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 Whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive Health Insurance Subsidy payments retroactive to July 1995, the month she began to receive retirement benefits from the Respondent as the surviving spouse of a member of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Based on 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: The Division is, and was at the times material to this case, the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Florida retirement and pension systems. Section 121.025, Florida Statutes (1995). The Division is, and was at the times material to this case, also responsible for administering the Retiree Health Insurance Subsidy. Section 112.363(7), Florida Statutes (1995). Harold Mosser, the former husband of Mrs. Kirkley, retired from his job as a school principal in August 1979, and he was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Mosser received a monthly state retirement benefit, and, as a supplement to the retirement benefit, he received a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley retired from her job as a schoolteacher in 1989, and she is a member of the Florida Retirement System. Since her retirement, Mrs. Kirkley has received a monthly state retirement benefit and a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy. Mr. Mosser died on April 28, 1995. Mrs. Kirkley did not advise the Division of Mr. Mosser's death. Rather, the Division learned of his death in July 1995, when conducting a routine check of the Bureau of Vital Statistics "death tape." As Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse and the person he named as his joint annuitant, Mrs. Kirkley was entitled to receive an "Option 3" monthly retirement benefit for the remainder of her lifetime, pursuant to Section 121.09, Florida Statutes (1995). Mrs. Kirkley was also eligible to receive a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy upon filing an application for the subsidy with the Division, and this benefit included payment of the subsidy from the date of Mr. Mosser's death or for the six months prior to the date the application was filed.1 In a Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments dated 1/31/95, the components of Mr. Mossers's monthly retirement benefit payments were identified. At the time of his death, Mr. Mosser received a gross monthly retirement benefit of $1,730.60, plus a Health Insurance Subsidy of $90.00, minus $250.00 withholding tax, for total net monthly benefits of $1,570.60. Because the Division did not learn of Mr. Mosser's death until July 1995, his monthly benefit check was issued in May and June 1995 and electronically deposited in NationsBank. When the Division learned of Mr. Mosser's death, a Division representative tried to reach Mrs. Kirkley by telephone but could not obtain her unlisted telephone number. The representative then sent Mrs. Kirkley a letter dated July 20, 1995, in which the representative advised Mrs. Kirkley that Mr. Mosser's estate was entitled to receive his benefits for the month of April 1995 in the net amount of $1,570.60 and that she must apply for a continuing monthly benefit as Mr. Mosser's designated beneficiary. The representative also advised Mrs. Kirkley to complete the Division Form FST-11b that was enclosed with the letter and to return it to the Division together with Mr. Mosser's death certificate. Mrs. Kirkley completed the form enclosed with the letter and mailed it to the Division as directed. The Division changed Mr. Mosser's account over to Mrs. Kirkley, and she began receiving a monthly retirement benefit check in October 1995.2 Mr. Mosser's Health Insurance Subsidy was terminated effective July 1995, and the net monthly benefit received by Mrs. Kirkley as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary did not include a Health Insurance Subsidy payment. It is the Division's practice to send each retiree added to the system a "retiree packet" that includes, among other things, an application for the Health Insurance Subsidy and an explanation of the subsidy, as well as a booklet containing an explanation of all of the benefits available to retirees and beneficiaries under the Florida Retirement System. The process of sending out the retiree packets is automated, so that a packet is sent to every retiree and beneficiary when they are first entered into the system. Pursuant to the Division's regular practice, Mrs. Kirkley would have been sent the retiree packet in October 1995, when she was added to the system as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary. The Division also sends retirees and beneficiaries an annual newsletter, and the Health Insurance Subsidy was discussed in the 1995 and 1996 newsletters. Mrs. Kirkley received a Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments, as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary, each July, December, and January. This statement includes a separate entry for the Health Insurance Subsidy, with the amount of the subsidy noted; Mrs. Kirkley would have been aware of this entry because the Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments that she had been receiving on her own account would have shown an amount paid as her Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley received her first statement in December 1995, and it would have been apparent