The Issue The issue is whether, for the 2001-02 cost-reporting year, Respondent is entitled to recoupment of Medicaid reimbursements that it paid to Petitioner, in connection with its operation of numerous intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (ICF/DD) and, if so, what is the amount of the overpayments.
Findings Of Fact The Audit For over 40 years, Petitioner has operated as a not- for-profit provider of ICF/DD services. These cases involve a compliance audit of ten of Petitioner's 2001-02 cost reports. During 2001-02, Petitioner operated over 300 ICF/DDs-- both owned and leased--in eight states and earned an annual revenue of over $90 million. A typical facility is a group home serving 24 developmentally disabled residents, although some of Petitioner's facilities serve much larger numbers of residents. Respondent outsourced the compliance audit of Petitioner's 2001-02 cost reports, as well as a similar audit of Petitioner's 2002-03 cost reports, which are not involved in these cases. Prior to completing the audit, the outside auditor withdrew from the engagement because it had concluded that it would be required to issue a disclaimer of opinion--an auditing nonopinion, as described below. In late 2005, two and one-half years after the outside auditor had commenced its work, Respondent's staff auditors assumed responsibility for the compliance audit. After examining the outside auditor's workpapers, Respondent's staff auditors found it necessary to re-perform at least some of the field work. By letter dated January 3, 2006, Respondent advised Petitioner of this development and, among other things, requested information about 16 identified motor vehicles and a statement concerning the 1981 Piper airplane noted in the May 29, 2002 Insurance sub-committee minutes. What was the plane used for and in what cost centers and accounts are the costs recorded? Possible costs would include fuel, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, and any salaries. Petitioner responded by a letter dated March 3, 2006, but this letter is not part of the record. Evidently, not much audit activity took place for the next couple of years. By letter dated January 25, 2008, Respondent advised Petitioner of several potential audit adjustments and noted that Petitioner had not provided the "detail general ledger" and information on aircraft and vehicles that Respondent had sought in its January 3, 2006 letter. In March 2008, Respondent's staff auditor visited Petitioner's main office in Miami and audited Petitioner's records for three days. He confirmed the existence of a 1981 Piper aircraft and a second aircraft, which he was unable to identify. Respondent's staff auditor determined that he still lacked information necessary to determine if Petitioner's aircraft expenses were reasonable when compared to common- carrier expenses. By letter dated May 12, 2008, Respondent informed Petitioner that, after the March 2008 onsite visit, several issues remained. Among the issues listed were the costs of two private aircraft, for which Respondent requested access to all flight and maintenance logs and detailed documentation of business purpose of trips, identification of aircraft bearing two cited tail numbers, the names of pilots on Petitioner's payroll, and any other cost information justifying the cost of the aircraft compared to common-carrier costs. By letter dated June 13, 2008, Petitioner responded to the May 12, 2008 letter. This letter states that the 1981 Piper was sold at an undisclosed time, and the maintenance logs had been delivered with the plane. The letter supplies registration documentation for the two tail numbers, a personnel file checklist for the pilot, and justification for the cost of operating an aircraft compared to the cost of using common carriers. On December 4, 2008, Respondent's staff auditor conducted an exit conference by telephone with Petitioner's principals and its independent auditor. Respondent's staff auditor proposed audit adjustments of various cost items that the auditor had guessed involved the aircraft. Petitioner did not agree with these proposed audit adjustments or various others that Respondent's staff auditor proposed. For the next 17 months, neither side contacted the other, until, on May 12, 2010, Respondent issued examination reports for the 2001-02 cost-reporting period. It had taken Respondent over seven years to issue examination reports based on cost reports that Petitioner had filed on February 3, 2003, for a cost-reporting year that had ended almost two years earlier. Cost Items in Dispute On January 28, 2011, Respondent filed a Notice of Filing of a spreadsheet that lists all of the adjustments that have been in dispute. During the hearing, the parties announced the settlement of other cost items. As noted by the Administrative Law Judge, these adjustments are shown on the judge's copy of this filing, which is marked as Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 1 among the original exhibits. Most of the items in dispute are Home Office costs, which are allocated to each of Petitioner's audited facilities. With the reason for disallowance, as indicated in the examination reports, as well as the Schedule of Proposed Auditing Adjustment (SOPAA) number, the Home Office costs in dispute are: Other consultants. "To disallow out of period costs." $7,000. SOPAA #19. Professional fees--other. "To disallow out of period costs." $1,500. SOPAA #20. Administrative Travel. "To disallow out of period costs." $1,038. SOPAA #21. Transportation--repairs. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $36,496. SOPAA #22. Transportation--fuel and oil. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $78,336. SOPAA #22. Insurance. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $24,000. SOPAA #22. Transportation--Depreciation. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $106,079. SOPAA #22. Transportation--Interest. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $57,714. SOPAA #22. Staff Development Supplies. "To remove unreasonable cash awards." SOPAA #26. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge encouraged the parties to try to settle as many of the issues as they could and, as to the aircraft issues, consider entering into a post-hearing stipulation due to the lack of facts in the record concerning this important issue. The parties produced no post-hearing stipulation and have not advised the Administrative Law Judge of any settled issues. The Administrative Law Judge has identified the remaining issues based on the issues addressed in the parties' Proposed Recommended Orders. With two exceptions, the remaining issues are all addressed in each Proposed Recommended Order. One exception is the Country Meadows return-on-equity issue, which neither party addressed. There is a small discrepancy between the amount of this adjustment on Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 1 and elsewhere in the record, so this issue may have been settled. If so, Respondent may ignore the portions of the Recommended Order addressing it. Also, Respondent failed to address the $123,848 in transportation salaries and benefits. Based on the services corresponding to these expenses and the motivation of Respondent's staff auditor in citing these reimbursements as overpayments, as discussed below, the decision of Respondent's counsel not to mention these items is understandable. The remaining issues are thus: Burial costs of $4,535 at the Ambrose Center. Return on equity adjustment of $3,418 at the Country Meadows facility. Legal fees of $4,225 for the Bayshore Cluster as out-of-period costs. Inclusion of state overhead of $9,529 at Mahan Cluster, $9,529 at Dorchester Cluster, and $9,529 at Bayshore Cluster. Transportation Salaries and Benefits of $123,848 at Main Office. Individual Cost Items Burial Costs After the death of an indigent resident at Petitioner's Ambrose Center, the family contacted Petitioner and informed it that they desired a burial, not a cremation, but could not afford to pay for any services. Petitioner's staff contacted several vendors about the cost of a simple burial service and, after negotiating a discount due to the unfortunate circumstances, selected a vendor. The vendor duly performed the burial service, which was attended by survivors of the deceased's group home, and Petitioner paid the vendor $4,535 for the service. For a burial service, the amount paid was reasonable. Petitioner's staff determined that the burial would have therapeutic value to the surviving residents of the deceased's group home. The quality of life of the residents is enhanced to the extent that they identify with each other as family. Petitioner's staff justifiably determined that a burial service would help sustain these familial relationships by bringing to the survivors a sense of closure, rather than subjecting them to the jarring experience of an unmarked departure of their fellow resident from their lives. However, routine counseling or therapy could have achieved the same results at less cost than a burial service. Out-of-Period Costs The so-called out-of-period costs are $1,038 of rental-car fees, $1,500 of computer consultation fees, $4,225 of legal fees, and $7,000 of "duplicated" insurance broker services. "Out-of-period" means that the expenses were incurred, and should properly be reported, outside of the cost- reporting year ending June 30, 2002. Generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) incorporate the principle of materiality. At least for the purpose of determining the cost-reporting year in which to account for an expense, the materiality threshold for Petitioner is tens of thousands of dollars. The out-of-period issue, which involves the integrity of the cost-reporting year, is different from the other issues, which involve the allowability of specific costs. The cost items under the out-of-period issue are all allowable; the question is in which cost-reporting year they should be included. The test of materiality is thus whether the movement of these cost items from one cost-reporting year to an adjoining cost-reporting year will distort the results and, thus, Petitioner's Medicaid reimbursements. Given Petitioner's revenues, distortion would clearly not result from the movement of the subject cost items, even if considered cumulatively. In theory, Petitioner could be required to amend the cost report for the year in which any of these expenses were incurred, if they were not incurred in the subject cost- reporting year. Unfortunately, by the time Respondent had generated the SOPAAs, the time for amending the cost reports for the adjoining cost-reporting years had long since passed, so a solution of amending another cost report means the loss of the otherwise-allowable cost. This result has little appeal due to Respondent's role in not performing the audit in a timely, efficient manner, but each out-of-period cost is allowable for different reasons. The car-rental expense arises out of an employee's rental of a car for business purposes in June 2001. The submittal and approval of the travel voucher, which are parts of the internal-control process, did not take place until after June 30, 2001. Although Petitioner's liability to the rental-car company probably attached at the time of the rental, the contingency of reimbursement for an improper rental was not removed until the internal-control process was completed, so it is likely that this is not an out-of-period expense. The legal expenses included services provided over the three months preceding the start of the subject cost-reporting year. The attorney submitted the invoice to Petitioner's insurer. After determining that Petitioner had not satisfied its applicable deductible, after June 30, 2001, the insurer forwarded the bill to Petitioner for payment. Absent evidence of the retainer agreement, it is not possible to determine if Petitioner were liable to the law firm prior to the insurer's determination that the payment was less than the deductible, so it is unclear whether this is an out-of-period expense. The computer-consulting work occurred about three months before the end of the preceding cost-reporting year, but the vendor did not bill Petitioner until one year later. This is an out-of-period expense. To the extent that these three items may have been out-of-period expenses, it is not reasonable to expect Petitioner to estimate these liabilities and include them in the preceding cost-reporting year. This is partly due to the lack of materiality explained above. For the car-rental and computer expenses, it is also unreasonable to assume that Petitioner's employees responsible for the preparation of the cost reports would have any knowledge of these two liabilities or to require them to implement procedures to assure timely disclosure of liabilities as modest as these. The last cost item is $7,000 for insurance broker services. This is not an out-of-period expense. In its audit, Respondent determined that this amount represents a sum that was essentially a