The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as an insurance agent in the State of Florida licensed to sell health insurance. At all times material hereto, Respondent was not formally affiliated with Cleveland Insurance Agency. However, Cleveland Insurance Agency often referred clients to Respondent for health and Medicare supplement policies because Cleveland Insurance Agency did not handle those type policies. Prior to November 1987, Respondent, working in conjunction with Cleveland Insurance Company, sold to Irene Goldberg a health insurance policy issued through Provider's Fidelity Insurance Company (Provider's Fidelity). On November 29, 1987, Ms. Goldberg paid $1,504.56 as the annual renewal premium for this health insurance policy which extended her coverage through December 4, 1988. In March of 1988, Ms. Goldberg contacted Cleveland Insurance Agency and requested that someone review her health insurance coverage. Cleveland Insurance Agency referred Ms. Goldberg's request to Respondent. Respondent was familiar with the terms and conditions of the health insurance coverage Ms. Goldberg had in place and he knew that she had paid the premium for this policy through December 1988. Upon visiting with Irene Goldberg on or about March 10, 1988, Respondent presented Ms. Goldberg with a business card that intentionally misrepresented his status with Cleveland Insurance Company. Because Ms. Goldberg had placed most of her insurance needs through Cleveland Insurance Agency during the past few years, Respondent intentionally misled Ms. Goldberg into thinking that he was formally affiliated with Cleveland Insurance Agency. During that visit, Respondent recommended to Ms. Goldberg that she purchase a policy of insurance issued by First National Life Insurance Company (First National) to replace her Provider's Fidelity policy. Ms. Goldberg specifically discussed with Respondent a preexisting medical condition which required periodic medical treatment and the need for the treatment required by this condition to be covered by the new policy. Respondent assured Ms. Goldberg that the preexisting condition would be covered by the new policy. Respondent also told Ms. Goldberg that he would cancel the Provider's Fidelity policy and that he would secure on her behalf a pro rated refund of the premium she had paid to Provider's Fidelity. Based on Respondent's representations, Ms. Goldberg agreed to purchase the First National policy. On March 30, 1988, Ms. Goldberg gave to Respondent a check made payable to First National Life Insurance Company in the amount of $1,892.00, the amount Respondent had quoted as the full annual premium. A few days later, Respondent contacted Ms. Goldberg and advised her that there would be an additional premium in the amount of $1,360.00, which Ms. Goldberg paid on April 4, 1988. This additional premium was, according to Respondent, for skilled nursing care coverage which First National had added as a mandatory feature of the policy Ms. Goldberg had purchased. The skilled nursing care coverage was, in fact, a separate policy which was not a mandatory feature of the policy Ms. Goldberg thought she was purchasing from First National. Respondent misled Ms. Goldberg as to the terms of the policies he had sold her and as to the number of policies he had sold her. Respondent represented that the premiums he had collected on behalf of First National were in payment of a single health insurance policy. Respondent had sold Ms. Goldberg four separate policies, and he collected a commission for each of the policies. When Ms. Goldberg received her insurance documents from First National, she learned for the first time that Respondent had sold her four separate policies of insurance, including a cancer policy that she and Respondent had never discussed. In addition to the health and cancer policies, Respondent sold Ms. Goldberg a home convalescent care policy and a separate skilled nursing care policy. Respondent had sold Ms. Goldberg policies of insurance that Ms. Goldberg had not requested and that she did not know she was buying. Upon reading the health policy, Ms. Goldberg discovered that her new First National Life policy excluded her preexisting condition. Ms. Goldberg contacted Respondent who told her that he had not cancelled the Provider's Fidelity policy as he had agreed to do and that he had not tried to get the pro rated refund of the Provider's Fidelity premium. Respondent told her that any claim she might have for the preexisting condition should be filed under the Provider's Fidelity policy. Ms. Goldberg then complained to First National which, after an investigation, refunded to Ms. Goldberg the premiums she had paid for the three policies. Respondent had received a commission on the policies of insurance he had sold to Ms. Goldberg. As of the time of the hearing, Respondent had not reimbursed First National for the commission he had received based on the premiums that were subsequently refunded to Ms. Goldberg. In February 1988, Respondent met with Helen Krafft to discuss her health insurance needs. During the course of the meeting, Respondent presented to Ms. Krafft a business card which intentionally misrepresented his affiliation with Cleveland Insurance Agency. This business card misled Ms. Krafft into believing that Respondent was formally affiliated with Cleveland Insurance Agency. On February 18, 1988, Respondent sold to Ms. Krafft a health insurance policy through First National and a health insurance policy issued through American Sun Life, at which time he collected a premiums in the total amount of $519.80 for six months of coverage from each of the two policies. In July 1988, Respondent visited with Ms. Krafft at her place of work and told her that she should pay her renewal premiums for the health insurance policies on or before August 1, 1988, to avoid a premium increases. Respondent knew, or should have known, that there were no premium increases scheduled for those policies and that there were no discounts for early payment of the premiums The renewal premiums Respondent quoted Ms. Krafft for the two policies totaled $485.40. At Respondent's instructions Ms. Krafft delivered to Respondent her signed check dated July 18, 1988, in the amount of $485.40 with the payee's name left blank. Respondent accepted these trust funds from Ms. Krafft in a fiduciary capacity. Instead of using these funds to pay the premiums as he had agreed to do, Respondent filled his name in on Ms. Krafft's check and cashed it. Ms. Krafft learned that Respondent had not used the funds she had given him to renew her two policies when she started getting late payment notices from the two insurance companies with accompanying threats of cancellation if the premiums were not paid. In late September 1988, Respondent paid to Ms. Krafft the sum of $485.40 in cash. In June of 1988, Steven R. and Marilyn Hill applied, through Respondent, for a health policy with First National. The Hills paid the initial premium of $304.37 by check made payable to First National on June 26, 1988. Because of underwriting considerations, First National informed Respondent that the Hills would have to pay a higher premium to obtain the insurance they wanted. The Hills were not willing to pay the higher premium and requested a refund of the amount they had paid. First National made the refund check payable to Steven Hill and mailed the check to Respondent. There was no competent, substantial evidence as to what happened to the check other than First National Life stopped payment on the check and it never cleared banking channels. A second refund check was later delivered to Steven Hill. First National contended at the hearing that Respondent had accrued a debit balance in the amount of $2,692.45 as a result of his dealings as an agent of the company. Respondent contended that he is entitled to certain offsets against the amount First National claims it is owed based on commissions he contends that he had earned but had not been paid. First National had not, prior to the hearing, submitted to Respondent any type of accounting of sums due, nor had it explicitly demanded any specific sum from Respondent. Instead, First National had made a blanket demand that Respondent return all materials belonging to First National and advised that future commission checks would be held in escrow. From the evidence presented it could not be determined that Respondent was indebted to First National.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order which finds that Respondent committed the multiple violations of the Florida Insurance Code as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order and which further revokes all licenses issued by the Department of Insurance and Treasurer to Respondent, John Richard Klee. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer 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 November, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3269 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected in part as being a conclusion of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Recommended Order. 10 are adopted in material part 11 are adopted in material part 12 are adopted in material part 13 are adopted in material part 14 are adopted in material part 15 are adopted in material part 16 are adopted in material part 17 are adopted in material part 18 are adopted in material part 19 are adopted in material part 20 are adopted in material part 21 are adopted in material part 22 are adopted in material part 23 are adopted in material part 24 are adopted in material part 25 are rejected as being The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 2 and 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 26 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 27 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 28 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 29 are adopted in material part by paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 30 are adopted in material part by paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Roy H. Schmidt, Esquire Office of the Treasurer Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee Florida 32399-0300 Greg Ross, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Don Dowdell General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of Case Number 01-2295, reflect statements of agency policy which should have been adopted as rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties United is a foreign insurer, domiciled in the State of Wisconsin holding a certificate of authority from the Department to transact the business of insurance in this state. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. The Department, through its agency head, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, has regulatory jurisdiction over United in connection with certain matters set forth in the Complaint. The regulatory scheme for out-of-state health insurance companies Health insurance companies operating pursuant to in-state regulatory schemes are subject to oversight regulation of the corporate entity including financial solvency and market conduct. Rates are required to be filed and approved prior to being used in the state. The review process involves a review of the rates to determine if they are reasonable in relation to the benefits provided. In regard to this, the Department has rules which it has adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which it uses to determine the standards and formulae for making that determination. Certain out-of-state health insurers, such as United, are not subject to such stringent regulation. No review of premium rates is conducted by the Department in the case of these insurers, but it would be incorrect to state that they are not subject to regulation by the Department at all. Approximately 40 percent of the health insurance market in Florida is written through out-of-state group arrangements that do not provide policyholders consumer protections afforded to policyholders holding in-state policies regulated by the Department. United is required by Florida law to provide certain types of coverage. United must also ensure that certificates of coverage provided to residents of Florida contain the following language: The benefits of the policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the law of a state other than Florida. Indent Background At all times pertinent, American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS), was a Florida-licensed administrator authorized to market and administer United's out-of-state group health insurance plans in Florida. AMS, like United, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. In May 1993, United, through AMS, filed for approval with the Department pursuant to Section 627.5515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), as an out-of-state group health insurer who would provide policies to be offered through an Alabama entity called the Prescription For Good Health Trust, which was formed primarily for the purpose of providing group insurance. The Department approved this filing. On March 2, 1995, the Department participated by conference call in a Regulatory Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The mission of the task force was to attempt to address a number of problems facing the insurance market. One of the problems discussed was rate protection for consumers when faced with "tier rating" or "tier blocking." The two terms are synonymous and mean, as to group health insurance, reclassifying insureds subsequent to having been initially placed in a class. This practice will be discussed in more detail below. In 1996, United made a filing for the Prescription For Good Health Trust which proposed tier rating. Sometime during 1996, after the Department objected to the filing, United withdrew it. The Department had never seen such a filing previously. United is the only health insurer to assert before the Department that reclassification by movement between classes would be permissible under the Florida Insurance Code. Section 627.6515(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a group health insurance policy issued or delivered outside this state under which a resident of Florida is provided coverage, shall comply with the provisions of Part VII, of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as health policies issued within the state. Part VII of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme for group health insurance. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth a number of exemptions. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, provides an exemption for an insurer like United, which provides health insurance through an association formed for a purpose other than that of offering insurance, which provides the language referred to in paragraph 5, supra, on the face of the certificate, and which offers the bundle of coverages provided in Subsection (c). This exemption applied to the Prescription For Good Health Trust. The Department concedes that it has no authority to set premium rates for out-of-state insurers like United. In November 1996, United through AMS, filed with the Department, pursuant to Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, a request for approval of an out-of-state group health insurance policy termed the "MedOne Choice" plan. This plan was to be offered through an Ohio association called the Taxpayers' Network, Inc. (TNI). The association was formed primarily for purposes other than providing insurance. In January, 1997, the filing was accepted by the Department as meeting the requirements of Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes. Chapter 96-223, Laws of Florida, created Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 25, 1996. When created, the section only addressed the renewability of individual coverage. Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida, substantially amended Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 30, 1997. Subsequent to the amendment, the section addressed certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy. This statute, along with Sections 627.6571 and 627.6487, Florida Statutes, implemented the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The basic theory of the HIPAA legislation is that an insurance company cannot simply cancel a health insurance policy without providing other options. On or about September 25, 1998, United, through AMS, notified all Prescription For Good Health Trust certificate holders that the policy forms through which their coverage had been provided were being discontinued, effective as of each certificate holder's 1999 renewal date. Upon discontinuance of the Prescription For Good Health Trust Plans, the only United health insurance plans available in Florida were the MedOne Choice plans offered through TNI. Membership in TNI was available to anyone upon submitting an application form and paying the membership fee. Membership in TNI was a prerequisite to continuance of a persons' health insurance coverage under United's MedOne Choice plan. United guaranteed each certificate holder, upon joining TNI, that upon request, they would be issued coverage under the Classic Benefit Plan (one of the TNI MedOne Choice plans) without regard to their health status. However, there was no guarantee that premiums would not rise. Certificate holders were also advised that if they desired coverage under a MedOne Choice plan other than the guaranteed issue Classic Benefit plan, they could apply for any of the other TNI plans. Only if the applicant met the underwriting guidelines for the plan for which they applied, would they be issued coverage under another MedOne Choice plan. Between October 1998 and early January 1999, United responded to questions and concerns raised by the Department about the decision to discontinue the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, and whether the plan of discontinuance was in compliance with Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. Specifically, discussions were had concerning the movement of insureds from the class in which they were originally assigned to another class at the time of renewal. United entered an agreement with the Department on January 14, 1999, whereby United would offer to certificate holders an additional guaranteed issue TNI plan and would cap the rate for the guaranteed issue plans at no more than twice the premium then currently being paid for the discontinued Prescription For Good Health Trust plan. In accordance with this agreement, United notified certificate holders of the additional guaranteed issue option available to them. Later in 1999, United discontinued the trust plan in accordance with their agreement with the Department. During the process of discontinuance, no certificate holder requested conversion coverage under Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes. Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes, provides that an insured may assert his or her right to a "converted policy," which provides for certain health insurance continuation rights. The Department determined that United's rate for the conversion policy, pursuant to the agreement, was within 200 percent of the standard risk rate and that the notice of the conversion privilege was contained in the certificate of coverage issued to Florida residents. Thus, the Department concluded that United was in compliance with the agreement of January 14, 1999. On May 19, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that the discontinuance of her coverage by United did not mean she was being discriminated against because the policy had been terminated for all members. The letter further recited that the Department did not have the ability to regulate United because it was not domiciled in Florida and her insurance was being provided to a group, referring to TNI, that was not registered in Florida. On July 27, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that United had an obligation to offer a replacement policy but that United had the right to underwrite the policy and charge additional premium. This statement also referred to TNI. Section 627.6425(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "except as otherwise provided in this section, an insurer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual." For the purpose of the aforementioned Section, the term "individual health insurance" means health insurance coverage, as described in Section 627.6561(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, offered to an individual in the state, "including certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy issued to an association outside this state. " As noted earlier, Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes enacted in Florida which implemented HIPAA. HIPAA provides for continuation of health insurance of an insureds health policy but does not limit the premiums which an insurer can charge for coverage. Although Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, does not have the words "guaranteed renewable" contained within the statute, the gist of the statute is that if a person has a health policy, the person has the right to continued coverage. The Department contends that the statute also means that there can be no reclassification or movement between classes at the time of renewal. On March 30, 2000, the Department notified United that it believed the discontinuance of Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, in accordance with the January 1999 agreement, may have violated Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. A Department publication dated January 4, 2001, entitled, "The Florida Health Insurance Market, Issues and