the State, is estopped from denying coverage. A prehearing stipulation was filed limiting the facts, issues, exhibits and witnesses. The stipulated facts were incorporated into the Recommended Order and are in the Final Order as well. Petitioner presented the testimony of himself and his spouse. Petitioner's exhibits 2 through 6 were accepted into evidence. Exhibits 3 and 4 constituted hearsay. The Department presented the testimony of Hazel Rosser and Joseph F. Wellman. Four exhibits by the Department were offered into evidence and were accepted. Neither party ordered a transcript. Only the Department filed a proposed recommended order and findings of fact. The Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order are hereby adopted, except in Findings of Fact Nos. 16, 17, and 18, Mrs. Scott is changed to Mrs. Cobb and in Findings of Fact No. 18, Mr. Scott is changed to Mr. Cobb.
Findings Of Fact Daniel O. Cobb was an employee of the Florida Department of Transportation during 1985. Mr. Cobb and his spouse, Susan Cobb, had family coverage under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "State Plan"), until November 1, 1985. The State Plan is administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Pursuant to the agreement between the State of Florida and Blue Cross/Blue Shield benefits which are payable under the State Plan are governed by a "Benefit Document." Each year, State employees are given an opportunity change the form of health insurance coverage they wish to have. During this "open enrollment period" an employee covered by the State Plan can elect to participate in a Health Maintenance Organization and an employee covered by a Health Maintenance Organization can elect to participate in the State Plan. During 1985, there was an open enrollment period between September 9, 1985, and September 20, 1985. During the 1985 open enrollment period State employees, including Mr. Cobb, were provided a Notice to Employees in which they were advised to carefully review information contained in a Benefit Comparison Brochure, a Rate Comparison Chart and a Health Care Plan Selection Form. These documents were provided to all State employees. The Selection Form instructed employees to "Please read the employee notice about HMO service areas and effective date of coverage before completing this section." State employees were also advised that any change in coverage would be effective November 1, 1985. On September 19, 1985, Mr. Cobb signed a State of Florida Employes Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Change of Information Form. Pursuant to this Change of Information Form, Mr. Cobb elected to terminate his health insurance coverage with the State Plan. On the Change of Information Form it was indicated that Mr. Cobb's election to terminate his coverage under the State Plan was to be effective November 1, 1985. Therefore, Mr. Cobb was informed and should have known that he was no longer eligible for medical cost payment for himself or his family pursuant to the State Plan after October 31, 1985. Mr. Cobb also signed a Member Enrollment (Group) and Physician Selection Form on September 19, 1985. Pursuant to this Form, Mr. Cobb enrolled himself, his Spouse and their children, in Health Options, Inc., a health maintenance organization. Mr. Cobb's participation in Health Options, Inc., began November 1, 1985. On September 19, 1985, Mr. Cobb was provided a list of Health Options, Inc., approved physicians which were available for use by Mr. Cobb and his family. Mr. Cobb designated Gerald A. Giurato, M.D., as his primary care physician on the Physician Enrollment Form which he signed on September 19, 1985. On October 28, 1985, Mr. Cobb was mailed a copy of the Health Options Member Handbook which, among other things, describes the grievance procedure to be followed when medical expenses were not paid by Health Options Inc., and the manner in which physicians were to be used in order to be entitled to payment, of their charges. The Handbook informed Mr. Cobb that all care had to be arranged through a primary care physician and that only services provided or approved by the primary care physician were covered. The Handbook also indicated that treatment by physicians who were not approved by the primary care physician would be the responsibility of the patient. During 1985 Mrs. Cobb was under the care of Alexander Rosin, M.D. Dr. Rosin performed surgery for the removal of a cyst on Mrs. Cobb, on November 11, 1985. Dr. Rosin was not a physician approved by Health Options, Inc., or Mr. Cobb's primary care physician. Nor was the surgery approved. Claims attributable to the November 11, 1985, surgery were submitted to the State Plan. Claims, for the charges of Dr. Rosin, Scott Blonder, M.D., and a Pathologist were submitted. The expenses for the November 11, 1985, surgery were incurred after coverage of Mr. and Mrs. Cobb under the State Plan ended. The type of surgery performed on Mrs. Cobb was also not authorized by the Benefit Document. No claims were submitted to Health Options, Inc., for medical expenses incurred for Mrs. Cobb's operation on November 11, 1985. None of the medical expense attributable to Mrs. Cobb's November 11, 1985, surgery were incurred with physicians or facilities approved by Health Options, Inc. By letter dated August 27, 1986, the Department denied the claims submitted to the State Plan attributable to Mrs. Cobb's November 11, 1985, surgery. Mr. Cobb filed a request for an administrative hearing to contest the Department's proposed denial.