The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes (17b),1 Petitioner has proved that Respondent's recovery of $535,312 in medical assistance expenditures2 from $5 million in proceeds from the settlement of a personal injury action must be reduced to avoid conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1) (Anti-Lien Statute)3; and, if so, the maximum allowable amount of Respondent's recovery.
Findings Of Fact On September 28, 2005, Petitioner was born by an unremarkable delivery at 42 weeks' gestation at a hospital in West Palm Beach. On October 1, 2005, from all appearances a healthy infant, Petitioner was discharged to home. However, Petitioner was born with an extremely rare metabolic disorder known as B-ketothiolase deficiency (BKT), which prevents the body from processing a protein building block called isoleucine and impedes the body's processing of ketones. A few weeks after Petitioner's birth, the birth hospital began screening that would have detected this condition and permitted timely management and treatment of this serious condition. Petitioner progressed normally until, at the age of five years, she acquired an infection that caused her to suffer a decompensation attack and guardian," and DOAH Case 20-2124MTR identifies by name a parent, "individually and as parent and natural guardian of A. F., a minor." As to the latter case, the same attorneys represent the petitioner and respondent as represent Petitioner and Respondent. 9 Resp.'s proposed final order, footnote 2. metabolic crisis. Over the span of a few hours, Petitioner suffered irreversible and progressive atrophic changes to her basal ganglia. This brain damage produced, among other permanent conditions, intermittent painful spasms, multiple times during the day and night, that cause Petitioner to thrash her head about wildly, to arch her back into an extreme "U-like position," and uncontrollably to scratch her eyes or mouth until the spasm ends or her arms are secured or become entrapped in the wheelchair. Otherwise, Petitioner's arms and legs are in a permanent state of contracture, so as to be of little use to her, and her head is typically deviated to the left. Unable to walk, Petitioner requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility, but chronic pain, especially in her back, prevents her from remaining in the chair for more than 30 minutes at a time. Unable to maintain any position for very long, Petitioner is unable even to watch television or a movie. Petitioner attends school, where she is assisted by a one-to-one paraprofessional, but, due to pain, she typically finds it necessary to leave, often in tears, prior to the end of the school day. Petitioner is completely dependent on others for all of the activities of daily living. She is fed through a gastrostomy tube. Without respite care, Petitioner's mother is unable to leave her daughter unattended and provides nearly all of the required care. Among many other things, the mother secures Petitioner to her bed, changes her position, stretches her, brushes her teeth, and takes her to appointments, including brain stimulation therapy in Gainesville twice weekly to help with the spasms. The impact of Petitioner's condition upon the family is nearly inestimable. For instance, nearly the entire family must accommodate Petitioner's desire to go to an amusement park, as the mother, Petitioner's father, and the older of their other two children must help to get Petitioner into one ride. Petitioner's ability to speak is limited, and she lacks the means of expressive communication by writing or a keyboard. The frustration of these communication barriers is heightened by the fact that Petitioner is likely to be cognitively intact, meaning that she is substantially "locked in," so as to understand what is going on about her, but is unable to express herself, even by body movement or gesture. No single measure adequately conveys the extensive care required just to maintain, to the maximum extent possible, Petitioner's present, limited functionality. When assessed for a life care plan, Petitioner was being seen by nine different physicians, three therapists, and the school nurse; was taking nine different medications; and was served by or consumed nearly two dozen items of equipment or supplies. In 2013, Petitioner filed a personal injury action in circuit court in West Palm Beach against the birth hospital and its corporate parent. The case presented three major problems in establishing liability. At the time of Petitioner's birth, only two hospitals in the state of Florida provided BKT screening at birth, and the birth hospital was not one of them. However, the corporate parent owns numerous hospitals in other states, and at least some of these hospitals were providing BKT screening at the time. Petitioner's ability to establish a favorable standard of care was thus dependent on keeping the corporate parent in the case, even though its liability was attenuated. Petitioner's task was complicated by a Florida statute that explicitly provides that the failure of a healthcare provider to provide supplemental diagnostic tests is not actionable if the provider acted in good faith with due regard to the prevailing standard of care.10 Lastly, Petitioner was confronted by a causation issue because, when informed