duplicate payment for services over the same period of time to two different insurance brokers. This is a payment for services over the same period of time to two different insurance brokers for nonduplicated services reasonably required by Petitioner. Given the size and the nature of its operations, Petitioner has relatively large risk exposures that are managed through general liability, automobile liability, director and officer liability, property, and workers' compensation insurance. Paying premiums of $4-5 million annually for these coverages, which exclude health insurance, Petitioner retains insurance brokers to negotiate the best deals in terms of premiums, collateral postings, and other matters. Petitioner experienced considerable difficulty in securing the necessary insurance in mid-2001. At this time, Petitioner was transitioning its insurance broker services from Palmer and Kay to Gallagher Bassett. Difficulties in securing workers' compensation insurance necessitated an extension of the existing policy to July 15, 2001--evidently from its original termination date of June 30, 2001. Due to these market conditions, Petitioner had to pay broker fees to Palmer and Kay after June 30, 2001, even though, starting July 1, 2001, Petitioner began to pay broker fees to Gallagher Bassett. There was no overlap in insurance coverages, and each broker earned its fee, even for the short period in which both brokers earned fees. Employee Cash Awards Petitioner paid $8,500 in employee cash awards in the 2001-02 cost-reporting year as part of a new policy to provide relatively modest cash awards to employees with relatively long terms of service. For employees with at least 20 years of service, Petitioner paid $100 per year of service. The legitimate business purpose of these longevity awards was to provide an incentive for employees to remain with Petitioner, as longer-tenured employees are valuable employees due to their experience and lack of need for expensive training, among other things. The disallowance arose from the application of a nonrule policy that has developed among Respondent's staff auditors: employee compensation is not an allowable cost unless it is includible in the employee's gross income. The evident purpose of the nonrule policy is to exclude from allowable costs payments to employees who, due to their prominence in the ranks of the provider, are able to cause the provider to structure the payments so as to avoid their inclusion in the recipient's gross income (and possibly deprive a for-profit provider of an offsetting deduction for the payments). For the 2001-02 cost-reporting year, only three employees qualified for these payments. Two had 30 years of service, so each of them received $3,000, and one had 25 years of service, so he or she received $2,500. The total of the payments at issue is thus $8,500. The record contains ample support for the finding that the addition of $3,000 to the annual compensation paid to any of Petitioner's employees would not result in excessive compensation. Return on Equity During the cost-reporting year, Petitioner maintained $128,000 in a bank account dedicated for the use of the Country Meadows facility. This sum represented about three months' working capital for Country Meadows. At the time, Respondent encouraged providers to maintain cash reserves of at least two months' working capital, so this sum was responsive to Respondent's preferred working capital levels. Consistent with its purpose as working capital, funds in this account were regularly withdrawn as needed to pay for the operation of Country Meadows. The record does not indicate whether the bank paid interest on this account. Also, the concept of return on equity does not apply to a not-for-profit corporation such as Petitioner, which, lacking shareholders, lacks equity on which a return might be calculated or anticipated. State Overhead at Three Clusters This item involves three ICF/DD clusters that, at the time, were owned by, and licensed to, the State of Florida. Petitioner operated the facilities during the cost-reporting year pursuant to a lease and operating agreement. As in prior cost-reporting years, Respondent did not disallow the depreciation included in the subject cost reports for these three clusters. The record does not reveal whether Petitioner or the State of Florida bore the economic loss of these capital assets over time. But the treatment of depreciation costs is not determinative of the treatment of operating or direct care costs. During the subject cost-reporting year, for these three clusters, the State of Florida retained various operational responsibilities, including admissions. However, the costs at issue arise from the expenditures of the State of Florida, not the provider. The costs include the compensation paid to several, state-employed Qualified Mental Retardation Professionals, who performed various operational oversight duties at the three clusters, and possibly other state employees performing services beneficial to these three clusters. Petitioner never reimbursed the State of Florida for these costs. There is no dispute concerning the reasonableness of the compensation paid these employees by the State of Florida, nor the necessity of these services. The issue here is whether Petitioner is entitled to "reimbursement" for these costs, which amount to $5,139 per cluster, when the costs were incurred by the State of Florida, not Petitioner. Disallowed Transportation Costs and Airplane Costs The $123,848 in disallowed Main Office Transportation salary and benefits represents the salary and benefits of eight Main Office van drivers, who earn about $15,000 per year in pay and benefits. At least 40 residents of the Main Office are not ambulatory, but, like all of the other residents, need to be transported for medical, recreational, and other purposes. There probably remains no dispute concerning these expenses. They are reasonable and necessary. The explanation for why these costs were disallowed starts with the inability of Respondent's staff auditor to find the aircraft expenses in the financial records of Petitioner. It is not possible to determine why the audit failed to identify these expenses prior to the issuance of the examination report. On this record, the only plausible scenario is that Respondent's outside auditor was off-the-mark on a number of items while conducting the audit, Petitioner's representatives lost patience and became defensive, and, when the outside auditor withdrew from the engagement, Respondent's staff auditors, already fully engaged in other work, may not have had the time to add this substantial responsibility to their workload. It is clear, though, that, after the departure of Respondent's outside auditor, the audit failed due to a combination of the lack of Petitioner's cooperation and Respondent's lack of diligence. Unable to identify the aircraft expenses after years of auditing left Respondent with options. It could have continued the audit process with renewed diligence until it found the aircraft expenses. Or it could have declared as noncompliant the cost report, the underlying financial records, or Petitioner itself. Instead, Respondent converted the examination report from what it is supposed to be--the product of an informed analysis of Petitioner's financial records--to a demand to pay up or identify these expenses and, if related to aircraft, justify them. The problem with Respondent's choice is that, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, an audit requires Respondent to proceed, on an informed basis, to identify the expenses, analyze them, and, if appropriate, determine that they are not allowable--before including them as overpayments in an examination report. Proceeding instead to cite overpayments on the basis of educated guesses, Respondent entirely mischaracterized the $123,848 in transportation salaries and benefits, which did not involve any aircraft expenses. Respondent's educated guesses were much better as to the remaining items, which are $36,496 in transportation repairs, $78,336 in transportation fuel and oil, $24,000 in insurance, $106,079 in transportation depreciation, and $57,714 in transportation interest. But the process still seems hit-or-miss. Thinking that he had found the pilot's salary in the item for the van drivers' salaries, Respondent's staff auditor missed the pilot's salary, which was $30,000 to $40,000, as it was contained in an account containing $1.3 million of administrative salaries. Respondent's staff auditor also missed the hanger expense, which Petitioner's independent auditor could not find either. On the other hand, Respondent's staff auditor hit the mark with the $78,336 of fuel and oil, $106,079 of depreciation, and $36,496 in repairs--all of which were exclusively for Petitioner's aircraft. Respondent's staff auditor was pretty close with the transportation interest, which was actually $60,168. It is difficult to assess the effort of Respondent's staff auditor on insurance; he picked a rounded number from a larger liability insurance account, which includes aircraft insurance, but other types of insurance, as well. Respondent correctly notes in its Proposed Recommended Order that the auditing of aircraft expenses requires, in order, their identification, analysis, and characterization as allowable or nonallowable. As Respondent argues, the analysis must compare the aircraft expenses to other means of transportation or communication to determine the reasonableness of the aircraft expenses. As Respondent notes elsewhere in its Proposed Recommended Order, the analysis also must ensure that a multijurisdictional provider, such as Petitioner, has fairly allocated its allowable costs among the jurisdictions in which it operates. Although Respondent's staff auditor found a number of aircraft expenses, he did not try to compare these expenses with other means of travel or communication, so as to determine the reasonableness of these aircraft expenses, or determine if Petitioner had allocated these costs, as between Florida and other jurisdictions, in an appropriate manner. The failure of the examination report, in its treatment of the expenses covered in this section, starts with the failure to secure the necessary information to identify the expenses themselves, but continues through the absence of any informed analysis of these expenses. Respondent's staff auditor used the examination report's treatment of the items covered in this section as a means to force Petitioner both to identify and explain these costs. The fact that Respondent's staff auditor guessed right on many of the aircraft expenses does not mean that he had an informed basis for these guesses. At one point during his testimony, Respondent's staff auditor seemed pleasantly surprised that he had been as accurate as he was in finding these expenses. But, regardless of the basis that he had for the identification of these expenses, Respondent's staff auditor never made any effort to analyze the expenses that he had chosen to include in the examination report as aircraft expenses. Nor is the record insufficient to permit such analysis now. Among the missing data is the number of planes that Petitioner owned at one time during the subject cost-reporting year. It is now clear that, for awhile, the number was two, probably at the end of the cost-reporting year, but this was unknown at the time of the issuance of the examination report. It is unclear, even now, for how long Petitioner owned two planes, or whether it operated both planes during the same timeframe. Cost comparisons are impossible without the knowledge that the cost-comparison exercise is for one or two private aircraft. Likewise, Respondent lacked basic information about the aircraft, such as the planes' capacities and costs of operation, per hour or per passenger mile. Again, this information remains unknown, so it is still impossible to establish a framework for comparison to the costs of common carriers. The record includes a three-page log provided during the audit process by Petitioner to Respondent, which appears never to have analyzed it, probably due to its determination that it had not identified the aircraft expenses adequately. The log shows 118 trips for purposes other than maintenance or engineering during the subject cost-reporting year. The log shows the cities visited and a very brief description of the purpose of the trip. Not the detailed description requested by Respondent, the proffered description is often not more than the mention of a facility or meeting. The log does not show the duration of the trip, but often notes the number of persons on the plane. If the aircraft costs identified above, including the unassessed pilot salary, are divided by the number of trips, the per trip cost is about $2,600. Some trips list several persons, as many as seven. Some trips list only one or two persons. Some trips list "staff," so it is impossible to tell how many persons traveled. And some trips provide no information about the number of travelers. It is a close question, but these findings alone do not establish that the use of the aircraft was unreasonable when compared to common carriers. Also, Respondent lacked any information about the purpose of the trips, so as to be able to determine if they were necessary or whether they could have been accomplished by videoconference or telephone. And the hearing did not provide this information. Respondent's staff auditor also never considered allocation methods, which is understandable because this analysis would necessarily have followed the identification process, in which he justifiably lacked confidence, and the cost-comparison analysis, which he had never undertaken. At the hearing, Respondent's staff auditor briefly mentioned other allocation methods, but never criticized the approved allocation method used by Petitioner. Although an approved allocation method might not offset disproportionate travel expenses to West Virginia and Connecticut, the record is insufficient to determine that the chosen allocation method was inappropriate or transferred excessive expenses to Florida for Medicaid reimbursement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order determining that, for the 2001-02 cost- reporting year, Petitioner has been overpaid $23,370 (including $3,418 for return on equity, if not already settled), for which recoupment and a recalculation of Petitioner's per-diem reimbursement rate are required. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2011, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Lake, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt, P.A. 2650 Soutwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Justin Senior, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount payable under section 409.910, Florida Statutes,1/ in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien on settlement proceeds received by Petitioner, Victor Hugo Herrera, Sr., from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 2014, unbeknownst to Mr. Herrera, an individual (hereinafter Assailant) entered the common area where Mr. Herrera rented an office. The Assailant stalked Mr. Herrera and forced his way into Mr. Herrera’s office. The Assailant attacked Mr. Herrera in his office and shot Mr. Herrera in the leg. As a result of being shot in the leg, Mr. Herrera had his leg medically amputated above the knee, suffered a collapsed lung, and was comatose for nearly two months. As a result of his severe injuries, Mr. Herrera is now permanently disabled, disfigured, and wheelchair-bound, unable to walk. Mr. Herrera’s medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by Medicaid, which provided $271,344.06 in benefits. Mr. Herrera brought a personal injury lawsuit to recover all of his damages associated with his injuries against the owner of the office and security company responsible for providing security (Defendants). The $271,344.06 paid by Medicaid constituted Mr. Herrera’s entire claim for past medical expenses. On December 11, 2015, Mr. Herrera compromised and settled his personal injury action against the Defendants for $925,000. The General Release of Claims memorializing the settlement with the Defendants stated, inter alia: The First Party, the Second Party and their respective counsel acknowledge that this settlement does not fully compensate the First Party for the damages he has allegedly suffered, but as provided herein this settlement shall operate as a full and complete release as to all claims against Second Party, without regard to this settlement only compensating the First Party for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. These parties agree that the damages suffered by the First Party have a value in excess of $5,000,000.00, of which $271,344.06 represents First Party’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of the First Party’s alleged injuries and this settlement, $50,198.65 of this settlement has been allocated to the First Party’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all of the First Party’s alleged damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that the First Party may need future medical care related to his alleged injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for those future medical expenses the First Party may incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that the First Party, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for the First Party’s future medical care and the First Party has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for payments made to secure future medical care. During the pendency of Mr. Herrera’s personal injury lawsuit, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) was notified of the lawsuit and AHCA, through its collections contractor Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $271,344.06 Medicaid lien against Mr. Herrera’s cause of action and settlement of that action. By letter of January 22, 2016, AHCA was notified by Mr. Herrera’s personal injury attorney of the settlement and provided a copy of the executed release and itemization of Mr. Herrera’s $10,114.38 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Mr. Herrera’s damages had a value in excess of $5,000,000, and the $925,000 settlement represented only an 18.5 percent recovery of Mr. Herrera’s damages. Accordingly, he had recovered only 18.5 percent of his $271,344.06 claim for past medical expenses, or $50,198.65. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $271,344.06 Medicaid lien. AHCA did not respond to Mr. Herrera’s attorney’s letter of January 22, 2016. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Mr. Herrera’s settlement. AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. The Medicaid program spent $271,344.06 on behalf of Mr. Herrera, all of which represents expenditures paid for Mr. Herrera’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $271,344.06 paid by the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Herrera represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. Mr. Herrera and AHCA agree that application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Mr. Herrera’s $925,000 settlement would require payment to AHCA of the full $271,344.06 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited the full Medicaid lien amount into an interest-bearing account pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). At the final hearing, Mr. Zebersky, who represented Mr. Herrera in his underlying personal injury action, testified and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Zebersky has been an attorney for 27 years and has demonstrated considerable experience in handling plaintiffs’ personal injury and insurance class action claims in South Florida. In rendering his opinion as to the value of Mr. Herrera’s claim, Mr. Zebersky explained that, as a routine and daily part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties and he explained his process for making these determinations. Mr. Zebersky was familiar with and gave a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to Mr. Herrera’s claim. In making his valuation determination, Mr. Zebersky reviewed the police report, the State Attorney’s file on the shooting, all of Mr. Herrera’s medical records, and met numerous times with Mr. Herrera and his family. Mr. Zebersky testified that through his representation of Mr. Herrera, review of Mr. Herrera’s file, and based on his training and experience, he had developed the opinion that the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages was $5,000,000. Mr. Zebersky suggested that the $5,000,000 amount was conservative, by testifying that “five million dollars, you know, is probably what the pain and suffering value is especially in Broward County.” In addition to his first-hand experience with Mr. Herrera’s claim, Mr. Zebersky further supported his valuation opinion by explaining that he had “round-tabled” the case with other experienced attorneys and they agreed that the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages was $5,000,000. Further, Mr. Zebersky testified that he had reviewed jury verdicts in developing his opinion and the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 were comparable to Mr. Herrera’s case and support the valuation of Mr. Herrera’s damages at $5,000,000. Mr. Zebersky’s testimony was credible and is accepted. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Mr. Barrett, who was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett has been accepted as an expert in valuation of damages in a number of other Medicaid lien cases before DOAH. Mr. Barrett has been a trial attorney for 40 years, with a primary focus on plaintiff personal injury cases, including medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. Mr. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts and often makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. After familiarizing himself with Mr. Herrera’s injuries through review of pertinent medical records and Petitioner’s Exhibits, including the police report, pictures of Mr. Herrera, Mr. Herrera’s complaint and Mr. Herrera’s General Release of Claims, Mr. Barrett offered his opinion, based upon his professional training and experience, that “five million was a conservative estimate” for the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages and that Mr. Herrera’s damages were “undoubtedly at least five million dollars.” Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 and opined that those verdicts were comparable and supported his valuation of Mr. Herrera’s damages. Mr. Barrett’s testimony was credible and is accepted. AHCA’s designated expert, Mr. Bruner, was not available for testimony at the final hearing. Instead of asking for a continuance, the parties agreed to take Mr. Bruner’s deposition after the final hearing and then file the transcript with DOAH. Further, during the final hearing, AHCA agreed that Mr. Bruner would not be testifying as to the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages. In accordance with that agreement, Mr. Brunner’s deposition was subsequently taken and his deposition transcript was filed on August 3, 2016. At Mr. Bruner’s deposition, AHCA proffered Mr. Bruner as an expert in evaluation of cases and settlements. Petitioner objected on the grounds that Mr. Bruner lacked experience or expertise in personal injury cases and should not be allowed to testify as an expert. Further, Petitioner objected to the relevance of Mr. Bruner’s testimony based on AHCA’s earlier agreement that he would not be testifying concerning the value of the damages suffered. Counsel for AHCA responded to Petitioner’s objection to the relevance of Mr. Bruner’s testimony by agreeing that AHCA would not be seeking any “expert testimony as to evaluation of damages,” but would only be using Mr. Bruner’s testimony to “evaluate” the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12. While Mr. Bruner does not have the same level of experience in personal injury claims as the experts offered by Petitioner, Mr. Bruner has sufficient experience to offer an opinion on the jury verdicts set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, and to that extent, his expertise in the evaluation of cases is accepted. However, because of his lack of recent experience in settling personal injury claims, Mr. Brunner is not accepted as an expert in personal injury settlements.2/ In his deposition testimony, Mr. Bruner criticized the relevance of the 12 verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 on the grounds that, while the verdicts involved amputations of legs, there were factual differences in the mechanism of injury. Mr. Bruner further asserted that, to the extent the verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 included awards for future medical expenses, they should not be considered because, according to Mr. Bruner’s understanding, Mr. Herrera did not recover any future medical expenses in the settlement. Finally, while the juries in the 12 jury verdicts had determined the value of the damages, Mr. Bruner criticized the verdicts because he asserted that it was possible that the cases may have settled post-verdict for less, or that the injured parties may have received less, due to reductions for comparative negligence. On this last point, it appears that Mr. Bruner confused the issue of the value of the damages with the settlement value of the case. The value of the damages is the estimation of the monetary value a jury would assign to the damages. On the other hand, the settlement value of the case is the amount it settled for with the considerations of liability, causation, the Defendant’s ability to pay, risk of trial, and other limiting factors, which are a calculus in every settlement. Despite Mr. Bruner’s criticisms of the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, the undersigned finds those verdicts supportive of the valuation opinions offered by Petitioner’s experts. Further, Petitioner’s experts’ opinions were not primarily reliant on those 12 verdicts, but were rather based upon their knowledge of Mr. Herrera’s injury and their extensive experience in handling cases involving catastrophic injury, including jury trial experience. Mr. Bruner’s testimony did not provide an alternative value of the damages suffered by Petitioner. The value of $5,000,000 for Mr. Herrera’s claim opined by Petitioner’s experts is unrebutted. Considering the valuation of Mr. Herrera’s claim in the amount of $5,000,000, his $925,000 settlement represents only an 18.5 percent recovery of Mr. Herrera’s damages. Applying that same 18.5 percent to the $271,344.06 paid by Medicaid for past medical expenses results in the sum $50,198.65 from the settlement proceeds available to satisfy AHCA’s Medicaid lien.