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMEDED that a final order be issued by the Department denying payment of claimed expenses attributable to Mrs. Cobb's surgery of November 11, 1985. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 15th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 864109 The Department has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number, of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 18. The letter denying payment was dated August 27, 1986, and not September 4, 1986. See DOA exhibit 1. 2 7. 3 Hereby accepted. 4 7. 5 3. 6 4 and 5. 7-9 6. 10-12 11. Summary of testimony and irrelevant. Summary of testimony argument. Concerning the weight to be given evidence and cumulative. 15 7. 16 Hearsay. 17-18 Conclusion of law. 19-20 16. 21 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 22 15. COPIES FURNISHED: O. C. Beakes, Esquire Lindner Smith, Jr., Esquire 836 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Andrea R. Bateman, Esquire Department of Administration Room 438, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is required to reimburse the Respondent for prescription drugs acquired by the Petitioner through the Prescription Drug Program of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the State of Florida during the latter part of 1985 and during 1986. His employment with the State began January 27, 1984. Prior to December 1, 1985, the Petitioner participated in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "State Plan"). On October 31, 1985, the Petitioner signed a Change of Information form electing to terminate his participation in the State Plan and to begin participation in a Health Maintenance Organization (hereinafter referred to as an "HMO"). The HMO the Petitioner selected was the Capital Health Plan. The title of the form the Petitioner signed on October 31, 1985, contained the following: STATE OF FLORIDA EMPLOYEES GROUP HEALTH SELF INSURANCE PLAN CHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR USE ONLY BY A CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF THIS PLAN [Emphasis added]. Above the Petitioner's signature was the following "employee authorization": I hereby request the above changes in my coverage and/or insurance information in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan....[Emphasis added] Prior to terminating his coverage under the State Plan, the Petitioner was given a brochure titled "A Comparison of Health Benefit Plans Offered to Employees of the State of Florida" (hereinafter referred to as the "Comparison Brochure"). The brochure was for employees working in North Florida. The Comparison Brochure indicates there are two general types of health insurance plans available to state employees: HMO Benefit Plans and the State Plan. The Comparison Brochure also indicates there are four HMO Benefit Plans available. Capital Health Plan, the plan the Petitioner elected on October 31, 1985, is one of the clearly designated HMO Benefit Plans listed in the Comparison Brochure. The Comparison Brochure provides the following with regard to prescription drugs for Capital Health Plan participants: "$3.00 co-payment at CHP pharmacy." The Comparison Brochure provides the following with regard to prescription drugs for State Plan participants: "PPC provider not available at this time" if a preferred provider is used and "20 percent co-payment (7)" when a non-preferred provider is used. The reference to "(7)" is a footnote which provides: "Prescription Drug Plan will be implemented by 1-1-86, paying 100 percent after nominal dispensing fee." The Comparison Brochure contains the following other pertinent information: Along with the conventional group health self insurance plan administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the State of Florida offers its employees the opportunity to enroll in a different health care arrangement. This arrangement, called a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), is available to eligible employees who live within a specific geographic area surrounding the HMO. The Comparison Brochure contains other information that indicates that the State Plan and the Capital Health Plan HMO are completely different types or methods of obtaining health insurance coverage available to state employees. Based upon the information contained in the Comparison Brochure, which the Petitioner indicated he read, the Petitioner should have known that