from the statement that no amount was included for the Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley does not recall having any direct contact with the Division between the time she submitted her application for the retirement benefit as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary and late September 1997, when she called the Division to request that the monthly check be electronically deposited in her bank account. During the conversation in September 1997, the Division's representative advised Mrs. Kirkley that she was entitled to receive a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, in addition to the monthly retirement benefit she received as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary. The representative told Mrs. Kirkley that she would send her an application for the Health Insurance Subsidy, which the representative did in September 1997. Mrs. Kirkley completed the application she received from the Division and sent it to the Division with a cover letter dated October 17, 1997. The application required certification of health insurance coverage, which Mrs. Kirkley satisfied by attaching a copy of her Medicare Health Insurance card. Mrs. Kirkley did not hear anything from the Division for quite a long time. She contacted the Division and was told that they had not received her application for the Health Insurance Subsidy. The Division sent her another application form, which she completed and sent to the Division in January 1998, and she began receiving a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse; she also received retroactive benefits effective July 1997 through December 1997, a period of six months prior to January 1998. The Division eventually located Mrs. Kirkley's October 1997 application, and it advised her in a letter dated April 6, 1998, that she would receive retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments for an additional three months, moving the effective date of her entitlement to the benefits back to April 1997. Including the retroactive benefits she received, Mrs. Kirkley has been receiving a Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse since April 1997. She also had the benefit of Mr. Mosser's May and June 1995 Health Insurance Subsidy, which were paid by the Division because it was not aware that Mr. Mosser was deceased. Mrs. Kirkley seeks to recover an additional $1890.00 in retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, which is the difference between the total Health Insurance Subsidy payments she has received and the total Health Insurance Subsidy payments she would have received had the benefits been paid to her retroactive to Mr. Mosser's death (21 months x $90.00 per month = $1890.00). Summary The evidence presented by Mrs. Kirkley is insufficient to establish her entitlement to retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments from July 1995 to March 1997. It is uncontroverted that she submitted her application for the Health Insurance Subsidy with her certification of health insurance coverage in October 1997 and that the Division paid retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments for the six months prior to the date it received the application. In addition, Mrs. Kirkley has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Division should be required to pay her the additional retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments because it failed to send her an application until September 1997. The Division did not make any specific representations to her regarding her entitlement to the Health Insurance Subsidy payments until September 1997, and she failed to establish by the greater weight of the credible evidence that she did not receive any general information from the Division that included information regarding the Health Insurance Subsidy. In addition, Mrs. Kirkley knew or should have known in December 1995 that she was not receiving a Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, when she received her first statement detailing the components of her gross monthly benefit as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary, and she could have made inquiry of the Division at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Review of Final Agency Action filed by Mary J. Mosser, now known as Mary J. Kirkley. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 20th day of November, 2001.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent violated provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 9, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, is the regulatory agency which is authorized to, and regulates the insurance industry in the State of Florida. Respondent, Shirley Ann Cramer, during times material, was licensed by Petitioner as a Series 218 and 220 licensee (life and health and property and casualty insurance), respectively. On September 28, 1990, Petitioner entered a final order imposing a disciplinary suspension for a period of one year effective September 28, 1990 (Case No. 89-L-413RCB) of all licenses issued to Respondent. On October 13, 1990, Respondent's counsel, John Waller, advised Respondent that Petitioner had suspended her license and that he would appeal the matter if she desired, however he advised that to do so would require a substantial cash outlay. Waller suggested that they consider that option, and, to