Possible Market Reform Measures," noted that there are "an increasing number of carriers attempting to establish HIPAA eligible individuals as a separate rating class with premium charges ranging from 300 to 500 percent of standard rates. While the Department has found such a rating practice to be in violation of the Florida Insurance Code, many carriers have continued to protest this interpretation. Carriers contend the surcharge practice is both actuarially sound and interpreted as a HIPAA permissible practice by other states." In the 2001 legislative session, the Department sought additional regulatory authority concerning out-of-state group insurers, such as United, along with numerous other changes to the Florida Insurance Code which are unrelated to the issues addressed in this Order. The Florida Legislature failed to approve the requested legislation. Tier rating When a group health policy is underwritten, the members of the group may be divided into classes. The classes are based on risk, which is a function of the probability of claims and the cost of claims. Classes may be denominated, for example, as preferred, manual, and substandard. Very healthy persons are put in the preferred class and pay lower premiums relative to other classes. Average persons are put in the manual class because the likelihood and cost of claims may be average. Persons who for actuarial reasons are determined to have an above-average likelihood of claims and whose claims are apt to be costly, are placed in the substandard class. It, perhaps, goes without saying that the individuals in the substandard class must pay higher premiums for the same coverage as others in the group. If the group health policy is guaranteed renewable, certificate holders may continue their coverage. However, premiums within a class can be increased. It is general industry practice to increase the premiums by class when the time for renewal occurs, if the loss experience is such that there is a requirement to increase premiums. As earlier noted, the Department asserts that only by raising premiums for an entire class may premiums be raised. The Department insists that this requirement is part of the definition of "guaranteed renewable." It became United's practice to move insureds between classes. Therefore, for instance, if a person in the group who had been a member of the preferred class experienced the need for costly medical services, then that person might be moved to the manual or substandard class. This would inevitably result in that person paying an increased premium. On the other hand, a person in the substandard class, who was subsequently determined to be a good risk, might be moved to the preferred or manual class and experience reduced premiums as a result. When a substandard class becomes populated with persons who cause the payment of costly claims, premiums increase within that class. Premiums may increase to the point where persons egress the plan, which leaves the class with fewer and sicker members. Eventually, under such a plan, there will be no members, because the premiums will inflate to the point that the benefits, in relation to the amount of the premium, will render the plan uneconomical. This sequence of events is often referred to as the health insurance "death spiral." One of the asserted evils which the Department seeks to combat in the Complaint is the "death spiral." HIPAA eligibles In 1996, when HIPAA became law and Florida enacted laws to implement it, a practice sometimes referred to as "rating up" occurred among some carriers in the industry. As noted earlier, HIPAA and the state statutes implementing it, guarantee that an individual, who through no fault of his own, loses his or her group health insurance coverage has the opportunity to obtain substitute health insurance. A person in this category is referred to as HIPAA eligible. Companies providing insurance under these laws are cognizant of the fact that persons in good health generally decline to purchase this type of insurance but that persons who are in bad health, and who will, therefore, likely have costly claims, will purchase it if they can afford it. This results in a desire on the part of insurers, to charge higher premiums for HIPAA eligible persons than they might charge persons in a comparable, non-HIPAA plan. It is a permissible underwriting practice to take into consideration age, health, and a myriad of other actuarial considerations when developing premium rates for HIPAA eligibles. If an insurer factors in the knowledge that unhealthy persons are more likely than healthy persons to obtain a policy based on HIPAA and charge higher premiums as a result, then "rating up" occurs. The Department contends in its Complaint that "rating up" is discriminatory and, therefore, forbidden by the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (UITPA), Section 626.951, et seq., Florida Statutes. United allegedly arrives at rates for HIPAA eligibles solely based on the fact that the individuals are HIPAA eligible which if true, would be "rating up." Immediately prior to April 30, 1998, the Department received a memorandum from the federal Health Care Financing Administration addressing three general problems with insurance practices regarding HIPAA eligibles. One of the three problems addressed in the memorandum was the practice of "rating up." In response, the Department issued Informational Memorandum 98-103M on April 30, 1998, addressing the three problems. The Department announced that it had concerns similar to that of the Health Care Financing Administration, and would address them in administrative rules implementing HIPAA and Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida. However, no rules addressing these concerns have been adopted. Insurance carriers disagree with the Department as to whether "rating up" is unfairly discriminatory and therefore a violation of the UITPA. The Department is addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations. The evidence adduced at the hearing did not elucidate exactly what "addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations" means. Count Three in the Complaint represents the first time an administrative action has been brought against an insurer addressing this practice. The definition of guaranteed renewable Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled "Filing of Forms and Rates for Life and Health Insurance." Rule 4-149.006(4)(o)3, Florida Administrative Code, provides for a definition of "guaranteed renewable." However, Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, does not address out-of-state group health insurers, such as United, because the Department has no authority to require the filing of forms and rates in the case of out-of-state health insurers like United. A life and health insurance treatise written by Black and Skipper states that the definitions of the categories of renewable health insurance policies are not uniform among the states. It is the Department's position that Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, applies to out-of-state trusts, such as United's Prescription For Good Health Trust, even though the word "trust" is not used in the statute. It is apparent that if there is no limit on the amount of premium a health insurer can charge at the time of renewal, a guarantee of renewal can be meaningless. This fact is ameliorated by rate-setting in the case of highly regulated health insurers such as domestic insurers. In the context of this case, it is not the renewability of a policy that is the gist of the problem. Rather, it is whether rates can be increased on persons through the movement of insureds from one class to another. The allegations of the Complaint In order to determine which statements are alleged to be unadopted rules, it is necessary to refer to Counts Two through Seven of the Complaint. These counts will be summarized, in seriatim. Count Two alleges that persons who continued their participation in TNI were unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against because some members were reclassified based on their health status present at that time (1999), rather than being retained in the class in which they resided when the policy was initially issued. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that this practice violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, which is a section in the UITPA. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Three alleges that all of those individuals formerly covered through the Prescription For Good Health Trust who were at the time of their discontinuance HIPAA eligible, were, arbitrarily and without regard to health status, assigned a premium rate of either three or five times the base rate for TNI as a whole. Count Three alleges that this assignment unfairly discriminated against the HIPAA eligible individuals who were of the same actuarially supportable class and essentially the same hazard. Count Three further alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Four alleges that the enactment of Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, in 1996, as amended in 1997, statutorily determined that the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan was "guaranteed renewable" as that term is used and understood in the insurance industry. It further alleged that the term "guaranteed renewable” means that once an insurer classifies an individual as a member of an actuarially supportable class for rate and premium applicable to the specified coverage, that individual may not thereafter be charged a premium which is different from any other member of the same class and cannot be moved to another class. The complaint states that United unlawfully moved insureds from one class to another. Count Four additionally alleged that when United discontinued the Prescription For Good Health Trust, the prerequisite for individuals to obtain renewed health insurance coverage was reclassification of some of those individuals to different actuarially supportable classes based on their health status then pertinent to those individuals. It was further alleged that higher premiums were charged to approximately 70 percent of those who renewed or continued, and that premium increases of 200 percent to 300 percent were experienced. Count Four asserted that Section 627.6425(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits such reclassification. Count Four also alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because such reclassification was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Five alleges that on the one year anniversary of renewal with TNI, United unlawfully reclassified additional individuals which resulted in a premium increases of up to 60 percent. Count Five alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Six alleges that within the tier blocks described in Count Two, United unlawfully established numerous sub- classifications based on health related factors pertinent to each individual within that class. It is alleged in the Complaint that these sub-classifications resulted in individuals within the same class being charged a different premium than are other members of the class. Count Six alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Seven alleges that United used a point debit system where an arithmetic number of points are assigned to a corresponding health hazard. The higher the cumulative debit score, the higher the premium. United will decline to insure at all if the cumulative debit score gets sufficiently high. Count Seven alleges that the assignment of points with no criteria for decision-making results in arbitrary and discriminatory point scores. Count Seven alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. In summary, the three statements alleged to be rules are: Practicing tier rating is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. Placing HIPAA-eligible individuals in a premium classification solely on the basis of their HIPAA eligible status is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. The term "guaranteed renewable" prohibits the classification of individuals in a health insurance group at a time other than at the inception of coverage.