The Issue The issue is whether a retiree's forfeiture of Florida Retirement System (FRS) benefits authorizes Respondent to seize from unrelated remittals due Petitioner the sum of $18,271.75, which is the amount that Respondent had previously deducted from the retiree's pension benefits and remitted to Petitioner for the payment of the retiree's insurance premiums.
Findings Of Fact Employed by Petitioner in April 1974, Garfield Perry participated in the FRS pension plan. On or about October 31, 2009, Mr. Perry terminated his employment and began receiving his monthly FRS pension benefit. Two months earlier, Mr. Perry had entered into an agreement with Petitioner for it to provide post-retirement life insurance for Mr. Perry and medical and dental insurance for Mr. Perry and his wife with all three policies commencing in November 2009. While these policies were in effect, pursuant to an agreement between Petitioner and Respondent that is described below, Respondent remitted to Petitioner a portion of Mr. Perry's FRS pension benefit equal to $17,429.47 for medical and dental premiums and $842.28 for life insurance premiums, for a total of $18,271.75. Petitioner is a self-insurer for medical insurance, so, on receipt of medical insurance premiums, Petitioner pays a portion of the premiums to a third-party administrator for insurance-related services and reserves the remainder for the payment of claims. For dental and life insurance, Petitioner remits the premiums to the respective insurers. On May 7, 2014, Mr. Perry pleaded guilty to one count of bribery and extortion in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, in connection with his employment in Petitioner's Public Works Department. On or about July 29, 2014, the court adjudicated Mr. Perry guilty. By letter dated August 6, 2014, Respondent advised Mr. Perry that, pursuant to article II, section 8(d), of the Florida Constitution, and sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5), Florida Statutes, his FRS benefits were forfeited due to his guilty plea. Mr. Perry requested an administrative hearing on the forfeiture, and Respondent transmitted the file to DOAH, which designated the case as DOAH Case No. 14-4195. On December 31, 2014, Mr. Perry voluntarily dismissed his request for hearing prior to the final hearing, and, on January 9, 2015, Respondent issued a Final Order of Dismissal that finds, among other things, that Mr. Perry committed the criminal offenses "from in or about 2006 through in or about October 2009." The final order formally declares a forfeiture of Mr. Perry's FRS pension benefits, evidently including benefits already paid. Respondent did not provide Petitioner with a copy of the August 6, 2014, letter, the Final Order of Dismissal, or any of the pleadings in DOAH Case No. 14-4195. The present record does not indicate if Petitioner had actual notice of the forfeiture process. However, this case likely represents the first time that Respondent has attempted to recover insurance premiums that it has remitted to an agency or company following the retiree's forfeiture of retirement benefits, and it is unlikely that Petitioner was aware of its potential liability to repay these amounts until April 1, 2016, as described below. This potential liability arguably arises from a Payroll Deduction Agreement entered into by Petitioner and Respondent. The agreement allows a retiree to authorize Respondent to deduct monthly from his pension benefit an amount equal to his insurance premiums and to remit this sum to Petitioner, so that it can pay the retiree's premiums. In this case, Respondent remitted insurance premiums to Petitioner from November 2009 through October 2012 and allocated them in the manner set forth above in paragraph 2. Three and one-half years after the last remittal that included any sums for Mr. Perry's insurance premiums, almost two years after Mr. Perry's guilty plea, and about 15 months after the final order declaring the forfeiture, Respondent withheld $18,271.75 from Respondent's March 2016 consolidated remittal to Petitioner on the account of other retirees in an attempt to recover the remittals that Respondent had made to Petitioner to pay Mr. Perry's insurance premiums. The Payroll Deduction Agreement is a form prepared by Respondent that is signed by the agency or company seeking to receive remittals for its FRS retirees. Under the agreement, which has a signature line only for the agency or company and not Respondent, the agency or company agrees to preserve the confidentiality of the information, assume responsibility for the accuracy of the premium deductions, and notify Respondent timely of the discontinuation of this payroll deduction service. An employee of Petitioner signed the Payroll Deduction Agreement on April 27, 2009. The Payroll Deduction Agreement requires the agency or company to accept the "Procedures for Admitting Insurance Providers for Retired Payroll Deduction." The procedures document states that Respondent offers the convenience of payroll deduction of insurance premiums as a service to FRS pension recipients. Only two paragraphs of this document address post-deduction adjustments: 11. If a retiree's insurance premium is deducted incorrectly for any reason (i.e.-- overpayment of amount, policy cancelled, administrative error, etc.), the Insurance provider company or FRS agency is responsible for refunding the premium amount to the retiree. 