he was entitled to health insurance benefits under the Capital Health Plan HMO as of December 1, 1985, and that he was not entitled to any health insurance benefits under the State Plan. Sometime after December 20, 1985, the Petitioner received a letter from the Department of Administration which provided in pertinent part: Dear Participant: We are pleased to announce the new Prescription Drug Program. Effective January 1, 1986, coverage for prescription drugs under the State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan is provided through a prescription drug program serviced by Paid Prescriptions and National Rx Services, Inc. This program is specifically designed to save you money when you use a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) Pharmacy and Mail Service for your prescription drugs. [Emphasis added]. Included with the letter of December 20, 1985, was a "PLASTIC CARD to use at PPO and participating pharmacies" and a "brochure which gives you instruction on using the Program and a detachable patient profile for Mail Service." The prescription drug card the Petitioner received had "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self insurance Plan" printed on it. It did not contain any reference to Capital Health Plan or any other HMO. The brochure included with the letter of December 20, 1985, which the Petitioner received had "State of Florida Employees Group Health Self insurance Plan" printed at the top of the front cover of the brochure and elsewhere in the brochure. It did not contain any reference to Capital Health Plan or any other HMO. The brochure included with the letter of December 20, 1985, provided the following pertinent information: Coverage for prescription drugs under the State Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan is provided through the Prescription Drug Program.... A toll-free telephone number was provided on the prescription drug card and the brochure which the Petitioner was instructed could be used if he had any questions. The prescription drug card sent to the Petitioner was sent to all state employees participating in the "State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan." It was not for use by state employees participating in the Capital Health Plan or other HMO's. The card was erroneously sent to the Petitioner by the Respondent. Because the Petitioner had terminated his coverage under the State Plan and elected to participate in an HMO effective December 1, 1985, he was not entitled to use the prescription drug card which he received from the Respondent. In order for the Respondent to have the prescription drug cards ready to be mailed to participants in the State Plan before January 1, 1986, the Respondent used information concerning participants prior to December 1, 1985. Evidently no effort was made by the Respondent to insure that participants who left the State Plan during the end of 1985 did not receive a prescription drug card. The Respondent did send a memorandum dated December 20, 1985, to Personnel Officers and Insurance Coordinators requesting that they attempt to retrieve prescription drug cards from employees who terminated their participation in the State Plan after November 1, 1985. No one retrieved the Petitioner's card. After receiving his card, the Petitioner spoke to the business manager of the County Public Health Unit where the Petitioner worked for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Petitioner asked the business manager whether he could use the card and was told that he did not know but would find out. The business manager later told the Petitioner that he had talked to the district personnel office and been told that the Petitioner could use the card. On February 26, 1986, and February 27, 1986, the Petitioner used the prescription drug card to purchase prescription drugs in south Florida. The Petitioner talked with a physician at Capital Health Plan by telephone before purchasing the medications and was authorized to receive treatment by other than a Capital Health Plan physician. The State was billed $5.82 for the medications purchased with the card on February 21, 1986 and February 26, 1986. On March 1, 1986, the Petitioner again used the card to purchase medications. The card was used in Tallahassee, Florida. The State was billed $63.95 ($55.43 and $8.52) for the medications purchased with the card on March 1, 1986. The Petitioner did not use the card on any other occasion. The Petitioner testified that he did not use the card because he discovered that it was less costly to acquire the medications he needed from Capital Health Plan. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, however, the cost to the Petitioner was the same whether he used the plastic card or Capital Health Plan's pharmacy: $3.00. On or about March 27, 1986 and April 10, 1986, the Petitioner was informed that he had used the card to obtain medications for which use of the card was not authorized. The Petitioner was requested to return the card and to repay the amount incurred for the medications. The Petitioner did not respond to these requests. On August 26, 1986, the Petitioner was sent a letter requesting that he repay the cost of the medications he had acquired with the card. Although the Petitioner was requested to remit $77.02, the evidence only proved that $69.77 of medication was paid for by the State. On August 28, 1986, the Petitioner returned the prescription drug card he had been given to Andrew Lewis, an employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner has not reimbursed the State for the cost of the medication he received. The $69.77 of medications paid for by the Respondent which the Petitioner acquired with the prescription drug card provided to him by the Respondent represents a payment on behalf of the Petitioner which he was not entitled to. The card was for use by state employees participating in the State Plan. As of December 1, 1985, the Petitioner was not a participant in this plan. When considered together, the information provided to the Petitioner should have put the Petitioner on notice as to the type of medical insurance coverage he was generally entitled to receive. In particular, the Petitioner should have known that he was eligible for coverage under the Capital Health Plan, an HMO, and that he was not entitled to coverage under the State Plan as of December 1, 1985. The Petitioner also should have known that the prescription drug card he received was for use of participants by the State Plan only and not participants of the Capital Health Plan. The Petitioner's reliance on the statements of the business manager of the County Public Health Unit where he worked was not reasonable in light of the other information which he had been provided about his coverage and the purpose of the prescription drug card he was sent. The Petitioner is not able to repay the $69.77 owed to the State in a lump sum. The Petitioner can only pay the $69.77 to the Respondent in monthly installments of $10.00 or less.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner pay $69.77 to the Respondent for prescription drugs received by the Petitioner. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4111 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they were accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reasons for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 Although the Petitioner did not inten- ionally use the prescription card despite being informed that he was not entitled to it, he should have known that he was not entitled to use it. 2 RO 31. 3 RO 21. 4 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. In light of the information provided to the Petitioner concerning the differences between the State Plan and an HMO, the Petitioner did not use due care to determine if the card was a part of the benefits he was entitled to receive as a participant in an HMO. 5 RO 25. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Walker testified that the coverage available to state employees is not confusing. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. RO 1. 2. RO 2. 3. RO 3-4 and 13-14. 4. RO 15, 18, 21 and 24. 5. RO 21 and 26. 6. RO 27. 7. RO 10. 8. RO 29. 9. RO 30. 10. RO 31. 11. COPIES FURNISHED: RO 36. Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 S. Philip Ford Post Office Box 20232 Tallahassee, Florida 32316
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document provides coverage for a maxillary subperiosteal implant surgical procedure under the circumstances described below.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been insured under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document, effective July 1, 1988 (the "Plan"). Dr. Clark F. Brown, Jr. is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of Florida. His specialty is dental implantology. The subperiosteal implant, which is the subject of this case, is a framework that rests on top of the bone underneath the tissue. Following the insertion of the framework, the tissue reattaches to the jawbone, thereby securing the framework to the bone. The implant procedure takes two days, but can be performed in Dr. Clark's office. On the first day, a direct bone impression is taken. In the process, the gum tissue is cut along the entire remaining ridge and lifted back almost to the base of the eye, floor of the nose, and palate. After the impression is taken, the incision is closed with sutures. On the next day, the stitches are removed, the implant is installed, and the incision again closed with sutures. On July 31, 1987, Petitioner visited Dr. Clark and complained of difficulties wearing his upper denture. Upon examination, Dr. Clark discovered that Petitioner lacked adequate bone to retain an upper denture. Lacking about 90% of the bone in the vicinity of the upper arch, Petitioner's upper denture was highly unstable. By letter dated August 8, 1987, Dr. Clark informed the Plan administrator of Petitioner's condition and