The Issue This case involves a dispute as to whether the Petitioner underpaid the premiums due on his health insurance coverage and, if so, what action should be taken by the Department of Administration as a result of any premium underpayments. By notice dated March 18, 1988, the Department of Administration notified the Petitioner that the Department records "show a total underpayment of $1,117.81 for the coverage periods 9/86 through 9/87." At the formal hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner, the Department was permitted to offer evidence regarding the Petitioner's premium history (both the amounts due and the amounts actually paid) for the entire period of the Petitioner's employment with the State of Florida, a period which runs from May 1978 until October 1988. At the formal hearing the Department of Administration presented the testimony of one witness and offered several exhibits, all of which were received. The Petitioner did not present any evidence, but did present oral argument on his own behalf. The parties were allowed 10 days from November 3, 1988, within which to file their post-hearing submissions with the Hearing Officer. The Department of Administration timely filed Proposed Findings Of Fact. Those findings are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order. The Petitioner did not file any post-hearing submission.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. From May 1, 1978, until August 1, 1978, the Petitioner requested and received family coverage under the State Group Health Self-insurance Plan. From November 1, 1978, until November 1, 1985, the Petitioner requested and received individual coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan. From November 1, 1985, until the date of the hearing, the Petitioner requested and received family coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan. From May 1, 198, until July 1, 1984, the Petitioner was a part-time employee of the State of Florida, working .25 of a full-time equivalent position. Accordingly, his premiums for health insurance coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan during this period should have been paid on the basis of employment in a .25 full-time equivalent position. From July 1, 1984, until at least the date of the hearing, the Petitioner has been a part-time employee of the State of Florida, working .20 of a full-time equivalent position. Accordingly, his premiums for health insurance coverage under the State Group Self-Insurance Plan during this period should have been paid on the basis of employment in a .20 full-time equivalent position. During the period beginning May 1, 1988, and continuing through October of 1988, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals S1,116.36. 1/ During the period beginning March 1, 1986, and continuing through October of 1988, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals $861.74. During the thirteen-month period beginning with September 1986 and ending with (but including) September 1987, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals $258.36.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order to the following effect: Finding the Petitioner to be in debt to the State of Florida in the amount of $258.36 by reason of underpayment of premiums during the period of September 1986 through September 1987. Providing that the Petitioner's health insurance coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan will be cancelled unless within thirty (30) days following the entry of the final order the Petitioner either pays the full amount of $258.36 or enters into an installment payment program consistent with Rule 22K-1.049(1)(a)2., Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1988.
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.
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 24th day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 624.11(1); 626.611(4), (7), (9), and (13); 626.21(2), (3), and (6); and 626.9541(1)(z), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for investigating possible violations of the Florida Insurance Code. Respondent, at all times relevant to this case, was licensed as a customer representative (license number A306050) by the Department of Financial Services. Respondent has been employed by Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereinafter "Direct"), a Tennessee corporation doing business in Florida as Florida No Fault Insurance, for over 20 years. Respondent's duties include meeting with potential customers, writing policies, taking payments, doing renewals, changing policies, and endorsements, etc. She generally meets with between six and eight customers each day, on average. Most customers presenting themselves to Respondent want only the basic coverage necessary to lawfully operate their vehicles. In the industry, this is commonly called "tag insurance." The normal pattern followed by Respondent when meeting with customers is to obtain general information from the customer, put that information into her computer, ask the person what kind of coverage they want, and then print out a quote and the insurance documents. Whether the customer asks for it or not, Respondent generally provides a quote for tag insurance plus some other ancillary coverage, e.g., Travel Protection Plan (which is called "rental insurance"), Accident Medical Protection Plan (called "hospital insurance"), and others. She also generally provides customers an opportunity to obtain a pre-paid Visa card through the agency. After printing out the insurance documents, Respondent would normally go over the documents with the customer. The review would be somewhat superficial, and she would not explain each section unless the customer asked her questions. She admits that sometimes insurance forms are confusing and that most customers would not have the necessary background or knowledge to formulate questions about the coverage. Respondent is under pressure from her employer to offer and sell as many ancillary insurance products as possible. She does not receive a commission on various products she sells, but failure to sell such products is deemed unacceptable by her employer. While she has no direct financial incentive to sell additional coverages to customers, she knows her employer expects her to offer those coverages. In February 2005 Respondent sold insurance to Noweta Sanchez. Sanchez had previously purchased insurance from Direct. Sanchez told Respondent she wanted the minimal insurance necessary to legally operate her newly purchased automobile. Respondent, in turn, provided a quote for tag insurance, but also included hospital and rental insurance in the quote. Sanchez looked at the insurance forms, but did not read them; she was in a hurry and relied on Respondent to provide only what she asked for. Respondent did not prevent Sanchez from reading the forms, but did not offer any unsolicited explanations about them either. Sanchez signed or initialed the documents in 26 separate places. Respondent says she then went over a handwritten summary of the coverage (the "pen sheet") with Sanchez. Sanchez has no recollection of seeing the pen sheet even though her signature appears at the bottom of the page. At the time she met with Respondent, Sanchez was unable to afford anything but tag insurance. That is all Sanchez believed she had purchased until she was contacted by an agent of Petitioner. Sanchez then attempted to have her policy cancelled and her money refunded, but was told that her window of opportunity for cancellation had closed. Sanchez’ testimony was credible as to her interaction with