13. [1] If a retirement benefit is cancelled by the Division of Retirement, the corresponding insurance premium that was deducted from that same dated payment is recovered from the following month's consolidated insurance payment. Reasons for cancellations include payee deaths, [sic] cancelling retirement. When determining the amount of insurance premiums to be reimbursed to families of deceased members, please note that the Division cannot determine when a death will be reported or when funds will be funds will be returned [sic] from banks (resulting in cancellations). [4] There are occasions when a report of death is received months after a retiree's death. [5] If payments for the deceased are still outstanding, they most likely will be cancelled. A common example follows: Example: Payee dies 1/5/09. Family reports death to the Division on 4/1/09. Retiree was only due payments through the month of January. Since the February and March payments are still outstanding, these paper checks are cancelled by the Division of Retirement. This cancellation action recovers the 2/27/09 and 3/31/09 premium deductions from the 4/30/09 consolidated payment. A credit entry will also appear on the April 2009 report of retiree insurance deductions. Please Note: We recommend that you contact the Division of Retirement to inquire about possible payment cancellations prior to processing premium reimbursements. Paragraph 11 of the Payroll Deduction Agreement requires that an agency or company repay the retiree any excessive premium deduction, so is irrelevant in the case of forfeiture. Paragraph 13 of the Payroll Deduction Agreement applies to the situation in which a premium deduction is unfunded because of the cessation of the pension benefit from which it is deducted. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner argues that the application of paragraph 13 is prospective only, so it would not apply to a retroactive setoff of the type that has occurred in this case. The first sentence identifies the contingency of the cancelation of a retirement benefit and authorizes Respondent to recover its remittal of any premiums deducted from the cancelled pension benefit, but mentions a recovery or setoff only in the month following the cancelation. This establishes the kind of liability that Respondent seeks to impose on Petitioner, but only for the brief period of one month. Obviously, the willingness of an agency or company to assume this minor liability for the convenience of its retirees does not imply a willingness to assume a much larger liability spanning several months or even years of remittals. The second sentence cites two common reasons for cancelation: the death of the retiree and the cancellation of the pension benefit by the retiree. The use of "includes," as well as the insertion of a comma in place of "and" or "or," suggests that these two reasons are illustrative, not exhaustive. Even so, the second sentence does not add the reason of forfeiture, and, at this point in paragraph 13, the details of the parties' agreement concerning a forfeiture has not been explicitly addressed. The third and fourth sentences address only the contingency of the death of the retiree, in which case Respondent recovers unearned premiums that Respondent intends to remit to the estate of the retiree--in most cases, one assumes, indirectly to the families of the deceased member. Typically, insurers are not exposed to the risk of insured losses after the death of a retiree--even a life insurer's exposure ends after the insured's death and payment of the death benefits--so any premiums paid after death are unearned and should be refunded to the proper party. The warning that Respondent may not learn of the retiree's death for many months suggests a longer period may be available for retroactive adjustments, but this warning applies only to the contingency of death, again, where the insurers are obligated to refund unearned premiums. The fifth sentence also addresses only the contingency of the death of a retiree and seems to provide only that Respondent will cancel any pension benefits or premium remittals still outstanding at the time of the retiree's death. The example illustrates a three-month delay in the receipt of notification of a retiree's death followed by the cancellation of the pension benefits issued in the preceding two months, which presumably could not have been lawfully presented for payment by anyone besides the deceased retiree. In this case, Respondent would issue a corresponding credit entry on the next month's report of premium deductions made on account of the retiree. The procedures document thus fails to address the contingency of forfeiture. The provisions applicable to the contingencies of the death of the retiree and the retiree's cancellation of pension benefits are a poor fit for the contingency of forfeiture. Respondent has previously recovered income tax withheld on paid pension benefits following a forfeiture, but the recovery was limited to the period during which an amended personal income tax return could be filed--the effect being that the amount could be effectively recovered in the form of a tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service, rather than from an agency or company.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the Petition Requesting an Administrative Hearing filed on August 17, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Robert E. Meale Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Veronica E. Donnelly, Esquire Offices of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Joni A. Mosely, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810 111 Northwest 1st Street Miami, Florida 33128-1993 (eServed) Elizabeth Stevens, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Herbert Goloff, D.C., is a chiropractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. From March 10, 1988, through September 3, 1991, Dr. Goloff treated Ruth Waddle, a Workers' Compensation patient, for lumbar myofascitis. Lumbar myofascitis is an inflammation of the muscle and the fascia in the lumbar spine. Lumbar myofascitis is indicated by the following objective findings: recurrent spasms, limitation of