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's ("AHCA" or "the agency") Medicaid lien of $267,072.91 should be reimbursed in full from the $1 million settlement recovered by Petitioner or whether Petitioner proved that a lesser amount should be paid under section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulation between the parties (paragraphs 1 through 13 below), the evidence presented, and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: On January 13, 2016, Mr. Jay Hosek was operating his 1999 Chevy Trailblazer northbound on U.S. Highway 1, near mile marker 56, in Monroe County. At that same time and place, his vehicle was struck by a southbound tractor trailer. Hosek suffered catastrophic physical injuries, including permanent brain damage. Hosek is now unable to walk, stand, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Hosek's medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid, Medicare, and United Healthcare ("UHC"). Medicaid provided $267,072.91 in benefits, Medicare provided $93,952.97 in benefits and UHC provided $65,778.54 in benefits. Accordingly, Hosek's entire claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $426,804.42. Jirina Hosek was appointed Hosek's legal guardian. As legal guardian, Jirina Hosek brought a personal injury lawsuit against the driver and owner of the tractor trailer that struck Hosek ("defendants") to recover all of Hosek's damages associated with his injuries. The defendants maintained only a $1 million insurance policy and had no other collectable assets. Hosek's personal injury action against the defendants was settled for the available insurance policy limits, resulting in a lump sum unallocated settlement of $1 million. Due to Hosek's incompetence, court approval of the settlement was required and the court approved the settlement by Order of October 5, 2018. During the pendency of Hosek's personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $267,072.91 Medicaid lien against Hosek's cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene or join in Hosek's action against the defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of Hosek's settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Hosek's settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $267,072.91 on behalf of Hosek, all of which represents expenditures paid for Hosek's past medical expenses. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Hosek's $1 million settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $267,072.91 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited AHCA's full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights, and this constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). While driving his vehicle northbound, Hosek drifted into oncoming traffic, crossed over the center line, and struck a southbound vehicle in its lane head on. Petitioner had an indisputable and extremely high degree of comparative negligence in causing this tragic vehicle accident. Petitioner presented the testimony of Brett Rosen ("Rosen"), Esquire, a Florida attorney with 12 years' experience in personal injury law. His practice includes catastrophic and wrongful death cases. Rosen is board-certified in civil trial by the Florida Bar. He is a member of several trial attorney associations. Rosen represented Hosek and his family in the personal injury case. As a routine part of his practice, Rosen makes assessments regarding the value of damages his injured client(s) suffered. He stays abreast of personal injury jury verdicts by reviewing jury verdict reports and searching verdicts on Westlaw. Rosen regularly reads the Daily Business Review containing local verdicts and subscribes to the "Law 360," which allows him to review verdicts throughout the country. Rosen was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency. Rosen testified that Hosek's case was a difficult case for his client from a liability perspective, since all the witnesses blamed Hosek for the crash and the police report was not favorable to him. In his professional opinion, had Hosek gone to trial, the jury could have attributed a substantial amount of comparative negligence to him based upon the facts of the case. There was also a high possibility that Hosek might not receive any money at all, since Hosek's comparative negligence in the accident was very high. Rosen explained the seriousness of Hosek's injuries, stating that Hosek may have fallen asleep while driving and his car veered over and crossed the centerline. It hit an oncoming commercial truck, which caused his vehicle to flip resulting in severe injuries to him. Rosen testified that Hosek is unable to communicate since he received catastrophic brain injury from the accident and is unable to care for himself. Rosen provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. He testified that the case was worth $10 million, and that this amount is a very conservative valuation of Hosek's personal injuries. He also generalized that based on his training and experience, Hosek's damages could range anywhere from $10 to $30 million at trial. He testified that Hosek would need future medical care for the rest of his life. This future medical care has a significant value ranging from $15 to $25 million.1/ Rosen testified that he reviewed other cases and talked to experts in similar cases involving catastrophic injuries. After addressing various ranges of damages, Rosen clarified that the present value of Hosek's damages in this case was more than $10 million dollars. Although he did not state specific amounts, he felt that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have a significant value in addition to his economic damages.2/ Rosen believed that a jury would have returned or assigned a value to the damages of over $10 million. He testified that his valuation of the case only included the potential damages. He did not take into account Hosek's "substantial amount" of comparative negligence and liability.3/ Despite doing so in other personal injury cases, Rosen did not conduct a mock trial in an effort to better assess or determine the damages in Hosek's case. Rosen testified that Hosek sued the truck driver, Alonzo, and Alonzo's employer. He further testified that Hosek was compensated for his damages under the insurance policy carried by the truck driver and his company and settled for the policy limits of $1 million dollars representing 10 percent of the potential total value of his claim. Rosen did not obtain or use a life care plan for Hosek, nor did he consider one in determining his valuation of damages for Hosek's case. Rosen did not provide any specific numbers or valuation concerning Hosek's noneconomic damages. Instead, he provided a broad damage range that he said he "would give the jury" or "be giving them a range of $50 Million for past and future."4/ Rosen testified that he relied on several specific factors in making the valuation of Hosek's case. The most important factor for him was to determine what his client was "going through" and experience his client's "living conditions."5/ Secondly, he considers the client's medical treatment and analyzes the client's medical records. Based on these main factors, he can determine or figure out what the client's future medical care will "look like."6/ Petitioner also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett ("Barrett"), Esquire, a Tallahassee trial attorney. Barrett has more than 40 years' experience in civil litigation. His practice is dedicated to plaintiff's personal injury, as well as medical malpractice and medical products liability. Barrett was previously qualified as an expert in federal court concerning the value of the wrongful death of an elderly person. This testimony was used primarily for tax purposes at that trial. Barrett has been accepted as an expert at DOAH in Medicaid lien cases in excess of 15 times and has provided testimony regarding the value of damages and the allocation of past medical expenses. Barrett has handled cases involving catastrophic brain injuries. He stays abreast of local and state jury verdicts. Barrett has also reviewed several life care plans and economic reports in catastrophic personal injury cases. He routinely makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by parties who have received personal injuries. Barrett determines the value of these damages based primarily on his experience and frequent review of jury verdicts. Barrett was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency.7/ Barrett testified that Hosek had a catastrophic brain injury with broken facial bones and pneumothoraxes, all sustained during an extremely violent head-on collision with a commercial truck. This assessment was based on the case exhibits and the "fairly limited medical records" he reviewed. He believed that Hosek would need extensive and expensive medical care for the rest of his life. However, no details were offered by Barrett.8/ Barrett provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. This was based on his training and experience. Barrett did not provide a firm number for Hosek's damages. Instead, he offered a nonspecific and broad range of damages. Barrett testified that Hosek's damages "probably" have a value in the range of $25 to $50 million, and the range of Hosek's future medical care would be $10 to $20 million. However, he felt that $10 million was a "very, very, very conservative" estimate of damages, primarily because he felt that future medical expenses would be so high. Barrett stated that Hosek's economic damages would have a significant value exceeding $10 million and that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have an additional value exceeding $10 million. Barrett acknowledged that he did not consider or take into account Hosek's "huge comparative negligence" in estimating the total value of the case. Instead, he only considered the amount(s) that would be awarded for damages. He testified that Petitioner's degree of comparative negligence would reduce each element of damages he was awarded. As a result of Hosek's very significant comparative negligence, Barrett testified that a trial would have likely resulted in a "complete defense verdict" against Hosek or with only minor negligence attributed to the truck driver or his company. Barrett felt that a jury in Hosek's case would not have awarded Hosek "more than one million dollars or so." Barrett explained that in a trial for personal injuries that each element of damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff on the verdict form is reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff's comparative negligence. Barrett also explained that when the jury verdict assigns ten percent of the negligence to the defendant and 90 percent of the negligence to the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable for paying only ten percent of each element of the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Barrett testified that he does not believe that the $1 million settlement fully compensated Hosek for his injuries and that a potential award of $10 million would be a conservative value of Hosek's claim. While both experts provided broad and nonspecific ranges for the value of Hosek's claims, they both summed up their testimony by concluding that $10 million was a very conservative estimate of Hosek's total claim. AHCA did not call any witnesses. The agency presented Exhibit 1, entitled "Provider Processing System Report." This report outlined all the hospital and medical payments that AHCA made on Hosek's behalf, totaling $267,072.91. On the issue of damages, the experts did not provide any details concerning several of Petitioner's claims, including the amount of past medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, or damages for pain and suffering. The burden was on Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence to prove that the "proportionality test" it relied on to present its challenge to the agency's lien under section 409.910(17)(b) was a reliable and competent method to establish what amount of his tort settlement recovery was fairly allocable to past medical expenses. In this case, the undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to carry this burden.9/ There was no credible evidence presented by Petitioner to prove or persuasively explain a logical correlation between the proposed total value of Petitioner's personal injury claim and the amount of the settlement agreement fairly allocable to past medical expenses. Without this proof the proportionality test was not proven to be credible or accurate in this case, and Petitioner did not carry his burden. There was a reasonable basis in the record to reject or question the evidence presented by Petitioner's experts. Their testimony was sufficiently contradicted and impeached during cross-examination and other questioning. Even if the experts' testimony had not been contradicted, the "proportionality test" proposed by Petitioner was not proven to be a reliable or accurate method to carry Petitioner's burden under section 409.910(17)(b). To reiterate, there was no persuasive evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that (1) a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by the agency, or (2) that Medicaid provided a lesser amount of medical assistance than that asserted by the agency.