Respondent. In December 2004, Respondent sold insurance to Amber Battle. Battle was approximately 19 years old at the time, and had chosen Respondent after making inquiries from several agencies and getting the best quote from Respondent’s agency via telephone. Battle told Respondent’s agency that she wanted tag insurance only. When Battle met personally with Respondent, the written insurance quote she received was higher than what she had been quoted on the telephone. She did not read (and probably would not have understood) the insurance documents that she signed. She simply signed and initialed each page where Respondent indicated. Battle signed or initialed the documents in 29 separate places. Battle trusted Respondent to provide only the insurance she requested. After printing the insurance documents, Respondent went over the pen sheet with Battle. However, Battle has no recollection of seeing the pen sheet even though she signed it at the bottom. The Battle pen sheet includes a phrase which has an asterisk, and is circled and underlined. It says "FLA. TAG INS. ONLY." Also, under her signature there is another asterisk and the phrase "NO Bodily Injury." At the time she obtained insurance coverage from Respondent, Battle was employed and had health insurance coverage. Battle had no need for hospital coverage along with her tag insurance. Battle's testimony was credible as to her interaction with Respondent. In January 2005, Respondent sold insurance to Colleen Bailey, a married woman. Bailey came to Respondent seeking insurance on two cars, a Durango and a Grand Am. The Durango was used primarily by her husband as a work vehicle. She sought full coverage on the Durango and tag insurance on the Grand Am. The Baileys self-insure themselves for medical care. They opt not to purchase health insurance, but rather pay cash whenever health care is necessary. It was not Bailey's intention to purchase hospital coverage along with her auto insurance. After providing background information to Respondent, Bailey was presented the insurance documents for signing. Bailey was not prevented from reviewing them, but did not understand "this insurance stuff" so reading them wouldn't have helped her. Bailey signed or initialed the documents in 25 separate places. Bailey simply relied on Respondent to provide only what she asked for. Respondent prepared a pen sheet for Bailey which summarizes the purchased insurance. Bailey has no recollection of seeing the pen sheet even though her signature appears on it. Her testimony was credible as to her interaction with Respondent. Respondent has a general routine she goes through with each client, but she deviates from the routine at times. Part and parcel to the routine is the offering of ancillary insurance products. Such products are generally included in every quote she gives a customer even when the customer specifically requests only the minimum coverage. Respondent is aware that most of her customers do not fully understand insurance matters. She knows that most customers do not fully review the written insurance documents. She is cognizant that the purchase of insurance is confusing to many of her customers. Thus, she is at an advantage when dealing with her customers. The documents relating to Optional Travel Protection and Accident Medical Protection plans are clearly labeled. A person of normal intelligence would be able to read the labels and probably ascertain that such plans were optional coverages. However, such person would need to be able to distinguish and differentiate between the minimal insurance coverage documentation and the documents addressing additional coverage. Moreover, such person would probably need to anticipate the inclusion of ancillary products in order to parse them out of the confusing and overwhelming insurance documents. While she never prohibits the customer from fully reviewing the written documents, she does not encourage them to do so either. Likewise, while she will respond to all questions asked by a customer, she does not offer unsolicited information that might help the customer understand better what they are receiving. It is unlikely the three customers who appeared in this matter took the time or made the effort to read all the documents they signed in order to determine exactly what coverage to which they were agreeing. Rather, they seemed to rely on Respondent to give them what they asked for. Respondent, however, intentionally provided them more than they asked for, leaving it to them to distinguish the coverages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services suspending the license of Respondent for a period of 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2006.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioners’ Interim Rate Request (IRR) for an increase should be granted.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency of state government responsible for the implementation and administration of the Medicaid Program in the State of Florida. AHCA is authorized to audit Medicaid Cost Reports submitted by Medicaid Providers participating in the Medicaid Program. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud are licensed nursing homes in Florida that participate in the Medicaid Program as institutional Medicaid Providers. On May 23, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville entered into a settlement agreement with the representative of the estate of one of its former residents, D. P. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at Jacksonville would pay $350,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at Jacksonville paid the personal representative the sum of $350,000.00. By letter dated July 16, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville requested an IRR effective August 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.2., for additional costs incurred from self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at Jacksonville submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the costs exceeded $5,000.00 and that the increase in cost was projected at $2.77/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at Jacksonville was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,627.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated July 18, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of Section IV J. of the Plan, necessary and proper for granting the request. Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Subsequently, Avante at Jacksonville became concerned that, perhaps, the incorrect provision of the Plan had been cited in its IRR. As a result, a second IRR was submitted for the same costs. By letter dated October 22, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville made a second request for an IRR, this time pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.3., for the same additional costs incurred from the self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 settlement. The same supporting documentation was included. Avante at Jacksonville was of the opinion that the Plan Section IV J.3. specifically dealt with the costs of general and professional liability insurance. By letter dated October 30, 2007, AHCA denied the second request for an IRR, indicating that the first request was denied based on “all sub-sections of Section IV J of the Plan”; that the second request failed to satisfy the requirements of the Plan Section IV J.3. and all sections and sub-sections of the Plan “necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. On October 19, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud entered a settlement agreement with the personal representative of the estate of one of its former residents, G. M. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at St. Cloud would pay $90,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at St. Cloud paid the personal representative the sum of $90,000.00. By letter dated December 10, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud requested an IRR effective November 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J, for additional costs incurred as a result of paying the $90,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at St. Cloud submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the increase in cost was projected at $2.02/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at St. Cloud was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,000.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated December 12, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of “Section IV J of the Plan necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at St. Cloud contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Insurance Policies and the Nursing Home Industry in Florida Typically, nursing homes in Florida carry low limit general and professional liability insurance policies. The premiums of the policies exceed the policy limits. For example, the premium for a policy of Avante at Jacksonville to cover the $350,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $425,000.00 and for a policy of Avante at St. Cloud to cover the $90,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $200,000.00. Also, the policies have a funded reserve feature wherein, if the reserve is depleted through the payment of a claim, the nursing home is required to recapitalize the reserve or purchase a new policy. That is, if a policy paid a settlement up to the policy limits, the nursing home would have to recapitalize the policy for the amount of the claim paid under the policy and would have to fund the loss, which is the amount in excess of the policy limits, out-of-pocket. Florida’s Medicaid Reimbursement Plan for Nursing Homes The applicable version of the Plan is Version XXXI. AHCA has incorporated the Plan in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. AHCA uses the Plan in conjunction with the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB.15-1)3 to calculate reimbursement rates of nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The calculation of reimbursement rates uses a cost- based, prospective methodology, using the prior year’s costs to establish the current period per diem rates. Inflation factors, target ceilings, and limitations are applied to reach a per patient, per day per diem rate that is specific to each nursing home. Reimbursement rates for nursing homes and long-term care facilities are typically set semi-annually, effective on January 1 and July 1 of each year. The most recent Medicaid cost report is used to calculate a facility’s reimbursement rate and consists of various components, including operating costs, the direct patient care costs, the indirect patient care costs, and property costs. The Plan allows for the immediate inclusion of costs in the per diem rate to Medicaid Providers under very limited circumstances through the IRR process. The interim rate’s purpose is to compensate for the shortfalls of a prospective reimbursement system and to allow a Medicaid Provider to increase its rate for sudden, unforeseen, dramatic costs beyond the Provider’s control that are of an on-going nature. Importantly, the interim rate change adjusts the Medicaid Provider’s individual target rate ceiling to allow those costs to flow ultimately through to the per diem paid, which increases the amount of the Provider’s overall reimbursement. In order for a cost to qualify under an interim rate request, the cost must be an allowable cost and meet the criteria of Section IV J of the Plan. The Plan provides in pertinent part: IV. Standards * * * J. The following provisions apply to interim changes in component reimbursement rates, other than through the routine semi- annual rate setting process. * * * Interim rate changes reflecting increased costs occurring as a result of patient or operating changes shall be considered only if such changes were made to comply with existing State or Federal rules, laws, or standards, and if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause a change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem rate. If new State or Federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure and certification requirements, or new interpretations of existing laws, rules, regulations, or licensure and certification requirements require providers to make changes that result in increased or decreased patient care, operating, or capital costs, requests for component interim rates shall be considered for each provider based on the budget submitted by the provider. All providers’ budgets submitted shall be reviewed by the Agency [AHCA] and shall be the basis for establishing reasonable cost parameters. In cases where new State or Federal requirements are imposed that affect all providers, appropriate adjustments shall be made to the class ceilings to account for changes in costs caused by the new requirements effective as of the date of the new requirements or implementation of the new requirements, whichever is later. Interim rate adjustments shall be granted to reflect increases in the cost of general or professional liability insurance for nursing homes if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem. CMS-PUB.15-1 provides in pertinent part: 2160. Losses Arising From Other Than Sale of Assets A. General.—A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider’s financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self- insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. Where a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider as a result of such losses may not be included in allowable costs. * * * 2160.2 Liability Losses.—Liability damages paid by the provider, either imposed by law or assumed by contract, which should reasonably have been covered by liability insurance, are not allowable. Insurance against a provider’s liability for such payments to others would include, for example, automobile liability insurance; professional liability (malpractice, negligence, etc.); owners, landlord and tenants liability; and workers’ compensation. Any settlement negotiated by the provider or award resulting from a court or jury decision of damages paid by the provider in excess of the limits of the provider’s policy, as well as the reasonable cost of any legal assistance connected with the settlement or award are includable in allowable costs, provided the provider submits evidence to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage carried by the provider at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. Also, the reasonable cost of insurance protection, as well as any losses incurred because of the application of the customary deductible feature of the policy, are includable in allowable costs. As to whether a cost is allowable, the authority to which AHCA would look is first to the Plan, then to CMS-PUB.15- 1, and then to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). As to reimbursement issues, AHCA would look to the same sources in the same order for the answer. The insurance liability limit levels maintained by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud reflect sound and prudent management practices. Claims that resulted in the settlements of Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud, i.e., wrongful death and/or negligence, are the type of claims covered under the general and professional liability policies carried by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both had a general and professional liability insurance policy in full force and effect at the time the wrongful death and/or negligence claims were made that resulted in the settlement agreements. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud filed a claim with their insurance carrier, even though they could have, for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both chose not to file a claim with their respective insurance carrier for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. AHCA did not look beyond the Plan in making its determination that neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud should be granted an IRR. Wesley Hagler, AHCA’s Regulatory Analyst Supervisor, testified as an expert in Medicaid cost reimbursement. He testified that settlement agreements are a one time cost and are not considered on-going operating costs for purposes of Section IV J.2. of the Plan. Mr. Hagler’s testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Hagler testified that settlement agreements and defense costs are not considered general and professional liability insurance for purposes of Section IV J.3. of the Plan. To the contrary, Stanley William Swindling, Jr., an expert in health care accounting and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, testified that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs. Mr. Swindling’s testimony is found to be more credible than Mr. Hagler’s testimony, and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs.4 Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted any documentation with their IRRs to indicate a specific law, statute, or rule, either state or federal, with which they were required to comply, resulted in an increase in costs. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud experienced an increase in the premiums for the general and professional liability insurance policies. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted documentation with its IRRs to indicate that the premiums of its general and professional liability insurance increased. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud could only meet the $5,000.00 threshold and the one percent increase in total per diem under the Plan, Sections IV J.2. or J.3. by basing its calculations on the settlement costs. Looking to the Plan in conjunction with CMS-PUB.15-1 to determine reimbursement costs, CMS-PUB.15-1 at Section 2160A provides generally that, when a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider, as a result of such losses, are not allowable costs; however, Section 2160.2 specifically includes settlement dollars in excess of the limits of the policy as allowable costs, provided the evidence submitted by the provider to the intermediary (AHCA) shows to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. The policy coverage for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud set the policy limits for each facility at $10,000.00 for each occurrence. Applying the specific section addressing settlement negotiations, the loss covered by insurance would have been $10,000.00 for each facility and the losses in excess of the policy limits--$340,000.00 for Avante at Jacksonville and $80,000.00 for Avante at St. Cloud—would have been allowable costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the interim rate requests for an increase for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 18th day of September, 2008. 1/ The corrected case-style.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount payable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to satisfy a Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact On November 2, 2012, the Petitioner, then 20 years old, was a restrained passenger in his girlfriend's Ford Mustang when it was t-boned on the passenger side by a Chevy pickup truck operated by Eddie Ellison. On November 2, 2012, immediately prior to the collision, Eddie Ellison, who was driving eastbound on Harney Road in Hillsborough County, Florida, failed to stop at the stop sign at Williams Road. Eddie Ellison was negligent in the operation of his Chevy Truck on November 2, 2012, and caused it to strike the Ford Mustang occupied by the Petitioner. Eddie Ellison's wife, Alberta Ellison, was the co-owner of the Chevy truck. The Petitioner was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the collision, and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner that was a proximate cause of any injury suffered by him as a result of the motor vehicle collision. There was no negligence on the part of any person other than Eddie Ellison that was a proximate cause of the motor vehicle collision on November 2, 2012. When the Hillsborough County Fire and Rescue team arrived at the accident scene at approximately 8:20 p.m., the Petitioner was unresponsive and exhibiting decorticate posturing. He was extricated from the vehicle, intubated at the scene and immediately transported via ambulance to Tampa General Hospital (TGH). The Petitioner arrived at TGH by approximately 8:39 p.m., presenting in critical condition. He was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where he remained for 11 days. The Petitioner suffered serious injuries as a result of the collision, including: injuries to the brain; multiple fractures to the skull, face, jaw, and other head injuries; multiple pelvic fractures; pulmonary contusions; acute respiratory failure; dysphagia; and splenic lacerations. On November 3, 2012, Stephen Reintjes, M.D., performed a ventriculostomy, wherein he drilled through the right parietal region of the Petitioner's skull and placed an external ventricular drain (EVD) into the right lateral ventricle to relieve the Petitioner's elevated intracranial pressure. The EVD was removed on November 12, 2012. On November 6, 2012, David Ciesla, M.D., and a TGH resident, performed a percutaneous tracheostomy, wherein he created an opening through the Petitioner's neck and placed a windpipe because of the Petitioner's prolonged respiratory failure. That same day, John Cha, M.D., performed a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), wherein a feeding tube was placed into the Petitioner's stomach due to the Petitioner's dysphagia. The Petitioner's PEG tube was removed on January 3, 2013. On November 9, 2012, Michael Harrington, M.D., performed an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the Petitioner's right zygomaticomaxillary fracture, and a closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) of the Petitioner's right zygomatic arch fracture. Essentially, screws and plates were implanted into the Petitioner's right cheekbone and then his jaw was wired shut to facilitate healing. The Petitioner's jaw remained wired shut until December 3, 2012, and the MMF hardware was surgically removed on December 20, 2012. On November 13, 2012, the Petitioner was transferred from the ICU to a surgical trauma unit. Once the Petitioner became medically stable on December 6, 2012, he was transferred to the Tampa General Rehabilitation Center (TGRC). There, the Petitioner received intensive physical and occupational therapy, speech and swallow therapy, psychological services, and 24/7 rehabilitation nursing care. The Petitioner remained at TGRC until January 16, 2013, 75 days after the crash, when he was discharged to his home. Medicaid paid a total of $147,019.61 for the Petitioner's past medical expenses. For