motion, tender nodules, trigger point tenderness in the muscles, and taut or sensitive skin. On June 14, 1988, the Respondent placed Ruth Waddle at maximum medical improvement (MMI). The Respondent treated Ruth Waddle 14 times before placing her at MMI. The Respondent treated Ruth Waddle a total of 171 times after MMI. The Respondent is required to maintain documentation substantiating the treatment and services he rendered to Ruth Waddle in order to receive reimbursement for those services. The Respondent is required to perform an initial history, make a diagnosis, and develop a plan of care and document his subjective and objective findings in his records. The Respondent is also required to keep notes reflecting his subjective and objective findings, his appraisal or assessment and his plan of action (SOAP notes) for the patient Ruth Waddle, in order to substantiate and justify that the medical treatment and services he renders are medically necessary. If a health care provider cannot document that this treatment and services are medically necessary, he is not entitled to receive reimbursement for his services. The Respondent's records indicate that there was unscheduled ongoing care of the patient after June 14, 1988. Whenever the patient was in pain she would come in to the Respondent's Office and ask for a treatment. Respondent was not practicing full time in 1988. The patient seldom scheduled an appointment. She frequently came in on a Tuesday, a day she knew that Respondent had office hours. The patient would describe her symptoms to Respondent and he would perform various therapies, including mild adjustments. Respondent would make minimum entries in the patient's progress notes. Respondent's treatment of the patient Ruth Waddle, after reaching MMI, for the temporary relief of pain was palliative care. The Respondent's records indicate that there was inadequate testing of the patient Ruth Waddle to substantiate the medical necessity of treatment after June 14, 1988. The Respondent's records do not contain a plan of care or treatment for Ruth Waddle. The Respondents records do not contain an initial history for Ruth Waddle. The Respondents records do not contain an evaluation of Ruth Waddle's physical condition at the time of MMI relative to muscle spasms and range of motion, as well as other neurological and orthopedic tests. Respondent failed to maintain SOAP notes for the patient Ruth Waddle. The Respondent's records do not contain objective medical findings to substantiate the medical necessity of services rendered to Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988. The Respondent's records do not substantiate the medical necessity of the frequency and duration of the treatment provided to Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be determined to have failed to substantiate the treatment of Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988. The Respondent be ordered to return the sum of $7,354.68 to the American States Insurance Company for the fees that the Respondent collected in treating Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988, when the patient reached MMI. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4546 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-14. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 2, 5(a), 5(b) (in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: paragraph 4, 5(b) (in part), 5(c). COPIES FURNISHED: Michael G. Moore, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 William J. McCabe, Esquire Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley 1450 West S.R. 434, Suite 200 Longwood, Florida 32750 Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue This issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is responsible for payment of certain state employee health insurance premiums.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1986, Ms. Phyllis McCluskey-Titus became employed at Florida State University ("FSU"). She and her husband, John, moved to Tallahassee from outside Florida, so that she could accept her employment. At the time Ms. McCluskey-Titus became employed, Mr. Titus had not yet accepted employment. She appropriately enrolled in the state health insurance plan. Mr. Titus was listed as, and had coverage as, a dependent on her family coverage. In August, 1986, Mr. Titus accepted employment at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center ("TMRMC"). Although TMRMC offered an employee health insurance benefit, Mr. Titus retained his coverage on his wife's plan, because the couple believed the state plan's benefits to be more beneficial. Enrollment in the state health insurance plan requires the payment of premiums. Such premiums are generally paid through joint contributions, by the employee (through payroll deduction) and by the state. However, where spouses are both state employees, and one spouse is listed as an eligible dependent on the other spouse's family coverage, the state makes the full health insurance premium contribution (the "spouse plan"). In August, 1988, Mr. Titus became employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS"). Both FSU (Ms. McCluskey-Titus's employer) and DHRS are state agencies. Therefore, upon Mr. Titus' employment at DHRS, the couple became eligible for the spouse plan. On August 24, 1988, Ms. McCluskey-Titus went to her personnel office and completed the necessary forms to qualify for the spouse plan. At the time of his employment, Mr. Titus received a package of materials from DHRS. Included in the materials was a five page document entitled "EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INFORMATION PACKAGE". The document outlines various insurance benefits and lists premiums related to coverages. On the first page of the information document, under the heading "PREMIUMS (full-time employees)" is the following statement: "If you and your spouse are both employed with State Agencies, please contact the Personnel office for information on the Spouse Program. If you are eligible, the State will pay up to 100% of your premium". Believing that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient, Mr. Titus did not contact his personnel office for information. On the third page of the information document, is a form which was to be completed and returned to the DHRS personnel office. Contained on the form is the following statement: "If your spouse is employed with a State Agency in a Career Service position, please contact the Personnel office to request an application for the Spouse Program". Ms. McCluskey-Titus was not employed in a Career Service position. Mr. Titus believed that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient. He did not obtain or submit an application for the program. Neither form provided to Mr. Titus stated that both spouses were required to submit separate documentation. There is no evidence that either Mr. or Ms. Titus were informed, by either employer or the Respondent, that the failure to complete separate documentation would preclude enrollment in the spouse program and could result in an assessment of unpaid premiums. After Ms. McCluskey-Titus submitted the form to the FSU personnel office, the state discontinued deducting her contribution to the health insurance premium from her check. The couple believed that, since no premium deduction was being withheld, the spouse plan enrollment had been completed. In February, 1989, Mr. Titus was informed that, because he had not completed the appropriate form at the DHRS office, the couple was ineligible for the spouse plan. The Respondent requires that both spouses complete separate documentation in order to enroll in the spouse plan. He completed the form and by March 1, 1989, their coverage in the spouse plan became effective. The Respondent is now attempting to assess Ms. McCluskey-Titus for the $83.46 monthly family coverage premiums which were not deducted from her pay during the five month period preceding Mr. Titus' completion of the appropriate form. The total amount claimed by Respondent is $417.30. The evidence indicates that, but for Mr. Titus' failure to complete and submit the form, the couple would have been entitled to participate in the spouse plan and no premium contribution would be owed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, enter a Final Order dismissing the assessment against the Petitioner for additional insurance premiums in the total amount of $417.30. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-4943 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified, except for last sentence, rejected, argument, not appropriate finding of fact. Statement that prescription drug claims were covered is rejected, not supported by evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. Nature of communication between the respective personnel offices, rejected, not supported by evidence. Respondent Accepted. Rejected, not supported by evidence. 3-4. Accepted as modified. However, requirement that both spouses must submit forms, not supported by evidence. Accepted as to amount, rejected as to indicating that Petitioner was responsible for payment, not supported by evidence. Rejected. Paragraph 2E(2) of the Petition does not state that Mr. Titus failed to read the document, but states only that he took no action. Rejected, not supported by evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis McCluskey-Titus 2353 Skyland Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William A. Frieder, Esq. Department of Administration Room 438, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner underwent surgery in August of 1971 for the purpose of reconstructive repair to his leg as a result of burns. He had the first surgery in the early part of August of 1971. That surgery was unsuccessful since the graft did not take. Approximately two weeks thereafter, also during August of 1971, he had further surgery. That graft was also unsuccessful. After eight to nine months, the second graft developed keloid scarring in the area on the back of Petitioner's knee, which necessitated a third operation. The third operation was performed some nine months after the second operation and removed keloid scarring from the back of the knee area and added some additional tissue to allow for contracture during the aging process. In 1972, there was a fourth surgical procedure performed on Petitioner's leg, this time to remove keloid scarring from the front of the knee area. That was the last surgery performed on Petitioner with respect to this injury. Petitioner had no apparent symptoms of additional scarring until 1982. Petitioner joined the plan in December of 1980. From this stipulation of facts and the correspondence forwarded with the request for hearing, it is evident this case should not have been referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings but should have been handled as a Declaratory Statement pursuant to Rule 18-4.05, Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Petitioner is entitled to a premium refund of her health insurance premium.