Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Patricia A. Wotring, is an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. At all times relevant hereto she was enrolled as a member of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (Plan). The State of Florida is a self-insurer. It has contracted with Blue Cross - Blue Shield to act as its administrator in processing and paying all claims by employees under the Plan. Claims are suppose to be paid-in accordance with coverage requirements, limitations and exclusions that have been adopted by the State. These requirements are set forth in the Employees Group Health Self Insurance Booklet (Booklet) which has been received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 1. Between November, 1982 and January, 1983 petitioner submitted five claims for benefits with Blue Cross - Blue Shield. The claims totaled $633, of which $620 were for mental health services provided by a Tallahassee clinical psychologist and $13 for laboratory services performed by a Tallahassee physician. Although Blue Cross - Blue Shield had been "instructed" to not pay this type of claim, the claims were nonetheless honored in early 1983 and Wotring received checks at that time for $633. Upon advice from respondent, Department of Administration, Blue Cross - Blue Shield requested reimbursement from petitioner in June, 1983 for $633. That request prompted the instant proceeding. As a basis for claiming reimbursement, Blue Cross - Blue Shield relied upon Section H of the Exclusions portion of the Booklet. That section reads as follows: No payment shall be made under the Plan for the following: H. Services, care, treatment, and supplies furnished by a person who ordinarily resides in the Insured's home or by any person or institution not otherwise defined in the Definitions section of this booklet. (Emphasis Added) It then referred to page 39 of the Booklet which defines a "physician" as follows: "Physician" shall mean the following: a doctor of medicine (M.D.), doctor of osteopathy (D.O.), doctor of surgical chiropody (D.S.C.) or doctor of podiatric medicine (D.P.M.), who is legally qualified and licensed to practice medicine and perform surgery at the time and place the service is rendered; a licensed chiropractor acting within the scope of his/her license, provided the insured receiving his/her services is covered under the chiropractic coverage option of the Plan and the proper premium has been paid; a licensed dentist who performs specific surgical procedures covered by the Plan, or who renders services due to injuries resulting from Accidents, provided such procedures or services are within the scope of the dentist's professional license; a licensed optometrist who performs procedures covered by the Plan provided such procedures are within the scope of the optometrist's professional license. A clinical psychologist is not defined within the Definitions section of the Plan. Because a clinical psychologist does not fall within the definition of a physician, and is not otherwise defined within that section, the services received by Wotring were properly excluded from coverage by the Plan. Effective October 1, 1983, the Legislature amended the law to require that services rendered by a clinical psychologist be covered by the Plan. In the event payments are made in error, the Department's policy is to instruct its Administrator (Blue Cross - Blue Shield) to request reimbursement from the insured. Petitioner acknowledged that the five claims were paid in error. However, she contended that the claims were submitted in good faith over a period of time and were honored. Accordingly, she argues it is wrong to now require her to repay those amounts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner repay respondent $613 for payments previously received in error that are not covered by the Plan. It is further RECOMMENDED that in view of the size of the amount owed, petitioner be allowed to repay that amount on an installment basis over a six-month period, if she so chooses. It is further RECOMMENDED that she not be required to repay $20 to respondent if all deductibles for the appropriate calendar year have been met. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia A. Wotring 1833 Mayfair Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration Room 435, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to reimbursement under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan for $300.00 she spent for chiropractic treatment between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is and has been an employee of the State of Florida for a number of years. In February of 1974, she subscribed to the general group health insurance plan offered by the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under contract no. 264158282. Blue Cross of Florida Inc. and Blue Shield of Florida Inc. are the designated claims agent/administrator for the general plan and its options/addenda. Petitioner was first treated by Dr. Steven M. Willis, D.C., in January, 1983. She did not initially present to Dr. Willis, a chiropractor, for trauma but for symptoms of chronic sciatica and leg pain. She was treated the remainder of that month for sciatica but did not subscribe to the state group health plan until February 1, 1983. Although her application for chiropractic coverage was not offered or admitted in evidence, Petitioner testified that she answered all questions thereon and Respondent did not affirmatively raise any issues of lack of coverage due to effective date of coverage, or due to addendum changes, or due to concealment or due to fraud and on the basis of Petitioner's exhibits as a whole, I find that she acquired chiropractic coverage during a period of open enrollment and that from February 1, 1983 on, the plan took her as it found her and provided complete chiropractic coverage. In dispute in this cause are a series of chiropractic treatments and charges incurred by the Petitioner with Dr. Willis. Claims for the following dates of treatment were made in the name of a health care provider, Robert G. Hildreth, D.C." Dr. Hildreth made the formal claims upon Petitioner's assignment to the Centerville Road Chiropractic Clinic in which both chiropractors are partners. There is no dispute that the following treatments were rendered by Dr. Willis and properly assigned for payment by Petitioner: 11/16/83 - $20.00 12/21/03 - $6.44 11/22/83 - $20.00 12/29/83 - $20.00 11/28/83 - $20.00 01/03/84 - $20.00 12/05/83 - $20.00 01/06/84 - $20.00 12/09/83 - $20.00 01/13/84 - $20.00 12/14/83 - $20.00 01/17/84 - $20.00 12/19/83 - $20.00 01/19/84 - $20.00 12/21/83 - $20.00 01/23/84 - $20.00 Claims for some or all of these treatments/amounts were submitted by the chiropractors a number of times and rejected by Blue Cross/Blue Shield as the state administrator a number of times. Petitioner conceded at hearing that the 12/21/83 charge in the amount of $6.44 was properly rejected for lack of coverage of supplies costs. The first rejection of some of the other charges was for failure of the doctors' bookkeeper to include the correct diagnosis and procedure codes on the claims forms. This was corrected and resubmitted and thereafter all of the charges for treatment were rejected (either together or piecemeal) for payment upon grounds that 26 visits had already been paid for and that after the maximum number of 26 visits has been paid the state plan pays for no more chiropractic visits. Blue Cross/Blue Shield resumed paying for chiropractic treatment for the chronic back and leg problems on 1/27/84. In light of Blue Cross/Blue Shield's earlier response, Petitioner and Dr. Willis concluded that this must be because a new year was beginning and a new 26 visits would be paid annually. However, Respondent stipulated at hearing, that although private Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance plans may have such a maximum, the