nearly two years following his discharge, the Petitioner was unable to perform the tasks of daily living and was completely dependent on his parents and girlfriend for his care and supervision. The Petitioner was toileted, bathed, and dressed by his parents and his girlfriend. The Petitioner could not walk without assistance. All of the Petitioner's meals were prepared for him. The Petitioner would become obsessive over minor things, easily agitated, and frequently combative. The Petitioner had violent outbursts which required all three of his caretakers to physically restrain him. If left unattended at meals, the Petitioner would overeat until he would vomit. The Petitioner gained a life-threatening 100 pounds over this period. Beyond the most basic level, the Petitioner could not use a computer, play video games, or engage in an active social life, much less skateboard or participate in any of the other physical activities he once enjoyed. The Petitioner spent the majority of his time at home with his parents and girlfriend watching television, with occasional supervised trips outside the home. On June 12, 2013, the Petitioner filed suit against Eddie Ellison and Alberta Ellison in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No: 13-CA-008277 ("the underlying lawsuit"), seeking to recover damages in excess of $15,000. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the following: medical expenses incurred in the past; medical expenses to be incurred in the future; lost earnings incurred in the past; loss of earning capacity in the future; property damage incurred in the past; pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life sustained in the past; and pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life to be sustained in the future. The Petitioner also seeks to recover costs incurred by the Petitioner in the underlying lawsuit, pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate for actual, out-of-pocket pecuniary losses from the date of the loss, and attorney's fees to the extent allowed by law. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner sued his uninsured motorist carrier, 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company (21st Century), seeking to recover $10,000 in uninsured motorist benefits owed to the Petitioner under an automobile insurance policy paid for by the Petitioner's parents, Richard and Linda Willoughby. The insurer denied coverage and refused to pay the uninsured motorist benefits. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner also sued 21st Century for violation of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, seeking to recover the total amount of the Petitioner's damages from 21st Century as provided in section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner also sought to recover from 21st Century applicable pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees pursuant to sections 624.155, 627.727(10), and 627.428 and taxable costs. On February 13, 2015, the Petitioner agreed to settle his claims against 21st Century for $4,000,000. The Petitioner received the settlement proceeds from 21st Century on March 16, 2015. On March 20, 2015, the Petitioner and 21st Century filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the Petitioner’s claims against 21st Century with prejudice. As of March 20, 2015, the Petitioner had incurred a total of $50,375.32 in taxable costs, which the Petitioner repaid to the Petitioner's counsel out of the 21st Century settlement proceeds. On May 14, 2015, a total of $147,844.16 was transferred into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of the agency's right to benefits under section 409.910. The parties to this proceeding stipulated that, of the $4 million paid by 21st Century, $3.99 million was “bad faith damages,” paid to settle the Petitioner's claim for damages under section 627.727(10), on account of 21st Century's wrongful failure to pay the Petitioner's uninsured motorist claim and other violations of section 624.155. The settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century does not specifically attribute any of the $4 million settlement amount to “bad faith” and states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The settlement agreement further states as follows: The parties agree and acknowledge that this agreement is a settlement of claims which are contested and disputed. Any payments are not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of 21st Century, which expressly denies any liability for this action. The Petitioner also received a total of $20,000 from Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, reflecting the $10,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance and $10,000 limit of uninsured motorist coverage under the automobile insurance policy that insured the driver of the Ford Mustang, Kayliegh Lewis, at the time of the crash. The Petitioner's claims against Eddie Ellison and Alberta S. Ellison remain pending in the underlying lawsuit. As of the July 30, 2015, filing of the Pre-hearing Stipulation, the Ellisons' insurer has only offered the $100,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance to settle all of the Petitioner's claims against the Ellisons. The $4,020,000 paid to the Petitioner does not fully compensate him for the full monetary value of all of his damages. The full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages is at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages was at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner had suffered not less than $23,800 in lost wages. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's work life expectancy through age 67 was 45 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's loss of future earning capacity was within the range of $794,135.92 and $2,093,950.12. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future medical expenses were projected to exceed $5 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's past non-economic damages exceeded $1 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's life expectancy was 59.7 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future non-economic damages were within the range of $5 million to $10 million. Although the parties to this proceeding stipulated that the Petitioner has recovered less than $147,019.61 as payment for past medical expenses, the settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The Petitioner is no longer eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid has not paid or committed to pay any funds for the Petitioner's future medical care.