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds received from a third party should be paid to Respondent, Agency 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2019), as the parties agreed. for Health Care Administration (AHCA), to satisfy AHCA’s Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts On July 13, 2018, Mr. Miller was involved in an automobile accident in Sarasota County, Florida. Mr. Miller was struck from behind while stopped at a red light on Bee Ridge Road. At the time of the crash, the tortfeasor was driving under the influence of alcohol. Immediately after the accident, Mr. Miller was treated at Sarasota Memorial Hospital for multiple serious injuries including a T2 complete spinal cord injury, C5-C7 incomplete spinal cord injury, brachial plexus injury, loss of majority of function to dominant left hand, intracranial hemorrhage, acetabular fracture, basilar skull fracture, femur fracture, thoracic spine fracture, rib fractures, as well as a closed fracture of the pelvis. As a result of the accident, Mr. Miller cannot control his blood pressure, cannot sweat, and lacks control of his bowels and bladder due to the spinal cord injury. While hospitalized, he underwent a PEG placement and tracheostomy. As a result of the accident, Mr. Miller was rendered a paraplegic. Due to the severity of his injuries, Mr. Miller has required intermittent medical care for his significant injuries. Mr. Miller brought a personal injury action to recover for all the damages related to the incident. This action was brought against various defendants. Since this incident and the resulting spinal cord injury, Mr. Miller has been in a permanently disabled state, requiring assistance with most activities of daily living. In May of 2020, after litigation was commenced, Mr. Miller settled his tort action. AHCA was properly notified of Mr. Miller’s lawsuit against the defendants. AHCA indicated it had paid benefits related to the injuries from the incident in the amount of $108,456.65. AHCA has asserted a lien for the full amount it paid, $108,456.65, against Mr. Miller’s settlement proceeds. AHCA has maintained that it is entitled to application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f), to determine the lien amount. Application of the statutory formula to Mr. Miller’s $1,110,000.00 settlement would result in no reduction of the lien, given the amount of the settlement. AHCA paid $108,456.65 for medical expenses on behalf of Mr. Miller, related to his claim against the liable third parties. The parties stipulated that AHCA is limited in this section 409.910(17)(b) proceeding to the past medical expenses portion of the recovery. Evidence at the Hearing Mr. Miller testified about the extent of the injuries he suffered as a result of the automobile accident that was the subject of the personal injury lawsuit. As a 23 year old, who is confined to a wheelchair, Mr. Miller testified about the severe, permanent injuries he endures and the tremendous and permanent impact it has and will have on his life. His testimony was detailed and compelling. He explained his recent and upcoming surgeries. He also explained the effects that his accident has had on his family, particularly his mother who helps him meet life’s daily routines. Petitioner called two experts to testify on his behalf: Mr. Fernandez, Petitioner’s personal injury attorney in the underlying case; and Mr. McLaughlin, an experienced board-certified civil trial attorney. Both Mr. Fernandez and Mr. McLaughlin were accepted as experts on the valuation of personal injury damages, without objection by AHCA. Mr. Fernandez is an attorney at Maney & Gordon, P.A., in Tampa, Florida. He is admitted to practice law in Florida and has been practicing for 12 years. In addition to Petitioner’s case, he has represented clients in personal injury matters, including cases involving catastrophic injuries similar to that of Mr. Miller’s. Mr. Fernandez regularly evaluates the damages suffered by injured people such as Mr. Miller. He is familiar with Mr. Miller’s damages from his representation of Mr. Miller in his personal injury lawsuit. Mr. Fernandez testified as to the difficulties he encountered in the personal injury suit on behalf of Mr. Miller, which included the inherent difficulties of dram shop claims2 and the limited insurance coverage available to fully compensate Mr. Miller for his injuries. Through his investigation, Mr. Fernandez sought out all of the available insurance coverage and filed a complaint in Sarasota County circuit court on behalf of Mr. Miller. As part of his work-up of the case, he evaluated all elements of damages suffered by Mr. Miller. After litigating the case for some time, Mr. Fernandez negotiated a total settlement for the insurance limits of $1,110,000.00 against the defendants. Mr. Fernandez provided detailed testimony regarding how Mr. Miller’s accident occurred and the extent of his injuries. Mr. Fernandez testified regarding the process he followed to evaluate and arrive at his opinion on the total value of the damages suffered in Mr. Miller’s case. Through the course of his representation, he reviewed all the medical information; evaluated the facts of the case; determined how the accident occurred; reviewed all records and reports regarding the injuries Mr. Miller suffered; analyzed liability issues and fault; developed economic damages figures; and also valued non- economic damages such as past and future pain and suffering, loss of capacity to enjoy life, scarring and disfigurement, and mental anguish. Mr. Fernandez testified about the impact of the accident on Mr. Miller’s life. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Miller can no longer perform many of the normal activities of daily living for himself and he has limited mobility. 2 Florida’s dram shop law, as set forth in section 768.125, Florida Statutes, provides that “[a] person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person of lawful drinking age shall not thereby become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such person, except that a person who willfully and unlawfully sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person who is not of lawful drinking age or who knowingly serves a person habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor or person.” Based on Mr. Fernandez’s evaluation of Petitioner’s case, he opined that the total value of Mr. Miller’s damages was conservatively estimated at $35 million. The valuation of the case includes past medical expenses, future medical expenses, economic damages, loss of quality of life, and pain and suffering. Mr. Fernandez testified that the non-economic damages were the greatest element of loss or damage sustained by Mr. Miller, and therefore the largest driver of the valuation and greatest portion of damages recovered in the settlement. Mr. Fernandez testified that his estimation of total damages is based upon his experience as a trial lawyer, and would be what he would have asked a jury to award related to Mr. Miller’s damages had the case gone to trial. Mr. Fernandez opined that in comparing the $35 million valuation of the damages in the case to the total settlement proceeds of $1,110,000.00 (that is, by dividing $1,110,000.00 by $35,000,000.00), Mr. Miller recovered only 3.17 percent of the full value of his claim. Mr. Fernandez opined that, as a result, the allocation formula is 3.17 percent. Mr. Fernandez went on to testify that he routinely uses a pro-rata approach with lien holders in his day-to-day practice of resolving liens in Florida. The past medical expenses of Mr. Miller are $108,456.65.3 That figure multiplied by 3.17 percent would result in recovery of $3,438.074 allocated to past medical expenses. Mr. Fernandez’s testimony was not contradicted by AHCA, and, mathematical error aside, was persuasive on this point. 3 There is no competent substantial evidence in the record that Mr. Miller’s past medical expenses amount to more than the sum of AHCA’s Medicaid lien. 4 The undersigned finds that 3.17 percent of $108,456.65 is $3,438.07, not $3,433.07, as testified to by Petitioner’s witnesses and presented in Petitioner’s Proposed Final Order. Mr. McLaughlin is a 23-year practicing plaintiff’s attorney with Wagner & McLaughlin. Mr. McLaughlin and his firm specialize in litigating serious and catastrophic personal injury cases throughout central Florida. As part of his practice, Mr. McLaughlin has reviewed numerous personal injury cases in so far as damages are concerned. Mr. McLaughlin has worked closely with economists and life care planners to identify the relevant damages in catastrophic personal injuries, and he regularly evaluates the types of damages suffered by those who are catastrophically injured. Mr. McLaughlin testified as to how he arrived at his valuation opinion in this case by explaining the elements of damages suffered by Mr. Miller. Similar to Mr. Fernandez, he stated that the greatest element of loss Mr. Miller suffered was non-economic damages. He testified that his estimates for the future care and pain and suffering damages of Mr. Miller would be in the high eight figures. Mr. McLaughlin testified that, in his opinion, the total damages suffered by Mr. Miller are conservatively estimated at $38,350,000.00. Mr. McLaughlin testified that it is a routine part of his practice to conduct round-table discussions about cases with other attorneys at his firm. His discussions regarding Mr. Miller’s case with attorneys in his firm resulted in a consensus that Mr. Miller’s total damages had a value in excess of $38 million. He agreed with the $35 million total valuation testified to by Mr. Fernandez for purposes of the lien reduction formula. Mr. McLaughlin also testified that he believed that the standard accepted practice when resolving liens in Florida was to look at the total value of damages compared to the settlement recovery (that is, dividing $1,110,000.00 by $35,000,000.00). This resulted in Mr. Miller recovering only 3.17 percent of the full value of his claim, and, as such, a 3.17 percent ratio may be used to reduce the lien amount sought by AHCA. Both Mr. Fernandez and Mr. McLaughlin testified about the ultimate value of the claim, measured in damages, for Mr. Miller’s personal injury liability case. They also testified as to a method that, in their opinions, reasonably allocated a percentage of the settlement amount to past medical expenses. Both witnesses reviewed Mr. Miller’s medical information and other information before offering an opinion regarding his total damages. Both Mr. Fernandez and Mr. McLaughlin’s approaches to evaluating the damages suffered by Mr. Miller and the resulting ratio for reducing past medical expenses were conservative. The undersigned finds that both were credible, persuasive, and well qualified to render their opinions. The valuation opinions by Mr. Fernandez and Mr. McLaughlin as to the total value of the claim were not rebutted or contradicted by AHCA on cross examination or by any other evidence. AHCA offered no evidence to question the credentials or opinions of either Mr. Fernandez or Mr. McLaughlin, or to dispute the methodology they proposed which would reduce Mr. Miller’s claim. AHCA did not offer any alternative expert opinions on the damage valuation or allocation method proposed by Mr. Fernandez or Mr. McLaughlin. The undersigned finds that Petitioner has established by persuasive, unrebutted, and uncontradicted evidence that the $1,110,000.00 recovery is 3.17 percent of the total value ($35 million) of Petitioner’s total damages. Applying the proportionality methodology, Petitioner has established that 3.17 percent of $108,456.65, or $3,438.07, is the amount of the recovery fairly allocable to past medical expenses and is the portion of the recovery payable to AHCA, pursuant to its Medicaid lien. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent should be reimbursed $3,438.07, which is the portion of the settlement proceeds fairly allocable to past medical expenses.
