Findings Of Fact Respondent, Herbert Goloff, D.C., is a chiropractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. From March 10, 1988, through September 3, 1991, Dr. Goloff treated Ruth Waddle, a Workers' Compensation patient, for lumbar myofascitis. Lumbar myofascitis is an inflammation of the muscle and the fascia in the lumbar spine. Lumbar myofascitis is indicated by the following objective findings: recurrent spasms, limitation of motion, tender nodules, trigger point tenderness in the muscles, and taut or sensitive skin. On June 14, 1988, the Respondent placed Ruth Waddle at maximum medical improvement (MMI). The Respondent treated Ruth Waddle 14 times before placing her at MMI. The Respondent treated Ruth Waddle a total of 171 times after MMI. The Respondent is required to maintain documentation substantiating the treatment and services he rendered to Ruth Waddle in order to receive reimbursement for those services. The Respondent is required to perform an initial history, make a diagnosis, and develop a plan of care and document his subjective and objective findings in his records. The Respondent is also required to keep notes reflecting his subjective and objective findings, his appraisal or assessment and his plan of action (SOAP notes) for the patient Ruth Waddle, in order to substantiate and justify that the medical treatment and services he renders are medically necessary. If a health care provider cannot document that this treatment and services are medically necessary, he is not entitled to receive reimbursement for his services. The Respondent's records indicate that there was unscheduled ongoing care of the patient after June 14, 1988. Whenever the patient was in pain she would come in to the Respondent's Office and ask for a treatment. Respondent was not practicing full time in 1988. The patient seldom scheduled an appointment. She frequently came in on a Tuesday, a day she knew that Respondent had office hours. The patient would describe her symptoms to Respondent and he would perform various therapies, including mild adjustments. Respondent would make minimum entries in the patient's progress notes. Respondent's treatment of the patient Ruth Waddle, after reaching MMI, for the temporary relief of pain was palliative care. The Respondent's records indicate that there was inadequate testing of the patient Ruth Waddle to substantiate the medical necessity of treatment after June 14, 1988. The Respondent's records do not contain a plan of care or treatment for Ruth Waddle. The Respondents records do not contain an initial history for Ruth Waddle. The Respondents records do not contain an evaluation of Ruth Waddle's physical condition at the time of MMI relative to muscle spasms and range of motion, as well as other neurological and orthopedic tests. Respondent failed to maintain SOAP notes for the patient Ruth Waddle. The Respondent's records do not contain objective medical findings to substantiate the medical necessity of services rendered to Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988. The Respondent's records do not substantiate the medical necessity of the frequency and duration of the treatment provided to Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be determined to have failed to substantiate the treatment of Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988. The Respondent be ordered to return the sum of $7,354.68 to the American States Insurance Company for the fees that the Respondent collected in treating Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988, when the patient reached MMI. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4546 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-14. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 2, 5(a), 5(b) (in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: paragraph 4, 5(b) (in part), 5(c). COPIES FURNISHED: Michael G. Moore, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 William J. McCabe, Esquire Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley 1450 West S.R. 434, Suite 200 Longwood, Florida 32750 Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Petitioner's September 29, 1993, claim (Claim No. 34092993) for reimbursement of expenses for medical services rendered in 1992 should be denied on the ground that said claim was not timely filed with Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Department")?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a participant in the State of Florida Flexible Benefits Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") with an established Medical Reimbursement Account. The following were among the medical expenses incurred by Petitioner and members of her immediate family during the 1992 calendar year: DATE TYPE OF SERVICE AMOUNT 6/29/92 Dental $70.00 7/9/92 Dental $310.00 7/11/92 Endodontic $450.00 7/17/92 Optical $266.75 7/22/92 Dental $500.00 7/27/92 Optical $84.70 8/19/92 Optical $416.50 12/29/92 Dental $210.00 In August of 1992, Hurricane Andrew ravaged parts of South Florida. Petitioner's residence was extensively damaged by the storm. Most of the contents of the residence, including medical records and receipts, were destroyed. Petitioner and her family were forced to vacate the premises. They packed their remaining belongings and moved to another location in Dade County, with the intention of returning to their home once the damage to the structure had been repaired. As of the date of the hearing in this case, all of the necessary repairs to the home had yet to be made and therefore the family had not moved back in. Petitioner and the other members of her family were among those residents of South Florida whose lives were significantly disrupted by the hurricane and the destruction and devastation it caused In the aftermath of the hurricane, Petitioner directed her energies toward obtaining a return to normalcy in her life. Although she realized that there were medical expense reimbursement claims that she needed to file with the Department, filing these claims was not a priority of hers. She focused her attention on other matters that she considered to be more deserving of her time given her situation. In January or February of 1993, Petitioner telephoned the Department to inquire if extensions of time for filing reimbursement claims were being given to Plan participants, such as herself, who were still suffering from the consequences of Hurricane Andrew. The person to whom Petitioner spoke advised her that such extensions were indeed being given. Based upon what she had been told by this Department representative, Petitioner reasonably believed that she would be able to file reimbursement claims for 1992 medical expenses after March 1, 1993, without having these claims rejected on the ground that they had been untimely filed. She therefore felt that there was no urgency with respect to the filing of these claims and she acted accordingly. Shortly after gathering all of the supporting documentation she believed she needed, 1 Petitioner, on September 29, 1993, filed a claim with the Department requesting that she be reimbursed from her Medical Reimbursement Account for the medical expenses enumerated in Finding of Fact 2 of this Recommended Order. The Department designated the claim as Claim No. 34092993. Petitioner also sought reimbursement, through the filing of this claim, of certain medical expenses incurred in 1993, including $140.00 for dental work that Petitioner had inadvertently indicated on the claim form had been performed in July of 1992. The work had actually been done in July of 1993. By letter dated October 8, 1993, the Department advised Petitioner that "[o]nly expenses for services rendered during the January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 plan year are eligible for reimbursement" and that "[s]ince [her] 1992 expense does not fall within this plan year, it is not reimbursable." Petitioner responded to this advisement by sending the following letter, dated November 28, 1993, to the Department: This is a petition or application requesting a formal hearing on my Claim #34092993 for Payment/Reimbursement for expenses incurred during my period of coverage for 1992. This Claim was denied. My Name is: Luretha F. Lucky My Address is: 10430 S.W. 162nd Terrace (temporary) Miami, Florida 33157 My permanent address is: 10361 S.W. 139th Street Miami, Florida 33176 I am employed at Florida International University, Miami, Florida 33199. I filed my claim late because my home was severely damaged when hit [b]y Hurricane Andrew, August 24, 1992. In addition, the content[s] in my home w[ere] destroyed, therefore, it took awhile for me to collect documentation for my claim from medical personnel. Also, I had to move and the few items saved were packed away. Lastly, I called the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance to inform them of what had happened to me and asked if . . . they were providing extensions on submitting claims. I was told they were. My mistake was not asking and recording the name of the person with whom I spoke. As you can see from my temporary address, I am still not back in my home! In fact we just settled (with the assistance of the Insurance Commissioner's Office) with our insurance company to complete the work on our home. We had to request an extension on filing our income tax for 1992. This past year has been an awful experience for us, and I do hope you will provide me a hearing on my reimbursement. My Claim # is: 34092993. The decision that my claim was denied was received by regular mail. Thank you very much for considering my request.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Petitioner's September 29, 1993, claim (Claim No. 34092993) for reimbursement of expenses for medical services rendered in 1992 to have been timely filed and therefore subject to consideration on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of April, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of April, 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should grant or deny a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute filed by a health care provider or its assignee. The dispute concerns the proper reimbursement amount for 60 units of meloxicam 15 mg.