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Mildred Daw, is a retired State employee. She is enrolled in the State of Florida, State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (the Plan). Prior to retiring, Petitioner amended her coverage in the Plan, changing from single coverage to family coverage. Petitioner modified her coverage so that her husband would be covered under the Plan. Petitioner's husband was under age 65 and qualified for Medicare Parts A and B. Petitioner was not qualified for Medicare coverage. The premium for family coverage was $178.44 per month. Petitioner began paying this amount shortly before she retired in December 1984. By letter dated, July 8, 1985, the Division of State Employees' Insurance notified retirees that: If you are under age 65 and eligible for Medicare Part A and B because of disability, you may now be eligible for Medicare Coordination coverage at the reduced rate. Please notify our office if you are eligible and send a copy of your Medicare card. Your premium will be reduced the month following our receipt of your notice and the copy of your Medicare card. The letter was sent to retirees and made no mention of surviving spouses or that a current spouse, who fit within the Medicare category, could qualify the insured for Medicare Coordination coverage. The Medicare Coordination coverage is the only program that the State offers in which it is the spouse of the insured/retiree who can qualify the insured for new benefits or different coverage. In this case, the different coverage or new benefit was solely a reduction in premium. Otherwise, the benefits under the family coverage and the Medicare Coordination coverage were the same. An ordinary person reading the letter would not have been placed on notice and would not have assumed that anyone other than the retiree was covered by the letter. If Petitioner had immediately elected the Medicare Coordination coverage, her premium would have been reduced by $42.76 a month, beginning with the August 1985, payment. The July 8, 1985, letter was mailed by first class mail to all retired State employees in the Plan. The business practice of the Division is to mail any such letters to the address of the retiree listed with the Division of Retirement and given to the Division of State Employees' Insurance or to the most current address the Division of Employees Insurance has for that particular retiree. In this case, the address which the Division of Retirement would have had on Petitioner in 1985 was her old address in Jacksonville. However, by July 1985, Petitioner had mailed the Division of State Employees' Insurance a change of address card with her new Pensacola address. She did not mail the Division of Retirement a change of address. There is no evidence as to which address the Respondent mailed the July 8, 1985, letter. Without such evidence Respondent is not entitled to a presumption of proper notice when a letter is mailed to a party with the correct address. Petitioner does not remember receiving the July 8, 1985, letter. She would have elected the Medicare Coordination coverage had she been aware of its availability. Petitioner became aware of her eligibility for reduced premiums in October 1987, when she received an informational bulletin from the Division of State Employees' Insurance. The bulletin stated the premium rates for various types of insurance coverage, including the reduced premiums for family coverage with members of the family who are qualified for Medicare benefits. Petitioner telephoned the Division and was instructed by Division personnel to send in a copy of her husband's Medicare card in order to establish her eligibility for the reduced premium. Petitioner sent a copy of her husband's Medicare card to the Division in October 1987. On November 6, 1987, Petitioner requested a refund of excess insurance premiums paid from July 1985, through November 1987. On December 28, 1987, Petitioner was informed by the Respondent that the earliest date a change in coverage could become effective was October 1987, because Petitioner had not applied for a change of coverage prior to that time. Petitioner was awarded an excess premium refund for the premium paid for November coverage. The Rules governing the Plan are found in Chapter 22I-1, Florida Administrative Code. This Chapter generally requires that an employee or retiree perform an affirmative act, by completing an informational form and sending it to the Department, before any change in coverage can be effectuated. The reason for such a requirement is that the Department has no way of knowing the number of eligible employees or retirees, without being supplied that information from the insureds, so that the Plan's administrator can better manage the Plan's funds to provide an adequate amount for the payment of claims. However, competing with this Rule is the Respondent's policy that a retiree who is otherwise eligible for certain benefits, but did not receive any notice of such eligibility is entitled to retroactive benefits. This policy is based on the Division's duty to administer the State's health plan, including notifying retirees of the availability of new types of coverage or benefits. The evidence showed that this policy takes precedence over the Rule when the Division has failed to notify an eligible retiree. In this case the Division failed to notify Petitioner of her eligibility for Medicare Coordination coverage due to her spouse's qualifications. Petitioner is therefore entitled to retroactive benefits beginning July 1985. Since the benefit of the Medicare Coordination coverage is a reduced premium, Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the excess premium of $42.76 a month from July 1985, through October 1987. The refund for that time period totals $1,154.52.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order refunding to Petitioner excess premiums paid to the Department in the amount of $1,154.52. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-301 The facts contained in paragraphs a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j and k of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs l, m, and n of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph p of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraph o of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are rejected. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 7 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence except for the fact relating to the letter being mailed first class mail. COPIES FURNISHED: Karren Lessard 15 West La Rua Street Pensacola, Florida 32521 Larry D. Scott Senior Attorney Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Andrew McMullian III Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring businesses within the state to ensure that such businesses are providing the requisite workers' compensation insurance coverage for all employees. The Division's headquarters are located in Tallahassee, Florida, but its investigators are spread throughout the state in order to more effectively monitor businesses. Respondent is a construction company that has been operating in excess of 30 years. It is a small company and usually only has a few employees at any given time. The company is located in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Workers' compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Workers' compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) The purchase of a workers' compensation insurance policy; 2) Arranging for the payment of wages and workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; or 3) Applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers' compensation coverage, if certain statutorily-mandated criteria are met. On January 8, 2009, Ira Bender, investigator for the Division, was doing on-site inspections in Port Charlotte, Florida. Bender stopped at the site on Edgewater Drive where new construction was underway at a YMCA. Bender observed a man (later identified as Thomas Woodall) sweeping the floor. Bender questioned Woodall and was told that Woodall worked for Respondent. When asked about his workers' compensation insurance coverage, Woodall advised that his insurance was maintained through Frank Crum Leasing Company ("Crum"). Bender called Crum and found that although Woodall had been carried as an employee of Respondent in the past, he had been released from coverage. The reason for his release was that his employment had been terminated for lack of business. Bender called Respondent to inquire about workers' compensation coverage. He was told that Respondent did not realize Woodall had been dropped from the Crum insurance coverage and that he would be reinstated immediately. In fact, coverage was restarted on that same day. Based on his finding that an employee had been working without coverage, Bender called his supervisor and provided his findings. The supervisor authorized issuance of a SWO based on the findings. The SWO was served on Respondent via hand- delivery at 11:45 a.m., on January 8, 2009. The SWO was also posted at the work site. The Division then requested business records from Respondent in order to determine whether there were any violations. If there were violations, then the Division would ascertain the amount of penalty to assess. Respondent cooperated and submitted the business records, as requested. After review of the business records, the Division issued its first Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Order") on January 14, 2009. The process employed by the Division was to locate all uncovered employees, i.e., those working without workers' compensation insurance for any period of time. The employees were then assigned a class code from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) publication. Each trade or type of employment is assigned a code which sets the rate to be applied to an individual depending on the type of work he/she is performing. The Division assigned codes to the employees, determined how much the employee had been paid during the period of non-coverage, assigned the rate to the gross pay, and calculated the insurance premium needed to cover the worker for the time in question. A penalty of 1.5 times the premium was then assigned. The Order assessed a total penalty of $21,165.98 against Respondent. Respondent objected to the amount and refused to sign it due to errors contained in the Penalty Worksheet attached to the Order. Signing the Order would have allowed Respondent to return to work, but he refused to sign because he knew it was not correct. Pursuant to discussions between the parties and "additional records received," the Division issued a second Order on January 16, 2009, assessing a penalty of $6,501.27. Respondent believed that the Division was still in error and provided yet additional information--some verbal--to the Division. A third Order was issued on January 21, 2009, reducing the penalty to $3,309.56. However, Respondent still believed the penalty worksheet contained errors. Again, Respondent refused to sign and provided additional information to the Division. The Division issued a fourth Order on January 28, 2009, assessing a penalty of $2,822.24. That Order had an error concerning the spelling of an employee's name, but the penalty amount was correct. Respondent would not sign the fourth Order, because he did not believe he had intentionally violated any statute or rule concerning workers' compensation coverage for his employees. A corrected (fifth amended) Order was ultimately issued on May 19, 2009.1 The fifth Order asserts the amount of penalty now in dispute, which is the same amount appearing in the fourth amended Order. Respondent signed the fifth Order and entered into a payment plan for payment of the penalty, paying a down payment of $1,000 and monthly payments of $30 until paid in full. Respondent takes great offense to the fact that the penalty assessments were not faxed to him more quickly. He maintains that he had every intention to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, but the Division delayed and dragged out the process. The penalty worksheet attached to