state plan has no such 26 visits annual maximum. Petitioner and Dr. Willis questioned Blue Cross/Blue Shield about its 26 visit annual maximum reason for rejection, so Blue Cross/Blue Shield sent a "review sheet" asking Dr. Willis to justify his diagnosis and treatment. His justification was supplied on the review sheet (R-1) dated February 27, 1984. After review, Blue Cross/Blue Shield advised Petitioner and Dr. Willis that payment for these treatments had been determined not to be "medically necessary" by its chiropractic board of review. Petitioner responded with a timely request for Section 120.57(1) hearing. Petitioner eventually paid for the treatments in question out of her own pocket. In support of her position that her treatments (all of which may be generically described as "spine adjustments") are "medically necessary, Petitioner offered the testimony of Dr. Willis, the treating chiropractor. In addition to relating facts, I find Dr. Willis by education, training, and experience is capable of giving expert opinions in the field of chiropractic medicine. Dr. Willis testified that he first saw Petitioner on 1/12/83 for sciatic pain in both legs. After taking a complete history revealing previous orthopedic treatment locally with Dr. Haney and previous podiatric treatment locally with Dr. Merritt, treatment with another doctor in Orlando and with another podiatrist in Texas, Dr. Willis initially diagnosed acute lumbosacral neuralgia and treated Petitioner 3 times per week for 6 weeks. He opined that Petitioner's case was unusual in that Petitioner wanted to remain as athletically active as possible, including but not limited to running 10-50 miles per week and participating in a number of sports. Dr. Willis subsequently revised his diagnosis to make it bilateral sacrilization at the L-5/S-1 vertebrae, anterior gravitational syndrome and hyperimbrication at the L4/L5 vertebrae. Put into laymen's terms, Petitioner's L-4 / L-5 vertebrae do not have full range of motion and this results in Petitioner's low back pain at that level. In Dr. Willis' opinion, due to a congenital abnormality, in Petitioner, her condition is not fully correctable. On 4/5/83, Petitioner came to Dr. Willis with back pain which he diagnosed as the result of a trauma occurring as a result of weight lifting Petitioner had done on 4/4/83, and subsequently she suffered a trauma to the unstable back while windsurfing. On 10/28/83, Petitioner reported pain in the medial aspect of her left foot which Dr. Willis diagnosed as tendonitis. In January, 1984 he referred her to Dr. Merritt, a local podiatrist for a severe left shin/ankle/ metatarsal problem. These various diagnoses, treatments, and referrals, are important to the instant issue involving spine adjustment treatments between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84 for chronic back pain at L-4 through S- 1 because they serve to illustrate diagnosis and treatment differences between trauma situations and continuing treatment for exacerbations of the chronic back and foot/leg problems for which cost of treatment reimbursement is sought. "Apparently, however, there was no problem with payment of any fees charged until 11/16/83 (the twenty-seventh visit in 1983), and clearly payments resumed as soon as the calendar rolled over to 1984. Dr. Willis further diagnosed concluded that there is pedal instability of Petitioner's foot resulting in ankle and shin problems and that these problems in turn create an imbalance; the imbalance in turn causes great wear and tear in the lumbar (low back) region. The low back is again exacerbated by increased periods of activity. During these periods of exacerbation he treats Petitioner's chronic back pain with spine adjustments. There may be long periods between exacerbations when treatments are not necessary. It is for the periods of exacerbation that the treatments in question were administered and for which Petitioner seeks reimbursement. Although Dr. Willis conceded on cross-examination that frequency of treatment in a case like Petitioner's is a matter of chiropractic judgment and also that opinions among health care providers and especially chiropractors may differ as to whether the treatments he has provided to Petitioner are medically necessary or not, he states emphatically that in his professional opinion they are medically necessary. Upon consideration of all the testimony and evidence, I find the treatments between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84 to be remedial as opposed to merely palliative in nature due to the considerable instability of both the back and foot which continued to be exacerbated by Petitioner's particular lifestyle. Both Petitioner and her doctor testified that chiropractic treatment sessions in her case have always included preventive counselling as well as therapeutic treatment. The goal of such counselling is to substitute non-exacerbating or less-exacerbating recreational activities for those Petitioner would otherwise pursue (i.e. weight training and swimming in place of running and wind surfing).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding Petitioner's treatments in question "medically necessary and ordering the plan administrator (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) to reimburse her $300.00 therefor (amount claimed less the admittedly "not covered" $6.44 supplies charge on 12/21/83.). DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dara Houliston 2308 Notley Court Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document provides coverage for a maxillary subperiosteal implant surgical procedure under the circumstances described below.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been insured under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document, effective July 1, 1988 (the "Plan"). Dr. Clark F. Brown, Jr. is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of Florida. His specialty is dental implantology. The subperiosteal implant, which is the subject of this case, is a framework that rests on top of the bone underneath the tissue. Following the insertion of the framework, the tissue reattaches to the jawbone, thereby securing the framework to the bone. The implant procedure takes two days, but can be performed in Dr. Clark's office. On the first day, a direct bone impression is taken. In the process, the gum tissue is cut along the entire remaining ridge and lifted back almost to the base of the eye, floor of the nose, and palate. After the impression is taken, the incision is closed with sutures. On the next day, the stitches are removed, the implant is installed, and the incision again closed with sutures. On July 31, 1987, Petitioner visited Dr. Clark and complained of difficulties wearing his upper denture. Upon examination, Dr. Clark discovered that Petitioner lacked adequate bone to retain an upper denture. Lacking about 90% of the bone in the vicinity of the upper arch, Petitioner's upper denture was highly unstable. By letter dated August 8, 1987, Dr. Clark informed the Plan administrator of Petitioner's condition and proposed a full maxillary subperiosteal procedure for the installation of an orthopedic augmentation appliance. By letter dated December 11, 1987, the Plan administrator informed Dr. Clark that the proposed procedure was not covered under the Plan. The letter explains that dental services are a specific exclusion unless performed "as the result of an accident where a natural tooth has been damaged and the treatment is rendered within 120 days from the date of the accident." On December 17, 1987, Dr. Clark relined the denture that fit Petitioner the best. As he had warned Petitioner in advance, the procedure was unsuccessful. On June 26, 1988, Dr. Clark prepared a new upper denture in preparation for the installation of mucosal implants, which utilize the gum for support. Dr. Clark and Petitioner pursued this treatment largely