Findings Of Fact J. G. is 30 years old and suffered a compensable injury on September 14, 2009. On December 14, 2011, J. G. visited the Advanced Pain Management office of Dr. Daitch, who dispensed to the employee 60 units of meloxicam 15 mg. Meloxicam is a prescription pain medication. Dr. Daitch obtains certain prescription drugs from Unit Dose Services for dispensing in his office. Although Dr. Daitch sees patients who are not covered by Workers' Compensation, he dispenses prescription drugs in his office only to patients covered by Workers' Compensation and has been doing so for four years. Dr. Daitch testified that he was unaware of the pricing of the prescription drugs that he dispenses in his office, and he was unaware of any contract that, in this case, might require him or his assignee, as described in the next paragraph, to discount this reimbursement claim. But he testified that the dispensing of prescription drugs through retail chains such as Walgreens and CVS is "very profitable." (Tr. of deposition of Dr. Daitch 16). All of this testimony is credited. However, it is not unusual for providers to be unaware of in-network or preferred-provider contracts when that they dispense prescription drugs to injured employees. As a certified health care provider, Dr. Daitch was presumptively aware that, whenever he dispenses prescription drugs, his reimbursement may be limited to what is authorized for an in- network or preferred provider.3/ As he did in this case, Dr. Daitch routinely assigns his claims for reimbursement for dispensed prescription drugs. Dr. Daitch testified that he or his practice has a contract with Automated Healthcare Solutions, but the assignee in this case is Prescription Partners--either as a result of a reassignment or Dr. Daitch's misunderstanding of the identity of the billing contractor. For the December 14 office visit, Dr. Daitch completed a CMS-1500, which includes a National Drug Code (NDC) for the meloxicam that he dispensed, a note that he dispensed 60 units of the drug, a reimbursement claim of $437.48 for the drug, and a reimbursement claim of $4.18 as a dispensing fee. Appearing in the upper right-hand corner of the CMS-1500 is the name, "AmTrust of North America," suggesting that Dr. Daitch or Prescription Partners believed that AmTrust North America, Inc., or AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc., was the carrier or claims administrator. The CMS-1500 states that Prescription Partners is the "billing provider" and that Prescription Partners submitted the CMS-1500 to AmTrust North America. The carrier is Petitioner. AmTrust North America, Inc., is a multistate insurance agency, although it is not licensed in Florida. Formerly known as Associated Industries Insurance Service, Inc., AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc., is an insurance agency licensed in Florida and serves as a third-party administrator of claims on policies issued by Petitioner and other carriers, including the claim involved in this case. Each of these corporations is owned by AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., although AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc., was principally owned, as of July 1, 2009, by AmTrust North America, Inc. By EOBR received on January 11, 2012, Petitioner notified Prescription Partners that Petitioner was disallowing the dispensing fee and adjusting the reimbursement amount for the 60 units of meloxicam to $385.48. The explanation for both actions is: "Paid; no modification to the information provided on the medical bill; payment made pursuant to written contractual arrangement (network or PPO named required): ."4/ There is no network or PPO identified in the space after the final colon. The EOBR advises that reconsiderations or appeals must be submitted to Petitioner and Fair Pay SOLUTIONS, if Prescription Partners had any questions about the "analysis." Prescription Partners had questions about the analysis, but addressed them to OMS by filing the Petition. The Petition, which was timely filed, shows that the petitioner is Dr. Daitch, but that the Petition is presented by Prescription Partners, as an entity acting on behalf of the health care provider. The Petition shows copies were mailed to "AmTrust" and Petitioner. The Petition states the gist of the dispute as follows: "Carrier is paying under the AWP not according to the FL fee schedule. This claim is being processed incorrectly." The Petition states that the amount in dispute is $56.18. Attached to the Petition are four documents: the above-described CMS-1500 and EOBR, a Calculation Sheet that renders the above-described details on the amounts in dispute, and a document identified as "Detailed Product Information" from the "Red Book." The "RedBook" is the Drug Topics Red Book™, which is a price index published by Medical Economics Company, Inc. The Red Book™ provides an AWP, by NDC, for all prescription drugs, including repackaged drugs. The "Detailed Product Information," which is from an online version of the Red Book™, identifies the same UDC referenced in the above-described CMS-1500 and indicates that the drug is a repackaged generic. The "Detailed Product Information" also contains "current pricing information" for meloxicam 15 mg. The "current pricing information" shows that the AWP is $218.74 and "HCFA"-- evidently referring to Medicare reimbursement through the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)--is $6.28. These prices appear to apply to 30 units. The AWP is a price that is designated by the manufacturer or repackager and reported to the Red Book™ publisher. Contrary to its name, the AWP does not necessarily correspond to the mean price of all of the arm's length, wholesale transactions in the drug over a period of time; the AWP more closely resembles the "undiscounted sticker price" assigned to a drug by its manufacturer or repackager.5/ Unlike AWP, repackaging is self-explanatory. A repackager purchases a drug from its manufacturer in bulk--say, 1000 units--and repackages the drug in small quantities--say, 30 units--for dispensing by physicians and other appropriate health care providers. The repackager provides a package and label and obtains a unique UDC for the repackaged drug. By obtaining a unique UDC for the repackaged drug, the repackager is able to set a different AWP from the AWP assigned the drug by its manufacturer. In general, the AWPs assigned by repackagers are 80%-200% higher than the AWPs assigned by manufacturers. As between manufacturers and repackagers of meloxicam at the time in question, the AWP for 60 units ranged from about $290 for manufacturers to about $450 for repackagers. At the time in question, meloxicam was a generic. Now a MAC drug, which means it carries a "maximum allowable cost" because it is now manufactured by several manufacturers, meloxicam presently supports an AWP of $60.91 for 60 units. Petitioner timely filed a carrier response to the Petition. The response states that the carrier has contracted with Carlisle for the reimbursement of prescription drugs at reduced prices. The response states that neither Prescription Partners nor Dr. Daitch is a party to the contract, and they must accept the reduced reimbursement rate. The response includes a copy of a written contract between Carlisle and AmTrust North America (Written Contract); a letter dated January 12, 2012, from the president of Carlisle to the Claims Manager of AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc.; an invoice showing the reduced reimbursements for the subject transaction; and Informational Bulletin DFS-02-2009 dated August 12, 2009. Signed by both parties on August 2, 2012, and, from all appearances, taking effect on that date, the Written Contract is only 22 lines long, exclusive of headings. Its provisions are as follows: AmTrust North America will "exclusively" use Carlisle's "PBM" services. Carlisle will provide PBM services for AmTrust North America throughout the United States. Carlisle's PBM program includes over 64,000 pharmacies, including all of the major retail chains--Walgreens, CVS, Target, and Rite-Aid. If there are no contracted pharmacies that are "reasonably accessible" to an employee, the employee may use an out-of-network pharmacy. Carlisle will submit all pharmacy invoices on a form acceptable to AmTrust North America. The "terms" are "net-30, or as mandated by the appropriate state law." Carlisle will maintain pharmacy records for three years from the last activity. "Insurance. See attachment." (The versions of the contract submitted into evidence have no attachments.) g. The agreement is for one year, after which the agreement automatically renews unless either party provides written notice of termination at least 90 days prior to the renewal date. Carlisle is not an affiliate of AmTrust North America, Inc. Carlisle has a contract with an entity that has contracts with large chains of retail pharmacies. This networking-forming entity obtains discounts from AWPs for various classes of prescription drugs: brand name drugs, generic drugs, and MAC drugs. Pursuant to these contractual arrangements, Carlisle obtains for AmTrust North America, Inc., and its affiliates discounts of 12% off AWP for generic drugs. Eric Lloyd, OMS Program Administrator, testified that this is a relatively low percentage among in-network or preferred providers; this testimony is credited. The January 12, 2012, letter from Carlisle