The Issue What is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner Bryant (Petitioner) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes, from a personal injury settlement received by Petitioner from a third party?
Findings Of Fact Factual Allegations that Served As a Basis for the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation On March 11, 2009, Petitioner, then 21 years old, suffered catastrophic physical injury and brain damage when her bicycle was struck by a car near the Oakland Park I-95 overpass in Broward County. Petitioner was taken to the North Broward Hospital, where she was intubated with mechanical ventilation. Imaging revealed a right subdural hematoma, and Petitioner showed signs of increased intracranial pressure. On March 12, 2009, Petitioner underwent bilateral frontoparietal craniotomies through separate incisions with evacuation of a left parietooccipital epidural hematoma and right frontal temporoparietal subdural hematoma; bilateral duraplasty to accommodate brain swelling; and repair of a left occipital laceration. On that same date, a CT scan revealed that Petitioner had numerous pelvic and hip fractures. Petitioner underwent an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with a PEG tube placement. Eventually, her medical condition stabilized and she was discharged to rehabilitation. Petitioner is now unable to move the left side of her body. She receives her nutrition through a g-tube and is bowel and bladder incontinent. She suffers from cognitive deficits. Petitioner is cognizant of her condition and her surroundings, but has extreme difficulty with communication. Petitioner is severely disabled and unable to ambulate or care for herself in any manner. Prior to the accident, Petitioner was a healthy 21-year-old. It is anticipated that Petitioner's life span will be approximately another 60 years, her condition is permanent, and she will always need full-time medical care. The Personal Injury Litigation Due to Petitioner's incapacity, Freda Bryant (Bryant) was appointed the guardian of the person and property of Petitioner. As Petitioner's guardian, Bryant brought a personal injury action to recover all of Petitioner's damages against the company responsible for maintaining the lights on the highway where Petitioner's accident occurred ("Defendant"). Freda Bryant retained the Krupnick, Campbell, Malone, et al., law firm of Fort Lauderdale, a firm concentrating in the areas of catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, and products liability. The Medicaid Lien Petitioner is a Medicaid recipient and her medical care was paid for by Medicaid. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, paid $404,399.68 on behalf of Petitioner for medical benefits related to the injuries sustained by Petitioner. This $404,399.68 paid by Medicaid represented Petitioner's entire claim for past medical expenses up until the time of settlement. During the pendency of Petitioner's personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA, through its collections contractor Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $404,399.68 Medicaid lien against Petitioner's cause of action and settlement of that action. Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim Joseph Slama (Slama), the attorney representing Petitioner in her personal injury action, prepared an evaluation of her claim in preparation for trial and/or settlement negotiations. Slama has extensive experience representing parties in catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, and product liability cases since 1982. Slama has practiced in this field for 33 years, is a board-certified civil trial attorney, first certified in 1987, who has litigated hundreds of these types of cases. Slama is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), the Florida chapter of ABOTA (FLABOTA), Attorneys Information Exchange Group, Florida Justice Association, Broward Justice Association, and the Florida Bar. Slama was offered and accepted, without objection, as an expert in the valuation of damages in catastrophic injury cases. In making the determination regarding the valuation of Petitioner's personal injury claim, Slama reviewed Petitioner's medical records, accident report, prepared fact and expert witnesses for trial, and personally interacted with Petitioner on multiple occasions. Slama is very familiar with the injuries suffered by Petitioner and her need for constant care. Slama was present during the filming of Petitioner's "Day in the Life" video which was intended to be shown to the jury if Petitioner's case went to trial. Slama also reviewed Petitioner's economic damages report prepared by an economist1/ and is familiar with the mental pain and suffering Petitioner experiences as a result of her ability to understand the change in her life from a normal functioning individual to someone requiring total care for the rest of her life. To properly determine the value of Petitioner's claim, Slama researched Florida jury verdicts in personal injury cases with catastrophic brain injuries for young people requiring total care. Slama reviewed five comparable cases with verdicts for the plaintiff. The average jury award per plaintiff in these five cases was $51,474,346.00, and the average pain and suffering component of that award was $28,735,850.00. The case most closely comparable to that of Petitioner was the 2014 case of Mosley v. Lloyd, Case No. CACE09-025532, 2014 WL 7910512, a Broward County Circuit Court trial in which the jury awarded $75,543,527.00, of which $39,500,000.00 represented damages for past and future pain and suffering. Another similar case was that of Lymans v. Bynum Transportation, Case No. 2007CA-007728, 2009 WL 9051959, decided by a Pasco County jury. According to Slama, Pasco County juries are generally considered very conservative. In the Lymans case, a 21-year-old sustained a catastrophic brain injury resulting in her requiring 24/7 total care, much like the Petitioner. The jury awarded $65,000,000.00, of which $41,000,000.00 represented damages for pain and suffering. Based upon the five verdicts, including the Mosley and Lymans jury verdicts, review of the medical records, extensive personal interaction with Petitioner, and his personal experience and knowledge in valuing catastrophic personal injury cases from decades of practice in this field, Slama conservatively valued the damages for mental pain and suffering to be $15 million or greater. Slama acknowledged litigation risk issues with this personal injury action, which included a reduction or elimination of liability based on the defense of contributory negligence and a statutory restriction on liability for a utility company unless there was prior written notice to the utility company of deficient lighting. Slama consulted Allen McConnaughhay, Esquire, an attorney with the Tallahassee law firm of Fonvielle, Lewis, Foote & Messer, for an independent assessment of Petitioner's claim. McConnaughhay has practiced in the field of catastrophic personal injury cases for 15 years. He was offered and accepted, without objection, as an expert in the field of valuation of catastrophic injury cases. McConnaughhay explained that his firm, like that of Slama, relies on the expertise of its partners, a review of the injured party's medical records, research of jury verdicts in comparable cases, and it conducts a roundtable discussion to determine the value of a catastrophic personal injury claim. McConnaughhay and his partners engaged in such review of Petitioner's claim and found that a figure in excess of $50 million was a proper value for her pain-and-suffering damages. McConnaughhay opined that the $15 million figure ascertained by Slama was extremely conservative. The Settlement Allocation On May 18, 2015, Bryant settled Petitioner's personal injury lawsuit for $1,164,000. Given the facts of this case, the figure agreed upon was supported by the competent professional judgment of the trial attorneys in the interests of their clients. There is no evidence that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement, taking into account all of the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. There was no evidence of any manipulation or collusion by the parties to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to the payment of costs expended for Petitioner's medical care by AHCA. The General Release with the settling Defendants stated, inter alia: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate Petitioner Bryant for all of the damages she has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Released Parties without regard to this settlement only compensating Petitioner Bryant for a fraction of the total monetary value of her alleged damages. The parties agree that Petitioner Bryant's alleged damages have a value in excess of $15,000,000, of which $404,399.68 represents Petitioner Bryant's claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Petitioner Bryant's injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $31,381.42 of this settlement to Petitioner Bryant's claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all Petitioner Bryant's damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that Petitioner Bryant may need future medical care related to her injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses Petitioner Bryant will incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that Petitioner Bryant, or others on her behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for Petitioner Bryant's future medical care and Petitioner Bryant has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Petitioner was incapacitated, court approval of the settlement was required. Accordingly, on June 4, 2015, the Honorable Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Imperato approved the settlement by entering an Order Approving Settlement. By letter of May 26, 2015, Petitioner's personal injury attorney notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed Release, Order Approving Settlement, and itemization of Petitioner's $75,852.90 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Petitioner's damages had a value in excess of $15,000,000, and the settlement represented only a 7.76 percent recovery of Petitioner's $404,399.68 claim for past medical expenses. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $404,399.68 Medicaid lien. AHCA responded to Petitioner's attorney's letter by letter of June 25, 2015, and demanded a "check made payable to 'Agency for Health Care Administration' in the amount of $404,399.68." AHCA has not filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Petitioner's settlement. AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under Section 409.910, Florida Statutes. No portion of the $404,399.68 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Petitioner represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. AHCA has determined that of Petitioner's $75,852.90 in litigation costs, $63,375.06 are taxable costs for purposes of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula calculation. Based on $63,375.06 in taxable costs, the section 409.910(11)(f) formula applied to Petitioner's $1,164,000 settlement, results in $404,812.47 payable to AHCA in satisfaction of its $404,399.68 Medicaid lien. Because $404,399.68 is less than the $404,812.47 amount derived from the formula in section 409.910(11)(f), AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $404,399.68 from Petitioner's settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights, which constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $15 million total value of the claim was a reasonable and realistic value. Furthermore, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's case, and on a competent and professional assessment of the likelihood that Petitioner would have prevailed on the claims at trial and the amount she reasonably could have expected to receive on her claim if successful, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner's claims constitutes a fair, just, and reasoned settlement, including $31,381.42, the amount attributable to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses as its 7.76 percent proportionate share of the total settlement.