proposed a full maxillary subperiosteal procedure for the installation of an orthopedic augmentation appliance. By letter dated December 11, 1987, the Plan administrator informed Dr. Clark that the proposed procedure was not covered under the Plan. The letter explains that dental services are a specific exclusion unless performed "as the result of an accident where a natural tooth has been damaged and the treatment is rendered within 120 days from the date of the accident." On December 17, 1987, Dr. Clark relined the denture that fit Petitioner the best. As he had warned Petitioner in advance, the procedure was unsuccessful. On June 26, 1988, Dr. Clark prepared a new upper denture in preparation for the installation of mucosal implants, which utilize the gum for support. Dr. Clark and Petitioner pursued this treatment largely because it was less expensive that the subperiosteal implant for which the Plan administrator had refused coverage. Dr. Clark later installed these implants, but they were unsuccessful due to the lack of bone. They were removed in November, 1988. At this point, the subperiosteal implant remained the only available treatment for Petitioner. On February 2, 1989, Dr. Thomas Priest, a physician licensed to practice in the State of Florida, examined Petitioner and found that his gums were severely receded, his alveolar ridge was absent, and his lower teeth were in poor shape. Considering the complaints of Petitioner concerning digestive disorders and weight loss, Dr. Priest determined that Petitioner would be a good candidate for, and might benefit from, the maxillary subperiosteal implant. Dr. Priest reached this conclusion based in part on the experience of other patients who had undergone similar procedures. Dr. Clark and the Plan administrator exchanged correspondence through the first half of 1989, at which time the administrator, in response to a threat of litigation, stated that "the preparation of the mouth for dentures is considered to be a dental procedure and non-covered." She then referred Dr. Clark to Respondent. The loss of bone was probably caused by Petitioner wearing loose upper dentures for an extended period of time. However, severe periodontal disease, which cannot be ruled out as a possible cause, could also result in the loss of bone. Another potential cause of the loss of bone is trauma from accidental injuries, such as those typically suffered in an automobile accident. However, this potential cause can be ruled out in Petitioner's case. No accident has necessitated the subject implant procedure, nor has any accident preceded the proposed procedure by 120 days. The Plan contains three coverage sections. Section II describes "Covered Hospital and Other Facility Services." Section III describes "Covered Medical--Surgical Benefits." Section IV describes "Other Covered Services." Section II deals with hospitals primarily and is not applicable to the present case. Subsections III.A. and D. provide coverage for "medically necessary inpatient/outpatient services provided to an insured by a . . . physician for the treatment of the insured as a result of a covered accident or illness." Section IV provides coverage for "medically necessary services when ordered by a physician for the treatment of an insured as a result of a covered accident or illness," including, at Subsection IV.D., "other medical supplies and prostheses . . . determined by the Administrator to be medically necessary for the treatment of an insured's condition." The phrase, "covered accident or illness," which is not defined in the Plan, apparently refers to accidents or illnesses that are not elsewhere excluded, such as in Section VII on Exclusions and Section VIII on Limitations. Section VII.A. excludes "services for cosmetic surgery or treatment unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.A." However, Subsection VII.A. adds that cosmetic surgery is covered if it is: a medically necessary procedure in the correction of an abnormal bodily function; [or) for reconstruction to an area of the body which has been altered by the treatment of a disease, provided such alteration occurred while the insured was covered under the Plan. Subsection VII.G excludes: Services and supplies in connection with dental work, dental treatment, or dental examinations unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.B., except that in no case shall orthodontia be covered. Subsection VIII.A. provides the following limitation upon coverage: Cosmetic surgery or treatment necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured covered by the Plan if such surgery or treatment is the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under the Plan and actually performed while the Plan is in force . . Subsection VIII.B. provides the following limitation upon coverage: Any dental work, dental treatment or dental examinations medically necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured is covered by the Plan only if such work, treatment or examination is (1) the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under this Plan and (2) rendered within . . . 