to AmTrust North America of Florida states that AmTrust North America of Florida has the right, under the Written Contract, to reimburse an out-of-network or nonpreferred provider at the same rate that applies to an in-network or preferred provider. The letter states that the pricing worksheet that Carlisle supplies to AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc., shows the reimbursement amount for prescription drugs obtained through in-network or preferred-provider pharmacies. Carlisle uses Medi-Span, which provides AWPs by NDCs like the Red Book™, as the source of the AWP for every prescription drug, to which Carlisle then applies the appropriate discount, depending on whether the drug is a brand name, generic, or MAC drug. Respondent's Information Bulletin DVS-02-2009, which was issued on August 12, 2009, is irrelevant to this case.6/ OMS resolved this reimbursement dispute in favor of Prescription Partners. In its Reimbursement Dispute Determination, OMS cites two grounds for this proposed agency action: 1) the Written Contract is between Carlisle and AmTrust North America, not Petitioner, and 2) the Written Contract provides no drug pricing methodology by which OMS could validate the accuracy of the discount that Petitioner applied to the AWP. The Reimbursement Dispute Determination mentions the Florida Workers' Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual, 2008 edition (Provider Manual), which is incorporated by reference at Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.020. Provider Manual II.F.1.b.(1) requires carriers to reimburse certified Florida health care providers pursuant to the reimbursement guidelines contained in the manual: the reimbursement shall be the "agreed upon contract price (whether agreed upon prior to rendering service(s) or upon submission of bill) or the maximum reimbursement allowance (MRA) in the appropriate schedule pursuant to section 440.13(12)(a), F.S." Provider Manual V.A recognizes that prescription drugs may be dispensed by pharmacists or dispensing physicians. Provider Manual V.A.5.a. limits reimbursement to the pharmacist or dispensing practitioner, pursuant to the formula contained in the manual. For prescription drugs, Provider Manual V.A.5.b states that reimbursement shall be by the "pharmaceutical reimbursement formula," which is either the AWP plus a $4.18 dispensing fee or the "contracted reimbursement amount determined in accordance with the contractual arrangement between the provider and insurer." The Provider Manual does not address the dispensing of prescription drugs by an out-of- network or nonpreferred provider. Alan McClain, Jr., Carlisle executive vice-president, negotiated the Written Contract. In testimony, Mr. McClain identified a few contractual provisions that are not contained in the Written Contract, such as that the discounts are confidential, but that AmTrust North America could disclose them if it wished, and that the affiliates of AmTrust North America, including Petitioner, are parties to the Written Contract. Mr. McClain also testified that the three levels of discounts are primarily derived from course of dealing, rather than a formal schedule to the Written Contract. Mr. McClain's testimony is credited. Nothing in this record suggests any discord between the AmTrust family of corporations, on the one hand, and Carlisle and its direct and indirect contractual counterparties described above, on the other hand. To the contrary, the business relationships among all of these parties appear to be entirely satisfactory. This simple fact, not fraud or collusion, explains the readiness of the parties freely to supplement the Written Contract with layers of oral agreements-- some express and some implied in fact from course of dealing--in order to perpetuate, reinforce, and extend these advantageous business relationships. These same written and oral contracts, both express and implied, that have produced such satisfaction among the parties on the carrier side of the transaction have produced no similar effect on Respondent, which has limited its consideration to the Written Contract and rejected the oral contracts and course of dealing. Petitioner objects to Respondent's treatment of these contractual arrangements on the ground that Respondent has not scrutinized as closely the business relationships and their documentation on the provider's side of the transaction. In its least appealing form, Petitioner's argument is: if Respondent casually accepts the role of Prescription Partners as assignee without insisting on documentation, it must do the same as to the right of Petitioner to access the discounts provided by Carlisle and impose them on out-of-network or nonpreferred providers such as Dr. Daitch. The ultimate question, as a matter of law, is whether the operative reimbursement provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law support Respondent's proposed agency action. But Petitioner's argument, as a matter of fact, exposes serious flaws in Respondent's posture in this case. Nothing in the record suggests any problems demanding regulatory intervention in the form of Respondent's prosecution of Prescription Partner's claim to an additional reimbursement of $56.18. There is no suggestion that Petitioner or its contractual counterparties have disrupted the reimbursement process. In particular, there is no suggestion that the 12% discount from AWP at issue in this case is excessive by industry standards; to the contrary, it is a relatively modest discount. In a more appealing form, Petitioner's argument reflects that multiple parties may be involved in what would seem to the injured employee to be the simplest of transactions--obtaining 60 pills for chronic or recurring pain-- and the business relationships among these parties are defined by a variety of oral and written, express and implied, contracts. In this light, Respondent's failure to demand documentation of the contractual arrangements among the multiple parties on the provider side of the transaction implicitly acknowledges the role of oral contracts and course of dealing in defining business relationships. By contrast, Respondent's insistence on documentation of the business relationships among the multiple parties on the carrier side of the transaction is inconsistent with legitimate business practices. The Conclusions of Law will consider the extent to which Respondent's insistence on documentation on the carrier side of the transaction finds any support among the operative reimbursement provisions.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a final order dismissing the petition of Dr. Jonathan Daitch and Prescription Partners, LLC, for resolution of a reimbursement dispute. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 2013.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether supplemental payments made to the Petitioner by Brevard Community College constitute creditable compensation for purposes of determining retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact From 1970 until his retirement in June 1998, Brevard Community College employed Stephen J. Megregian at an executive level. The State of Florida, Division of Retirement, manages and oversees operation of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) in which Brevard Community College (BCC) participates. In June 1990, the college adopted an Employee Benefit Plan for BCC Executive Employees. The provisions of the plan covered Mr. Megregian, an executive employee. In fact, Mr. Megregian drafted the plan, which was adopted by the college's Board of Trustees. The executive benefit plan included a severance pay benefit for plan participants. The severance benefit was calculated according to a formula using the employee's daily base pay as multiplied by the sum of "benefit days." Benefit days were earned according to employment longevity. A "severance day" calculation determined the amount of severance pay a departing employee would receive. Apparently, at some point in 1994, participants in the FRS learned that the Division of Retirement would exclude some types of compensation, including severance pay, from the "creditable compensation" used to determine retirement benefits. In June 1995, the college amended the plan to provide a severance pay "opt-out" provision to plan participants. The provision entitled plan participants who were within five years of eligibility for FRS retirement benefits to "opt-out" of the severance package and instead immediately begin to receive supplemental payments. Mr. Megregian drafted the "opt-out" provision, which was adopted by the college board. The decision to "opt-out" was irrevocable. A plan participant could not change his or her mind and take the severance package once the "opt-out" decision was made. The supplemental payments were calculated based upon the "severance days" that the employee would have otherwise earned during the year. The payments were made along with the employee's salary payment. The "opt-out" plan did not require a participant to retire after the fifth year of receiving the supplemental payment. The Petitioner asserts that the creation of the "opt- out" provision was in accordance with information provided by the Division of Retirement. There is no evidence that the Division of Retirement provided any information suggesting that the "opt-out" provision would result in an increase in creditable compensation for purposes of determining FRS benefits, or that the "opt-out" provision was an acceptable method of avoiding the severance pay exclusion. There is no evidence that, prior to March of 1998, the college specifically sought any direction or advice from the Division of Retirement as to the supplemental payments made to employees under the "opt-out" provision. The evidence as to why the college did not simply increase