that end, Respondent scheduled an appointment to discuss whether or not an appeal would be feasible. Waller advised Respondent that she had until October 28, 1990, to file her appeal. Respondent received a copy of the final order on or about October 25, 1990. Respondent ordered a copy of that order from Petitioner, by Federal Express delivery. On the following day, October 26, 1990, Respondent filed a pro se notice of appeal and submitted the necessary filing fee of $250. Subsequent thereto, Respondent contacted another attorney who had been formerly employed by the Department of Professional Regulation, Drucilla Bell, and the possibilities of an appeal was discussed with Ms. Bell. During late December, a fee arrangement was agreed upon, and Respondent paid Bell a down payment of $2500 to initially file a brief and a motion to stay the suspension pending the outcome of the appeal. Motions to stay the suspension were filed, both with Petitioner and with the Second District Court of Appeal. On February 6, 1990, Petitioner entered an order denying a stay of the final order, and on February 8, 1990, Respondent's counsel, Bell, filed a Petition For Supersedeas response to the Petition In Opposition To Stay Pending Appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal wherein she requested a grant of her motion. On February 14, 1991, the Second District Court of Appeal denied Respondent's Petition For Supersedeas. On October 10, 1990, Respondent, based on a referral by an associate, Gary Bingham, contacted Kenneth Newsome, the owner of Apollo International Incorporated, d/b/a Alpha Metal Products, located in Clearwater, Florida (herein Apollo) for the purpose of obtaining workers' compensation insurance. To that end, on October 17, 1990, Respondent received a premium payment check from Apollo in the amount of $5547.22 for workers' compensation insurance. Respondent initiated efforts to place coverage for Apollo by working up a rate quote based on the Form 940's which were submitted by Apollo's bookkeeper. Apollo's check was returned for insufficient funds after being deposited in the account of Respondent's insurance agency, A.S.A.P. On or about November 28, 1990, Apollo provided Respondent another check in the amount of $3000 as a premium payment for Apollo's workers' compensation insurance. That check was also deposited in A.S.A.P.'s account which was a premium trust account for customer funds. On two occasions during December 1990, to wit, December 6 and December 27, the balance on that account went below $3000. After receiving the $3000 check as payment toward Apollo's insurance, Respondent advised Apollo's owner, Newsome, that an additional premium was due based on an audit of the most recent Form 940's by the issuing carrier, the Florida assigned risk plan, and Newsome complained about the payment of any additional premium monies. During this period of time, Respondent received two telephone calls from entities who needed verification that Apollo had in fact obtained workers' compensation insurance. Respondent took those calls and advised the inquirers that a procedure was in place to obtain that coverage for Apollo. On October 7, 1990, when Agent Bingham advised Respondent that Apollo needed assistance in obtaining workers' compensation insurance she was being visited by Horace Smith, an insurance producer who was making a routine call and trying to market new business. Mr. Smith is a marketing manager for Guardian Property and Casualty, TransFlorida Casualty Insurance Company. Mr. Smith is the holder of an 055 series administrative license. Smith has been licensed in Florida since 1946. Smith has known Respondent approximately 18 years. Smith visited with Respondent at the Apollo site to determine whether or not that risk would be a coverage that his company was interested in writing. Smith inspected Apollo's premises and indicated a possibility of writing the commercial auto and commercial fire and general liability for Apollo when the existing coverage expired. Throughout the course of events, Respondent was under the impression both from her counsels Waller and Bell, that she could continue writing business during the pendency of her appeal. Respondent did not engage in any further acts of transacting insurance business other than the Apollo workers' compensation account. Respondent's failure to place insurance for Apollo was based on Apollo's failure to pay the premiums due. Respondent returned the unused premium to Apollo, although there was a slight delay in doing so. In this regard, Respondent had made repeated requests to Apollo to submit the additional premium monies, and within a month after the last demand was made and when the premiums were not remitted, Apollo received a return premium payment from Respondent within 30 days. Respondent attempted to complete the application for the Apollo worker's compensation insurance coverage. To this end, she visited the site and used all the documentation necessary to prepare a quote which was based on the requisite payroll information supplied by Apollo. The Apollo transaction was initiated prior to Respondent's receipt of the Final Order suspending her licenses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings: Paragraph 1, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, Recommended Order. Paragraph 2, Recommended Order. adopted as modified, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, Recommended Order. adopted as modified, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 8, Recommended Order. adopted as modified, Paragraph 9, Paragraph 9, rejected, contrary to the weight of evidence, Paragraphs 7, 11 and 18, Recommended Order. Paragraph 10, adopted as relevant, Paragraph 19, Recommended Order. Remainder rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 7, 11, 12, 14 and 18, Recommended Order. Paragraph 11, rejected, unnecessary. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings: Respondent's proposed findings are accepted and are substantially incorporated in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings not found herein were deemed irrelevant and were unnecessary to resolve the issues posed. COPIES FURNISHED: David D. Hershel, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Peter C. Clement, Esquire 2650 Tampa Road, Suite A Palm Harbor, FL 34684 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2017), by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.1/
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in chapter 440. On September 14, 2017, Investigator Murvin conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check at a residential construction site at 8256 Lake James Drive in Lakeland, Florida. During the course of the compliance check, Investigator Murvin observed two individuals--Donald Steven Paul, Jr. and Dean Wayne Paul--painting the home. It is undisputed that Respondent had been subcontracted to perform painting services at this site; and that these two individuals were, at the time of Investigator Murvin’s visit, employed by Respondent. After speaking to Donald and Dean Paul, Investigator Murvin used the Department’s database to verify that Respondent did not have workers’ compensation insurance coverage, nor did Donald or Dean Paul have an exemption from the coverage requirements. Donald Paul admitted to Investigator Murvin at the hearing that he did not have workers’ compensation coverage for himself or Dean Paul. Donald Paul explained that he believed that his incorporation with the state and securing of liability insurance provided compliance of all insurance requirements. Based on the information provided by Dean and Donald Paul, and from the database, Investigator Murvin issued a SWO to Respondent on the same day as the site visit. A Request for Production of Business Records was also issued to Respondent. In response to the request for documentation, Respondent provided bank statements that indicated the business began in August 1, 2016. The bank statements also established that there was money being deposited and being paid out, but there was no indication what the money was for or how it was allocated. In other words, there was no way to discern whether the money paid out of the bank account was for employee salaries or other business expenses. In support of its Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Department prepared a penalty calculation worksheet showing a total penalty owed of $2,090.14. At the hearing, Respondent did not challenge the accuracy or method of calculating the assessed penalty, but only asserted that it believed it had the appropriate coverage and that the penalty was “too high.” Based on the evidence, it is clear Respondent provides construction services and has at least one employee; therefore, it was required to secure workers’ compensation insurance. The Department established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation as required by chapter 440. The Department has established through the records submitted and testimony of Auditor Murcia, the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage is $2,090.14 for the audit period of August 1, 2016, to August 14, 2017.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Donald Steven Paul d/b/a/ D. P. Painting of Lakeland, violated the provisions of chapter 440 by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation and assessing against Respondent a penalty in the amount of $2,090.14. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a Florida limited-liability company, organized in 2004. Salvador Rivera is one of the company's managers/officers. On or about February 27, 2009, Respondent secured workers' compensation insurance for its employees. The carrier was Guarantee Insurance Co. In a Notice of Termination of Workers' Compensation Insurance dated August 10, 2009, Guarantee Insurance Co. advised Petitioner and Respondent that Respondent's workers' compensation insurance would be cancelled on August 25, 2009. Guarantee Insurance Co. issued the notice because Respondent had not paid its insurance premium. Some time after receiving the notice from its insurer, Respondent received a check from Brantley Custom Homes. Mr. Rivera deposited the check into Respondent's bank account. Mr. Rivera then wrote a check to Guarantee Insurance Co. for the workers' compensation insurance premium. Mark Piazza is one of Petitioner's compliance investigators. On September 25, 2009, Mr. Piazza conducted a routine compliance check in the Southwood subdivision of Tallahassee, Florida. During the compliance check, Mr. Piazza noticed a new home under construction. He saw two men, Gilberto Torres and Saturino Gonzalez, doing carpentry work at the building site. Under the Scopes Manual, carpentry is identified as construction