120 days of the accident. . Subsection I.AX. defines a physician to include: a licensed dentist who performs specific surgical or non-dental procedures covered by the Plan, or who renders services due to injuries resulting from accidents, provided such procedures or services are within the scope of the dentist's professional license. Subsection I.AM(b). defines "medically necessary" to mean that: in the opinion of the Administrator the service received is required to identify or treat the illness or injury which a physician has diagnosed or reasonably suspects. The service must (1) be consistent with the diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition (2) be in accordance with standards of good medical practice, and (3) be required for reasons other than convenience of the patient or his/her physician. The fact that a service is prescribed by a physician does not necessarily mean that such service is medically necessary. Subsection I.AE. defines "illness" as: physical sickness or disease, . . . bodily injury, [or] congenital anomaly . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the proposed procedure, under the facts of this case, is covered by the Plan. DONE and ORDERED this 21 day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21 day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 William F. Lennan 740 Hunan St., N.E. Palm Bay, FL 32907 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner's laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery is a covered service for which he is entitled payment/reimbursement under the State of Florida's Self-Insured Group Health Insurance Program.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Petitioner was a state employee covered under the State of Florida Self- Insured Group Insurance Plan. The provisions of the "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document" applies to the issues herein. The State of Florida's third party administrator, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida denied prior authorization for Petitioner's LASIK surgery. The Division of State Group Insurance, which administers the State Plan, upheld Blue Cross and Blue Shield's denial of prior authorization by proposed agency action letter dated July 11, 2000. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing. Petitioner proceeded with LASIK surgery without prior authorization. Petitioner here requests that charges for his LASIK surgery be reimbursed by the State Plan. LASIK surgery is a treatment in which part of the cornea of each eye is removed and reshaped to correct myopia (nearsightedness) or hyperopia (farsightedness). Prior to his LASIK surgery, Petitioner suffered from myopia, a refractive disorder of the eyes. Petitioner's myopia was not the result of an accident or cataract surgery. The evidence is unrefuted and substantial that Petitioner experienced difficulty in his job because of his vision. He had difficulty reading multiple computer screens and documents. His difficulty was acute when shifting his gaze back and forth from one computer screen to another or back and forth from a document to a computer screen. Petitioner's employment performance suffered as a result of his vision problems, and he got headaches. Petitioner attributed his difficulty to the inadequacy of his vision, as corrected by glasses. He tried both bifocals and "sophisticated bifocals," but he felt he lost considerable peripheral vision with any glasses. Petitioner consulted with two optometrists, Dr. Douglas Jones and Dr. Thomas Barnard. Prior to the LASIK surgery, Dr. Jones and Dr. Barnard agreed that Petitioner's vision was functionally correct to 20/20, with glasses. However, both suggested that LASIK surgery would be beneficial for Petitioner. Only this information was provided with Petitioner's authorization request to Blue Cross and Blue Shield for prior authorization. Petitioner is 50 years old and had the LASIK surgery approximately two months prior to the formal hearing. Petitioner's ability to function in his job improved after the LASIK surgery. By his testimony at formal hearing, Dr. Barnard testified that one of Petitioner's eyes was not correctable with glasses exactly to 20/20 but was, in fact, "20/20-", which meant that Petitioner may have been able to read most of the letters on the 20/20 line but may have missed one or two of them. Nonetheless, Dr. Barnard agreed that this status or diagnosis is considered functional. Dr. Barnard also testified that any person with myopia is going to have some loss of peripheral vision with the use of glasses, depending on the prescription. Further, he testified that as we age the difficulty in getting a good correction at different distances is just something that people have to put up with after the age of forty. Dr. Barnard has a preference for LASIK surgery over glasses. According to Dr. William