base salaries for employees to whom supplemental payments were being made is unclear. There was testimony that the plan was designed to avoid unidentified tax consequences. There was also testimony that the supplemental plan was designed to avoid increasing some employees base salaries beyond the percentage increases awarded to other employees. There was apparently some concern as to the impact the supplemental payments would have on other college employees who were not receiving the additional funds. There is no evidence that the Petitioner performed any additional duties on the college's behalf in exchange for the supplemental payments. The Petitioner was eligible to participate in the "opt- out" plan beginning in the college's 1995-1996 fiscal year, and he elected to do so. As a result of his election, supplemental payments were made in amounts as follows: Fiscal Year 1995-1996, $7,938.46. Fiscal Year 1996-1997, $8,147.13. Fiscal Year 1997-1998, $8,395.40. On March 21, 1998, Brevard Community College requested clarification from the Division of Retirement as to how the supplemental payments would affect a plan participant's benefit. On April 30, 1998, the Division of Retirement notified the college that the supplemental payments would not be included within the calculation of creditable compensation. The Petitioner retired from his employment at Brevard Community College on June 30, 1998. The Petitioner is presently entitled to retirement benefits under the FRS. The Division calculates FRS retirement benefits based on "creditable compensation" paid to an employee during the five years in which an employee's compensation is highest. Some or all of the three years during which the Petitioner received supplemental payments are included in the calculation of his creditable compensation. The evidence fails to establish that the supplemental payments made to the Petitioner should be included within the creditable compensation upon which FRS benefits are calculated. Under the statutes and rules governing FRS benefit determinations, the supplemental payments made to the Petitioner are "bonuses" and are excluded from the "creditable compensation" calculation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that supplemental payments made to Stephen J. Megregian are bonus payments and are excluded from calculation of creditable compensation for FRS benefit purposes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 2nd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Pearson, Esquire Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A. Post Office Box 2346 Orlando, Florida 32802-2346 Robert B. Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, Medical Services (the Department), correctly determined the amount of reimbursement Petitioner, Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith), owes to Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (Lawnwood) for medical services, pursuant to section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2018).1/ More specifically, the issues raised in this case are: whether Zenith properly adjusted or disallowed payment by paying what it believed were “reasonable” charges for the Workers’ Compensation medical services provided; whether the Department’s consideration of a “Stop-Loss” percentage-based methodology, as opposed to a per diem rate, may serve as a basis for reimbursement; and what, if any, is the additional amount Zenith owes to Lawnwood for reimbursement in this case.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Participants The Department is the state agency responsible for administration of the Florida’s Workers’ Compensation process set forth in chapter 440. As such, it has exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement for medical services under this process. See § 440.13, Fla. Stat. Zenith is a carrier as defined by section 440.13(1)(c). Lawnwood, a non-party, is a health care facility as defined by section 440.13(1)(g). Lawnwood is part of a network known as East Florida Division, Inc. (East Florida), a division of HCA Inc. Parallon, a non-party, manages the billing, revenue cycle management, and reimbursement dispute process for certain hospitals, including Lawnwood. (Jt. Stip. Facts, ¶¶ 33 and 34). Parallon filed the Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute in this case on behalf of Lawnwood. Coventry Health Care Workers Compensation, Inc., and/or Coventry Life and Health Insurance Company on behalf of First Health Group Corp. (Coventry), serves as a “middleman” between insurance carriers and health care providers. As explained by Carol Brodie, Coventry offers carriers, such as Zenith, access to special rates it has negotiated with health care facilities and providers. Essentially, Zenith is a third-party beneficiary of the rates negotiated between East Florida and Coventry. Medical Services at Issue Lawnwood provided health services to a workers’ compensation patient (patient) from January 21 through 25, 2016. The patient was to be treated for a routine outpatient surgical procedure to release an extensor tendon of his index finger. According to the unrefuted testimony of Linda Joy (a Zenith employee), the surgeon inadvertently cut the patient’s digital nerve, artery, and vein. This resulted in more extensive treatment than originally contemplated. The patient was ultimately admitted to the hospital for inpatient care, and released four days later. Payment Dispute Lawnwood issued a bill to Zenith for $163,697.30 (Lawnwood bill) for the services and treatment it provided to patient. Zenith regularly audits bills it receives from health care providers and makes adjustments if necessary. These adjustments are provided to the health care provider along with the payment in the form of an Explanation of Bill Review (EOBR). The EOBR goes through each itemized line in a bill and explains to the provider what was reduced and why. In this case, Zenith sent the Lawnwood bill to Ms. Joy for review. She reviewed the patient’s relevant medical records, as well as billing documentation, and a coding summary sheet (containing codes for procedures, medications, and other services utilized by the health care and insurance industry) from Lawnwood. Ms. Joy opined the Lawnwood bill was very high for the services provided. Both of the Department’s witnesses also felt the amount billed by Lawnwood was unexpected. Andrew Sabolic (an assistant director at the Department) was surprised at Lawnwood’s bill, stating: “it was an amount that I didn’t anticipate a hospital would charge for those types of services.” Similarly, Lynne Metz (a Department employee) testified: “The charges were high compared to what I would expect.” The Department has not made any determination or review of whether the bills or charges submitted by the hospital are reasonable for the services provided. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 28). Ms. Joy and other Zenith staff compared the charges and the information on the coding summary sheet with payments of other similar providers through a medical revenue and billing database program, known as “OPTUM 360 Revenue Cycle Program” (OPTUM360). In making the comparison, Zenith also utilized databases and benchmarks that are accepted in the industry, including Medicare, the MediSpan Drug Database, Health Care Blue Book, Health Engine, other state’s workers’ compensation reimbursement formulas, usual and customary charges, and other hospitals’ charges in the same zip code as Lawnwood. Based on the OPTUM360 results and its own analysis, Zenith calculated the total reimbursement amount acceptable to other health care providers under Medicare for the same treatment and services would be $11,173.81. As a result, Zenith issued an EOBR that adjusted the Lawnwood bill and indicated, “THIS BILL HAS BEEN PRICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF YOUR CONTRACT WITH COVENTRY NATIONAL.” Along with the EOBR, Zenith provided benchmark data to Lawnwood to support its repricing, editing or adjustment of the bills at issue. (Jt. Stip. Facts, ¶¶ 36 and 37). In the EOBR, Zenith used four explanation codes: “47,” “81,” “92,” and “93,” as authorized by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.740(13)(a) and (b), to explain why payment was disallowed or adjusted. Code “47” (Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: invoice or certification not submitted for implant) was used for the disallowance on a line item for an implant. Id. The parties agree that was appropriate. Code “81” (Payment adjusted: billing errors: payment modified pursuant to charge audit) was used for the line items other than the disallowed implant charge, based on Zenith’s review of the entire bill, line by line, and resulting adjustment. Id. Code “92” (Paid: no modification to information provided on the medical bill: payment made pursuant to workers’ compensation reimbursement manual for hospitals) was used because it is generally on all hospital bills. Id. Code “93” (Paid: no modification to information provided on the medical bill: payment made pursuant to written contractual arrangement) was used because Zenith had a contract with Coventry, and Coventry had an agreement with East Florida and Lawnwood. The Department has not adopted a rule establishing an EOBR code (or similar descriptive explanation) to be used by a carrier when the carrier identifies a bill or charge from a hospital that the carrier deems to be so excessively high so as to be an unreasonable basis for reimbursement under the Florida Worker’s Compensation Law. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 8). In other words, there is no code in rule 69L-7.740 for disputing a line item as being “unreasonable” or “too high.” Based on the repriced and adjusted bill, Zenith reimbursed Lawnwood $31,844.70 for the medical services provided. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 40). This amount was approximately three times the OPTUM360 amount of $11,173.81. When asked how Zenith made the decision to give three times the OPTUM360 amount, Ms. Brodie explained: We didn’t take the [OPTUM360] Medicare payment or even 120 or 140 percent of Medicare, which we thought was more than fair. . . . So because Florida -- I don't want to say they're problematic, but Florida bills, we're seeing such an increase in the amount of billed charges and we're seeing a lot of disputes when we don't pay to the penny of what the expected amount is, that we were trying to go above and beyond and try to make our payment more palatable, I guess, to the provider. So we wanted to be more than generous, so we came up with three times Medicare. Catherine Trotter (a Parallon employee) Parallon filed a request for reconsideration of the EOBR with Zenith after Lawnwood had reviewed it and determined $31,844.70 was insufficient. On April 18, 2016, Parallon, on behalf of Lawnwood, filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement dispute with the Department challenging the EOBR and demanding additional payment. Based on Ms. Joy’s testimony, Zenith did not contest the medical necessity of the services provided by Lawnwood, nor was there evidence Zenith claimed overutilization (the appropriateness of the level and quality of health care provided to the patient). Rather, Zenith claimed, and still claims in these proceedings, it did not pay the billed amount because the individual charges were unreasonable. Contract Provisions Zenith and Parallon, on behalf of Lawnwood, agree that a reimbursement contract applies to this dispute. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 35). The Department also based the Third Determination on the contract provisions. The parties disagree, however, as to what contract provisions apply and how they should be applied. At the hearing, the parties also disputed whether the Department was provided with the applicable contractual provisions during the petition process. The undersigned need not determine who sent what to whom, because this is a de novo proceeding; and what matters is the evidence admitted at the hearing. See 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat.; Haines v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 983 So. 2d 602, 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). No contract directly between Zenith and Lawnwood was presented at the hearing. The following documents, however, establish the agreement between Coventry and Lawnwood: (1) Amendment to Model Facility Agreement executed January 20, 2015 (MFA Amendment); Appendix A, “Payment Rate” (Appendix A); and Attachment 1, “Participating Facility List (Attachment 1); and (4) Amendment to Model Facility Agreement between Lawnwood and Coventry (also known as First Health), effective October 1, 2006 (Lawnwood Amendment). Parallon’s legal manager testified the MFA Amendment, Appendix A, Attachment 1, and the Lawnwood Amendment were the only contract provisions relevant to the reimbursement determination. These documents set the rates for Coventry (and its network clients such as Zenith), but do not provide definitions or terms that may have been included in the original “Model Facility Agreement.” Nonetheless, the Lawnwood Amendment defines the “Workers’ Compensation Contract Rate” as follows: “the amount payable under the terms of this Contract shall be the lesser of the Contract rate or a 5% discount from the amount payable under hospital guidelines established under any state law or regulations pertaining to health care services rendered to occupationally ill/injured employees.” Therefore, to make a determination of how much is owed, findings must be made as to what is the “Contact rate,” and what is the amount payable under “any state law or regulations” governing workplace injuries (State rate). Relevant to determining the “Contract rate,” Paragraph 3 of the MFA Amendment provides the following under “Rates”: The current rate reflected on Appendix A to the Agreement shall be increased by 3% for inpatient dates of admission and/or outpatient dates of service occurring on and after October 1, 2014. Appendix A contains a table depicting inpatient rates for Lawnwood as “35% Discount from Hospital’s Total Billed Charges.” (emphasis added). Because the services were provided after October 2014, the 35 percent discount reduced by the three percent discount results in Lawnwood’s expected contractual reimbursement rate to be 68 percent of the “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges,” from any of Coventry’s clients, including Zenith. Thus, the applicable Contract rate is 68 percent of the total bill submitted by Lawnwood. Zenith disputes the meaning of “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges” and argues for application of a “reasonableness” standard to this term. In support of this assertion, Zenith offers the following documents which relate to the agreement between Zenith and Coventry: (1) the Workers’ Compensation Network Services Agreement effective November 1, 2008, (Network Agreement); (2) Supplement A to the Network Agreement, titled “Network Access” (Supplement A); and (3) the Sixth Amendment to the Network Agreement executed November 24, 2015 (6th Amendment). The Network Agreement, Supplement A, and 6th Amendment are heavily redacted. Regardless, it is clear these documents classify Zenith as a “client,” who pays Coventry for access to a discounted rate for medical services with a “Contract Provider.” The Contract Provider and Coventry have a separate “provider agreement” setting this discounted rate. Although, the terms “contract rates,” “fee,” and “provider fee schedule,” are all defined in the Network Agreement Coventry has with Zenith, the definitions or explanation of these terms are redacted. Thus, there is no evidence these terms apply to the Lawnwood bill or the rate established between Coventry and Lawnwood. Similarly, Supplement A defines “Bill” but is also redacted. Regardless, based on the inclusion of these sections in the Network Agreement and attachments, Zenith and Coventry knew how to define special terms. If they intended to give a special meaning to the term “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges,” they could have done so. Section 2.2 of the 6th Amendment states, “[Zenith] agrees that the Contract Rate shall be applied to bills received from [Lawnwood] and further agrees that no other rates . . . shall be applied to such bills.” (emphasis added). Again, without any evidence to the contrary, “bills received” applies to the Lawnwood bill. Although Zenith argues the remaining language in section 2.2 allows it to “modify, edit or otherwise dispute any bill,” this modification must be done pursuant to the contract and workers’ compensation laws and regulations. As stated before, the EOBR regulations do not contemplate adjustments to be based on the reasonableness or fairness of prices or charges. More importantly, there is no basis in the contract provisions or state law and regulations allowing Zenith to reimburse Lawnwood in the amount of three times the OPTUM360 amount. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the undersigned also cannot infer this as a basis for modification of the reimbursement amount. Zenith also cites to section 2.6 of Supplement A to justify its repricing based on the OPTUM360 results and other industry-used benchmark comparison data. That section, titled “Benchmarking Database,” states, “In the event [Zenith] . . . performs a bill review or repricing function on [Lawnwood’s] bills, Zenith shall . . . update at least twice annually and utilize a nationally accepted charge-benchmarking database to determine the proper percentile of charges in the applicable zip code as approved by Coventry and Client.” Granted this section contemplates that benchmark databases can be used by Zenith in repricing bills, but it speaks to the proper percentile of charges, not the reasonableness of the underlying prices or charges. There was no evidence Coventry approved a “proper percentile of charges” as required. The undersigned finds there is no language in the redacted versions of the Network Agreement, Supplement A, or 6th Amendment that changes Zenith’s requirement (as Coventry’s client) to pay the lesser of (1) 68 percent of the “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges” or (2) 5 percent less than the rate provided pursuant to applicable state laws and regulations. Finally, Zenith argues that the definition provided in a Coventry contract with an undisclosed health care provider, titled “Workers’ Compensation Product Addendum,” should be used to determine the meaning of the term “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges.” See Zenith’s PRO, p. 22-23 (“By implication, these are all in the same network and use the same contractual provisions.”). This document (Zenith’s Exhibit 39) provides definitions, if applicable, that could have been helpful in addressing Zenith’s arguments. For example, this document ties the amount owed by a Coventry client to an “allowable amount” and “eligible bill charges.” There is no evidence, however, that Zenith’s Exhibit 39 was executed by Lawnwood (or East Florida), or that the provisions in this document were part of any agreement between Coventry and Lawnwood, or Coventry and Zenith. As such, the undersigned finds it is not applicable to these proceedings. Applying the Contract rate--68 percent of the “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges” indicated in the Network Agreement and attachments--to the Lawnwood bill would require Zenith to provide a total amount of $110,859.24, or an additional amount of $79,014.54. The Workers’ Compensation System The analysis does not stop there. The next step