work under the class code 5645. During an interview with the two men, Mr. Piazza learned that they were employed by Respondent. Mr. Rivera confirmed by telephone that Respondent employed the two men. Mr. Rivera believed that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage on September 25, 2009. Mr. Rivera was not aware that the check from Brantley Custom Homes had bounced, resulting in insufficient funds for Respondent's bank to pay Respondent's check to Guarantee Insurance Co. Mr. Piazza then contacted Respondent's local insurance agent and checked Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to verify Mr. Rivera's claim that Respondent had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Piazza subsequently correctly concluded that Respondent's insurance policy had been cancelled on August 25, 2009, due to the failure to pay the premium. On September 25, 2009, Mr. Piazza served Respondent with a Stop-work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. The penalty assessment was 1.5 times the amount of the insurance premium that Respondent should have paid from August 25, 2009, to September 24, 2009. After receiving the Stop-work Order on September 25, 2009, Brantley Custom Homes gave Respondent another check. Mr. Rivera then sent Guarantee Insurance Co. a second check to cover the premium with the understanding that there would be no lapse in coverage. On September 28, 2009, Guarantee Insurance Co. provided Respondent with a notice of Reinstatement or Withdrawal of Policy Termination. The notice states as follows: Our Notice of Termination, filed with the insured and the Department of Labor and Employment Security effective 8/25/2009 and or dated 8/10/2009, is hereby voided and coverage remains in effect for the employer identified below. There is no evidence to show whether Respondent had to sign a no-loss affidavit and submit it to Guarantee Insurance Co. before the insurer would reinstate the policy with no lapse. Such an affidavit usually states that the insured had no claims during the uninsured period, On September 29, 2009, Mr. Piazza served a second copy of the Stop-work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. At that time, Mr. Piazza also served Respondent with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with the records. On October 6, 2009, Mr. Piazza served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The assessed penalty was $3,566.27. The assessed penalty was based on Respondent's business records showing the following: (a) Respondent's total payroll from August 25, 2009, through September 24, 2009, was $15,280.00; (b) the total workers' compensation premium that Respondent should have paid for its employees during the relevant time period was $2,377.56; and (c) multiplying $2,377.56 by the statutory factor of 1.5 results in a penalty assessment in the amount of $3,566.37. On October 6, 2009, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. Respondent gave Petitioner $1,000 as a down payment on the assessed penalty. The balance of the penalty is to be paid in 60 monthly payments in the amount of $42.77 per month, with the exception of the last payment in the amount of $42.64 on November 1, 2014. On October 6, 2009, Petitioner issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-work Order. The conditional release states that it will be in place until Respondent pays the assessed penalty in full.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order affirming the Stop- work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $3,566.37. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvador Rivera Rivera Construction of North Florida, LLC 931 Rosemary Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Paige Billings Shoemaker, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Amjad Shamim, is eligible for continuation coverage of health insurance and reimbursement, under the State of Florida Employees Group Insurance Plan, for medical care expenses he incurred after he left state employment.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Shamim became a full-time employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in September, 1986, and worked at the Palm Beach County Health Department. Effective August 1, 1987, Mr. Shamim was insured with family coverage under the State of Florida, Employee Group Health Insurance Program. His enrollment continued until his insurance termination effective date of January 1, 1989. On November 15, 1988, Mr. Shamim met with Martina L. Walker, Personnel Technician I for HRS at the Palm Beach County Health Department, in connection with his decision to leave the Department's employ on November 18, 1988. At that meeting he executed the documents required by HRS to discontinue his health insurance coverage. As part of that November 15, 1988, conference, Martina Walker informed Mr. Shamim of his rights to continued health insurance coverage after his termination of employment. Mr. Shamim advised Ms. Walker that he no longer needed the State coverage because his new employer offered a health insurance plan to its employees. Ms. Walker, nonetheless, cautioned Mr. Shamim that any pre-existing conditions are usually not covered by new employer policies. Ms. Walker's notification of Mr. Shamim's right to continued health insurance coverage for up to 18 months was not in writing. Mrs. Walker never told Mr. Shamim