of Petitioner's rare metabolic condition, the parents did not immediately obtain a screening for her older brother. In September 2017, the circuit judge ordered the parties to submit to two summary jury trials, in which each side had a little over one hour to present the case to actual jurors for a nonbinding verdict. Each party devoted 10 § 766.102(4). nearly all of its allotted time to a presentation on liability, not damages. One jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the other returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding $23.5 million as follows: the loss of earning capacity and future medical expenses after the age of 18 years--$10.5 million; past and future pain and suffering--$5 million; past and future medical expenses until the age of 18 years--$5 million; and the parents' loss of consortium--$3 million. In the ensuing settlement negotiations, the defendants' counsel did not contest the damages. Significantly, in calculating future medical expenses and loss of earning capacity, both sides chose conservative reduced actuarial values with only four years separating their choices. Additionally, the defendants' counsel did not contend that a timely screening might not have prevented the injuries. Instead, the defendants' counsel argued the above-described liability and causation issues. The plaintiffs' counsel opposed these arguments and, secondarily, argued that the $23.5 million summary jury verdict was too low due to the necessity of counsel's preoccupation with liability during their presentations. Nearly one year after the summary jury verdicts and after extensive discovery and the expenditure of about $200,000 in costs by the plaintiffs, the parties reached the settlement described above. By any standard of proof, Petitioner has proved that the true value of her case was at least $23.5 million, including $535,000 for past medical expenses, and that the $5 million settlement was driven by concerns as to liability and causation, not damages. The only noteworthy damages component in the true value is Petitioner's past and future pain and suffering, which could have supported a larger value based on the Florida Supreme Court's jury instructions on the matter.11 11 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, Appendix B, Form 2, states in part: What is the total amount of (claimant’s) damages for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect (list any other noneconomic damages) and loss The $5 million settlement represents a discount of $18.5 million or 78.7% when compared to the true value of the case. Applying the same discount to $535,312 results in Respondent's recovery of $114,021.
The Issue The issue in this case is the amount that must be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Respondent), from the proceeds of Petitioners’ confidential settlement to satisfy Respondent’s Medicaid lien against the proceeds pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2020).1
Findings Of Fact Paragraphs 1 through 10 are the enumerated stipulated facts admitted and agreed upon by the parties, and required no proof at hearing. Petitioners commenced a medical malpractice action in 2013 to recover damages related to the injuries sustained by Tavarion Sanders at the time of his birth in 2009. Tavarion Sanders was born September 16, 2009. Misty Mobley is Tavarion Sanders’ mother. The medical malpractice action contains a cause of action asserted on behalf of Tavarion Sanders’ parents, Misty Mobley and Tavaris Sanders, for their own injuries, including for the loss of services, earnings, companionship, society, and affection of the infant, and for the value and expense of the infant’s hospitalizations in the past and future. The injuries related to Tavarion Sanders’ medical malpractice claim include hypoxic brain damage, cerebral palsy with decreased muscle tone in all four extremities, global developmental delays, and a neurogenic bowel and bladder. As a result of these permanent injuries, Tavarion Sanders requires, for the rest of his life, total assistance with all of his activities of daily living, including dressing, feeding, grooming, bathing, and toileting. Medicaid first made payments for medical care on behalf of Tavarion Sanders in 2010. 4 Page one of the Transcript provides that “the Honorable Lawrence P. Stevenson, Administrative Law Judge” heard this case. That is inaccurate. The undersigned was assigned this case on September 9, 2020. As found on page four of the Transcript, the undersigned called this hearing to order and presided throughout the hearing. In 2020, the medical malpractice action settled for a confidential amount. Petitioners assert that the settlement amount was not for the full value of Petitioners’ claims because of the challenges with proving liability and the risk of litigating the case to trial. AHCA was properly notified of the medical malpractice action, and the instant Petition was timely commenced by Petitioners. AHCA has asserted a lien against Tavarion Sanders’ settlement proceeds in the amount of $129,939.87. AHCA paid $129,939.87 on behalf of Tavarion Sanders, related to his claim against the liable third parties in the Petitioners’ medical malpractice action. The amount of the settlement in the medical malpractice action, and the allocation of the