Cobb, ophthalmologist, most people with myopia benefit from LASIK surgery when it is successful. The designation of "20/20" vision means that the judgment of acuity of vision is made at a distance of 20 feet. In ophthalmology, all visions are measured by 20/20, which gives a basis for comparison. Glasses can be made to allow for acuity of vision at any stated distance for any specific function. Most people using a computer must have trifocals or special lenses to use with the computer. If trifocal lenses are not adequate, then progressive lenses can be used for multiple focusing distances. In Dr. Cobb's opinion, Petitioner should have been able to obtain glasses to solve his visual problems at specific distances. LASIK surgery corrects vision in the same functional way as glasses, in that it is performed to focus the eyes at one specified distance. The pertinent provision of the "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document" provides: The following services and supplies are excluded from coverage under this health insurance plan unless a specific exception is noted. Exceptions may be subject to certain coverage limitations. * * * 11. Services and supplies for treating or diagnosing refractive disorders (vision errors which can be corrected with glasses) including eye glasses, contact lenses, or the examination for the prescribing or fitting of eye glasses or contact lenses, unless required because of an accident or cataract surgery that occurred while covered by this health insurance plan. This health insurance plan will cover the first pair of eye glasses or contact lenses following an accident to the eye or cataract surgery. The Division of State Group Insurance has uniformly interpreted this provision to exclude any payment for contact lenses, glasses, or LASIK surgery. The only exception to the exclusion is the stated provision for glasses or contact lenses following cataract surgery or following an accident that affected vision. State employees may purchase supplemental insurance that covers vision care and provides reimbursement for LASIK surgery.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, issue a final order determining that Petitioner is not entitled to payment for LASIK surgery and dismissing his petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 11th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Gesser Apartment D-23 4100 Southwest 20th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32607 Julie P. Forrester, 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 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Leonard Louis Zanello, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services on October 16, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals licensed to conduct insurance business in Florida. Ch. 626, Fla. Stat. Respondent Leonard Louis Zanello is currently and was at the times relevant, licensed in Florida as a health agent (02-40), and a life and health agent (02-18). Mr. Zanello’s license number is A293282. Count I: Failure to Submit Florida Office of Financial Regulation Order to the Department. On June 12, 2003, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “OFR”), f/k/a the Florida Office of Financial Institutions and Securities Regulation, entered a Final Order against Mr. Zanello in a case styled In Re Leonard Zanello, Administrative Proceeding No. 0663-I-3/02 (the OFR Order). The OFR Order related to alleged violations by Mr. Zanello of Florida securities laws. No copy of the OFR Order was submitted to the Department by Mr. Zanello within 30 days after it was entered as required by Section 626.536, Florida Statutes. Nor has a copy of the OFR Order ever been submitted by Mr. Zanello to the Department. Mr. Zanello’s claim that he provided a copy of the OFR Order to Carl Morstadt, Esquire, an attorney at the time with the OFR, was unconvincing and has not been credited. Some of the reasons for rejecting Mr. Zanello’s testimony on this issue have been more fully described in paragraphs 8(2) through (4) of the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order. Those proposed findings are incorporated into this Recommended Order by this reference. Count II: Failure to Submit Securities and Exchange Commission Order to the Department. On January 7, 2004, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “SEC”), entered an Order against Mr. Zanello in a case styled In the Matter of Louis L. Zanello, Sr., Admin. Proceeding File No. 3- 11370 (hereinafter referred to as the “SEC Order”). The SEC Order involves violations by Mr. Zanello of Federal securities laws. As admitted by Mr. Zanello, no copy of the SEC Order was submitted to the Department by him within 30 days after it was entered as required by Section 626.536, Florida Statutes. Nor has a copy of the SEC Order ever been submitted by Mr. Zanello to the Department. Mr. Zanello’s claim that he was unaware of the SEC Order was unconvincing and has not been credited. Some of the reasons for rejecting