because it was less expensive that the subperiosteal implant for which the Plan administrator had refused coverage. Dr. Clark later installed these implants, but they were unsuccessful due to the lack of bone. They were removed in November, 1988. At this point, the subperiosteal implant remained the only available treatment for Petitioner. On February 2, 1989, Dr. Thomas Priest, a physician licensed to practice in the State of Florida, examined Petitioner and found that his gums were severely receded, his alveolar ridge was absent, and his lower teeth were in poor shape. Considering the complaints of Petitioner concerning digestive disorders and weight loss, Dr. Priest determined that Petitioner would be a good candidate for, and might benefit from, the maxillary subperiosteal implant. Dr. Priest reached this conclusion based in part on the experience of other patients who had undergone similar procedures. Dr. Clark and the Plan administrator exchanged correspondence through the first half of 1989, at which time the administrator, in response to a threat of litigation, stated that "the preparation of the mouth for dentures is considered to be a dental procedure and non-covered." She then referred Dr. Clark to Respondent. The loss of bone was probably caused by Petitioner wearing loose upper dentures for an extended period of time. However, severe periodontal disease, which cannot be ruled out as a possible cause, could also result in the loss of bone. Another potential cause of the loss of bone is trauma from accidental injuries, such as those typically suffered in an automobile accident. However, this potential cause can be ruled out in Petitioner's case. No accident has necessitated the subject implant procedure, nor has any accident preceded the proposed procedure by 120 days. The Plan contains three coverage sections. Section II describes "Covered Hospital and Other Facility Services." Section III describes "Covered Medical--Surgical Benefits." Section IV describes "Other Covered Services." Section II deals with hospitals primarily and is not applicable to the present case. Subsections III.A. and D. provide coverage for "medically necessary inpatient/outpatient services provided to an insured by a . . . physician for the treatment of the insured as a result of a covered accident or illness." Section IV provides coverage for "medically necessary services when ordered by a physician for the treatment of an insured as a result of a covered accident or illness," including, at Subsection IV.D., "other medical supplies and prostheses . . . determined by the Administrator to be medically necessary for the treatment of an insured's condition." The phrase, "covered accident or illness," which is not defined in the Plan, apparently refers to accidents or illnesses that are not elsewhere excluded, such as in Section VII on Exclusions and Section VIII on Limitations. Section VII.A. excludes "services for cosmetic surgery or treatment unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.A." However, Subsection VII.A. adds that cosmetic surgery is covered if it is: a medically necessary procedure in the correction of an abnormal bodily function; [or) for reconstruction to an area of the body which has been altered by the treatment of a disease, provided such alteration occurred while the insured was covered under the Plan. Subsection VII.G excludes: Services and supplies in connection with dental work, dental treatment, or dental examinations unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.B., except that in no case shall orthodontia be covered. Subsection VIII.A. provides the following limitation upon coverage: Cosmetic surgery or treatment necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured covered by the Plan if such surgery or treatment is the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under the Plan and actually performed while the Plan is in force . . Subsection VIII.B. provides the following limitation upon coverage: Any dental work, dental treatment or dental examinations medically necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured is covered by the Plan only if such work, treatment or examination is (1) the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under this Plan and (2) rendered within . . . 120 days of the accident. . Subsection I.AX. defines a physician to include: a licensed dentist who performs specific surgical or non-dental procedures covered by the Plan, or who renders services due to injuries resulting from accidents, provided such procedures or services are within the scope of the dentist's professional license. Subsection I.AM(b). defines "medically necessary" to mean that: in the opinion of the Administrator the service received is required to identify or treat the illness or injury which a physician has diagnosed or reasonably suspects. The service must (1) be consistent with the diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition (2) be in accordance with standards of good medical practice, and (3) be required for reasons other than convenience of the patient or his/her physician. The fact that a service is prescribed by a physician does not necessarily mean that such service is medically necessary. Subsection I.AE. defines "illness" as: physical sickness or disease, . . . bodily injury, [or] congenital anomaly . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the proposed procedure, under the facts of this case, is covered by the Plan. DONE and ORDERED this 21 day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21 day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 William F. Lennan 740 Hunan St., N.E. Palm Bay, FL 32907 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to change from individual to family coverage under the State of Florida Employees' Group Insurance Plan more that thirty-one calendar days after the birth of her son and outside the open enrollment period.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) District IV in 1986. For the past 18 months she has worked in her present position with HRS District IV in Deland, Florida. She presently resides with her husband in Deltona, Florida. HRS District IV personnel office is located at 5920 Arlington Expressway in Jacksonville, Florida. Linda Boutwell is employed as the Insurance Coordinator for HRS District IV. Petitioner gave birth to a son on January 6, 1990. On January 8, 1990, Petitioner called Linda Boutwell concerning the addition of her son to her State Health Insurance which would require a change from individual to family coverage. Mrs. Boutwell advised Petitioner that she could change from individual coverage to family coverage, but that the child would not be covered until the form was returned and approved. Boutwell indicated she would send her the necessary paperwork to add her son as a dependent. Mrs. Boutwell prepared and mailed the paperwork on January 8, 1990. It was received by Petitioner on January 10, 1990. Although Petitioner received the required enrollment papers on January 10, 1990, she did not return them to her personnel office. Petitioner states she did not return the papers to her personnel office because she understood from conversation with Linda Boutwell that her son's hospital bills would not be paid by the State Plan, since the child was not enrolled in the State Plan prior to that date. Instead, Petitioner elected to enroll in family coverage under her husband's employer's carrier. On March 15, 1990, Petitioner again called Linda Boutwell to request her son to be added to her insurance. Boutwell explained that Petitioner's request could not be honored since the request was beyond 31 days of the birth of the child. Therefore, Petitioner had to wait until the annual open enrollment period to obtain insurance coverage for the child. Petitioner's March 15, 1990 request was prompted by her discovery that the hospital bill related to the birth of her son was covered