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Ralph Steven Carmona, was licensed as an insurance agent by Petitioner, Department of Insurance. On October 25, 1989, Respondent was eligible for licensure and licensed as a Life and Health Insurance Agent. From April 7, 1967 to April l, 1989, Respondent was licensed as a General Lines - Property, Casualty, Surety and Miscellaneous Lines Insurance Agent and is currently eligible for such licensure. From January 21, 1985 through April 1, 1987, Respondent was licensed as a Surplus Lines - Property, Casualty, Surety and Miscellaneous Lines Insurance Agent and remained eligible for such licensure until March 31, 1989. Respondent also served as an officer and director of the Greater Miami Insurance Agency, Inc., an incorporated general lines and life and health insurance agency in Miami. At the time of the incident at issue, Respondent, also, was associated with and conducted insurance transactions in the name of Greater Miami Insurance Agency. In August of 1987, Dr. Lucien Armand, a medical general surgeon, approached Respondent about the possibility of obtaining medical malpractice insurance. Dr. Armand was in the process of establishing his practice with Lawnwood Regional Medical Center in Fort Pierce, Florida. As a condition for employment at Lawnwood Regional Medical Center, Dr. Armand was required to obtain medical malpractice insurance from an insurer authorized to do the business of insurance in Florida. At Dr. Armand's request, Respondent made several inquiries about the possibility of insuring Dr. Armand. Since Dr. Armand had suffered at least four medical malpractice insurance claims from the period of 1982 through 1986, obtaining coverage for him was difficult. However, Respondent gathered several quotations from various medical malpractice insurance companies including the Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association (FMMJUA) which quoted a premium of between $75,000 to $80,000, annually. Dr. Armand rejected each of the plans offered by Respondent as too expensive and requested Respondent to continue his search for a less expensive coverage. Sometime prior to the time he was approached by Dr. Armand, Respondent had been contacted by a company with an address in the Bahamas, International Med Trust Fund (IMTF). Respondent called IMTF and requested additional information concerning their offerings and financial status. In response to his request, Respondent received a letter from a G.L.J. Wilson written on the letterhead of Paramount Insurance Broker & Agents Limited. Respondent represented that Mr. Wilson was the broker and agent for IMTF. The letter was dated February 2, 1987 and, as quoted from the letter, made the following apparent representations pertinent to IMTF: * * * International Ned Trust Fund has been doing business in the State of Florida for over three years. The Fund has retained the services of Melsar Ltd, Inc., a Florida Corporation that are Financial and General Consultants to the Insurance Industry whose job it is to advise us on strategy and regulations of the Insurance Agency. We have not been authorized to write business in the state of Florida simply because up until now authorization was not required. We are however, advised that the office of The Insurance commissioner does not object to our writing business in Florida so long as we state our intent to defend all claims and actions within the state. This we have done. We do have the services of a Florida Lawyer whose job it is to co-ordinate the legal defence of the fund, should action from a claim commence. * * * Respondent also received a letter from Gulf Union Bank (Bahamas) Ltd. dated February 4, 1987 which stated that the "dollar value" of IMTF was in the moderate seven figure bracket. To verify the allegations in Mr. Wilson's letter, Respondent called Petitioner and spoke with someone whom Respondent believed to be a representative of Petitioner. Respondent understood the alleged spokesperson to say that the Petitioner had no jurisdiction over IMTF and from that assumed that IMTF was not required to be licensed by Petitioner before doing business in Florida. Feeling assured that IMTF need not be licensed from his understanding of the alleged representation by Petitioner, that IMTF had adequate financial resources from the representation made by Gulf Union Bank and that IMTF had previously transacted business in Florida from Mr. Wilson's letter, Respondent ended his inquiries about the status of IMTF to conduct insurance business in Florida. Respondent prepared to offer policies for IMTF. Respondent solicited for IMTF under his General Lines - Property, Casualty, Surety and Miscellaneous Lines agent's license. Although medical malpractice insurance can be written under the license, existent law requires that the insurer, itself, must be authorized by Petitioner and an agent must hold an appointment with the insurer which is registered with Petitioner. As of August 20, 1987, IMTF was also not an authorized insurer. Further, Respondent was not authorized to solicit insurance in Florida on behalf of International Med Trust Fund. When Dr. Armand rejected coverage by the FMMJUA, Respondent gave Dr. Armand an application for IMTF and quoted him a premium of $24,500, a substantial decrease from the $75,000 to $80,000 premium quoted by the FMMJUA. Respondent also shared with Dr. Armand the information he had received concerning IMTF. Dr. Armand paid the deposit of $7,500 by tendering $5,000 in cash and financing the remainder with Respondent. Dr. Armand was then given a one month binder from Greater Miami Insurance Agency for coverage by IMTF dated August 20, 1989. Later, Respondent received the Certificate of Insurance from IMTF dated November 3, 1987 for the indemnity period of August 20, 1987 through August 20, 1988. Respondent copied the certificate and forwarded it to Dr. Armand. Dr. Armand's policy was the first and only policy which Respondent has written for IMTF. However, Respondent's reliance on the representations he obtained about the status of IMTF and his failure to have adequate knowledge about the insurers for which he was authorized to solicit under his general lines license clearly demonstrate a lack of reasonable knowledge about the transactions for which he was licensed. Between October 28, 1987 and March 7, 1988, Dr. Armand paid four premium installments totaling $6,674.00 to Greater Miami Insurance Agency in addition to the deposit. The funds were deposited, in trust, in the corporate account of Greater Miami Insurance Agency. In the regular course of business, the monies, minus Respondent's commission and approximately $1,500, were forwarded to IMTF. Sometime in early 1988, the hospital questioned the validity of the IMTF policy and contacted Petitioner. Petitioner responded with a letter dated April 6, 1988 stating that IMTF was not approved or authorized to write any kind of coverage in Florida. Dr. Armand was informed by the hospital about Petitioner's letter and its contents and that he must obtain substitute insurance to remain on staff there. Dr. Armand then informed Respondent about the letter from Petitioner. Respondent offered to return Dr. Armand's money, but Dr. Armand, having confidence that Petitioner's letter was in error, requested Respondent to clarify the matter with the hospital. During the months of April and May, 1988, Dr. Armand repeatedly tried to contact Respondent concerning the status of Respondent's efforts to clarify the matter. Failing to reach him by telephone, Dr. Armand wrote Respondent on June 11, 1988 and requested a refund of the amount of premium paid to IMTF. Then, on June 15, 1988, Dr. Armand again wrote to Respondent requesting assurance that IMTF would indemnify Dr. Armand for claims arising from acts occurring during the period of time which Dr. Armand thought he was covered by IMTF. Dr. Armand made this request although he had requested that the premium be refunded to him. The proof was unclear as to whether the funds were, or were not, refunded to Dr. Armand and no competent, substantial evidence was presented to show whether IMTF would, or would not, honor a claim against Dr. Armand. Respondent attempted to satisfy Dr. Armand's requests. He telephoned IMTF and requested it to submit its Bahamian license certificate to the hospital. He, also, sought substitute coverage for Dr. Armand by again contacting the FMMJUA and secured a one month binder with FMMJUA. The proof is unclear as to what funds Respondent used as the deposit for the binder. However, the premium quoted for the coverage by the FMMJUA, in this instance, was $125,000 which Dr. Armand rejected. Although alternate insurance was available to Dr. Armand, he terminated his staff privileges at Lawnwood Regional Medical Center. The reasons for his departure from Lawnwood are unclear. Dr. Armand currently practices in Broward County, Florida. Respondent still holds some of the remaining premium funds in trust, and a balance on the premium is owing IMTF. The amount of these funds, in addition to the amount of commission paid to Respondent, were not proven by competent, substantial evidence. The instant claim represents the first and only complaint filed with Petitioner against Respondent since Respondent was first licensed by Petitioner in 1967.