is to determine how much would be owed at “a 5% discount from the amount payable under hospital guidelines established under any state law or regulation pertaining to health care services rendered to occupationally ill/injured employees.” The undersigned finds this provision refers to the laws and regulations under Florida’s workers’ compensation system set forth in chapter 440 and the Department’s rules. In making the determination decisions in this case, the Department used the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2014 Edition, and incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.501 (HRM). The HRM generally provides for reimbursement based on either a per diem fee or the amount agreed upon by contract between the carrier and medical services provider. Under the section titled “Reported Charges,” the HRM provides: “charges for hospital inpatient services shall be reimbursed according to the Per Diem Fee Schedule provided in this chapter or according to a mutually agreed upon contract reimbursement agreement between the hospital and the insurer.” HRM at 15. “Per Diem” is defined as “a reimbursement allowance based on a fixed rate per calendar day which is inclusive of all services rather than on a charge by charge basis.” HRM at 35. In certain circumstances when provider bills are in excess of $59,891.34, a per diem rate is not used. Rather, the HRM provides that the reimbursement amount is calculated using a percentage methodology of 75 percent of the billed charges. This “Stop-Loss Reimbursement” is defined as “a reimbursement methodology based on billed charges once reaching a specified amount that is used in place of, and not in addition to, per diem reimbursement for an inpatient admission to an acute care hospital or a trauma center.” HRM at 17 and 35 (emphasis added). As explained below, the Stop-Loss methodology conflicts with section 440.13(12)(a), which specifically provides for establishment of a maximum reimbursement amount (MRA) based on a per diem rate for inpatient hospital care.5/ Applying the State rate--the per diem rate set forth in the HRM--Lawnwood would receive $3,850.33 per day, except for the day of discharge, which equals $11,550.99. HRM at 16. Applying the five percent discount, as set forth in the Lawnwood Amendment, to the $11,550.99 amount, the total amount payable by Zenith to Lawnwood equals $10,973.44. Because the State rate is less than the amount calculated using the Contract rate, the undersigned finds Zenith owed Lawnwood a total reimbursement amount of $10,973.44, which is less than the $31,844.70 already paid by Zenith.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order dismissing the petition of Lawnwood Regional Medical Center for resolution of a reimbursement dispute. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2019.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a Florida limited-liability company, organized in 2004. Salvador Rivera is one of the company's managers/officers. On or about February 27, 2009, Respondent secured workers' compensation insurance for its employees. The carrier was Guarantee Insurance Co. In a Notice of Termination of Workers' Compensation Insurance dated August 10, 2009, Guarantee Insurance Co. advised Petitioner and Respondent that Respondent's workers' compensation insurance would be cancelled on August 25, 2009. Guarantee Insurance Co. issued the notice because Respondent had not paid its insurance premium. Some time after receiving the notice from its insurer, Respondent received a check from Brantley Custom Homes. Mr. Rivera deposited the check into Respondent's bank account. Mr. Rivera then wrote a check to Guarantee Insurance Co. for the workers' compensation insurance premium. Mark Piazza is one of Petitioner's compliance investigators. On September 25, 2009, Mr. Piazza conducted a routine compliance check in the Southwood subdivision of Tallahassee, Florida. During the compliance check, Mr. Piazza noticed a new home under construction. He saw two men, Gilberto Torres and Saturino Gonzalez, doing carpentry work at the building site. Under the Scopes Manual, carpentry is identified as construction work under the class code 5645. During an interview with the two men, Mr. Piazza learned that they were employed by Respondent. Mr. Rivera confirmed by telephone that Respondent employed the two men. Mr. Rivera believed that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage on September 25, 2009. Mr. Rivera was not aware that the check from Brantley Custom Homes had bounced, resulting in insufficient funds for Respondent's bank to pay Respondent's check to Guarantee Insurance Co. Mr. Piazza then contacted Respondent's local insurance agent and checked Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to verify Mr. Rivera's claim that Respondent had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Piazza subsequently correctly concluded that Respondent's insurance policy had been cancelled on August 25, 2009, due to the failure to pay the premium. On September 25, 2009, Mr. Piazza served Respondent with a Stop-work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. The penalty assessment was 1.5 times the amount of the insurance premium that Respondent should have paid from August 25, 2009, to September 24, 2009. After receiving the Stop-work Order on September 25, 2009, Brantley Custom Homes gave Respondent another check. Mr. Rivera then sent Guarantee Insurance Co. a second check to cover the premium with the understanding that there would be no lapse in coverage. On September 28, 2009, Guarantee Insurance Co. provided Respondent with a notice of Reinstatement or Withdrawal of Policy Termination. The notice states as follows: Our Notice of Termination, filed with the insured and the Department of Labor and Employment Security effective 8/25/2009 and or dated 8/10/2009, is hereby voided and coverage remains in effect for the employer identified below. There is no evidence to show whether Respondent had to sign a no-loss affidavit and submit it to Guarantee Insurance Co. before the insurer would reinstate the policy with no lapse. Such an affidavit usually states that the insured had no claims during the uninsured period, On September 29, 2009, Mr. Piazza served a second copy of the Stop-work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. At that time, Mr. Piazza also served Respondent with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with the records. On October 6, 2009, Mr. Piazza served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The assessed penalty was $3,566.27. The assessed penalty was based on Respondent's business records showing the following: (a) Respondent's total payroll from August 25, 2009, through September 24, 2009, was $15,280.00; (b) the total workers' compensation premium that Respondent should have paid for its employees during the relevant time period was $2,377.56; and (c) multiplying $2,377.56 by the statutory factor of 1.5 results in a penalty assessment in the amount of $3,566.37. On October 6, 2009, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. Respondent gave Petitioner $1,000 as a down payment on the assessed penalty. The balance of the penalty is to be paid in 60 monthly payments in the amount of $42.77 per month, with the exception of the last payment in the amount of $42.64 on November 1, 2014. On October 6, 2009, Petitioner issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-work Order. The conditional release states that it will be in place until Respondent pays the assessed penalty in full.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order affirming the Stop- work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $3,566.37. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvador Rivera Rivera Construction of North Florida, LLC 931 Rosemary Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Paige Billings Shoemaker, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not having workers’ compensation insurance coverage, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a gas station and convenience store in Winter Garden. Mohammad Sultan is Petitioner’s owner and president. On November 2, 2006, Margaret Cavazos conducted an unannounced inspection of Petitioner’s store. Ms. Cavazos is a workers’ compensation compliance investigator employed by the Department. Petitioner had nine employees, including Mr. Sultan and his wife, on the date of Ms. Cavazos' inspection. Petitioner had more than four employees at all times over the three-year period preceding Ms. Cavazos' inspection. Petitioner did not have workers’ compensation insurance coverage at the time of Ms. Cavazos’ inspection, or at any point during the three years preceding the inspection. On November 2, 2006, the Department served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Petitioner, and Ms. Cavazos requested payroll documents and other business records from Petitioner. On November 6, 2006, the Department served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment,1 which imposed a penalty of $70,599.78 on Petitioner. The penalty was calculated by Ms. Cavazos, using the payroll information provided by Petitioner and the insurance premium rates published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance. The parties stipulated at the final hearing that the gross payroll attributed to Mr. Sultan for the period of January 1, 2006, through November 2, 2006, should have been $88,000, rather than the $104,000 reflected in the penalty worksheet prepared by Ms. Cavazos. The net effect of this $16,000 correction in the gross payroll attributed to Mr. Sultan is a reduction in the penalty to $68,922.18.2 On November 3, 2006, Mr. Sultan filed a notice election for exemption from the Workers’ Compensation Law. His wife did not file a similar election because she is