under the State Plan, even though she had not yet converted to the family coverage provision of the State Plan. Petitioner never asked Boutwell whether her individual hospital bill was covered or not. Petitioner's conclusion that her son's hospital birth would not be covered was based partly on the statement of a close friend who called Petitioner on January 7, 1990, to warn her to "expect problems" with her State Plan coverage. Petitioner has received a copy of the Amended State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Benefit Document, dated July 1, 1988. However, she did not examine it during the period January-March, 1990. Section II of the Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan states in pertinent part: II. Covered Hospital and Other Facility Services: The following services shall be covered when ordered by a physician and are medically necessary for the treatment of an insured as a result of a covered accident or illness. Inpatient hospital services under Subsections A., B., and H., are in connection with the pregnancy of only the employee . . . shall also include nursery charges of the child during the hospital stay of the mother. Petitioner does not offer any credible explanation why she did not convert to family coverage prior to or at the time of the birth of her son or during the 1989 open enrollment period which occurred during Petitioner's seventh month of pregnancy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 through 11. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Millard, pro se 2391 Montano Street Deltona, FL 32725 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Florida insurance license of Respondent should be disciplined for violation of certain provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as contained in allegations set forth in the five- count Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying and documentary materials received in evidence, stipulations by the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003), and the record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2001). Respondent is and, at all times material, was licensed in Florida as a life and health insurance agent. His Florida insurance license number is A283290. The Department has disciplined the license of Respondent on two previous occasions. The last discipline was taken pursuant to a Consent Order in Case Number 20371-97-A. Respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years beginning on July 29, 1999, and ending July 9, 2002, as a result of having enrolled five customers in a health plan without their knowledge or consent. A condition of his probation required Respondent to "strict[ly] adhere to all provisions of the Florida Insurance Code and Rules of the Department of Insurance and Treasurer" during his probation period. Respondent was also fined $7,500. Respondent is and, at all times material, was operating as a health insurance agent for PHP. Respondent, as an employee of PHP, was paid a commission on his enrollment of each client with PHP. He was assigned PHP employee number 6232. His employment with PHP did not preclude nor deny his freedom to market life insurance. PHP is an insurance company that maintains a contract with the State of Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to deliver benefits to Medicaid recipients. The state screens potential Medicaid recipients to determine individual eligibility. The Medicaid plan "marketing agent," who is an insurance agent (Respondent), must hold an "event," invite the public, and explain benefits of the PHP plan. Each such event shall be approved by AHCA. As a part of the terms of employment with PHP, certain activities are prohibited and are not to be engaged in by "marketing agents." The prohibitions included: knocking on doors and offering to parents of children who have been determined eligible for benefits monetary awards, gifts, rebates, or any other incentives to induce enrollment of a child in Medicaid plans. PHP retained MDA Investigations, an independent investigative company, to investigate irregularities in the marketing processes resulting from marketing agents' conduct and/or client dissatisfaction brought to the attention of PHP and to provide PHP with an investigative report of each such irregularity. It was through this agency that complaints about Respondent were referred for investigation. Count I Julia Benefield (Ms. Benefield), complainant, has a high school diploma and is the mother of T.K. and K.K. Both children, having met certain entitlement criteria determined by the state, are entitled to receive Medicaid benefits. Ms. Benefield decides what physician treats her children and, at all times material to this issue, had previously selected Dr. Arlene Haywood as their chosen health care provider. From her past experience in selecting the health care provider for her children, Ms. Benefield was not new to the required enrollment processes. She recalled initially meeting Respondent at the apartment rented by her mother. During the meeting, Respondent asked if her children were on Medicaid, to which she responded affirmatively, informing Respondent that they received medical services from Dr. Arlene Haywood, a physician who had previously treated Ms. Benefield when she was a child. During the course of his sales pitch conversation, Respondent discussed with Ms. Benefield life insurance policies for her minor children and intermingled his discussion with statements urging her to switch her Medicaid provider to PHP. During the course of this meeting and conversation, Ms. Benefield signed a "Request to Enroll Card" with the clear understanding that her signature thereon meant: "[I]t was to put my kids on life insurance." She emphatically denied ever intending or desiring to change from her then present physician provider and enroll her children in PHP offered by Respondent. During this process, Respondent presented Ms. Benefield with a Request to Enroll Card. The card, which Ms. Benefield acknowledged signing, contained the names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of her two children. Above the signature line, the Request to Enroll Card has printed the condition of enrollment, to wit: "By signing this card, I understand that I am only indicating my intent to enroll my family members in the Medicaid HMO plan listed above. To complete the enrollment process I will need to sign and return an enrollment form that will be sent to my home by the Medicaid Options Program." Ms. Benefield became aware of the switch of her Medicaid provider from Dr. Arlene Haywood to PHP when she received a letter mailed to her mother's apartment address informing her that her children were then enrolled (switched) with PHP. This switch to PHP caused her not to be able to obtain medical services from the children's regular pediatrician, Dr. Arlene Haywood. Ms. Benefield, dissatisfied with the method and manner of Respondent changing her Medicaid provider against her stated desires and without her permission, complained about the switch to PHP to the Department. Respondent justified and defended his conduct in this instant with the summary statement: "that if she knew the difference of the two policies [PHP and life insurance] then how could she have made a mistake when life insurance cost money and Medicaid is free." Ms. Benefield firmly maintained, "[H]e went ahead and enrolled them anyway [in PHP] without my permission." At the time Ms. Benefield executed the enrollment card presented to her by Respondent, it was not her intent to switch from her then Medicaid provider, Dr. Arlene Haywood, to PHP. The intentional misrepresentations made by Respondent induced Ms. Benefield to sign the enrollment card. Count II Dahlia Malcolm (Ms. Malcolm), complainant, is a high school graduate who also earned a cosmetology degree. She is the mother of A.M., a minor who is qualified to receive Medicaid benefits. Ms. Malcolm