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order which finds that Respondent committed the multiple violations of the Florida Insurance Code as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order, imposes a an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) on Respondent and places Respondent on probation for a period of three (3) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Thomas S. Piller, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Insurance, as an ordinary life, including disability insurance agent. His offices are located at 103 South Circle, Sebring, Florida. In June, 1980, Piller met one Elleta Y. Thomas, then 74 years old, who resided in Sebring, Florida, with her husband, William Filler sold Mr. and Mrs. Thomas two policies with American Sun Life Insurance Company effective June 10, 1980. The policies provided supplements for medicare. In January, 1981, William Thomas suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. He died on March 3, 1981. During the period when Mr. Thomas was hospitalized, and continuing after his death, Elleta Thomas telephoned or visited Respondent's office a number of times to obtain assistance in filing insurance claims for her husband's medical bills and death. On or about May 11, 1981, Respondent received a telephone call from Elleta Thomas asking that he assist her in filling out various insurance forms. Piller went to her residence where he stayed for approximately three hours. During that time, he assisted her in filling out claim forms with three insurance companies. While there, Piller sold Thomas Policy Nos. MC 783 Florida and NS 775 with United General Life Insurance Company which provided Thomas additional medical coverage. The total annual premium was $512 which Thomas paid by check. On the application, question one asks whether the insurance is intended to replace any plan of insurance with another company. Respondent marked "no" in the blank. The policy also stated in paragraph two that "preexisting conditions are covered after this policy currently being applied for has been in effect for 6 months." Elleta Thomas signed a certification form acknowledging that she had read and understood the policy, and was being furnished a copy of that form. Although Thomas could not remember signing the form, she did admit that the signature on the form was her own. There were no representations by Piller that the new policy replaced an existing policy, or that American Sun Life Insurance Company had been consolidated into United General Life Insurance Company, or otherwise changed its name. Neither was there a representation that the American Sun policies had been cancelled. In fact, Thomas admitted that Piller had not told her to turn the American policies in, or to "disregard" them. On June 3, 1981, Thomas was injured in an accident at her home and sometime thereafter examined her General policy to see if a claim could be filed. Because the accident was apparently caused by a "preexisting condition", she did not file a claim. Even though Thomas had two current and effective policies with American Sun which provided accident coverage, she was under the impression that they had been replaced by the General policy purchased in May, 1981. With the assistance of her daughter, Thomas then filed a complaint with the Department of Insurance alleging misrepresentation on the part of Piller. Thomas later received a refund of her $512 premium and the General policy was cancelled. Her American Sun policies were never cancelled and are apparently still in force.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondent, Thomas Stephen Piller, be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Department of Administration Oakland Office Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie St. John, Esquire Room 428-A, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David B. Higginbottom, Esquire Post Office Box 697 Frostproof, Florida 33843
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an upgrade in her insurance coverage from individual to family status should be granted with a retro-active effective date of October 13, 1994; the date of birth of Respondent's son.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner was initially employed and covered under the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan on July 1, 1993. Petitioner selected individual coverage and completed the appropriate forms indicating such coverage. Effective January 1, 1994, Petitioner's coverage for the 1994 Plan Year continued with individual coverage. Petitioner became pregnant in April, 1994, with an estimated due date of December 6, 1994. However, she went into premature labor on October 12, 1994, at 32 weeks gestation. Attempts to stop her labor were unsuccessful and she delivered a son, Gavon K. Brown, by caesarean delivery on October 13, 1994. On October 22, 1994, Petitioner completed the required forms to change from individual coverage to family coverage. Respondent changed Petitioner's coverage to family coverage effective December 1, 1994. Other Facts Petitioner did not inform the personnel office at her place of state employment, Columbia Correctional Facility in Lake City, Florida of her pregnancy. Petitioner saw a private physician in Gainesville, Florida. The physician was concerned about Petitioner's excessive weight and referred her to the Park Avenue Women's Center in Gainesville sometime near the end of April, 1994. The Park Avenue Women's Center, associated with the University of Florida College of Medicine, treats women with at risk pregnancies. Petitioner was seen there by Dr. Kenneth Kelner, also a professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University of Florida College of Medicine. As a registered nurse, Petitioner was aware that she was at an increased general risk for difficulty with her pregnancy as a result of her excessive weight. On August 5, 1994, as a result of problems with getting a medical bill paid by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Petitioner called offices of the administrator of the Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) in Jacksonville, Florida. In the course of her telephone conversation, Petitioner maintains that she was told she could switch to family coverage in order to cover expenses of her unborn child as late as 30 days prior to the birth, estimated and expected to occur on December 6, 1994. Petitioner had previously received The Benefit Payment Schedule on July 13, 1994, which contained a warning to pregnant women policyholders that single or individual coverage did not include coverage for a child following its birth and that family coverage would need to be in effect prior to the month of the child's birth to afford coverage for the child. During the August 5, 1994 telephone conversation with the representative of BCBS in Jacksonville, Petitioner inquired regarding the amount of the monthly premium for family coverage. Petitioner was referred to the Division of State Employees' Insurance (DSEI) and provided with that telephone number in order to acquire coverage for her unborn child and get further detailed information. Petitioner did not call DSEI. On October 12, 1994, in the course of a routine check-up, it was determined that Petitioner's cervix was dilated. Subsequently, Petitioner gave birth to her son at 1 a.m. on October 13, 1994. On October 13, 1994, Petitioner called the personnel office at her place of employment with the Department of Corrections and informed that office of the birth of her son. Although Petitioner maintains that she was told at that time by someone in the personnel office that her son would immediately be afforded insurance coverage, Petitioner presented no direct admissible evidence in corroboration of this allegation and her testimony in this respect is not credited. On October 22, 1994, while sitting in the hospital lobby waiting to visit her son, who remained in hospital care following his premature birth, Petitioner signed the required papers and forms to change from individual to family coverage. The forms, bearing an effective date for coverage change of December 1, 1994, were returned to Petitioner's personnel office without an accompanying check or other payment for any employee premium co-payment which would have permitted a construction that an earlier coverage effective date should have been assigned the policy change. Based upon the timing of the election made by Petitioner, expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child prior to December 1, 1994, were not covered by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing Susie Simone Brown's petition in this matter. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 6th day of September, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-24. Adopted, not verbatim. 25.-28. Rejected, unnecessary. 29.-40. Adopted by reference. 41.-42. Rejected, unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's proposed findings consisted of one paragraph requesting that Respondent provide coverage for Petitioner's son effective on the date of his birth, October 13, 1994. The proposed finding is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Chief Department of Management Services Division of State Employees' Insurance 2002 Old St. Augustine Rd., B-12 Tallahassee, FL 32301-4876 Susie Simone Brown 2931 Bay Rd. Orange Park, FL 32065 William H. Linder Secretary Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 307 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell General Counsel Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 312 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a health insurance agent should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Michael Halloran, was licensed and eligible for licensure as a health insurance agent by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). When the events herein occurred, respondent was licensed to solicit health insurance on behalf of National States Life Insurance Company (NSLIC) and Transport Life Insurance Company (TLIC). He was also under contract with Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida until that firm terminated his agency appointment on May 5, 1989. This proceeding involves the sale by respondent of various health insurance policies to four customers in January and February 1989. In 1987, Raymond H. Koester, a Largo resident, purchased from respondent a supplemental Medicare policy for both him and his wife. Their first policy was issued by American Integrity. A year later, respondent persuaded the Koesters to replace that policy with one issued by Garden State Insurance Company on the ground the latter policy represented an "improvement" over their existing policy. On January 10, 1989 respondent met with the Koesters for the purpose of selling them new health insurance coverage. During their meeting, respondent advised the Koesters that a new NSLIC policy would provide unlimited custodial and home health care, a type of coverage desired by the Koesters. Relying upon respondent's representation, the Koesters agreed to purchase two new policies. They