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), out of her settlement proceeds, as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 17, 2007, Alicia M. Fallon ("Alicia"), then 17 years old, drove to the mall to meet friends and became involved in an impromptu street race. Alicia lost control of the vehicle she was driving, crossed the median into oncoming traffic, and was involved in a motor vehicle crash. Her injuries consisted of traumatic brain injury ("TBI") with moderate hydrocephalus, right subdural hemorrhage, left pubic ramus fracture, pulmonary contusions (bilateral), and a clavicle fracture. Since the time of her accident, she has undergone various surgical procedures including the insertion of a gastrostomy tube, bilateral frontoparietal craniotomies, insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt, and bifrontal cranioplasties. As a result of the accident, in addition to the physical injuries described above, Alicia suffered major depressive disorder, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder injuries. She is confined to a wheelchair for mobility, has no bowel or bladder control, and suffers from cognitive dysfunction. Alicia is totally dependent on others for activities of daily living and must be supervised 24 hours a day, every day of the week. A lawsuit was brought against the driver of the other car in the race, as well as the driver's mother, the owner of the vehicle. It could not be established that the tortfeasor driver hit Alicia's car in the race, or that he cut her off. The theory of liability was only that because Alicia and the other driver in the race were racing together, that the tortfeasor was at least partially responsible for what happened. It was viewed that there was no liability on the part of the driver of the third vehicle. The tortfeasor only had $100,000 in insurance policy limits, but the insurance company did not timely offer payment. The tortfeasor had no pursuable assets. The lawsuit was bifurcated and the issue of liability alone was tried. The jury determined that the tortfeasor driver was 40 percent liable for Alicia's damages. Because of the risk of a bad faith judgment, the insurance company for the tortfeasor settled for the gross sum of $2.5 million. AHCA, through its Medicaid program, provided medical assistance to Ms. Fallon in the amount of $608,795.49. AHCA was properly notified of the lawsuit against the tortfeasors, and after settlement, asserted a lien for the full amount it paid, $608,795.49, against the settlement proceeds. AHCA did not "institute, intervene in, or join in" the medical malpractice action to enforce its rights as provided in section 409.910(11), or participate in any aspect of Alicia's claim against the tortfeasors or their insurance company. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f), to the settlement amount requires payment to AHCA in the amount of $608,795.49. Another provider, Optum, provided $592,554.18 in past medical expense benefits on behalf of Ms. Fallon. However, that amount was reduced through negotiation to a lien in the amount of $22,220.78.1/ Petitioner deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights, and this constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Petitioner, Donna Fallon, the mother of Alicia, testified regarding the care that was and is continuing to be provided to Alicia after the accident. She is a single parent, and with only the assistance of an aide during the day, she is responsible for Alicia's care. Alicia must be fed, changed, bathed, and turned every few hours to avoid bed sores. Alicia can communicate minimally by using an electronic device and by making noises that are usually only discernable by her mother. Although she needs ongoing physical therapy and rehabilitation services, the family cannot afford this level of care. Petitioner presented the testimony of Sean Domnick, Esquire, a Florida attorney with 30 years' experience in personal injury law, including catastrophic injury and death cases, medical malpractice, and brain injury cases. Mr. Domnick is board certified in Civil Trial by the Florida Bar. He represented Alicia and her mother in the litigation against the tortfeasors and their insurance company. As a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured clients. He was accepted, without objection, as an expert in valuation of damages. Mr. Domnick testified that Alicia's injuries are as catastrophic as he has handled. Alicia has no strength, suffers contractions and spasms, and is in constant pain. Alicia has impaired speech, limited gross and fine motor skills, is unable to transfer, walk, or use a wheelchair independently. Alicia is unable to self-feed. All of her food must be cooked and cut up for her. Alicia is unable to perform self-hygiene and has no ability to help herself in an emergency and therefore requires constant monitoring. As part of his work-up of the case, Mr. Domnick had a life care plan prepared by Mary Salerno, a rehabilitation expert, which exceeded $15 million on the low side, and $18 million on the high side, in future medical expenses alone for Alicia's care. Mr. Domnick testified that the conservative full value of Alicia's damages was $45 million. That figure included $30 million for Alicia's pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of quality of life, disability, and disfigurement, extrapolated for her life expectancy, plus the low end of economic damages of $15 million. Petitioner also presented the testimony of James Nosich, Esquire, a lawyer who has practiced primarily personal injury defense for 29 years. Mr. Nosich and his firm specialize in defending serious and catastrophic personal injury/medical malpractice cases throughout Florida. As part of his practice, Mr. Nosich has reviewed more than 1,000 cases of personal injury/medical malpractice cases and formally reported the potential verdict and full value to insurance companies that retained him to defend their insureds. Mr. Nosich has worked closely with economists and life care planners to identify the relevant damages of those catastrophically injured in his representation of his clients. Mr. Nosich has also tried over 30 cases in Broward County in which a plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries similar to those of Alicia. Mr. Nosich was tendered and accepted, without objection, as an expert in the evaluation of damages in catastrophic injury cases. In formulating his expert opinion with regard to this case, Mr. Nosich reviewed: Alicia's medical records and expenses; her life care plan prepared by Ms. Salerno; and the economist's report. He took into consideration the reputation of Alicia's lawyer (Mr. Domnick); and the venue in which the case would be tried. Mr. Nosich opined that Broward County is known for liberal juries who tend to award high amounts in catastrophic cases. He also testified that Mr. Domnick is known as a lawyer with extreme capability and who has an excellent rapport with juries and the ability to get higher dollar verdicts. Mr. Nosich agreed with Mr. Domnick that the estimated $45 million figure for the total value of Alicia's case was conservative. He agreed with Ms. Salerno's estimated economic damages of $15 million and a doubling of that amount ($30 million) for Alicia's noneconomic damages. Mr. Nosich credibly explained that the $45 million total value was very conservative in his opinion based on Alicia's very high past medical bills and the fact that she will never be able to work. The testimony of Petitioner's two experts regarding the total value of damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Petitioner proved that the settlement of $2.5 million does not fully compensate Alicia for the full value of her damages. As testified to by Mr. Domnick, Alicia's recovery represents only 5.55 percent of the total value of her claim. However, in applying a ratio to reduce the Medicaid lien amount owed to AHCA, both experts erroneously subtracted attorney's fees and costs of $1.1 million from Alicia's $2.5 million settlement to come up with a ratio of 3 percent to be applied to reduce AHCA's lien.2/ Further, in determining the past medical expenses recovered, Petitioner's experts also failed to include the Optum past medical expenses in the amount of $592,554.18. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of damages, or propose a different valuation of the damages. In short, Petitioner's evidence was unrebutted. However, through cross-examination, AHCA properly contested the methodology used to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 5.55 percent is the appropriate pro rata share of Alicia's past medical expenses to be applied to determine the amount recoverable by AHCA in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. Total past medical expenses is the sum of AHCA's lien in the amount of $608,795.49, plus the Optum past medicals in the amount of $592,554.18, which equals $1,201,349.67. Applying the 5.55 percent pro rata ratio to this total equals $66,674.91, which is the portion of the settlement representing reimbursement for past medical expenses and the amount recoverable by AHCA for its lien.