recalled Respondent coming uninvited to her home during which time he repeatedly suggested switching from her Medipass provider to his employer, PHP provider. Following the pattern of his conversation with Ms. Benefield, Respondent discussed with Ms. Malcolm life insurance policies for her minor child intermingled with statements urging her to switch her Medicaid provider to PHP. In this instant, and as an additional inducement incentive, Respondent offered to give Ms. Malcolm money to cover the cost of a "pizza" or "pizza party," if Ms. Malcolm would either invite her friends over or provide Respondent with the names of her friends with children who were Medicaid eligible. Ms. Malcolm recalled laughing at the suggestion of a "pizza party." A few weeks later, she received a package mailed to her stating: "thank you for enrolling in PHP." According to Ms. Malcolm, the signature "Dahlia Malcolm" on the Request to Enroll Card, dated July 5, 2001, was "definitely" not her signature. She emphatically denied giving Respondent permission or authority to enroll her son in PHP. Dissatisfied with Respondent switching her Medicaid provider, Ms. Malcolm complained to both PHP and the Department. Respondent suggested that the mother of Ms. Malcolm was probably not happy with Ms. Malcolm enrolling her children with PHP and that to cover her mistake, Ms. Malcolm made a complaint to the Department; that suggestion is without merit. Ms. Malcolm at no time evidenced a knowing intent to switch her Medicaid provider to PHP. Assuming Ms. Malcolm did, in fact, sign the Request to Enroll Card, her inducement to sign the Request to Enroll Card was due to the intentional misrepresentations made to her by Respondent. Count III The complainant, Calandra Birdine, did not appear at the final hearing to testify. Respondent consented to admission of a Department Inquiry form containing statements from another person, written by Joseph Rufus, who also did not testify. Attached thereto were two Request to Enroll Cards containing the names and ages of six minor children who were qualified to receive Medicaid services, dated August 23, 2001. Although admitted into evidence without objection from the Respondent, the documents are hearsay, as are the contents. The Department failed to provide independent corroboration of the hearsay statements, and the documents and their contents are insufficient to support a finding of fact. Accordingly, the Department failed to prove by competent substantial evidence the allegations contained in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. Count IV The complainant, Monique Young, did not appear at the final hearing to testify. Respondent consented to admission of the Department Inquiry form that contained statements from another person, written by Keith Yore, who did not testify. Attached thereto were two Request to Enroll Cards containing the names and ages of eight minor children who were qualified to receive Medicaid services, dated May 11, 2001. Although admitted into evidence without objection from Respondent, the documents and contents are hearsay. The Department failed to provide independent corroboration of the hearsay evidence, and, therefore, the documents and their contents are insufficient to support a finding of fact. Accordingly, the Department failed to prove by competent substantial evidence allegations contained in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. Count V The complainant, Jamie Powell, did not appear at the final hearing to testify. Respondent consented to admission of the Department Inquiry form containing statements of another person, written by Robekah (no last name in the record), who did not testify. Attached thereto was one Request to Enroll Card containing the name and age of one minor child who was qualified to receive Medicaid services, dated June 2, 2001. Although admitted into evidence without objection of Respondent, the documents and contents are hearsay. For a lack of independent corroboration, the documents and contents are insufficient to support a finding of fact. Accordingly, the Department failed to prove by competent substantial evidence the allegations contained in Count V of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent complained that he was employed with PHP for 11 months after the first complaint was filed against him in January 2001. He maintained that he was not notified of these complaints by the special investigator, Gladys Kennedy, until December 2001, one month after he no longer worked for PHP. It was his belief that PHP instigated the complaints because he went to work with a competing company. Respondent maintains that he had written over 1,500 applications per year with PHP and his success record demonstrated that "I must be doing something right." Respondent, under the impression that the Department assumed he was taking advantage of his client because of their educational level, testified that he, too, has only a high school diploma. Respondent, evidenced by Findings of Fact 3 through 12 hereinabove, violated his probation condition imposed in the Consent Order, of July 29, 1999, in Case Number 20371-97-A.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order as follows: Finding Respondent, Roger Lee White, guilty, as alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint, of violating Section 626.611 and Subsections 626.9541(1)(k)1. and 626.611(7), (9), and (13), Florida Statutes. Revoking the license of Respondent and eligibility for licensure. Dismissing Counts III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, Roger Lee White. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 16th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Financial Services, Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Roger Lee White 257 Coastal Hill Drive Indian Harbour Beach, Florida 32937 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has been licensed by the Department of Insurance as an insurance agent since 1966. Prior to the initiation of this proceeding, he has not been the subject of any disciplinary action by the Department. The Respondent has had a successful career as an insurance agent, and has been an active member of his community. During 1977 the Respondent actively marketed membership in a program known as the National Business Conference Employee Benefit Association (NBCEBA). The program offered by NBCEBA constituted a health insurance plan, and as such was subject to regulation under the Florida Insurance Code. The NBCEBA program operated as if it were exempt from state regulation under the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Chapter 18, United States Code, Sections 1001, et seq. Qualified plans under ERISA were not subject to regulation under state insurance codes. The plan offered by NBCEBA did not qualify as an ERISA plan. Such plans could only be offered by employee organizations. NBCEBA solicited members who were employed by diverse employers, and who participated in diverse occupations. Membership in NBCEBA thus lacked the commonality of employment status among members required of employee organizations under ERISA. Since the plan offered by NBCEBA did not qualify as an ERISA plan, it was subject to regulation by the State of Florida as a program of insurance. Indeed, the essence of the NBCEBA plan was to offer a program of insurance to its "members." NBCEBA has never held a certificate of authority to transact an insurance business in the State of Florida. The Department of Insurance became aware of the plan being offered by NBCEBA to Florida citizens. The Department came to the conclusion that the plan constituted Insurance program not subject to exemption from state regulation under ERISA. By letter dated September 26, 1977, the Department advised Florida agents who were selling memberships in the NBCEBA program of its opinion that the program did not qualify for exemption from state regulation