filled out an application and paid Halloran $2,628 which was the premium for the first year. When the application was completed, respondent answered "no" to the question of whether the new policies were intended to replace existing coverage. This was a false representation. In June 1989 the Koesters learned that they had a problem with their new policies. This advice was conveyed to them by petitioner's investigator who advised them that the policies sold by Halloran loran did not provide any custodial or home health care benefits. Had the Koesters known this, they would not have purchased the insurance. On January 18, 1989 respondent visited Grace Miller, an elderly resident of Venice, Florida, for the purpose of selling her a health insurance policy. At that time Miller had an existing policy in force since 1983 which provided supplemental Medicare coverage. Respondent advised Miller that her existing coverage was inadequate and that more coverage was needed. More specifically, Halloran represented that a new NSLIC policy would supplement her basic Medicare coverage and increase her overall health insurance coverage. Based on that representation, Miller agreed to purchase a replacement policy issued by NSLIC. As it turned out, the policy sold to Miller was of little or no value to a Medicare recipient, such as Miller, and simply filled in the gaps on a major medical policy. Had Miller known this to begin with, she would not have purchased the policy. Respondent also persuaded Miller to purchase a long-term care policy from TLIC. She allowed respondent to fill out the application using information from her old policy. Without telling Miller, respondent misrepresented on the application her date of birth as December 2, 1921 when in fact she was born on December 2, 1911, or ten years earlier. By doing this, Halloran was able to reduce Miller's premium from $1,159.92 to $441.72. Had Miller known that she was responsible for paying a much higher premium, she would not have purchased the policy. On February 25, 1989 respondent accepted another check from Miller in the amount of $773.00 for an unknown reason. At about the same time, respondent submitted to NSLIC an application for a medical-surgical expense policy dated the same date purportedly executed by Miller In fact, Miller had not executed the policy and her signature was forged. NSLIC declined to issue a new policy to Miller since she already had a policy of that type in effect. On January 20, 1989 respondent visited Gertrude Simms, an elderly resident of Fort Myers. Simms desired to purchase a hospital expense insurance policy with a provision for dental insurance coverage. Simms desired such coverage because she had a medical condition that required her to have her teeth cleaned frequently to avoid an infection. Respondent was aware of this condition. Nonetheless, Halloran prepared an application with NSLIC for a limited medical-surgical expense insurance policy which did not provide any dental coverage. Respondent accepted a $1,100 check from Simms which he represented to her was the first year's premium. In fact, the first year's premium was only $506. Although respondent was supposed to return to Simms' home to explain the policy provisions, he never returned. At about this same time, TLIC received an application on behalf of Simms for a long-term care insurance policy bearing the signature of respondent as agent. However, Simms had no knowledge of the application and did not wish to purchase such a policy. The information contained in the TLIC application misrepresented Simms' age so that the premium was lower than it should have been. Although TLIC issued a policy and sent it to respondent, Halloran never delivered it to Simms. On February 1, 1989 respondent visited Velma Sonderman, who resided in Venice, Florida, for the purpose of selling her a health insurance policy. She had become acquainted with respondent through Grace Miller, who is referred to in finding of fact 4. Sonderman was then covered by a supplemental medicare insurance policy issued by United American Medicare. According to Sonderman, respondent gave a "snow job" and represented he could sell her better coverage through NSLIC. Sonderman agreed to purchase a new policy for supplemental medicare coverage to replace her existing policy and signed an application filled in by respondent. However, the application submitted by respondent was for a NSLIC limited benefit health insurance policy rather than the medicare supplement insurance policy Sonderman believed she was purchasing. Respondent also convinced Sonderman to purchase a long-term nursing home care policy issued by TLIC. When filling out the application on her behalf, but without telling Sonderman, respondent misrepresented Sonderman's birth date as July 11, 1915 instead of the correct date of July 11, 1911. By doing this, Sonderman's premium was reduced from $999.36 to $599.04 per year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's license as a health insurance agent be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 4 day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER 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 4 day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-3. Substantially used in finding of fact 1. 4-17. Substantially used in findings of fact 4, 5 and 6. 18-29. Substantially used in findings of fact 9 and 10. 30-33. Substantially used in findings of fact 2 and 3. 34-45. Substantially used in findings of fact 7 and 8. 46. Substantially adopted in finding of fact l. Copies furnished to: Honorable Tom Gallagher Insurance Commissioner Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 James A. Bossart, Jr., Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Mr. Michael Halloran 2519 McMullen Booth Road Clearwater, FL 34621 Donald A. Dowdell, Esquire Department of Insurance Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the designated portion of the letter dated December 23, 1997, from Paul Stanley to Michael Robinson is an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. If so, whether Petitioner (the District) is substantially affected by the alleged agency statement within the meaning of Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The District is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It operates four medical centers and numerous clinics and medical offices throughout Broward County. The District is a major provider of indigent healthcare, particularly through operation of its trauma centers. The District contracts with several health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Since 1955, the District has utilized the Broward County Lien Law to help secure payment for medical services rendered to persons injured in accidents caused by the negligence of another, or for which some liability insurance might be payable to the injured party. Chapter 30615, Laws of Florida (also found in Article II, Section 16-13, Broward County Code of Ordinance) (the Lien Law), 2/ provides in pertinent part: [E]very governmental unit operating a hospital shall be entitled to a lien for all reasonable charges for hospital care, treatment and maintenance of ill or injured persons upon any and all causes or action, suits, claims, counter-claims and demands accruing to the persons to whom such care, treatment and maintenance are furnished. The following factual scenario typifies the circumstances under which the District has utilized the Lien Law: A person is injured in an automobile accident through the fault of another. The injured victim is transported to one of the District's medical facilities (usually a trauma center at one of the District's hospitals) and receives medical attention. Upon learning that the patient has been injured in an automobile accident, the District files a lien in circuit court for payment of the full charges for services rendered to the patient at the District's facility. The District files the lien regardless of whether the patient is an HMO subscriber. The injured victim sues the tortfeasor and his or her liability carrier for money damages arising from the accident. The injured victim claims the right to payment of damages sufficient to pay the full medical bill, regardless of whether the victim is an HMO subscriber or has another form of health insurance. Proceeds from the injured patient's settlement or judgment against the tortfeasor or liability insurance carrier is applied first to pay off the District's lien, and thereafter to the patient or insurance carrier or HMO. If the injured patient is an HMO subscriber, and if the settlement or judgment proceeds are sufficient to pay off the District's lien, the subscriber's HMO is not obligated to pay any money for medical services. If the settlement or judgment proceeds satisfy only a portion of the lien amount, the District will thereafter look to the HMO for payment of services at the HMO contracted rate. The District does not seek to charge or collect against an HMO subscriber for any services rendered to that subscriber. Section 627.4235, Florida Statutes, entitled Coordination of Benefits, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A group hospital, medical, or surgical expense policy, group health-care services plan, or group-type self-insurance plan that provides protection or insurance against hospital, medical, or surgical expenses delivered or issued for delivery in the state must contain a provision for coordinating its benefits with any similar benefits provided by any other group hospital, medical, or surgical expense policy, any group healthcare services plan or any group-type self insurance plan that provides protection or insurance against hospital, medical, or surgical expense for the same loss. A hospital, medical, or surgical expense policy, healthcare services plan, or self-insurance plan that provides protection for insurance against hospital, medical, or surgical expenses issued in this state or issued for delivery in this state may contain a provision whereby the insurer may reduce or refuse to pay benefits otherwise payable thereunder solely on account of the existence of similar benefits provided under insurance policies issued by the same or another insurer, healthcare services plan, or self-insurance plan which provides protection or insurance against hospital, medical or surgical expenses only if, as a condition of coordinating benefits with another insurer, the insurers together pay 100% of the total reasonable expenses actually incurred of the type of expense within the benefits described in the policies and presented to the insurer for payment. A purpose of Florida's Automobile No Fault Law (Sections 627.730-627.7405, Florida Statutes), is to require motor vehicle insurance providing medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault. See Section 627.731, Florida Statutes. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, entitled Required Personal Injury Protection Benefits; Exclusions; Priority, provides in pertinent part as follows: Required Benefits - every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of s. 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection to the named insured, relatives residing in the same household, persons operating the insured motor vehicle, passengers in such motor vehicle, and other persons struck by such motor vehicle and suffering bodily injury while not an occupant of a self propelled vehicle, subject to the provisions of Section (2) and paragraph (4)(d), to a limit of $10,000.00 for losses sustained by any such person as a result of bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as follows: Medical Benefits - Eighty percent of all reasonable expenses for necessary medical, surgical, X-ray, dental, and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital and nursing services. Such benefits shall also include necessary remedial treatment and services recognized and permitted under the laws of the state for an injured person who relies upon spiritual means through prayer alone for healing, in accordance with his or her religious beliefs. * * * (4) Benefits: When Due. - Benefits due from an insurer under Sections 627-730 - 627.7405 shall be primary, except that benefits received under any workers compensation law shall be credited against the benefits provided by subsection (1). * * * (f) Medical payments insurance, if available in a policy of motor vehicle insurance, shall pay the portion of any claim for personal injury protection medical benefits which is otherwise covered but is not payable due to the co-insurance provision of paragraph (1)(a), regardless of whether the full amount of personal injury protection coverage has been exhausted. Section 641.37(7), Florida Statutes, provides that an HMO is entitled to coordinate benefits on the same basis as an insurer under Section 627.4235, Florida Statutes. The District has contracted with HIP Network of Florida, Inc. (HIP), a health maintenance organization duly licensed by the Department to furnish hospital and related services to HIP subscribers. 3/ The contract between the District and HIP provides that the District shall look only to HIP for compensation of services rendered to a member (of HIP) when such services are covered by HIP's subscriber contracts (individual or group contracts). The District agrees not to bill, charge, or otherwise seek compensation or remuneration from the member of persons acting on behalf of the member (other than HIP) except to the extent that copayments are specified in the subscriber contracts. The District agrees not to maintain any action at law or equity against a member to collect sums that are owed by HIP to the District under the terms of the contract, even in the event HIP fails to pay, becomes insolvent, or otherwise breaches the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The contract between the District and HIP also provides a schedule of fees to be paid by HIP to the District for the payment of services covered by the contract. HIP agrees to pay those specified amounts and the District agrees to accept these amounts as payment in full for such services, except for authorized copayments. The contract provides that amounts received by the District as a result of coordination of benefits are to be deducted from amounts payable to the District by HIP. The contract also provides that HIP may coordinate the costs of providing benefits with any other group coverage or policy of insurance including Workman's Compensation and automobile insurance, under which the member is covered to the extent allowed by law. Specifically, if a member is eligible to receive benefits under another plan(s) for services provided at HIP expense, HIP and the District reserve the right to obtain reimbursement from any such plan(s) for the cost of the services provided, but not in excess of the amount payable under each other plan(s). Coordination of benefits received by the District will be deducted from the amount owed by HIP. The District agrees to cooperate in obtaining coordination of benefits reimbursement. The District has contracts with other HMOs with similar provisions to the HIP contract. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Paul Stanley, was a Financial Examiner, Analyst II employed by the Department. Mr. Stanley's job description and practical function was to prepare and conduct audits of HMOs and other health care entities licensed by the Department. In the course of his employment, Mr. Stanley conducted a routine audit of HIP/NET and found three instances where a member of HIP/NET had received medical services from one of the District's facilities after the member had been in an automobile accident. In each of these three cases, the District filed a lien in circuit court pursuant to the Lien Law, but it did not file a claim with HIP for services rendered to the member. Section 641.315, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Whenever a contract exists between a health maintenance organization and a provider and the organization fails to meet its obligations to pay fees for services already rendered to a subscriber, the health maintenance organization shall be liable for such fee or fees rather than the subscriber; and the contract shall so state. No subscriber of an HMO shall be liable to any provider of health care services for any services covered by the HMO. No provider of services or any representative of such provider shall collect or attempt to collect from an HMO subscriber any money for services covered by an HMO and no provider or representative of such provider may maintain any action at law against a subscriber of an HMO to collect money owed to such provider by an HMO. Every contract between an HMO and a provider of health care services shall be in writing and shall contain a provision that the subscriber shall not be liable to the provider for any services covered by the subscriber's contract with the HMO. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to apply to the amount of any deductible or copayment which is not covered by the contract of the HMO. By letter dated December 23, 1997, Mr. Stanley notified Michael Robinson, an attorney employed by the District, that in these three instances where he found HIP had not been billed when its members had been involved in an automobile accident, the District's liens violated Section 641.315, Florida Statutes. After advising Mr. Robinson of his audit, Mr. Stanley identified the three HIP members by name and stated, in pertinent part, as follows: After reviewing the situation, it was determined that all members were involved in automobile accidents and medical care was rendered at a North Broward facility. To date, no claim has been submitted to HIP Health Plan. After contacting the attorneys for the individuals, I was informed that North Broward refuses to submit a claim in the proper format to HIP Health Plan. I also ascertained that North Broward has attached a lien against the settlement in all three cases. I contacted Ms. Diane Costas of North Broward to gain information as to why no claims had been submitted to HIP Health Plan for services rendered by the facilities. In essence, Ms. Costas stated that since North Broward is a contracted provider for HIP Health Plan, and is paid by the HMO at a negotiated rate, payment from HIP would be substantially lower than billed charges. By refusing to submit a claim to HIP, North Broward would realize greater revenues. As a result, the members, in this case, would receive a lesser portion of the final settlement. After consultation with the appropriate personnel at The Florida Department of Insurance, The Agency for Health Care Administration, and The Health Care Finance Administration (Ms. Gurland is a Medicare Risk member) be advised that The Florida Department of Insurance deems this action as a violation of section 641.315, Florida Statutes. The action North Broward has taken prevents the member from availing themselves [sic] of the coverage by their [sic] HMO and payment of services rendered at the lower contracted rate in effect by paying the difference between what HIP would pay pursuant to the contract and what North Broward has determined to be billed charges. Therefore, North Broward is balance billing the members. Prior to sending the letter of December 23, 1997, Mr. Stanley did not request or receive approval to do so from his superiors at the Department. At the time he wrote the letter asserting that he had consulted with appropriate personnel at the Department, Mr. Stanley had, in fact, not done so. John W. (Jack) Herzog is an Executive Senior Attorney with the Department of Insurance who supervises other attorneys, serves on a board of directors that manages the Department's Division of Legal Services, drafts legislation, and reviews rules. Mr. Herzog does not make policy on behalf of the Department. On June 12, 1998, Mr. Herzog attended a meeting that included an attorney representing the District. During the course of that meeting, Mr. Herzog expressed his opinion as an attorney for the Department that Section 641.315, Florida Statutes, prohibits the District from filing liens under the Lien Law under circumstances similar to those outlined in Mr. Stanley's letter. Mr. Herzog was not expressing any official position of the Department. Whether the Department has adopted an official position consistent with Mr. Stanley's discussion of hospital liens is a central issue in this proceeding. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is found that the Department has taken no official position as to the District's ability to utilize the Lien Law under the circumstances described in Mr. Stanley's letter. 4/ On June 16, 1998, the District was sued in a class action lawsuit over the issue of filing liens against HMO subscribers. Shortly thereafter, in late June or July of 1998, the District stopped filing liens against HMO subscribers who had been involved in an automobile accident. The District has suffered a substantial monetary loss since it stopped filing liens against HMO subscribers who had been involved in an automobile accident and will likely continue to suffer substantial losses in the future if it can no longer file such liens pursuant to the Lien Law.