orally the specifics of continuation coverage, i.e., that he had 60 days to elect continuation coverage from the coverage effective date of January 1, 1989, that his application and premium were required to be postmarked by March 1, 1989; or that he could continue his family coverage for 18 months at monthly premium of $273.01 per month. In addition to disclosures when an employee leaves, all employees of the Palm Beach County Health Department are advised of their opportunity to elect continuation coverage under the State Plan at the time of their employment, by means of a notice furnished by HRS. Mr. Shamim received a general notice of benefits, including the availability of post employment continuation coverage, at the time of his employment. The termination form completed by Ms. Walker was processed routinely, and caused the Division of State Employee Insurance to mail Mr. Shamim written notification by first class mail of the availability of continuation coverage in a letter dated December 1, 1988. Due to the appearance of the handwritten address on the notice mailed to Mr. Shamim, it is more likely than not that this notice failed to arrive at Mr. Shamim's home address. The portion of the address for the apartment number could be read as D201 or 2201, which would account for misdirection of the notice in the mail. Mr. Shamim's claim that he did not receive the notification is accepted. Had the notice been properly addressed and had he received it, Mr. Shamim would have had the opportunity to decide whether to exercise his legal right to continue his health insurance. On January 27, 1989, Mr. Shamim had surgery to his hand. He had been treated for that condition while he was employed with the Palm Beach County Health Department. Because it was deemed to be a pre-existing condition, the expense he incurred of almost $4,000 was not covered under the health insurance policy of his new employer. There is no evidence of the length of time the pre- existing condition exclusion in the policy offered by Mr. Shamim's new employer lasts. Mr. Shamim first notified HRS of his desire for post termination health insurance coverage on September 19, 1989. A second request was made on November 7, 1989. Finding no success with HRS, Mr. Shamim contacted the Respondent on December 29, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered accepting the request of Mr. Shamim for continuation coverage, accepting his premiums and processing his claim. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of November, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of November, 1990.
The Issue The issues presented are (1) whether Respondent properly secured the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage and, if not, what penalty is warranted for such failure; and (2) whether Respondent conducted business operations in violation of a stop-work order and, if so, what penalty is warranted for such violation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Georgia and engaged in the business of electrical work, which is a construction activity. On July 2, 2004, Petitioner's investigator Katina Johnson visited 6347 Collins Road, Jacksonville, Florida, on a random job site visit. Investigator Johnson inquired of Respondent's superintendent at the job site whether Respondent had secured the payment of workers’ compensation coverage. She was informed that Respondent had done so and was subsequently provided with a Certificate of Liability Insurance from Respondent’s agent in Georgia, the Cowart Insurance Agency, Inc. Investigator Johnson also obtained a copy of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance policy which had a policy period of September 23, 2003, to September 23, 2004. The policy and the information contained in the Certificate of Liability Insurance were not consistent. Keith Cowart, Respondent’s insurance underwriter in Georgia, testified in deposition that the certificate of insurance is not correct because it conflicts with Respondent’s workers’ compensation policy, 01-WC-975384-20, which does not have a Florida endorsement. Subsequent to the site visit, Investigator Johnson continued the investigation of Respondent utilizing the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database that contains information to show proof of coverage. She determined that Respondent did not have a Florida workers' compensation insurance policy. Johnson also checked the National Council for Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) database and further confirmed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation insurance policy for the State of Florida. Petitioner also maintains a database of all workers’ compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. In consulting that database, Johnson did not find any current, valid exemptions for Respondent. Florida law requires that an employer who has employees engaged in work in Florida must obtain a Florida workers’ compensation policy or endorsement for such employees utilizing Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals to be in compliance. Further, any policy or endorsement used by an employer to prove the fact of workers' compensation coverage for employees engaged in Florida work must be issued by an insurer that holds a valid certificate of authority in the State of Florida. The insurance policy held by Respondent did not