proceeds of the settlement as between Tavarion Sanders and Misty Mobley, is identified in Petitioners’ Lien Allocation and Reduction Worksheet. (Petitioners’ Exhibit 25). Petitioners’ Exhibit 1 is an August 18, 2020, letter (lien letter) from Conduent Payment Integrity Solutions, a subcontractor to Health Management Systems, which is an authorized agent of AHCA “to operate the Florida Medicaid Casualty Recover Program.” In addition to directing Tavarion Sanders’ counsel to review section 409.910 to determine the “responsibilities to Florida Medicaid,” Mark Lyles, Conduent’s case manager and author of this letter also posted the amount of the lien asserted by AHCA: $129,939.87.6 Ms. Tejedor is a Florida board-certified civil trial lawyer with 23 years’ experience in personal injury law. She focuses on “birth-related injuries of 5 As noted in footnote 3 above, Petitioners’ Exhibit 2 was amended during the course of the hearing, and Exhibit 2a was filed at the conclusion of the hearing. 6 At some time during the course of this proceeding, Petitioners challenged approximately $3,000.00 of the stipulated amount. However, at hearing, Ms. Tejedor conceded and confirmed as correct the figure found in Petitioners’ Exhibit 2a: the stipulated amount, $129,939.87. children suffering birth injuries during delivery.” As part of her ongoing practice, she routinely evaluates the damages suffered by injured clients. Ms. Tejedor relies on her own experience including her daily legal practice, three of her most recent medical malpractice trials, plus her review of other jury verdicts to gauge any likely recovery. Ms. Tejedor continues to handle cases involving similar injuries suffered by Tavarion Sanders. Ms. Tejedor met and observed Tavarion Sanders; met with Tavarion Sanders’ family and discussed Tavarion Sanders’ condition with his parents and treating medical personnel; and reviewed Tavarion Sanders’ medical information, including the actual medical records of the treating physicians and the multiple MRI reports. Ms. Tejedor represented Petitioners in the civil litigation. She testified to the difficulties associated with this type of medical malpractice litigation in general, and then focused on the problematic causation and liability issues related to Tavarion Sanders and his injuries. Ms. Tejedor credibly testified regarding the evaluations she made of Tavarion Sanders’ injuries and the legal actions she orchestrated.7 In addition to the stipulated injuries listed in paragraph 4 above, Ms. Tejedor described, in laymen’s terms, Tavarion Sanders’ injuries based upon the evidence discovered in the civil litigation: Tavarion Sanders has a severe brain injury; a form of cerebral palsy with motor impairment and cognitive delays; significant mental retardation with seizure disorders; and he is essentially nonverbal. She also explained Tavarion Sanders’ current situation as he is “really not capable of learning;” will never be “gainfully employed any time in the future;” will “require 24/7 care;” and will never live alone. 7 The medical malpractice action was initially brought through the “Neurological Impairment Compensation Association: fund and dismissed because the presiding ALJ found that Tavarion Sanders had not suffered a birth-related neurological injury. Following an appeal, the civil medical malpractice action was restarted, which resulted in a confidential settlement. Ms. Tejedor’s unrefuted testimony placed the total full value of Tavarion Sanders’ damages conservatively at $21,972,186.87. Included in this total value are: Tavarion Sanders’ future medical care, $14,516,878.00; Tavarion Sanders’ loss of earnings capacity, $2,325,369.00; Tavarion Sanders’ pain and suffering, $5,000,000.00; and the past medical expenses, stipulated to by Petitioners and AHCA, $129,939.87. Further, using the $21,972,186.87 valuation amount and the confidential settlement proceeds, Ms. Tejedor averred she used the same formula to determine that 6.8% is the ratio of the settlement to the full value of Tavarion Sanders’ claim. Ms. Tejedor followed the formula as set forth in: Valeria Alcala, a Minor, by Yobany E. Rodriguez- Camacho and Manuel E. Alcala, as Natural Guardians and next friends vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 20-0605MTR, 2020 Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, 2020 WL 4934729 (Fla. DOAH August 18, 2020); and Amy Lopez, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of A.F., a Minor, vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 20-2124MTR (Fla. DOAH Sept. 3, 2020). Ms. Tejedor testified she used the “same formula that other jurisdictions in Florida have followed, which is the, you know, Ahlborn[8] decision, which basically ... lists out how you determine the percentage that ... the percentage of the value of the case that represents past medical expenses, and that’s exactly the way we did it in this case.” Ms. Tejedor’s testimony was competent, substantial, persuasive and uncontradicted on this point. Mr. Copeland is a Florida civil trial lawyer with 28 years’ experience in personal injury law, with an active civil trial practice. He has handled and continues to practice in the areas of products liability and medical malpractice litigation. As part of his every day practice, Mr. Copeland is involved in resolving liens. 