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount payable to Respondent in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement, judgment, or award received by Petitioner from a third party under section 409.910(17), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that Petitioner, Mr. Nelson Puente, sustained gunshot injuries on or about February 4, 2010, for which he received medical treatment. Mr. Puente had Medicaid at that time, and Medicaid paid the amount of $112,397.79 to treat Mr. Puente for his injuries. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Puente has permanent scars on his abdomen and thigh. Mr. Mario Quintero, Jr., Esquire, represented Mr. Puente in a personal injury case alleging negligent security. Mr. Quintero has been practicing law in Florida for over 30 years, specializing in personal injury litigation. He has tried well over 150 cases and has handled catastrophic injury cases that were similar to Mr. Puente's case. Mr. Quintero is an expert on the valuation of personal injury cases. Mr. Quintero interviewed Mr. Puente regarding the scope of his injuries, reviewed extensive medical records, considered the prognosis for improvement, and examined jury verdict reports and facts from similar cases to reach an opinion as to the value of Mr. Puente's damages. Mr. Quintero testified that if he had presented the case to a jury that he would have asked for damages for past medical expenses, future medical expenses, future loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, permanent scarring, and inability to lead a normal life. Mr. Quintero testified that, in addition to the $112,397.79 paid by Medicaid, the Florida Patients' Compensation Fund2/ or another fund paid for some of Mr. Puente's medical care. There was no evidence presented as to the specific amount that this fund paid. Mr. Quintero testified: I don't have the figures in front of me right now. But it was probably significantly less than Medicaid. * * * I do know, I just don't remember. I am--my file is three boxes large. And for purposes of my testimony here today, I don't believe it was necessary for me to bring in those three boxes and go through everything. So I mentioned it would be less than Medicaid, but I don't remember the exact amount. The exact amount for which the fund's claim was settled was similarly not in evidence, but Mr. Quintero characterized it as a "few thousand dollars." He testified, "They understood the severity of Mr. Puente's injuries and damages, they knew the amount of the settlement, and they took-—they factored in everything and significantly reduced the amount that we had to repay them." Mr. Quintero said that he would have asked a jury for significant damages for future lost earning capacity. He noted that Mr. Puente was 35 years old at the time of the settlement, had a long life expectancy, and the "potential to earn 35 to 40 thousand dollars per year." Mr. Quintero did not offer a dollar estimate of lost future earnings. There was no evidence as to Mr. Puente's occupation. Mr. Quintero admitted on cross- examination that he was "pretty sure" that Mr. Puente was unemployed at the time of his injuries. Mr. Quintero testified that future medical expenses would "probably not" be very large, based upon his understanding that "other than maybe palliative issues with therapy and things like that," there wasn't that much more that could be done for Mr. Puente. Mr. Quintero noted that "there probably would be some rehabilitation that he could benefit from in the future, but nothing major." On cross examination, he admitted that there was nothing in evidence to indicate that there would not be significant future medical expenses for Mr. Puente. No life care plan or testimony from health care personnel, vocational specialists, or economists was introduced. Mr. Quintero stated that it is expensive to have life care plans and economist reports prepared. He stated that they are prepared only when there is adequate insurance coverage, and it is worth the expenditure. Mr. Quintero testified that he believed that 80 to 85 percent of a jury verdict in Mr. Puente's personal injury case would have been based upon pain and suffering and the inability to lead a normal life. He did not elaborate on how he arrived at this conclusion. Mr. Quintero testified that, although the value that a particular jury might put on a case can never be absolutely determined, in his opinion, a reasonable estimate of the value of Mr. Puente's damages was $2.5 million. He testified that, in his opinion, the range of damages would be from $2 million to $5 million and that $2.5 million was a conservative estimate. Mr. Quintero's testimony on this point was credible, Respondent offered no contrary testimony, and the value of Mr. Puente's damages is found to be $2.5 million. The settlement in the personal injury case was for the sum of $100,000. There was no direct evidence as to what portion of the $100,000 total settlement was designated by the parties as compensation to Petitioner for medical expenses, or conversely, for the various other types of damages he may have suffered, such as pain and suffering, scarring and other permanent physical injury, or loss of future earnings. Neither the settlement agreement itself nor any other documents prepared in connection with the settlement were introduced. Mr. Quintero offered no testimony on this issue. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, all of the settlement might have been for medical care, or none of it might have been. It is possible that there was no discussion or understanding among the parties as to what portions of the settlement were to be allocated to Mr. Puente's various categories of damages, but such a conclusion would be pure speculation, for there was no testimony or other evidence to that effect. Mr. Puente did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the settlement was "unallocated" by the parties. The Florida Statutes provide that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the Florida state agency authorized to administer Florida's Medicaid program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. The Florida Statutes provide that Medicaid shall be reimbursed for medical assistance that it has provided if resources of a liable third party become available. § 409.910(1), Fla. Stat. AHCA did not participate in settlement negotiations or sign any of the settlement documents. There was no evidence to suggest that AHCA otherwise released its lien. Application of the formula found in section 409.910(11)(f) to the $100,000 settlement in the personal injury case yields a Medicaid lien in the amount of $33,319.66. The $100,000 total recovery represents four percent of the $2.5 million total economic damages. Mr. Puente failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the settlement was unallocated as to categories of damages. Mr. Puente failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that all categories of damages sought in the personal injury case were, or should be, compromised pro rata in the settlement. Mr. Puente failed to prove the amount of the settlement that should be allocated to medical expenses by clear and convincing evidence. Mr. Puente failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory lien amount of $33,319.66 exceeds the amount actually recovered in the settlement for medical expenses.
The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes (sometimes referred to as "17b"), Respondent's recovery of medical assistance expenditures from $500,000 in proceeds from the settlement of a products liability action must be reduced from its allocation under section 409.910(11)(f) (sometimes referred to as "11f")1 to avoid conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1) (Anti-Lien Statute)2; and, if so, the amount of Respondent's recovery.
Findings Of Fact As a result of a motor vehicle accident that took place on May 27, 2012, Petitioner sustained grave personal injuries, including damage to his spinal cord that has left him a paraplegic incapable of self-ambulation of more than a few steps, except by means of a wheelchair or rolling walker. Petitioner was a passenger in a 2003 extended-cab Ford F-150 pickup truck that was driven at a high rate of speed by his brother, who lost control of the vehicle in a curve, over-corrected, and caused the vehicle to rollover three times, ejecting Petitioner with such force that he traveled a distance of 150 feet in the air. The force of the rollovers crushed the vehicle's roof, which caused Petitioner's door latch to fail, allowing Petitioner's door to open and Petitioner to be expelled from the relative safety of the passenger compartment. In settlement negotiations, Petitioner's trial counsel claimed that Ford F-150s of the relevant vintage suffered from deficient door latches, but the forces to which the latch were subjected were overwhelming and well beyond reasonable design limits: the truck's door could not have resisted these forces unless it had been welded to the frame. The one-vehicle accident was substantially, if not entirely, caused by Petitioner's brother, who was intoxicated and is now serving a five-year sentence in prison for his role in the crash. Petitioner shared some responsibility because he likely was not wearing a seatbelt when the truck rolled over. Petitioner's brother and another passenger who were not ejected from the vehicle sustained minor injuries. Petitioner commenced a products liability action against Ford Motor Company and the manufacturer of the door latch. Ford Motor Company defended the case vigorously. Expert witnesses were unable to find any federal safety standards that had been violated in connection with the vehicle, the door latch, or the performance of the vehicle and door latch during the rollovers. The manufacturer of the door latch raised a substantial defense of a lack of personal jurisdiction. At the time of the incident, Petitioner was a 25-year-old plumber and construction worker. He was the sole means of support for his three young children. He has undergone an arduous course of rehabilitation to gain wheelchair-dependent self-autonomy. At the time of the settlement, which appears to have resolved the products liability action, the putative true value of Petitioner's case was $6 million, consisting of $154,219 of past medical expenses, $2.1 million of future medical expenses, $800,000 of lost wages and loss of future earning capacity, and about $2.95 million of noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering and loss of consortium. Petitioner has proved each of these damages components, so the putative true value is the true value (sometimes referred to as the "actual true value"). Petitioner settled the case for $500,000, representing a settlement discount of 91.7% from the true value of $6 million (Settlement Discount). Petitioner has paid or incurred $147,000 in attorneys' fees and about $123,000 in recoverable costs in prosecuting the products liability action. Respondent has expended $154,219 of medical assistance. Under the 11f formula, which is described in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent would recover approximately $126,000 from the $500,000 settlement. This provisional 11f allocation provides the point of reference for determining whether Petitioner has proved in this 17b proceeding a reduced recovery amount for Respondent. Having proved the Settlement Discount of 91.7% from the actual, not putative, true value to the settled value, Petitioner has proved that each damages component of the true value, including past medical expenses, must be proportionately reduced by 91.7% to identify the portion of the settlement proceeds representing past medical expenses, which, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, is the only portion of the proceeds subject to the Medicaid lien. Reducing the past medical expenses of $154,219 by 91.7% yields about $12,800, which is Respondent's tentative 17b recovery. As mentioned in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent's recovery must bear its pro rata share of the attorneys' fees and costs paid or incurred to produce the settlement. The total fees and costs of $270,000 represent 54% of the settlement. The record provides no reason to find that these fees and costs are unreasonable in amount or were not reasonably expended to produce the $500,000 settlement. Reducing Respondent's recovery of $12,800 by 54% yields $5888, which is Respondent's 17b recovery.
The Issue The issue for the undersigned to determine is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Respondent), as reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2020),1 from settlement proceeds he received from third parties.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. On September 6, 2019, Mr. St. Surin was severely injured when his motorcycle struck a car. In this accident, Mr. St. Surin suffered severe and permanent injury to his back, neck, scapula, ribs, and knee. 1 All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification, unless otherwise indicated. Mr. St. Surin’s medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid. Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $28,482.15 in benefits. In addition, Medicaid, through a Medicaid managed care organization known as WellCare of Florida, paid $7,278.25 in benefits. The combined total amount of these benefits, $35,760.40, constitutes Mr. St. Surin’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. St. Surin pursued a personal injury claim against the owner and driver of the car who caused the accident (collectively the “Tortfeasors”) to recover all of his damages. The Tortfeasors’ insurance policy limits were $100,000, and the Tortfeasors had no other collectable assets. Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim was settled for the insurance policy limits of $100,000. During the pendency of Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim, AHCA was notified of the claim and AHCA asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $28,482.15 against Mr. St. Surin’s cause of action and the settlement proceeds. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, or intervene or join in Mr. St. Surin’s action against the Tortfeasors. AHCA was notified of Mr. St. Surin’s settlement by letter. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Mr. St. Surin’s settlement. Application of the formula found in section 409.910(11)(f) would require payment to AHCA of the full $28,482.15 Medicaid lien given the $100,000 settlement. Petitioner has deposited the Medicaid lien amount in an interest- bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending a final administrative determination of AHCA’s rights. Petitioner presented testimony from Scott Kimmel, Esquire. Mr. Kimmel represented Mr. St. Surin in his personal injury claim against the Tortfeasors. Mr. Kimmel is a personal injury attorney and has practiced law for 30 years. Mr. Kimmel testified that he placed a conservative value of $1 million on Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim, but that the personal injury claim was settled for policy limits of $100,000 because the Tortfeasors had no other collectable assets. Using the pro rata allocation methodology, Mr. Kimmel testified that $3,576 of the $100,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses because the personal injury claim was settled for ten percent of its conservative value. Mr. Kimmel’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontradicted. AHCA did not challenge Mr. Kimmel’s valuation of the personal injury claim, or his use of the pro rata allocation methodology to determine the amount of settlement proceeds that should be allocated to past medical expenses, nor did AHCA offer any evidence from which the undersigned could arrive at a different valuation or allocation. There is no reasonable basis to reject Mr. Kimmel’s testimony, and it is accepted here in its entirety. The undersigned finds that the value of Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim is $1 million, and that $3,576.04 of the $100,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses.