satisfy these standards. First, Respondent's policy was written by Cowart Insurance Agency, a Georgia agency which was not authorized to write insurance in Florida. Second, the premium was based on a rate that was less than the Florida premium rate; the policy schedule of operations page shows that Safeco Business Insurance insured Respondent for operations under class codes utilizing Georgia premium rates. On July 6, 2004, Investigator Johnson received a copy of another insurance policy declaration page from the Cowart Insurance Agency for Respondent that still did not have Florida listed as a covered state under Section 3A. In fact, none of Respondent’s workers’ compensation policies had a Florida endorsement with Florida listed in Section 3A. On July 7, 2004, after consulting with her supervisor, Investigator Johnson issued and served on Respondent a stop-work order and order of penalty assessment for failure to comply with the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, specifically for failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation based on Florida class codes, rates, rules and manuals. After the issuance of the stop-work order, Respondent produced a certificate of insurance with a Florida endorsement that would allegedly confer workers’ compensation coverage retroactively for Respondent. Such retroactive coverage does not satisfy Respondent’s obligation. Employers on job sites in Florida are required to maintain business records that enable Petitioner to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. Investigator Johnson issued to Respondent a request for the production of business records on July 7, 2004. The request asked the employer to produce, for the preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll and proof of insurance. Respondent produced payroll records for a number of employees. On August 2, 2004, Investigator Johnson issued a second business records request to Respondent because she noticed that the names of the workers that she interviewed during her site visit were not the same as the list of employees submitted by Respondent. Respondent failed to produce the requested records. When an employer fails to provide requested business records which the statute requires it to maintain and to make available to the Department, effective October 1, 2003, the Department is authorized by Section 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes, to impute that employer's payroll using the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by l.5. Petitioner therefore imputed Respondent's payroll for the entire period for which the requested business records were not produced. From the payroll records provided by Respondent, and through imputation of payroll from October 1, 2003, the Department calculated a penalty for the time period of July 7, 2001, through July 7, 2004, by assigning a class code to the type of work utilizing the SCOPES Manual. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment which assessed a penalty of $115,456.14 was served on Respondent through its attorney on September 27, 2004. The Department issued and served on Respondent a second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on November 10, 2004, with the penalty imputed back three years to July 7, 2001. The Department assessed a penalty of $100 per day for each day prior to October 1, 2003, for a total of $216,794.50. On April 28, 2005, the Department issued to Respondent a third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment with an assessed penalty of $63,871.02. The reduction in the amount of penalty was due to the Department’s determination that it did not have the authority at the time to impute the $100 per day penalty prior to October 1, 2003. On July 7, 2005, Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order by the Department. Respondent made a down payment of ten percent of the assessed penalty; provided proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by obtaining a Florida endorsement on its workers’ compensation insurance policy; and agreed to pay the remaining penalty in sixty equal monthly payment installments. Respondent has since defaulted on those payments. Section 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to assess a penalty of $1,000 per day for each day that the employer conducts business operations in violation of a stop-work order. Several months after issuing the stop-work order, Investigator Johnson was informed that Respondent was conducting business operations in Miami in violation thereof. She obtained documentation that showed Respondent was performing electrical work as part of a contract it entered into with KVC Constructors, Inc., on August 4, 2004. Investigator Johnson obtained the daily sign-in sheets of KVC Constructors, Inc., that indicated the names of each entity that performed work on the job site for each particular day. She determined from the records that Respondent had worked 187 days in violation of the stop-work order prior to entering into the Payment Agreement Schedule and obtaining the Order of Conditional Release from the Department. On October 7, 2005, the Department issued to Respondent a fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment which assessed a penalty of $250,871.02. That amount was comprised of the $63,871.02 from the third Amended Order plus $187,000 for the 187 days of violation