8 Ark. Dept of Health & Human Serv. v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006). In addition to serving as a witness for damage valuation cases and an expert in the reduction of liens, Mr. Copeland has worked with the legislation that deals with “damages, calculation of damages, and to some extent on occasion lien resolution was part of those calculations.” Mr. Copeland has “spent quite a bit of time testifying before committees in the House and Senate,” and on “Blue Ribbon panels appointed by governors that dealt in part with damages, and evaluating personal injury statutes.” Mr. Copeland’s expert testimony has always been accepted in evidence. Mr. Copeland was tendered and without objection was accepted as an “expert witness in the valuation of damages in medical malpractice actions and in the resolution of health care liens.” Mr. Copeland testified that Florida “courts generally are following the Ahlborn formula.” Mr. Copeland routinely works with life care planners and economists in his practice, and used the economic damage numbers provided to him for this case. Further, Mr. Copeland testified that he based his opinion on Tavarion Sanders’ future medical care expense, lost earnings capacity, the medical expenses identified in the lien letter, Tavarion Sanders’ loss of enjoyment for the capacity of life, and Tavarion Sanders’ pain and suffering (both past and future) “just like you’re going through a jury verdict form” in Florida. Mr. Copeland opined that the full value of Tavarion Sanders’ claim, using his conservative approach, was $21,972,186.87. Using the Ahlborn pro rata methodology or formula, that is, using the $21,972,186.87 valuation amount and the confidential settlement proceeds, Mr. Copeland testified that Tavarion Sanders recovered only 6.8% of the full measure of all his damages. Then, by applying that 6.8% to the full amount that Medicaid claimed of $129.939.87, the full satisfaction of the lien is $8,835.91. Mr. Copeland’s testimony was uncontradicted and persuasive on this point. The testimony of Petitioners’ expert regarding the total value of damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Petitioners proved that the confidential settlement does not fully compensate Tavarion Sanders for the full value of his damages. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of damages, or propose a different methodology to the valuation of the damages. In short, Petitioners’ evidence was unrebutted. Respondent’s attempt to quibble with how many significant figures were used in determining the appropriate percentage for the pro rata methodology calculation is tenuous and unpersuasive. The parties stipulated to the value of the services provided by Florida Medicaid as $129,939.87. It is logical and rational to conclude that this figure is the amount expended for Tavarion Sanders’ past medical expenses. Respondent explored an additional past medical expense of $762.66, however the parties stipulated to the past medical expense figure. There is a lack of evidence to support this purported additional past medical expense, and the undersigned is not persuaded to amend the stipulated amount. Applying the 6.8% pro rata ratio to $129,939.87 equals $8,835.91, which is the portion of the settlement representing reimbursement for past medical expenses and the amount recoverable by AHCA for its lien. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence as set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) that AHCA should be reimbursed at the lesser amount: $8,835.91.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or Agency), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Tyra Pierre, from a medical-malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On November 4, 2011, Petitioner, Tyra Pierre (Petitioner), fell from the window of the fourth floor apartment where she lived with her mother, Yanique Benjamin, in North Miami Beach, Florida. The apartment was owned by Harvard House, LLC (Harvard House). Petitioner was airlifted to, and treated at, Jackson Memorial Hospital Trauma Center. Petitioner suffered a spinal cord injury at cervical level C7-C8, and is paralyzed from the waist down, rendering her a permanent paraplegic. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $530,258.86. Petitioner was three years old at the time of her injury and has a normal life expectancy of 72.9 years. Petitioner is wheel-chair bound. She has no control of her bladder or bowels. Paraplegics suffer from a number of attendant complications, such as erosion of skin integrity, pressure ulcers, and kidney, bladder, and digestive system disorders. Paraplegics require care from neurologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and gastroenterologists, among other physicians, throughout their normal life expectancy. Ms. Benjamin retained Scott Leeds, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims, to represent Petitioner in a personal injury claim against Harvard House. Mr. Leeds served Harvard House with a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on December 29, 2011. The insurance liability of Harvard House was limited to $1 million. During discovery, Mr. Leeds determined Harvard House had no other collectible assets. Petitioner settled with Harvard House pre-suit for $750,000.1/ Mr. Leeds