not an officer of Petitioner. The election took effect on November 3, 2006. On November 6, 2006, Petitioner obtained workers’ compensation insurance coverage through American Home Insurance Company, and Petitioner also entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty in which it agreed to pay the penalty imposed by the Department over a five-year period. On that same date, the Department issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order. Petitioner made the $7,954.30 “down payment” required by the Payment Agreement Schedule, and it has made all of the required monthly payments to date. The payments required by the Payment Agreement Schedule are $1,044.09 per month, which equates to approximately $12,500 per year. Petitioner was in compliance with the Workers’ Compensation Law at the time of the final hearing. Petitioner reported income of $54,358 on gross receipts in excess of $3.1 million in its 2005 tax return. Petitioner reported income of $41,728 in 2004, and a loss of $8,851 in 2003. Petitioner had total assets in excess of $750,000 (including $540,435 in cash) at the end of 2005, and even though Petitioner had a large line of credit with Amsouth Bank, its assets exceeded its liabilities by $99,041 at the end of 2005. Mr. Sultan has received significant compensation from Petitioner over the past four years, including 2003 when Petitioner reported a loss rather than a profit. He received a salary in excess of $104,000 in 2006, and he was paid $145,333 in 2005, $63,750 in 2004, and $66,833 in 2003. Mr. Sultan’s wife is also on Petitioner’s payroll. She was paid $23,333.40 in 2006, $25,000 in 2005, and $12,316.69 in 2004. Mr. Sultan characterized 2005 as an “exceptional year,” and he testified that his business has fallen off recently due to an increase in competition in the area. Todd Baldwin, Petitioner’s accountant, similarly testified that 2006 was not as good of a year as 2005, but no corroborating evidence on this issue (such as Petitioner’s 2006 tax return) was presented at the final hearing. Mr. Sultan testified that payment of the penalty imposed by the Department adversely affects his ability to run his business. The weight given to that testimony was significantly undercut by the tax returns and payroll documents that were received into evidence, which show Petitioner’s positive financial performance and the significant level of compensation paid to Mr. Sultan and his wife over the past several years. The effect of the workers’ compensation exemption elected by Mr. Sultan is that his salary will no longer be included in the calculation of the workers’ compensation insurance premiums paid by Petitioner. If his salary had not been included in Ms. Cavazos’ calculations, the penalty imposed on Petitioner would have been $40,671.36. Ms. Cavazos properly included Mr. Sultan’s salary in her penalty calculations because he was being paid by Petitioner and he did not file an election for exemption from the Workers' Compensation Law until after her inspection.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order imposing a penalty of $68,922.18 on Petitioner to be paid in accordance with a modified payment schedule reflecting the reduced penalty and the payments made through the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 22nd day of August, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On February 15, 1977, Petitioner was employed by the City of Clearwater as a full-time firefighter. He became certified as a firefighter on April 21, 1977, and was issued certificate number 5374. After receiving an associate's degree from St. Petersburg Junior College, Petitioner became eligible to receive firefighters' supplemental compensation benefits on July 1, 1981. After receiving a bachelor's degree from Eckerd College, Petitioner became eligible to receive additional firefighters' supplemental compensation benefits on May 1, 1984. Until July 2, 1986, Petitioner received his supplemental compensation benefits according to the appropriate level. On July 2, 1986, a hearing was held before the City of Clearwater Pension Advisory Committee as to whether Petitioner was entitled to a job- connected disability pension for injuries that he received in firefighting related activity. Following a finding by the Clearwater Pension Advisory Committee that Petitioner was entitled to the disability, the City of Clearwater forwarded to Respondent a Notice of Ineligibility for Supplemental Compensation Benefits, reflecting an ineligibility date for Petitioner of July 2, 1986. Based upon the Notice of Ineligibility, as well as the fact that Petitioner had received a disability that could not be corrected to the satisfaction of the Respondent, Respondent voided Petitioner's certification as a firefighter and terminated his supplemental compensation benefits as of July 2, 1986. Petitioner elected a retirement plan option offered by the City of Clearwater under which he extended his termination of employment date by the amount of time due him for vacation, holiday pay, and one-half of his accrued sick leave. By utilizing the vacation and sick leave time to which he was entitled, Petitioner extended his termination of employment date to October 8, 1987. Between July 2, 1986 and October 8, 1987 Petitioner occupied the status of an employee on vacation or on sick leave, i.e., he was on leave with pay. He received a paycheck at the same time that other employees of the City of Clearwater received theirs, and his paycheck carried the same deductions that other employees would have in their checks. It is uncontroverted that although Petitioner received his disability on July 2, 1986, Petitioner has received compensation from the City of Clearwater on an uninterrupted basis encompassing the period from July 2, 1986 through October 8, 1987 for duties that he performed as a full-time firefighter for the City of Clearwater Fire Departments his employing agency.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reinstating Petitioner's supplemental compensation benefits from July 2, 1986 through October 8, 1987 and directing that those benefits be paid to Petitioner forthwith. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 October, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Fredric S. Zinober, Esquire Village Office Park, Suite 107 2475 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 33575 Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Customs Logistics Services, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees in violation of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement in chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Respondent is a family-owned-and-operated customs brokerage service with its principal office located at 6940 Northwest 12th Street, Miami, Florida 33126. At the time of the inspection giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent employed seven or eight employees.2/ The Compliance Inspection On September 29, 2014, Petitioner's compliance inspector, Hector Fluriach, conducted an onsite inspection at Respondent's principal office to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements established in chapter 440. At that time, Respondent's co-owners, Astrid Escalona and Carlos Henoa, told Fluriach that Respondent employed six employees and two corporate officers, and also paid two family members who did not work at the principal office. Upon inquiry, Escalona and Henoa informed Fluriach that Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. Using Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") and the National Council for Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") insurance coverage verification system, Fluriach confirmed that Respondent had not obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, and that it was not in compliance with chapter 440 during certain periods within the two years preceding the inspection. Under the NCCI basic occupational classification system and Scopes Manual, six of Respondent's employees are classified as clerical (Code 8810), and one is classified as a driver (Code 7380). None of Respondent's employees is classified as employed within the construction industry. As a private entity employing four or more employees in a non-construction industry occupation, Respondent was required under chapter 440 to provide workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Respondent's corporate officers were eligible under section 440.05 to elect to be exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440; however, none had elected to be exempt. Fluriach issued Stop-Work Order No. 14-329-D5 ("Stop- Work Order"), personally served it on Respondent, and explained it to Escalona. The Stop-Work Order included an Order of Penalty Assessment, ordering assessment of a penalty against Respondent in an amount equal to two times the amount Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation coverage premiums when applying the approved manual rates to Respondent's payroll during the periods for which it had failed to secure workers' compensation coverage during the preceding two years (for convenience, hereafter referred to as the "look-back period"). Fluriach also served a business records request, requesting Respondent to provide specified business records3/ for Petitioner's use in determining the penalty. In a series of submittals, Respondent provided the requested business records to Petitioner. The evidence showed that during the two-year look- back period, Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage for its employees during a substantial portion of the period in which it employed four or more employees, and none of its corporate officers were exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. As such, Respondent violated chapter 440 and, therefore, is subject to penalty