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent condominium association should have assessed unit owners, in proportionate shares, to pay for the replacement of hurricane-damaged balcony screens, in accordance with Petitioner's policy that repair costs which do not exceed an insurance deductible are "costs of insurance" that must be paid as "common expenses" regardless of what the declaration of condominium provides concerning reconstruction or repair after a casualty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fountains South Condominium No. 3C Association, Inc. ("Association") is the entity responsible for operating the Fountains South Condominium No. 3C ("Condominium"). As such, the Association is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes ("Division"). The Condominium was created——and continues to be governed by——a Declaration of Fountains South Condominium No. 3C ("Declaration"), which instrument was recorded, in 1987, in the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida. On October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma struck Palm Beach County, causing damage to elements of the Condominium. The damaged property included some portions of the "Common Elements." Also damaged were some parts of the "Limited Common Elements." (The terms "Common Elements" and "Limited Common Elements" are defined in the Declaration, the relevant provisions of which will be set forth verbatim below. Generally speaking, though, the Common Elements comprise all of the property of which the Condominium is composed except for that included within the residential units. The Limited Common Elements, which are a subset of the Common Elements, consist of properties or structures whose use is reserved to a particular unit or units to the exclusion of other units.) Fulfilling a statutory obligation (that will be discussed in detail below), the Association had purchased property insurance to protect the Common Elements and Limited Common Elements. Issued by Nutmeg Insurance Company ("Nutmeg"), Policy No. SW 0000071 (the "Policy") provided coverage to the Association for loss or damage to property from multiple risks, including hurricanes. The premium for the Policy——the effective dates of which were from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2005——was $395,000. The Policy provided for various deductibles depending on the cause of the covered loss. For loss or damage caused by a hurricane, the deductible was 5 percent of the value of the insured property. It is undisputed that, at the time of Hurricane Wilma, this deductible was approximately a quarter of a million dollars. Under the relevant provisions of the Policy, therefore, Nutmeg would not be obligated to indemnify the Association for any loss or damage caused by Hurricane Wilma unless and until the total losses from that particular occurrence exceeded (roughly) $250,000. The Association paid about $5,000 to repair the damage that Hurricane Wilma caused to the Common Elements, using funds on hand that had been saved for such contingencies. Because this expense was far below the applicable deductible, the Association did not submit a claim to Nutmeg. The Association's position regarding the damage to the Limited Common Elements, consistent with its longstanding view of such matters, was that the costs of repairing or replacing such properties should be borne by the respective unit owners to whose exclusive use the damaged elements were reserved. The Association based its position on a provision of the Declaration (which will be quoted below) that assigns the general responsibility for maintenance and repair of the units, together with the Limited Common Elements appurtenant thereto, to the respective unit owners. At the time of Hurricane Wilma, Haskell and Flora Ginns (the "Ginns") owned Unit No. 201 in the Condominium. (As of the final hearing, the Ginns were still the owners of this unit.) The hurricane caused damage both to their unit and to the screens surrounding the balcony outside their unit. It is undisputed that the balcony and screens appurtenant to the Ginns' unit are part of the Limited Common Elements. The Ginns submitted a claim for these losses to their insurer, Allstate Floridian Insurance Company ("Allstate"). By letter dated January 7, 2006, Allstate denied the portion of the Ginns' claim relating to the damaged screens, asserting that the screens were not covered property under the Ginns' policy because they were within the "insuring responsibility" of the Association. The Ginns did not protest Allstate's decision in this regard. (Allstate paid the full policy limit of nearly $30,000 on the Ginns' claim anyway; thus, its denial of coverage for the damaged screens actually had no effect on the reimbursement that the Ginns received from Allstate.) The Ginns then wrote a letter to the Association's president, Milton Kutzin, requesting that the Association pay to replace the damaged screens. Dated January 16, 2006,i the letter reads as follows: Dear Milton: As you may be aware, the screens on the deck of our condo were severely damaged because of Hurricane Wilma. According to the attached memo, the condo is responsible for replacing them. For your information, my insurance company, Allstate Floridian, has refused payment and has advised us that our condo association is responsible (by law) to replace them. We do have an estimate to replace the screens. I shall be happy to discuss this matter with you at any time. Please let me know approximately when this matter will be settled. (The "attached memo" to which the Ginns referred purports to be an undated letter from the Director of Maintenance of Versailles Court (evidently a residential community) to the homeowners of that project, clarifying the responsibilities of the homeowners, on the one hand, and their homeowners' association, on the other, vis-à-vis maintenance obligations. As far as the undersigned can tell, this Versailles Court memorandum has no bearing whatsoever on the issues at hand.) If the Association responded in writing to the Ginns' letter of January 16, 2006, the document is not in evidence. In any event, the Association refused to repair the screens surrounding the Ginns' balcony because (a) it believed that the Ginns were responsible, under the Declaration, for the cost of such repair and (b) the total losses to the Common Elements and Limited Common Elements (including the screens in question) did not come near the deductible under the Nutmeg Policy, meaning that there were no insurance proceeds to distribute to unit owners for repairs to Limited Common Elements. On January 18, 2006, the Ginns paid a company called Rainguard, Inc. either $1,100 or $1,200 to replace the damaged screens around "their" balcony.ii Meantime, on January 13, 2006, the Division rendered a Declaratory Statement in In Re Petition for Declaratory Statement of Plaza East Association, Inc., Docket No. 2005059934, Final Order No. BPR-2006-00239 (DBPR Jan. 13, 2006)(the "Plaza East Declaration"). In the Plaza East Declaration, the Division made a number of statements concerning the meaning and effect of certain provisions of the Florida Condominium Act ("Act") pertaining to the duties of condominium associations as they relate to property insurance. These statements will be examined in greater detail below. For now, it suffices to quote several sentences that form the core of the Division's policy regarding the scope of an association's "insuring responsibilities": As association is not required to insure 100% of the replacement cost of the condominium property, but must have adequate insurance to replace the property destroyed by a hurricane. The board may include reasonable deductibles in replacement value insurance policies. § 718.111(11)(a), Fla. Stat. A deductible amount is part of the cost of insurance and is a common expense for which reserves might be set aside. § 718.111(11), 718.115, Fla. Stat. As such, an association may not shift the cost of an insurance common expense to an individual unit owner as common expenses must be assessed in the proportions or percentages required under sections 718.104(4)(f), 718.116(9), Florida Statutes. [An association therefore] may not shift the cost of the deductible, a common expense, to only those unit owners whose windows were damaged by the insurable event such as a hurricane. Plaza East Declaration at 16 (emphasis added). The Plaza East Declaration reflected——and continues to be authoritative regarding——the Division's firmly fixed policy, which is that the deductible under a property insurance policy is a "cost" that an association must incur, using common funds collected through proportionate-share assessments. The Division's expert witness made this clear, giving the following testimony (which the undersigned accepts as credible) in deposition: Q. Doesn't [the] Plaza East [Declaration] declare that a deductible is a common expense? A. Well, it makes the deductible a common expense because insurance is a common expense and the deductible is just a part of the insurance purchase decision. * * * Q. Let me ask you this: Is there anything in [the Act] that clearly states that a casualty loss insurance deductible is a common expense? A. No, sir, there's nothing [in the statutes] that specifically says that. Q. But [the] Plaza East [Declaration] says that, doesn't it? A. Plaza East says that, yes, sir. Q. So that's a policy of the Department? A. Yes, sir, that is. Q. And it's a general policy, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it's a general policy that would apply to any condominium in South Florida regardless of what the declaration of condominium said? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that's being applied in this case, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Deposition of James T. Harrison, Jr. (10/29/07) at 20-21. At some point after the issuance of the Plaza East Declaration, the Ginns sought the Division's help in persuading the Association to reimburse them for the new screens. The Division informed the Ginns of the Plaza East Declaration. Armed with this information, the Ginns again pressed the Association to reimburse them for replacing the screens. The Association, again, declined. By letter dated May 3, 2006, the Ginns made a formal complaint to the Division regarding the Association's refusal to pay for the replacement of the screens. The Division acted promptly, completing its investigation into the matter on or before May 10, 2006. Siding with the Ginns, the Division demanded, in a letter dated May 22, 2006, that the Association either reimburse the Ginns or (possibly) be fined. Yet, the Association resisted. On July 28, 2006, the Division entered a Notice to Show Cause against the Association, charging as follows: Count 1: Respondent [Association], in violation of section 718.115(2), Florida Statutes, failed to asses unit owners in their proportionate shares for the common expense insurance deductible to repair damage to condominium property caused by a hazard to be insured by Respondent under section 718.111(11), Florida Statutes. The Respondent refused to treat the hurricane damage to the wrap-a-round deck and screens in unit #201 as a common expense covered by the association's policy under sections 718.111(11) and 718.115(1), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Respondent failed to reimburse Haskell Ginns and Flora Ginns for damage sustained by Hurricane Wilma to their wrap-a-round screens. Since the May 22, 2006, warning letter, the complainants have replaced their wrap-a- round deck screens at a cost of $1,200.00 and have requested reimbursement from Respondent. The Association demanded a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order rescinding the Notice to Show Cause and exonerating the Association of the charge of failing to assess unit owners, in proportionate shares, to pay the cost of repairing or replacing Limited Common Elements damaged during Hurricane Wilma. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 10th day of January, 2008.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Mr. Hannifin was licensed by the Department as a resident Life Agent, Life and Health Agent, General Lines (Property and Casualty Insurance) Agent, and Health Agent. Mr. Hannifin's license identification number is A110269. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hannifin was licensed by the State of Florida as an insurance agent. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hannifin was the president of Hannifin & Associates, Inc. He was the only insurance agent in Hannifin & Associates. An investigator with the Department investigated several complaints against Mr. Hannifin. The investigator tape recorded Mr. Hannifin's statement on September 3, 2003, after informing Mr. Hannifin of his Miranda rights and having Mr. Hannifin execute a Miranda warning card. During the statement, the investigator presented several documents to Mr. Hannifin and asked him several questions regarding the documents. The investigator testified at hearing and the tape recording was received into evidence. As to the identification of those documents, the undersigned finds the investigator's testimony credible. Mr. Hannifin made admissions during the taped statement2 (Statement). The undersigned finds the Statement credible. The undersigned took official recognition of a criminal matter involving Mr. Hannifin, regarding the issues in the Administrative Complaint, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit: State of Florida v. Mark Dwain Hannifin, Case No. 03-0112566CFA02. In the Information filed in the court case on October 28, 2003, Mr. Hannifin was charged with two counts of misappropriation of insurance funds (Counts 1 and 2) and four counts of uttering a forgery (Counts 3-6). Pertinent to this matter, Count 2 of the Information involved Madd Dogs Installation, Inc. (Madd Dogs Install'n); Count 3 involved Double A Industries (Double A); Count 4 involved Rockwell Development Company (Rockwell Development); and Count 6 involved Royal Professional Builders, Inc. (Royal Professional Builders). Subsequently, Mr. Hannifin entered into a Pretrial Intervention Program, Deferred Prosecution Agreement on all counts, filed in the court case on April 12, 2005, in which, among other things, prosecution was deferred for a period of 12 months provided Mr. Hannifin abided by certain agreed conditions. COUNT I On or about September 20, 2001, Timothy McClure and Brett Carnahan of Madd Dogs Install'n met with Mr. Hannifin at his office.3 They sought to obtain workers' compensation insurance and commercial general liability insurance for Madd Dogs Install'n. Messrs. McClure and Carnahan agreed to obtain the workers' compensation insurance and commercial general liability insurance for Madd Dogs Install'n from Mr. Hannifin. The workers' compensation insurance was to be provided by Florida United Businesses Associations, Inc. (FUBA), and the commercial general liability insurance was to be provided by Burlington Insurance Company (BIC). On that same day, Messrs. McClure and Carnahan completed the applications for the insurance. Mr. Hannifin received from Messrs. McClure and Carnahan a partial premium payment for the workers' compensation insurance in the amount of $1,205.70 in cash; a premium payment for the commercial general liability insurance in the amount of $453.00 in cash; and an application fee for membership in FUBA in the amount of $50.00 in cash. Mr. Hannifin deposited the monies received into the business account of Hannifin & Associates. Hannifin & Associates sent Madd Dogs Install'n four invoices for monthly premiums relating to the workers' compensation insurance. Between November 2001 and February 2002, Madd Dogs Install'n, by and through Mr. McClure by check, made four monthly payments on the premiums due for the workers' compensation insurance. The payments were deposited into the business account of Hannifin & Associates. Mr. Hannifin failed to remit any of the payments from Madd Dogs Install'n to BIC, to FUBA or to any other insurance company. Mr. Hannifin never obtained the workers' compensation insurance and the commercial general liability insurance for Madd Dogs Install'n. Mr. Hannifin admitted in his Statement