of the stop-work order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $250,871.02 minus the amount of payments previously made by Respondent to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 8th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 H.R. Electric, Inc. c/o Mr. Jeremy Hershberger 5512 Main Street Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed in Florida as a life and variable annuity contracts salesman and as a life and health insurance agent. In 1994 twin sisters Edith Ellis and Gertrude Franklin attended a luncheon at which Respondent made a presentation. The sisters were then 79 years old, and both were the owners of single-premium insurance policies issued by Merrill Lynch. They decided to cash in their existing policies and purchase new policies through Respondent. Both Ellis and Franklin executed 1035 exchange forms whereby the monies obtained from cashing in their Merrill Lynch policies were transferred to the insurance companies issuing their new policies. Both were charged a substantial penalty by Merrill Lynch. On August 11, 1994, Security Connecticut Insurance Company issued to Edith Ellis a flexible premium adjustable life insurance policy with a face value of $150,000. The cover page of the policy recites in bold print that it is a flexible premium adjustable life insurance policy, directs the insured to read the policy, and provides a 20-day period for canceling the policy with a full refund. It also contains a statement that provides: This Policy provides flexible premium, adjustable life insurance to the Maturity Date. Coverage will end prior to the Maturity Date if premiums paid and interest credited are insufficient to continue coverage to that date. Dividends are not payable. Flexible premiums are payable to the end of the period shown, if any, or until the Insured's death, whichever comes first. The cover page also recites that the first premium is $75,000 and that the monthly premium is $805.75. After deductions, Merrill Lynch only transferred $44,928.81, and Ellis never paid any additional premiums. Therefore, the policy was not funded to maturity since the company only received a partial payment. The insurance company did not set up this policy to receive periodic premium payments because it was originally anticipated that the company would receive $75,000 which would carry the expense, based upon the then interest rate. The policy was dependent upon interest rates. The company sent annual statements, however, to both Ellis and to the agency where Respondent worked. These statements clearly showed a declining accumulated value for the policy and specified how much it had declined from the previous year. When Ellis surrendered the policy on July 3, 2002, its value was $4,849. First Colony Life Insurance issued a flexible premium adjustable life insurance policy to Gertrude Franklin on October 18, 1994, with a face value of $600,000. The cover page provides for a 20-day cancellation period with a full refund of premiums paid. In bold type, the cover page further advises as follows: "Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policy", "Adjustable Death Benefit Payable at Death", "Flexible Premiums Payable During Insured's Lifetime", and "Benefits Vary with Current Cost of Insurance Rates and Current Interest Rates." It also advises that the initial premium is $56,796. The insurance company received an initial premium payment of $203,993.75 on December 19, 1994, and an additional premium payment in February 1996, for a total of premiums paid of approximately $266,000. The total premiums received, however, were insufficient to fund the policy to maturity since that would have required in excess of $400,000 in premiums. Annual statements sent by the insurance company reflected that the policy value was declining. On August 26, 1996, the insurance company received a letter over the name of Nancy Franklin, the trustee of the trust which owned the policy, advising the company to send billing and annual statements to the address of the agency where Respondent was employed. Respondent sent that letter as a courtesy because Gertrude Franklin asked him to keep her papers for her because she had no place to keep them. Gertrude Franklin, not her daughter, signed that letter. Respondent left that agency in October 1997 and was not permitted to take any records with him. In 2002 Edith Ellis showed her policy to someone at a senior center. Based upon that person's statements she called her sister and told her that their policies were no good. They contacted Respondent who came to their homes and reviewed their policies. He advised Gertrude Franklin that her only options at that point were to pay an additional premium or to reduce the face value of the policy to $400,000 in order to keep it in effect longer. She chose the latter course. Respondent gave Franklin a letter for Nancy Franklin's signature directing the insurance company to reduce the face value of the policy. Franklin, not her daughter, signed the letter and forwarded it to the company. The company reduced the face value based upon that letter which it received on April 1, 2002. That directive allowed the policy to stay in force another two months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Nancy Wright, Esquire 7274 Michigan Isle Road Lake Worth, Florida 33467 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