under ERISA, and that NBCEBA was acting as an unauthorized insurer in Florida. The letter requested that the agents cease and desist from further solicitation of prospective members of the plan. This letter was sent to the Respondent. The Respondent received it in the ordinary course of the mail. Shortly after sending this letter, the Department requested an opinion from the United States Department of Labor as to whether the NBCEBA program was exempt from state regulation. During March, 1978, the Department received a response in which the United States Department of Labor advised that in its opinion, NBCEBA was not a qualified program under Chapter 18, United States Code, and that the NBCEBA plan was subject to regulation by the State of Florida. After receiving the letter from the Department advising him of its opinion that the NBCEBA plan was not a qualified insurance program, the Respondent discussed the letter with Mr. Robert Klein, the owner of Planned Marketing Systems. Planned Marketing Systems was the general agent for the NBCEBA program in Florida. Mr. Klein advised the Respondent that the plan would eventually be approved in Florida. The Respondent did not cease marketing the NBCEBA plan. On or about October 31, 1977, he completed an application and accepted a premium payment for membership in the plan on behalf of Mr. Rafael Sanchez. Sanchez had been a friend of the Respondent and had used the Respondent as his insurance agent. The premiums on Sanchez's health insurance policy had increased dramatically during 1977. Membership in the NBCEBA plan was considerably cheaper than premiums that Sanchez needed to pay for other health insurance programs. Sanchez did not appear as a witness at the hearing, and the evidence would not support a finding as to what, if any, representations were made by the Respondent to Sanchez respecting the failure of NBCEBA to qualify as an insurance plan under the laws of the State of Florida. The evidence would not support a finding as to whether Respondent advised Sanchez as to his correspondence from the Department relating to NBCEBA. During May, 1978, Sanchez made an application to NBCEBA for benefits. NBCEBA did not honor the claim, and has since filed for bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Sanchez has thus been left liable to pay medical expenses that should have been covered under the NBCEBA plan.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent's license as an insurance agent, and his eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in Florida should be disciplined for violation of certain provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-215.210, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Respondent, ROBERT DARREN CARLSON, at all times material hereto, was eligible for licensure and was licensed in Florida as a life insurance agent, life and health insurance agent, and variable annuity contracts salesman. Respondent was initially licensed in 1992. Respondent's license is currently under emergency suspension as a result of the actions alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case. Respondent is thirty years old, married with one son, and resides in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1993 Respondent became a shareholder and vice-president of National Consultants International, Inc. (National), a Florida corporation operating as an insurance agency in Pinellas County, Florida. National was incorporated on November 29, 1993, and dissolved on August 24, 1994. The principal shareholder and president of National was Coreen McKeever. At National Coreen McKeever was also responsible for the administrative functions of the agency. Respondent became an agent for National in March 1994. Respondent's duties were to contact potential customers, discuss the customer's insurance needs, explain products that might address the customer's needs, and write policies if purchased by the customer. Respondent collected the premiums, but as a usual practice at National, would turn the premium checks over to Coreen McKeever for administrative processing. Respondent was also authorized to make deposits and withdrawals on National's premium trust account at Republic Bank in Seminole, Florida. Findings as to Count III - Ralph Cody Ralph Cody is an eighty-nine year old retired school maintenance worker from Kentucky. Mr. Cody retired to Florida in 1980, and currently lives with his wife, Edna, in Pinellas County. Mr. Cody is in good health, but has difficulty with his eyesight and hearing. Mr. Cody no longer drives. Mr. Cody first met the Respondent approximately two years ago. At that time Respondent sold Mr. Cody an insurance policy with a company called United American. Mr. Cody was satisfied with this insurance policy. Subsequent to his initial contact with Respondent, Mr. Cody became interested in obtaining an insurance policy which would provide for in-home health care. Mr. Cody was particularly interested in such an insurance policy because of his concern for his wife's deteriorating health, and his desire that health care be provided at home for him and his wife, and not in a nursing home. Because of his interest in obtaining an in-home health care insurance policy, Mr. Cody met with Respondent. Respondent suggested, and Mr. Cody agreed, to the purchase of a policy called Fortis Long Term Security Home Health Care (Fortis), which was underwritten by Time Insurance Company (Time) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Respondent was an agent with Time. Mr. Cody believed the Time policy would meet his insurance needs. On or about March 31, 1994, Respondent received from Mr. Cody a check for $3,164.40. This sum was intended by Mr. Cody to be the premium payment for the Fortis home health care insurance policy underwritten by Time. Pursuant to Respondent's directions, the check from Mr. Cody was made payable to Respondent's agency, National, not to Time Insurance Company. Respondent directed this procedure because at this time, National had limited experience with Time, and National did not have "netting" privileges. "Netting" privileges allow an insurance agency to deduct its commission prior to forwarding a premium check to the underwriting company. Because of National's limited experience with Time, and the lack of netting privileges, Respondent did not believe it was unusual to make the Cody check payable to National, or to deposit the Cody check into National's account. Time has a general policy requiring that premium checks be made payable directly to Time; however, Time, on occasion, will accept premium checks from agencies. Time also requires that an application and premium check be immediately sent to the company for processing. Respondent deposited the Cody check into National's account at Republic Bank. Respondent took the Cody application back to National, entered the information into the computer and delivered the Cody application for the issuance of the Fortis policy to Coreen McKeever. Neither the Cody check, nor the Cody application for issuance of the Fortis policy was received by Time. Within three weeks of depositing the check and delivering the application, Respondent inquired of Coreen McKeever as to the status of the Cody application. Respondent was informed by Coreen McKeever that the application had been denied by Time because of Mrs. Cody's health problems. Contrary to Ms. McKeever's report, Time did not consider nor decline the application for issuance of the Fortis policy to the Codys because of Mrs. Cody's health or any other reason. Respondent did not personally check on the Cody application, and did not contact Time regarding the issuance of the policy to the Codys. Respondent had no personal knowledge whether the Cody application had been declined and received no written notification regarding the Cody application. Respondent did not question the representations made by Coreen McKeever in this