has practiced law in the area of catastrophic personal injury for 31 years. He has represented children in cases seeking damages for catastrophic injury. As part of his practice, Mr. Leeds routinely estimates the value of damages suffered by his clients. The components of damages in catastrophic personal injury cases generally follow the elements set out in a jury verdict form, including economic damages, such as past medical expenses (date of injury to date of trial), future medical expenses, loss of past earnings, loss of future earning capacity, past attendant care and rehabilitation, future attendant care and rehabilitation; as well as non-economic damages, such as past and future pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. Petitioner’s claim for past medical expenses is valued at $530,258.86, the amount paid by Medicaid for her past treatment. Mr. Leeds estimated Petitioner’s future medical care expenses at $8 million, based on statistics from the Christopher and Dana Reeves Foundation. Mr. Leeds testified that Petitioner’s attendant care costs for her expected lifetime are an additional $9 million. Mr. Leeds’ estimate of Petitioner’s economic damages is $17.5 million before valuing Petitioner’s loss of future earning capacity. Mr. Leeds’ opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages is informed by his experience representing children in two separate catastrophic injury cases. In both cases, the children were under five years old and their injuries resulted in paraplegia. In both cases, Mr. Leeds negotiated structured settlements for the children in excess of $20 million in future benefits over the children’s lifetime. Mr. Leeds testified, convincingly, that a jury would likely award Petitioner a substantial sum to compensate Petitioner for her non-economic damages, given her life expectancy of over 70 years to endure the consequences of her injury. Mr. Leeds’ valuation of Petitioner’s combined economic and non-economic damages in excess of $20 million is accepted as credible and reliable, as well as persuasive. Petitioner also presented the testimony of a second expert in valuing damages in catastrophic personal injury cases, R. Vinson Barrett, Jr. Mr. Barrett is a civil trial lawyer who has practiced exclusively in the area of personal injury for the past 30 years. He is a senior partner in the law firm of Barrett, Fasig & Brooks in Tallahassee, Florida. In preparing for his testimony, Mr. Barrett reviewed Petitioner’s medical records, the police report filed on the date of Petitioner’s injury, Mr. Leeds' demand letter to Harvard House, some discovery documents, the settlement, and the court order approving the settlement. In formulating his opinion as to the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett also consulted with colleagues practicing personal injury law in South Florida. According to Mr. Barrett, jury awards vary by region in the state of Florida, with South Florida juries returning high jury verdicts in personal injury cases. Mr. Barrett emphatically agreed that the value of Petitioner’s damages are in excess of $20 million. In formulating his opinion, Mr. Barrett reviewed jury verdicts in cases which he considered comparable, or otherwise instructive. In one case, a four-year-old boy rendered a paraplegic in an automobile accident was awarded $19.9 million in damages in 2010. That verdict was rendered in Osceola County. Mr. Barrett testified that a jury verdict in Dade County would be expected to be higher than in Osceola County. In a second case, a jury in Pinellas County awarded over $10 million to a 57-year-old woman who was rendered paraplegic as a result of medical malpractice. The jury award allocated $3 million for future medical expenses and $7 million for future pain and suffering. Mr. Barrett testified that future pain and suffering awards are generally lower for older plaintiffs, such as this 57-year-old woman, than for younger plaintiffs, like Petitioner, with a much longer life expectancy. Another case to which Mr. Barrett referred involved an adult male construction worker rendered paraplegic in a fall from a steel beam which resulted in a spinal injury similar to Petitioner’s. The Hillsborough County jury awarded over $16 million to the plaintiff in that case. The construction worker’s life expectancy was shorter than Petitioner’s, thus Mr. Barrett believes an award greater than $16 million would be made in Petitioner’s case. Mr. Barrett would also expect a higher award in a present-day civil jury trial than this $16-million award which was made in 1995. Mr. Barrett’s opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages was both credible and persuasive. Medicaid is to be reimbursed for medical assistance provided if resources of a liable third party become available. Thus, Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $530,258.86 against any proceeds Petitioner received from a third party. Respondent’s position is that it should be reimbursed for its Medicaid expenditures on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the statutory formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting a 25 percent attorney’s fee and taxable costs (in this case, $8,704.50) from the $750,000.00 recovery, which yields a sum of $553,795.50, then dividing that amount by