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, and at the time of the hearing, Gary Lee Baker ("Respondent") was licensed in Florida as a life and variable annuity agent, health and variable annuity agent, life agent, life and health agent, general lines agent, and health agent. The Respondent was a stockholder and officer in the "Murdock Insurance Agency, Inc.". Pete and Debi Valencia are the owners of the "Growing Concern," a floral shop. In 1991, the Growing Concern had obtained workers compensation (WC) coverage through Allstate Insurance. According to the Allstate policy, the coverage was effective from July 18, 1991 to July 18, 1992. The premium for the policy was $1,235.00. As of November, 1991, Mr. Valencia believed that Allstate Insurance was going to terminate his WC insurance coverage. The belief apparently was based on local gossip. There is no evidence that, absent payment of premium, Allstate intended to cancel the Valencia's WC insurance coverage prior to the expiration date set forth in the policy. Mr. Valencia contacted the Respondent, who was a business acquaintance of Mrs. Valencia, to discuss WC coverage. At the time of the initial meeting, Mr. Valencia offered to place all his insurance business with the Respondent if the Respondent could obtain satisfactory WC insurance rates for the Valencia's business. Mr. Valencia provided a copy of the then-current Allstate policy to the Respondent. Based on information provided by Mr. Valencia, the Respondent completed portions of a WC insurance application on behalf of Growing Concern on November 21, 1991. The application was to be submitted to the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI) Atlantic Division upon receipt of additional information from Mr. Valencia and upon the lapse of the Allstate coverage. Among the information required by the NCCI was a copy of a Growing Concern quarterly tax filing (Form 941) from Mr. Valencia. The form is used by NCCI to verify the Growing Concern payroll, the basis of calculation of the WC premium. Pursuant to this meeting, Mrs. Valencia provided a check dated November 21, 1991, numbered 3737, for $360.00 as an initial payment on the WC premium. The Respondent deposited the check into his trust account and awaited receipt of the additional documentation. By January, 1992, the Respondent had not received the additional information. He contacted Mr. Valencia to obtain the copy of Form 941 and to obtain an additional premium payment of $121.00. On several occasions during January and February, 1992, the Respondent and his assistant attempted to contact Mr. Valencia to obtain the premium payment and information. Neither the information nor the payment was forthcoming. On March 8, 1992, Mrs. Valencia submitted a check numbered 3948 for $121.00 as payment of the additional premium. However, the Valencia's still failed to submit a signed copy of the Growing Concern's most recent Form 941. Although the Respondent assumed that the application would be rejected for the failure to include all the required information, the Respondent submitted the application on March 31, 1992 (without the required Form 941) to NCCI. A check on the account of Murdock Insurance Agency dated March 31, 1992, numbered 144, for $962.00 accompanied the application as payment of the premium due at that time. Although he had yet to collect such an amount from the Valencias, he believed their relationship was such that he could "front" the premium payment on their behalf. By letter dated April 24, 1992, NCCI informed the Respondent that the application would not be processed without the form which would permit verification of the payroll. On May 20, 1992, Mr. Valencia provided a signed copy of the Form 941 to the Respondent. By letter dated May 26, 1992, NCCI informed the Respondent that an additional premium payment of $423.00 was required. The total premium for the Growing Concern WC policy was $1,385.00 The Respondent contacted Mr. Valencia and requested the additional premium payment. Mr. Valencia directed the Respondent to void the transaction and to return the premium paid by the Growing Concern. The premium was returned by NCCI to the Respondent. Immediately upon receipt of the premium, the Respondent refunded $481.00, the amount paid by the Growing Concern, to Mr. Valencia on June 4, 1992. At all times, Mr. Valencia's premium funds were maintained in the Respondent's trust account until such time as they were submitted to NCCI. At no time did Mr. Valencia inform the Respondent that the Growing Concern's Allstate WC coverage had lapsed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed against Gary Lee Baker. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4569 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order, except as follows: Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the delay in submission of the application was based on the insured's failure to provide the requested information. The premium was refunded to the insured on June 4, 1992, (not January 4, 1992) immediately upon the receipt by the Respondent. Rejected, immaterial. The Allstate policy lapsed through no act by the Respondent, who was never informed of such lapse. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 9. Rejected, hearsay uncorroborated by other competent evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Office of State Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Carl Joseph Coleman, Esquire Smith, Geraghty & Coleman Post Office Drawer 8 Fort Myers, Florida 33901
The Issue Whether the surgery to correct complications from non- covered cosmetic surgery are covered under the State of Florida self-insured health plan?
Findings Of Fact Sharon Lett, Petitioner, was initially hired by the State of Florida on October 1, 1986, and began participating in the State's self-insured health plan known as the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization Plan, or State PPO Plan. Pre-existing conditions were covered after 365 days. In June 1985, Lett had bilateral silicone breast implants placed under the pectoral muscles. This occurred before she was covered under any of the state-sponsored health insurance plans. The implant surgery was performed for purely cosmetic reasons. Lett continued to work for the State until her retirement and was covered under the State's health insurance plan. Upon her retirement she continued her coverage under the State PPO Plan. In 1997, while covered by the plan, Lett sought medical intervention for problems related to the implants. She had concerns about the implants leaking and there were indications in the form of "lumps" and x-ray images which indicated the implants were leaking. There are some clinical studies which indicate that leaking implants are a potential health problem. The "lumps" and leakage decrease the ability to properly diagnose breast cancer. For patients who have a higher risk for breast cancer, these difficulties in diagnosis place the implanted patients at greater risk. Lett is diagnosed as being at greater risk for breast cancer. Both of her implants have leaked. Lett sought removal of the implants beginning in 1997. The State's PPO Plan has denied approval of the surgical procedure to remove the implants because the implant surgery was originally for cosmetic purposes. The latest denial was by letter dated September 27, 2002. The Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI) is responsible for the management of the State's group insurance programs, to include the PPO Plan. The State's PPO Plan is administered under contract by Florida Blue Cross and Blue Shield. In support of her latest request for payment for the surgery to remove the implants, Lett provided DSGI the following: Medical Report of Marguerite Barnett, M.D., (Respondent's Exhibit 4), dated May 23, 2002. Clinical Record Progress Notes by Frank B. Vasey, M.D., for visit on April 15, 2002. Lett also provided a diagnostic report by Mary E. Swain, M.D., dated June 1, 2000. The DSGI agrees that the reports of Drs. Barnett and Vasey accurately describe Petitioner's medical condition and accurately identify the etiology of the condition that necessitates the surgery Petitioner seeks. At the time Lett initially enrolled in the State PPO Plan, the benefits document in effect was State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document, as Amended on October 1, 1986. Section VII, Exclusions, of the 1986 Benefits Document provides: Services for cosmetic surgery or treatment unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.A. However, cosmetic surgery is a covered service if it is: in connection with the correction of a congenital anomaly for an eligible dependent born while family coverage is in force and performed while the Plan is in force, 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. Section VIII, Limitations, of the 1986 Benefits Document provides: The following limitations shall apply under the Plan: A. Cosmetic surgery or treatment necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured is 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, except as provided under Section XIII and XIV of this Benefit Document. Section XIII deals with termination of an insured's coverage and is not applicable here. Section XIV deals with termination of the program and is not applicable here. At the time Lett requested approval for the surgery to remove the implants, the benefits document in effect was State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document effective January 1, 2000 (hereafter, 2000 Benefits Document). The 2000 Benefits Document states regarding services not covered by the plan that cosmetic surgery is not covered unless it is: A result of a covered accident if the accident happens and the surgery or treatment is performed while the person is covered by this health insurance plan, For correction of a congenital anomaly for an eligible dependent born while the employee has family coverage and performed while the dependent is covered by this health insurance plan, A medically necessary procedure to correct an abnormal bodily function, For reconstruction to an area of the body that has been altered by the treatment of a disease, provided the alteration occurred while the person was covered by this health insurance plan, For breast reconstructive surgery and the prosthetic devices related to a mastectomy. "Mastectomy" means the removal of all or part of the breast for medically necessary reasons as determined by a licensed physician, and "breast reconstructive surgery" means surgery to reestablish symmetry between the two breast, . . . Complications resulting from non-covered services, except complications of pregnancy defined on pages 49-50, are excluded from coverage generally. See 2000 Benefit Document, page 31, paragraph 53. It is noted that the 1986 Benefit Document does not have a provision similar to that cited in paragraph 21, above. Under the 1986 Benefit Document, cosmetic surgery would not have been covered, but surgery necessary to address complications from non-covered services was not limited or excluded. The problems suffered by Lett did not arise until after the time limit excluding pre-existing conditions had expired or run.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Lett 240 Starmount Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William Simon, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