regard. Shortly thereafter, Respondent informed Mr. Cody that the application to Time had been declined. Respondent met with Mr. Cody and suggested that Mr. Cody consider purchasing a product offered by a company called Secure Care Home Services, Inc. (Secure Care), which also provided home health care and was approximately the same purchase price as the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Respondent at that time represented to Mr. Cody, and Mr. Cody was under the belief, that the Secure Care product was substantially equivalent to the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Mr. Cody was aware that the Secure Care product was not insurance. Secure Care is a corporation located in Seminole, Florida. Secure Care is not an insurance company, but offers "membership agreements" marketed primarily to elderly persons to contractually provide in-home health care services to its members. Coreen McKeever (a/k/a Coreen J. Morgan) is a director of Secure Care, and has an interest in Secure Care. Secure Care is currently under a Cease and Desist Order suspending its business operations. The Cease and Desist order was entered by the Petitioner on March 13, 1995. On or about May 18, 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Cody entered into a membership agreement with Secure Care. The initial cost of the membership for both of the Codys as reflected in the agreement was $3,027.00; however, the record reflects that the ultimate cost to the Codys for the Secure Care membership actually totalled $3098.40. Respondent signed the agreement as an authorized agent for Secure Care. On May 26, 1994, Respondent met with the Codys at their home. At this time Respondent offered to refund to Mr. Cody the purchase price of the Time policy. To this end, Respondent tendered check number 1191 drawn on National's account in the amount of $3,164.40 to Mr. Cody; however, because the purchase price of the Codys' membership in Secure Care which Mr. Cody had already agreed to purchase was almost as much as the Time policy, Mr. Cody requested that Respondent apply the check for the Time policy to the Secure Care membership, and refund Mr. Cody the difference. Respondent accordingly on May 27, 1994, issued a check number 1189 drawn on National's account to Mr. Cody the amount of $65.70, which represented the difference in the cost of the two products. Several months after his purchase of the Secure Care membership, Mr. Cody became aware that some of his neighbors were dissatisfied with the home health care provided by the company. Thereafter, Mr. Cody became concerned that the Secure Care membership would not meet his or his wife's needs. At this time Mr. Cody had no personal experience with Secure Care. Neither Mr. Cody nor his wife ever used, or sought to use their Secure Care membership. Mr. Cody complained to Petitioner regarding Secure Care. Mr. Cody also contacted Time and discovered that his application and check had not been received. Respondent learned of Mr. Cody's concerns with Secure Care after Mr. Cody complained to Petitioner and a departmental investigation of this matter had been undertaken. Respondent then contacted Mr. Cody who told Respondent he wanted a refund of the purchase price of the Secure Care membership. Respondent contacted Secure Care, but learned that the company was not giving refunds at that time. Respondent suggested that Mr. Cody then attempt to deal with Secure Care directly. Mr. Cody was unable to obtain a refund of the cost of the Secure Care membership. The Codys obtained no benefit from their Secure Care membership. The Secure Care membership was not substantially equivalent to the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Secure Care was not an established company and did not have the resources or capability to provide the services offered by Time. Count II - Leila G. Smith Leila G. Smith is a widowed ninety-one year old retired first grade school teacher, originally from Georgia. Mrs. Smith currently resides with her niece, Miriam Enright, in Seminole, Florida. Brenda Blager is Miriam Enright's daughter, and Mrs. Smith's great-niece. Ms. Blager currently resides in Champagne, Illinois. Mrs. Smith receives a monthly income from her teacher's pension and Social Security benefits. Mrs. Smith is in generally good health for a person of her age, but has experienced a significant loss of vision, is totally blind in her left eye, and cannot read without the aid of a magnifying glass. Mrs. Smith moved to Florida approximately three years ago. Respondent was first introduced to Mrs. Smith by Mrs. Enright to whom Respondent had previously sold annuities. Respondent visited the Enright home and met with Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Enright, Ms. Blager, and also Mrs. Smith's nephew, Robert Smith, to discuss Mrs. Smith's insurance and investment needs. At that time Mrs. Smith purchased an annuity in the amount of $100,000 from Respondent. Approximately one month later Mrs. Smith purchased a second annuity in the amount of $100,000 from Respondent, and gave Robert Smith $60,000 for the purchase of an annuity. The interest payments from the second annuity purchased by Mrs. Smith were sent to Robert Smith. Brenda Blager usually reviewed and consulted Mrs. Smith regarding Mrs. Smith's personal finances; however, after moving to Florida and meeting Respondent, Mrs. Smith also began to rely on and trust Respondent with regard to advising her in her personal financial matters. Prior to moving to Florida, Mrs. Smith's investments consisted primarily of her home and certificates of deposit in banks and savings institutions in Georgia. Mrs. Smith was conservative in her investments, had never purchased stocks or bonds, and only wanted to place her savings in "safe" investments. Subsequent to her purchase of annuities, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Enright contacted Respondent to discuss other financial concerns. Specifically, Mrs. Smith had sold her home in Georgia and was interested in moving her certificates of deposit to Florida, achieving a higher rate of return, addressing tax problems associated with the payment of the annuity interest to her nephew, and purchasing a new Cadillac automobile. Whenever Respondent met with Mrs. Smith to discuss her finances and investments, Mrs. Enright, or another member of Mrs. Smith's family was also present. Respondent reviewed several financial documents relating to Mrs. Smith's Georgia certificates of deposit. Mrs. Smith's financial records were disorganized. Respondent advised Mrs. Smith that there would be substantial penalties if she prematurely removed her funds and invested in certificates of deposit. Despite the penalties and Respondent's advice to the contrary, Mrs. Smith decided to cash in her Georgia certificates of deposit and relocate her funds to Florida. Respondent assisted Mrs. Smith in cashing in the Georgia certificates of deposit. Respondent also assisted Mrs. Smith in using some of these funds to purchase a Cadillac automobile. Mrs. Smith had initially been interested in leasing the automobile; however, Respondent reviewed the lease arrangement, and advised Mrs. Smith that a purchase was in her best interest. Mrs. Smith followed Respondent's advice in this regard. Mrs. Smith trusted Respondent. To assist Mrs. Smith in relocating her funds to Florida, and also achieve a higher rate of return, Respondent presented Mrs. Smith with proposals to invest in promissory notes with two local firms, Zuma Engineering and Allstate Finance. (Allstate Finance is not associated with Allstate Insurance Company). Zuma Engineering (Zuma), is a start-up company located in Largo, Florida, engaged in the business of recycling tires. The rubber in the tires is converted to crumb rubber to be resold and used in asphalt roads, playground resurfacing and other products. Respondent first became aware of Zuma at a seminar in July of 1994 through