the fifth Order listed nine "Employee Names" that are subject to the penalty assessment. Each will be discussed below. The first "employee" is listed as "Cash" and is assigned Class Code 5403. This "employee" represents checks found in Respondent's records with the payee listed as "cash- casual labor" totaling $2,178.00 in gross payroll. Code 5403 was assigned because that is the code used by Crum for Respondent's general business. The manual rate for Code 5403 is $24.74. A penalty of $808.26 was assessed for that employee. The second employee is Jacob Prewitt. Prewitt was assigned Class Code 5221, due to the word "driveway" appearing on a check issued to him. Driveway work falls under a lower approved manual rate ($10.37) than general construction. The gross payroll amount was $1,960, and the penalty assigned to Prewitt was $304.88. The third employee is Woodall, assigned a Class Code of 5606, with a manual rate of $3.84. That code is used for supervisors and is, again, not as dangerous an occupation as general construction. The gross payroll for this entry was $1,008, and the penalty assessed for Woodall was $58.07. Cash is the fourth employee and has been covered in the discussion in paragraph 16, above. Barry Lawrence is the fifth employee; he is assigned Class Code 5437 as a cabinet maker/installer with a manual rate of $13.01. Lawrence had a Verification Letter issued by the Division indicating he was exempt from workers' compensation coverage. However, that exemption was limited to cabinet- making. By installing the cabinets, Lawrence performed work outside his exemption status. The gross payroll for his work was $6,200, and the penalty assessed for Lawrence was $1,209.33. Respondent was completely unaware that the exemption letter did not cover installation and had, in fact, always allowed cabinet- makers to install the cabinets as well. Brunderman Builders is listed as the sixth employee. It is assigned Class Code 5403 with a manual rate of $14.39. The gross payroll for this entry was $550, resulting in a penalty assessment of $118.73. The seventh employee is Jorge Gonzolas, assigned Class Code 5403, the general contracting code. Gonzolas was the employee of a contractor who was subcontracting with Respondent. The contractor died unexpectedly, and Gonzolas was left without payment for the work he had performed. Respondent generously decided to pay Gonzolas for his work, thereby, effectively making Gonzolas a de facto employee. The amount paid Gonzolas was $599.00; the penalty assessed for Gonzolas was $129.30. Woodall is again listed as employee number eight, this time with Class Code 5610, reflecting casual labor he did on one date that his insurance was not in place. The payroll amount for this work was $37.50. The penalty assessed for Woodall was $4.02. The ninth employee was Julio Garcia, assigned Class Code 8742 for outside sales, with a manual rate of $.64. The payroll amount for Garcia was $1,300. His penalty assessment amount was $12.48. Garcia was another one of the deceased subcontractor's employees that Respondent volunteered to pay for work Garcia had performed. The total payroll at issue for Respondent was $14,477.50. The total premium for that amount of payroll would have been $1,881.48, and the penalty assessed was $2,822.84. This is a fairly insignificant portion of Respondent's $5.5 million annual payroll. Respondent did not intentionally attempt to avoid the payment of workers' compensation insurance for its employees. There is no pattern of avoidance or indication that non-payment was Respondent's goal. Rather, there are plausible and reasonable explanations about the unpaid premiums. For Woodall, Respondent believed he was still covered through the Crum policy. For Gonzolas and Garcia, Respondent was simply attempting to be a nice guy. For Prewitt, the employee's exemption had unknowingly lapsed. For Lawrence, Respondent relied upon a Verification Letter from the state, but misinterpreted its scope. The Division, on the other hand, only pursued Respondent based on an actual finding of non-coverage. But for Woodall's presence at a work site doing manual labor (sweeping the floor), the Division would not have looked at Respondent's records. There is no indication the Division acted other than in strict accordance to its governing rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, upholding the assessment of a penalty of $2,822.24 against Respondent, Brunderman Building Company, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 9th day of October, 2009.
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 Petitioner's claim for medical expenses from August 6, 1982 through February 27, 1983 should be approved, pursuant to the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Petitioner appeared at the hearing accompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer thereupon explained his rights and procedures to be followed in the administrative hearing. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood his rights and elected to represent himself. Petitioner testified in his own behalf at the hearing and the parties stipulated to the introduction of Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. A late filed exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit 3, was also admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst for the Respondent's Bureau of Insurance.