two, which yields $276,897.75. That figure establishes the maximum amount that could be reimbursed from the third-party recovery in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. Petitioner’s position is that Respondent should be reimbursed $19,884.71 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. On August 27, 2014, Petitioner and Harvard House executed a Release of Claims (Release) based upon the settlement of $750,000. In the Release, the parties acknowledge that the settlement “only compensat[es] Tyra Pierre for a fraction of the total monetary value of her alleged damages.” The Release does not differentiate or allocate the total recovery among the components of damages, such as economic or non-economic. However, the Release allocates $19,884.71 to Petitioner’s claim for past medical expenses, and allocates the “remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses.” The Release provides that said “allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all Tyra Pierre’s damages.” The settlement amount of $750,000 is 3.75% of the total value of Petitioner’s damages. The figure of $19,884.71 is 3.75% of the value of past medical expenses paid by Medicaid on Petitioner’s behalf. Respondent was not a party to the settlement. Respondent did not participate in litigation of the claim or in settlement negotiations, and no one represented Respondent’s interests in the negotiations. Respondent has not otherwise executed a release of the lien. Petitioner did not introduce the settlement in evidence. However, Petitioner did introduce the circuit court order authorizing the settlement. The order reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Tyra’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agree[d] to allocate $19,884.71 of this settlement to Tyra’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 the settlement bears to the total monetary value of all Tyra’s damages. * * * 5. The allocation of damages recited in the previous paragraph and made a material term of the settlement, is fair and accurate, and is expressly adopted by this Court. (emphasis added). Mr. Leeds testified that allocation of $19,884.71 of the settlement proceeds to Petitioner’s past medical expenses was fair and accurate, “based upon the analysis of this catastrophic injury and the future 73 years that Tyra Pierre will have and the value of this case[.]” Mr. Barrett testified that allocation of $19,884.71 for past medical expenses was reasonable and rational. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Clifford J. Deyampert (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Deyampert”) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ from settlement proceeds received by Mr. Deyampert from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on exhibits accepted into evidence, admitted facts set forth in the pre- hearing stipulation, and matters subject to official recognition. Facts Pertaining to the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation and the Medicaid Lien On July 25, 2015, Mr. Deyampert was attending a party held at a friend’s house and was shot in the throat by another guest. The bullet traveled down Mr. Deyampert’s throat, struck his spinal cord, and caused Mr. Deyampert to be paralyzed from the chest down. As a result, Mr. Deyampert is permanently disabled, disfigured, and wheelchair-bound. In addition, Mr. Deyampert is bowel and bladder incontinent.2/ Medicaid paid $76,944.67 in order to cover Mr. Deyampert’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $76,944.67 paid by Medicaid on Mr. Deyampert’s behalf represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and Medicaid did not make payments in advance for medical care. Mr. Deyampert initiated a personnel injury lawsuit by making a claim against a homeowner’s insurance policy that covered the shooter. Mr. Deyampert’s personal injury action settled for $305,000, and that was the limit of an aforementioned insurance policy.3/ The General Release memorializing the settlement stated the following: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate Clifford Deyampert for all of the damages he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Releasees without regard to this settlement only compensating Clifford Deyampert for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. The parties agree that Clifford Deyampert’s alleged damages have a value in excess of $6,000,000, of which $76,944.67 represents Clifford Deyampert’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Clifford Deyampert’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $3,847.23 of this settlement to Clifford Deyampert’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement 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 Clifford Deyampert’s damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that Clifford Deyampert may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses Clifford Deyampert will incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that Clifford Deyampert, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for Clifford Deyampert’s future medical care and Clifford Deyampert 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. During the pendency of Mr. Deyampert’s personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the suit and asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $76,944.67 against any damages received by Mr. Deyampert. Via a letter issued on July 24, 2017, Mr. Deyampert’s attorney notified AHCA that Mr. Deyampert’s personal injury action had settled. The letter asked AHCA to specify what amount it would accept in satisfaction of the $76,944.67 Medicaid lien. AHCA responded by demanding full payment of the lien. Section 409.910(11)(f) sets forth a formula for calculating the amount that AHCA shall recover in the event that a Medicaid recipient or his or her personal representative initiates a tort action against a third party that results in a judgment, award, or settlement from a third party.4/ AHCA is seeking to recover $76,944.67 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. See § 409.910(11)(f)4., Fla. Stat. (providing that “[n]otwithstanding any provision in this section to the contrary, [AHCA] shall be entitled to all medical coverage benefits up to the total amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid.”). Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim F. Emory Springfield represented Mr. Deyampert during the personal injury action and testified during the final hearing. Mr. Springfield has practiced law for 32 years. He owns his own law firm and handles cases involving personal injury, workers’ compensation, and social security disability. Mr. Springfield has experience with jury trials and monitors jury verdicts issued in his fields of practice. Mr. Springfield routinely assesses the value of damages suffered by injured parties. He makes those assessments by determining the injured person’s life expectancy, evaluating the injuries, and conferring with lifecare planners about the injured party’s need for future care. In addition, Mr. Springfield learns as much as possible about the injured party’s past life activities and compares those activities to what the injured party is presently capable of doing. Mr. Springfield also assesses an injured party’s damages by examining jury verdicts from other cases. Mr. Springfield was accepted in this proceeding as an expert regarding the valuation of damages. Mr. Springfield is of the opinion that Mr. Deyampert’s damages (including damages for pain and suffering and economic damages) are well in excess of $6 million. According to Mr. Springfield, the $305,000 settlement does not “come close” to fully compensating Mr. Deyampert for all of his damages. Furthermore, the $305,000 settlement only represents a five percent recovery of the more than $6 million in damages incurred by Mr. Deyampert. Therefore, in Mr. Springfield’s opinion, only five percent (i.e., $3,847.23) of the $76,944.67 in Medicaid payments for Mr. Deyampert’s past medical expenses were recovered. Mr. Deyampert also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire, during the final hearing. Mr. Barrett is a trial attorney who has been practicing in North Florida since the mid 1970s. Over the last 30 years, he has focused his practice on the areas of medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical liability. Mr. Barrett routinely handles jury trials and monitors jury verdicts issued in his practice areas. Mr. Barrett routinely assesses the value of damages suffered by injured parties. According to Mr. Barrett, a personal injury attorney must be skilled at estimating the value of a client’s claim. Otherwise, the high cost of bringing a case to trial can result in a personal injury attorney losing money and going bankrupt. Mr. Barrett was accepted in this proceeding as an expert regarding the valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett gave the following testimony regarding Mr. Deyampert’s damages: This man not only is a paraplegic, but during all this, and I couldn’t really tell from the records I read whether the bullet caused this or some intubation in the hospital, but he got air into the space between his lung and his diaphragm, which can be a very painful problem, he had to be intubated to get that out. He developed, I believe, sepsis, at some point in his -- in his treatment; and it’s already evidence early on in his situation that he’s going to be, and is very susceptible to pressure ulcers on his skin. His skin is going to be prone to breakdown from prolonged periods of sitting in the same position and that sort of thing. Fortunately, he has enough strength left in his upper body that he’s able to ameliorate that somewhat. He’s able actually, on his own, and after a lot of rehab, to roll over in his bed to different positions even though his lower extremities are not working at all. He’s able to -- he’s able to reposition himself in his chair using the strength of his arms, so that will cut down a little bit on that. But he had already developed a pressure ulcer or two by the time he got into rehab in this case. He – so, he’s got no use at all, it appears, of his lower extremities. He had a number of complications that had to be dealt with. He was in the hospital a long time. His overall prospects after rehabilitation -– and he was still in some rehabilitation as early as about February of this year, so I’m not totally sure he’s through all his rehab yet. He has to take rehabilitation courses to learn -– relearn how to do things. He’ll need his home made wheelchair