that, due to cash flow problems, he diverted the monies paid by Madd Dogs Install'n to his own use. Mr. Hannifin admitted in his Statement that he did not return the money to Mr. McClure.4 Among the conditions provided in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement was that Mr. Hannifin would pay Mr. McClure $8,763.60. COUNT II Mr. Hannifin issued to Madd Dogs Install'n a Certificate of Liability Insurance (Certificate). The date on the Certificate was November 28, 2001. The Certificate provided, among other things, that the insured was Madd Dogs Install'n; that the insurers were BIC for commercial general liability coverage and FUBA for workers' compensation coverage; that the policy number for the commercial general liability was B20394871; that the policy number for the workers' compensation coverage was F4673920; that the coverage period for the policy was September 20, 2001 through September 20, 2002; that the certificate holder was Rockwell Development; and that the "Certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. . . ." Mr. Hannifin signed the Certificate, as the authorized representative. Madd Dogs Install'n provided a copy of the Certificate to Rockwell Development. Before permitting subcontractors to perform work on its projects, Rockwell Development requires the subcontractors to provided proof of insurance. Madd Dogs Install'n was a subcontractor of Rockwell Development. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that, without the Certificate, Rockwell Development would not allow Madd Dogs Install'n to perform any work at its (Rockwell Development) projects. Mr. Hannifin knew that Rockwell Development would receive a copy of the Certificate.5 Count II contains an allegation that Mr. Hannifin furnished a copy of the Certificate to Rockwell Development. The evidence failed to demonstrate that Mr. Hannifin or anyone in his office, which would satisfy showing that he furnished the Certificate, furnished the copy to Rockwell Development. However, failure to prove this allegation is inconsequential in that the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Hannifin knew that a copy of the Certificate would be furnished to Rockwell Development whether he, or someone in his office, or Madd Dogs Install'n furnished the copy. Madd Dogs Install'n was not insured with either BIC or FUBA. Mr. Hannifin knew that Madd Dogs Install'n did not become, and was not, insured by either BIC or FUBA. He did nothing to cure the non-insurance coverage. Further, as a result, Mr. Hannifin knew that the policy numbers for coverage were nonexistent and, therefore, false. The Certificate was a false material statement. COUNT III Mr. Hannifin issued to Madd Dogs Install'n a Certificate. The date on the Certificate was March 21, 2002. The Certificate provided, among other things, that the insured was Madd Dogs Install'n; that the insurers were BIC for commercial general liability coverage and FUBA for workers' compensation coverage; that the policy number for the commercial general liability was B958477322; that the policy number for the workers' compensation coverage was F4673920; that the coverage period for the policy was September 20, 2001 through September 20, 2002; that the certificate holder was Double A; and that the "Certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. . . ." Mr. Hannifin signed the Certificate, as the authorized representative. Before permitting subcontractors to perform work on its projects, Double A requires the subcontractors to provided proof of insurance. Madd Dogs Install'n was a subcontractor of Double A. Based on the evidence presented, an inference is drawn and a finding is made that Mr. Hannifin provided a copy of the Certificate to Double A.6 An inference is drawn and a finding is made that, without the Certificate, Double A would not allow Madd Dogs Install'n to perform any work at its (Double A) projects. Mr. Hannifin knew that Double A would receive a copy of the Certificate. Madd Dogs Install'n was not insured with either BIC or FUBA. Mr. Hannifin knew that Madd Dogs Install'n did not become, and was not, insured by either BIC or FUBA. He did nothing to cure the non-insurance coverage. Further, as a result, Mr. Hannifin knew that the policy numbers for coverage were nonexistent. The Certificate was a false material statement. COUNT IV Mr. Hannifin issued to R. K. Drywall7 a Certificate. The date on the Certificate was August 26, 2002. The Certificate provided, among other things, that the insured was R. K. Drywall; that the insurer was Florida Citrus Association (FCA), which is also FUBA, for workers' compensation coverage; that the policy number for the workers' compensation coverage was FLWC96850049; that the coverage period for the policy was August 17, 2002 through August 17, 2003; that the certificate holder was Royal Professional Builders; and that the "Certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. " Mr. Hannifin signed the Certificate, as the authorized representative. Mr. Hannifin did not forward any money to FCA for the workers' compensation coverage. R. K. Drywall was not insured by FCA. Mr. Hannifin knew that R. K. Drywall did not become, and was not, insured by FCA. He did nothing to cure the non- insurance coverage. Further, as a result, Mr. Hannifin knew that the policy number for coverage was nonexistent. The Certificate was a false material statement. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that, without the Certificate, Royal Professional Builders would not allow R. K. Drywall to perform any work at its (Royal Professional Builders) projects. Mr. Hannifin admitted in his Statement that he furnished Royal Professional Builders a copy of the Certificate. Mr. Hannifin also admitted in his Statement that he returned to R. K. Drywall all the monies paid to him. Count IV contains an allegation that Mr. Hannifin signed and furnished the Certificate to Royal Professional Builders on August 26, 2001, instead of August 26, 2002. In the proposed findings of fact of the Department's post-hearing submission, the Department again refers to the date as August 26, 2001, in spite of the evidence to the contrary; and, as supported by the evidence, refers to the year of another Certificate, showing R. K. Drywall as the insured and Badger Homes, Inc., as the certificate holder, as 2002. At no time did the Department make a request to declare the year of 2001 as a scrivener's error and to amend the Administrative Complaint accordingly. Taking into consideration that the burden of proof is upon the Department by clear and convincing evidence and taking into consideration the evidence presented at hearing and the Department's post-hearing submission, the undersigned considers the year of 2001 in the Administrative Complaint to be critical and not a harmless error. Therefore, the undersigned finds that the Department failed to show that the Certificate's date was August 26, 2001, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order: Finding that Mark D. Hannifin committed the following violations: Count I--violated Sections 626.611(7), (9) and (10) and 626.621(2) (by failing to comply with Section 626.561(1)), Florida Statutes (2001); and Counts II and III-- violated Sections 626.611(7) and (9), and 626.621(6) (by engaging in or committing the methods or acts or practices defined in Section 626.9541(1)(e)1.b. ,c., and e.), Florida Statutes (2001); and Revoking the licenses and appointments of Mark D. Hannifin. S DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ERROL H. POWELL 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 5th day of December, 2005.