Mr. Zanello’s testimony on this issue have been more fully described in paragraph 15 of the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order. Those proposed findings are incorporated into this Recommended Order by this reference. Count III: Misstatement in the Sale of an Insurance Policy and Twisting. On January 3, 2004, Mr. Zanello met with Ms. Anne Paul of Coconut Creek, Florida. Ms. Paul was 80 years of age at the time she met with Mr. Zanello. At the January 3, 2004, meeting with Ms. Paul, Mr. Zanello sold her a long-term care insurance policy with AF&L Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “AF&L”). When she purchased the AF&L insurance policy (hereinafter referred to as the “AF&L Policy”), Ms. Paul already had a long-term care insurance policy. That policy was with Kanawha Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Kanawha”)(the long-term care insurance policy from Kanawha will hereinafter be referred to as the “Kanawha Policy”). Shortly after her meeting with Mr. Zanello, Ms. Paul informed Rita Baskin, whom Ms. Paul then regarded as her “financial advisor,” of her purchase of the AF&L Policy. Ms. Baskin convinced Ms. Paul that the AF&L Policy was not as beneficial as her Kanawha Policy and that she should immediately cancel the AF&L Policy. Why Ms. Baskin, who is now deceased, told Ms. Paul that the Kanawha Policy was a better product and, more importantly, why Ms. Paul believed that the Kanawha Policy was a better long-term care insurance policy than the AF&L Policy were not proven at hearing. Regardless of the specific reasons why, in reliance on Ms. Baskin’s advice, Ms. Paul cancelled the AF&L Policy. Ms. Paul testified by telephone during the hearing of this matter. Ms. Paul testified that she had informed Mr. Zanello about her Kanawha Policy at the time she purchased the AF&L Policy. She also testified that she agreed to purchase the AF&L Policy in complete reliance upon Mr. Zanello’s representation to her that the AF&L Policy was a better product than the Kanawha Policy. Ms. Paul’s testimony came more than five years after she had purchased the AF&L Policy (she was more than 85 years of age at the time of the hearing), and she had suffered a broken wrist the Friday before the hearing. Her arm was in a cast, she was taking no pain medication, and she indicated that she was in distress from pain during her testimony. In light of these facts and others, Ms. Paul’s testimony concerning what she told Mr. Zanello and her reliance upon representations from him concerning which policy was better was not clear and convincing. Ms. Paul’s testimony in this regard has, therefore, been rejected. Based upon the totality of the evidence in this case, the evidence simply failed to prove clearly and convincingly what transpired on January 3, 2004, when Mr. Zanello sold Ms. Paul the AF&L Policy, other than the fact that Ms. Paul purchased the AF&L Policy. D. Count IV: Misstatement on Insurance Application. Question 2 of Part IV of the AF&L Policy application signed by Ms. Paul, asks the following: Do you now or within the last 12 months had [sic] another Long-term Care, Nursing Home, or Home Health Care Insurance policy in force (including health care service or health maintenance organization contracts)? Question 3 of Part IV of the AF&L Policy application asks the following: Will this policy replace any of your medical, health or long-term care insurance? Mr. Zanello completed Part IV of the application for the AF&L Policy, asking Ms. Paul the questions and recording her answers. The answer to Questions 2 and 3 of Part IV of the application recorded by Mr. Zanello is “No.” Because the evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that Ms. Paul informed Mr. Zanello of the Kanawha Policy, the evidence failed to prove that incorrect answers to Questions 2 and 3 of Part IV of the application for the AF&L Policy were knowingly filled in by Mr. Zanello. If Mr. Zanello had been aware that Ms. Paul was replacing her Kanawha Policy with the AF&L Policy, which the evidence failed to prove, he was required to provide her with a “Notice to Applicant Regarding Replacement.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69O-157.016(2). While Ms. Paul was not provided a copy of a Notice to Applicant Regarding Replacement by Mr. Zanello, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Zanello knowingly failed to provide the Notice to her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Leonard Louis Zanello violated the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and described, supra; dismissing Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint; and suspending his licenses for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 1st day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Alan Fox, Senior Attorney Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Leonard Louis Zanello, Sr. 1074 Northwest 121st Lane Coral Springs, Florida 33071-5005 Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