under that statute. Petitioner's Computation of Penalty Amount To calculate the applicable penalty, Petitioner must determine, from a review of the employer's business records, the employer's gross payroll for the two-year look-back period. For days during the look-back period for which records are not provided, Petitioner imputes the gross payroll based on the average weekly wage for the state of Florida. Here, the look-back period for purposes of calculating the applicable penalty commenced on September 30, 2012, and ended on September 29, 2014, the day on which the compliance inspection was conducted. Respondent's business records revealed that Respondent had fewer than four employees between January 1 and March 31, 2013, so Respondent was not required to have workers' compensation coverage for that period. Thus, Petitioner did not assess a penalty against Respondent for that period. For the rest of the look-back period, Respondent employed four or more employees, so was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for those employees for that portion of the period. Respondent provided business records sufficient for Petitioner to determine Respondent's gross payroll for all but September 30, 2012. For that day, Petitioner imputed Respondent's gross payroll using Florida's statewide average weekly wage. On the basis of Respondent's business records submittals, Petitioner's auditor, Eric Ruzzo, recalculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on October 17, 2014, imposing a total penalty of $5,617.04. On November 7, 2014, following receipt of additional records, Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, reducing the penalty to $3,982.52. Finally, after receiving more records, Petitioner issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on January 12, 2015, further reducing the penalty to $3,205.70. Each of these penalty assessments was served on Respondent. Petitioner seeks to impose a $3,205.70 penalty against Respondent in this proceeding. In calculating the penalty, Ruzzo examined three-month (i.e., quarterly) periods within the two-year look-back period. Ruzzo identified the occupational class code applicable to each of Respondent's employees. As stated above, all but one of Respondent's employees were classified as clerical, and one of Respondent's employees was classified as a driver. For each employee, Ruzzo determined the gross payroll paid to that employee for the specific quarter in which Respondent was non-compliant during the look-back period, divided the employee's gross payroll by 100 pursuant to Petitioner's calculation methodology, then multiplied that amount by the numeric rate set by NCCI for that employee's specific occupational class code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation coverage premium for that specific employee for the specific quarter for which Respondent was non- compliant during the look-back period. The premium amount then was multiplied by two, as required by statute, to yield the penalty to be imposed for failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for that specific employee. As previously noted, Respondent did not provide gross payroll records covering September 30, 2012; thus, for that day, Ruzzo imputed the gross payroll for each of Respondent's employees using the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2)4/ multiplied by two. Ruzzo then performed the same computations to yield the penalty amount to be imposed for Respondent's failure to provide workers' compensation on September 30, 2012. Ruzzo then added each penalty amount determined for each employee using actual gross payroll and imputed payroll, to yield the total penalty amount of $5,286.70. Because Respondent had not previously been issued a stop-work order, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)1., Petitioner applied a credit toward the penalty in the amount of the initial premium Respondent paid for workers' compensation coverage. Here, the premium payment amount for which Respondent received credit was $2,081.00. This was subtracted from the calculated penalty of $5,286.70, yielding a total penalty of $3,205.70. Respondent's Defense At the final hearing, Escalona testified that she and the other co-owners of Respondent always have attempted to fully comply with every law applicable to Respondent's business, and have never had compliance problems. She testified that neither she nor the other co-owners of Respondent realized that Respondent was required to have workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and they did not intentionally violate the law. Petitioner apparently mailed a memorandum regarding verifying workers' compensation coverage requirements to businesses in the area before it conducted compliance inspections. The memorandum was dated October 8, 2014, and Escalona testified Respondent received it on October 13, 2014, approximately two weeks after the compliance inspection that Fluriach conducted. Escalona asserted that had Respondent received the memorandum before the compliance inspection was conducted, she would have called Petitioner to determine if Respondent needed to obtain workers' compensation coverage, would have asked how to obtain it, and would have obtained coverage for its employees and exemptions for its corporate officers. Escalona testified that the $3,205.70 penalty is a substantial amount that Respondent, a small family-owned business, cannot afford to pay. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated chapter 440, as charged in the Stop-Work Order, by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the $3,205.70 penalty proposed to be assessed against Respondent pursuant to the Third Amended Penalty Assessment is the correct amount of the penalty to be assessed in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, Customs Logistics Services, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers' compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $3,205.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2013)1/, by failing to obtain workers? compensation insurance coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers? compensation insurance coverage, pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for their employees. Respondent is a Florida-limited liability company engaged in business operations for the time period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Mark Markisen is the managing member of Respondent listed with the State of Florida, Division of Corporations. On March 15, 2013, Jack Gumph, an investigator with the Department, conducted a random on-site compliance inspection of a construction site for a single family residence. Gumph determined that the general contractor for the job was Gulf Shore Homes and that it had subcontracted with Tradewinds Design for certain work inside the home. As Gumph interviewed the different workers present on the worksite, he spoke with Mark and Brett Markisen, who informed him that they worked for Tradewinds Design. Gumph observed Brett Markisen installing a wine cabinet in the home. Gumph confirmed through the Department?s online records that Gulf Shores Homes and Tradewinds Design had current workers? compensation insurance coverage on March 15, 2013. Based on this initial information, Gumph left the worksite. On March 19, 2013, Gumph subsequently learned from a conversation with Mark Markisen that Mark and Brett Markisen were not employees of Tradewinds Design. Rather, Tradewinds had subcontracted with Respondent, Cabinetry by Design of Collier County, L.L.C., to build and install the wine cabinets. Mark Markisen stated that he was the managing member of Cabinetry by Design of Collier County, L.L.C., and that he had selected to be exempt from workers? compensation insurance coverage. Gumph confirmed that Mark Markisen had selected to be exempt from workers? compensation insurance coverage. However, because Respondent did not have worker?s compensation coverage for Brett Markisen, the Department issued a Stop-Work Order on March 19, 2013, and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation on April 8, 2013. Mark Markisen possessed an exemption from the workers? compensation insurance coverage requirement during the penalty period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Brett Markisen did not possess an exemption from the workers? compensation insurance coverage requirement during the penalty period. Brett Markisen was employed by Respondent throughout the penalty period. During the penalty period, Brett Markisen received approximately $187,000.00 from Respondent. The amount of this money attributed to wages is unclear, based on the fact that Mark Markisen indicated that some of the payments reflected loans, not wages. Respondent was an “employer” as defined in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, throughout the penalty period. On March 15, 2013, Brett Markisen was Respondent?s “employee” working on the installation of cabinets in the single family residence.2/ On March 15, 2013, Respondent failed to provide workers? compensation insurance coverage for Brett Markisen. Respondent also failed to provide coverage during the penalty period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Therefore, the Department properly entered a Stop-Work Order on March 19, 2013. Respondent failed to provide sufficient business records in order to establish a payroll. Therefore, the Department correctly imputed payroll against Respondent. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment used the proper class code for the calculation of the penalty, concerning the installation of cabinets, and correctly followed the procedure set out in section 440.107(7)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $21,436.61. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2013.