another agent, Michael Mann, who was then raising funds for Zuma. Mr. Mann took Respondent to the Zuma facility and introduced Respondent to the president of the company. Thereafter, Respondent regularly toured the facility, inspected Zuma's existing and revised business plans, attended business meetings, and reviewed the company's monthly financial reports. The Zuma physical facility consisting of a warehouse and processing plant appeared to be consistent with the business plan. Respondent also obtained documents from Zuma reflecting that the company had initiated a research and development program associated with the University of South Florida. Respondent observed independent auditors at the Zuma facility, and reviewed financial documents that indicated Zuma had made progress toward a private stock offering. Respondent took reasonable actions to examine the operational and fiscal soundness of Zuma. When Respondent met with Mrs. Smith he presented her with documents including the Zuma business plan, and explained the investment opportunity in Zuma. Mrs. Smith does not recall Respondent explaining the Zuma investment proposal, nor does Mrs. Smith recall reading any documents or other material relating to Zuma. Given Mrs. Smith's extremely poor vision and the technical nature of the Zuma business plan, it is highly unlikely that Mrs. Smith read the business plan or any other documents pertaining to Zuma. Mrs. Smith did not comprehend the nature of the investment opportunity in Zuma. Although Mrs. Smith did not comprehend the nature of the Zuma investment, between September 26, 1994 and May 31, 1995 she nonetheless made several purchases of promissory notes payable by Zuma. Specifically, Mrs. Smith signed checks payable to Zuma as follows: September 26, 1994, two checks, one in the amount of $10,000, and another in the amount of $20,000; December 6, 1994, in the amount of $70,000; March 10, 1995 in the amount of $10,000; March 29, 1995 in the amount of $10,000; and, May 31, 1995 in the amount of $90,000. Mrs. Smith did not actually write the checks. Because of her poor eyesight, Mrs. Smith signed the checks in blank, and Respondent filled in the date, payee, and amount. Respondent remitted Mrs. Smith's checks to Zuma. In exchange, Zuma issued promissory notes to Mrs. Smith. The Zuma promissory notes were not insurance products. No interest has been paid on the Zuma promissory notes, and several of the notes are now in default. Mrs. Smith has not received any of the principal of the promissory notes back from Zuma. The prospectus of Zuma states that securities in Zuma are speculative, carry a high degree of risk, and "...should not be purchased by anyone who cannot afford the loss of his or her entire investment." Mrs. Smith did not understand the high risk involved in purchasing securities in Zuma. In addition to Mrs. Smith, Respondent sold promissory notes issued by Zuma to approximately thirty other investors. Subsequent to selling the Zuma notes to Mrs. Smith, Respondent met with an investigator from the Florida Comptroller's Office, and was informed that due to fiscal irregularities at Zuma, Respondent should refrain from selling Zuma securities. Respondent was not aware of the problems with Zuma prior to his meeting with the Comptroller's investigator. At the same time that Respondent presented Mrs. Smith with the Zuma proposal, Respondent also presented Mrs. Smith with information from Allstate Finance. Allstate, which is not related to the Allstate Insurance Company, is a company located in Tampa, Florida, in the business of automobile financing. Mrs. Smith purchased at least one promissory note in the amount of $40,000 from Allstate. The Allstate promissory note purchased by Mrs. Smith was not an insurance product. Mrs. Smith has received, and continues to receive, monthly interest payments from Allstate. In June of 1995, Mrs. Smith allowed the Allstate promissory note to renew for another year. In July of 1995, Brenda Blager received a telephone call from her mother, Miriam Enright, requesting assistance in reviewing Mrs. Smith's investments. Ms. Blager has worked in a financial planning office, but is not a certified financial planner. Prior to that time Ms. Blager had no knowledge of Zuma. Ms. Blager obtained a Dunn & Bradstreet report on Zuma and became very concerned regarding Mrs. Smith's investment in Zuma. Ms. Blager then came to Florida from Illinois for the purpose of reviewing Mrs. Smith's investments. After reviewing the Zuma and Allstate promissory notes, Ms. Blager met with an attorney and attempted to recover Mrs. Smith's funds; however, Ms. Blager was unable to do so. As a result of Respondent's actions, Mrs. Smith has cashed in all of her certificates of deposit to purchase the Zuma and Allstate promissory notes, and her Cadillac automobile. Mrs. Smith has no other savings or investments. While Mrs. Smith did want to relocate her funds from Georgia, Respondent was aware that Mrs. Smith desired and intended to place her funds in safe, low risk, investments. Respondent's advice and assistance, which resulted in placing Mrs. Smith's funds in a high risk security such as a Zuma promissory note, was not appropriate for an elderly woman in Mrs. Smith's circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER enter a final order finding Respondent, ROBERT DARREN CARLSON, in violation of the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth above, and that Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure be SUSPENDED for a period of fifteen (15) months. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON, 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 21st day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4947 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted as to Zuma was a start-up company, recycling tires. Rejected as to Mrs. Smith's knowledge and consent. Accepted as to Mrs. Smith wanting safe investments. Rejected as to Respondent being employed by Zuma. 7.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11.-12. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith desired safe investments. 13.-21. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-6. Accepted and incorporated. 7.-13. Accepted and incorporated. 14.-16. Rejected as to Respondent's reasonable basis for believing the representations of Coreen McKeever. 17. Accepted, except to the extent that Mr. Cody was led to believe Secure Care was equivalent to Time. 18.-25. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not necessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not an accurate assessment of Mr. Cody's testimony. 29.-30. Accepted and incorporated. 31.-32. Accepted; Time's general policy allowed checks from agencies. 33.-35. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 36.-43. Accepted and incorporated. 44. Accepted except to the extent that Zuma and Allstate promissory notes were not appropriate investments for Mrs. Smith. 45.-54. Accepted to the extent that Respondent investigated Zuma, reviewed fiscal reports, and believed Zuma to be a viable start-up company. 55.-57. Accepted and incorporated. 58. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith had document relating to Zuma; rejected to the extent that Mrs. Smith understood the nature of the Zuma investment. 59.-63. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith allowed the Allstate not to renew. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith wanted her certificates of deposit moved from Georgia. Rejected to the extent that Respondent knew, or should have known, the investments were high risk. Accepted to the extent that Ms. Blager is not a certified financial planner. Rejected to the extent that Zuma has defaulted on several of Mrs. Smith's notes, and not returned any interest or principal. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire NEWELL & STAHL 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