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Thomas J. Appleyard, III, is a former state employee who retired with disability in 1976 as a result of cardiac disease. At the time Petitioner retired, he maintained coverage in the state Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under which the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. serves as the administrator of the plan for the state. Petitioner also receives disability benefits under the Medicare program for medical expenses. (Testimony of Petitioner) The State Group Health Self Insurance Plan provides in Section X, COORDINATION OF BENEFITS, that if an insured has coverage under Medicare, the benefits payable under the state plan will be coordinated with similar benefits paid under the other coverage to the extent that the combination of benefits will not exceed 100 percent of the costs of services and supplies to the insured. Paragraph D of Section X provides that the state plan will be the secondary coverage in such situations and will pay benefits only to the extent that an insured's existing insurance coverage does not entitle him to receive benefits equal to 100 percent of the allowable covered expenses. This provision applies when the claim is on any insured person covered by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner was hospitalized at the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center on three occasions in 1982-33. His Medicare coverage paid all but $261.75 of the hospital expenses. In February 1983, Petitioner also incurred medical expenses to his cardiologist, Dr. J. Galt Allee, in the amount of $248.33. Petitioner was originally denied his remaining hospital expenses by the administrator of the state plan under the erroneous belief that he was receiving regular Medicare benefits for persons over the age of 65. In addition, Dr. Allee's bill was only partially paid by Medicare, subject to the receipt of additional information from the physician. Payment under the state plan was limited to an amount sufficient to reimburse petitioner 100 percent of the amount originally allowed by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 3) Respondent does not receive information on claims filed under the state plan until contacted by an employee. In February 1984, Petitioner requested assistance from William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst, of Respondent's Bureau of Insurance, regarding his difficulties in receiving proper claims payments. Seaton investigated the matter with the Insurance administrator for the state, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, and discovered that the latter had not coordinated the hospital expense balance with Medicare. They thereafter did so and as of the date of hearing, there was no longer a balance due to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. Seaton also gave written instructions to Blue Cross to review all of Petitioner's claims and make sure that they were paid properly, and to install controls on his and his wife's records. (Testimony of Petitioner, Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1-2) The full claim of Dr. Allee had not been paid by Medicare since it had been awaiting requested additional in formation from the physician. Such information was provided after a personal visit had been made to Dr. Allee by Seaton and Medicare then recognized additional eligible expenses. However, a balance of $36.00 is still owed to the physician due to the fact that Blue Cross/Blue Shield had not received the necessary payment information from Medicare as of the day before the hearing. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Section XVII of the state's Group Health Self Insurance Plan benefit document provides that an employee who wishes to contest decisions of the state administrator considering the employee's coverage under the plan may submit a petition for a hearing for consideration by the Secretary of Administration. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive benefits for the services requested.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a 20-year-old male who has been diagnosed with mental retardation. The Petitioner resides with his parents who provide for his care. Currently the Petitioner receives medical benefits through the father's health insurance. He also receives some funding through social security benefits. The Petitioner is a client of the Developmental Disabilities Program and his eligibility to receive benefits is not disputed by the Department. The Petitioner is eligible for benefits. The Petitioner applied for, and has been denied, dental, companion, personal care assistance, and respite benefits. The Petitioner would have received the benefits requested but for the lack of funding in the appropriations for the Department. Because of the lack of funding, the Department prioritizes those who will receive benefits. Unfortunately, the Petitioner is on a waiting list for the Medicaid Waiver Program, and the Individual and Family Support Program does not have sufficient funds appropriated to pay for the services requested by the Petitioner. The Department may not use general revenue funds to fund services for persons awaiting enrollment in the Medicaid Waiver program. The Petitioner's parents need assistance in providing for the care of their son. The Petitioner must be attended lest he be considered "at risk." The parents have incurred debt to provide for their son, have pursued all avenues for assistance known to them, and have unselfishly tended to his needs. The only way the Petitioner may now receive additional benefits would be if the parents abandon their son so that he might be deemed "in crisis." The Petitioner did not become a client of the Developmental Disabilities Program until after July 1, 1999.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order denying the benefits sought by the Petitioner at this time. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Hilda Fluriach, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-1020 Miami, Florida 33128 Alejandro A. Penaloza c/o Alejandro O. Penaloza 12205 Northwest 6th Street Miami, Florida 33182 Jerry Reiger, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