accessible, cabinets, and thing[s] like that, all the things that a person normally does without thinking about, are going to be challenges for him just in daily household stuff. He will have to have modifications, most likely, of his kitchen, his bathroom, that sort of thing. And so, yeah, there’s quite a bit to work within this case to come up with an evaluation. Mr. Barrett opined that $6 million was a “very conservative” estimate of the damages suffered by Mr. Deyampert. Mr. Barrett also opined that allocating five percent of the $76,000 claim (i.e., $3,847.23) to past medical expenses was a reasonable and rational allocation to past medical expenses and reflected the ratio of the amount recovered to the actual value of Mr. Deyampert’s damages. Findings Regarding the Testimony Presented at the Final Hearing The undersigned finds that the testimony from Mr. Springfield and Mr. Barrett was compelling and persuasive. While attaching a value to the damages that a plaintiff could reasonably expect to receive from a jury is not an exact science, Mr. Springfield’s and Mr. Barrett’s decades of experience with litigating personal injury lawsuits make them very compelling witnesses regarding the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties such as Mr. Deyampert.5/ Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Mr. Deyampert proved by a preponderance of the evidence that $3,847.23 constitutes a fair and reasonable recovery for past medical expenses actually paid by Medicaid.
The Issue The issue in this case is the amount of money to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Larry J. Griffis, from a personal injury claim settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Griffis was severely injured in an accident occurring on April 29, 2012. The accident occurred generally as follows: Griffis owned and operated a large truck with a long aluminum dump trailer attached. He hauled hazardous waste and other materials for a living. At the end of each job, Griffis would raise the dump trailer for the purpose of cleaning out any residual material. On the date of the accident, Griffis did not clean his trailer in the usual because of some obstruction on that date. Instead, he drove out into a field next to his house to clean the trailer. When Griffis raised the trailer to clean it, he failed to notice electrical lines just above his trailer. He raised the trailer into the lines, resulting in an extremely high voltage of electricity running through his body. As a result of the accident, Griffis was transported to the burn unit at Shands hospital in Gainesville for treatment of his extensive injuries. He had over 50 medical procedures while at Shands, including debridement, skin grafts, tracheostomies, multiple chest tubes, etc. He had 19 different complications while in the hospital, including infections and kidney failure. Over 30 percent of his body surface area was burned; 23 percent of those burns were third degree. While undergoing treatment, Shands gave him only a 22 percent chance of surviving. Griffis remained in the hospital for three and one half months. The medical bills for Griffis’ treatment totaled Griffis cost $1,363,285.65. Medicaid paid $48,640.57 of that total amount. The Veterans Administration (VA) paid $275,911.87. Shands was eventually paid $324,552.44 of its charges and wrote off over $1 million. Griffis filed a lawsuit against Suwannee Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“Suwannee”), seeking payment of economic and non-economic damages related to Suwannee’s alleged liability for the accident. After negotiations and mediation, a settlement was reached whereby Griffis was to receive the sum of $500,000 from Suwannee in full settlement of all his claims. After the settlement was reached between Griffis and Suwannee, the Agency attempted to enforce its lien, seeking repayment of the entire amount it had paid. Griffis, believing that less than the lien amount was actually owed, filed a Motion for Order Apportioning Damages as part of his pending lawsuit against Suwannee. The purpose of the motion was not to have the circuit court judge determine the amount of the Agency’s lien. The motion was filed to obtain an Order that would apportion the settlement among the lawful elements of damages to which Griffis was entitled. A hearing on the motion was set for April 14, 2015, before Circuit Court Judge Andrew J. Decker, III. The Agency was served a copy of the motion and the notice of hearing. The Agency filed an objection to the motion, seeking to relieve the circuit court of jurisdiction in favor of the Division of Administrative Hearings. See § 409.910 (17)(b), Fla. Stat. Griffis replied to the Agency’s objection, stating that “the purpose of the Motion is to differentiate or allocate the settlement among Mr. Griffis’ different elements of damages [rather than] asking this Court to resolve a Medicaid lien dispute.” At the Circuit Court hearing on Griffis’ motion, the Agency made an appearance and, in fact, cross-examined the expert witness who testified. The only testimony provided at that hearing was from retired District Court of Appeal Judge Edwin B. Browning, Jr. Judge Browning provided expert testimony as to the value of Griffis’ claim, which he set at $6 million. Mr. Smith also provided some argument in support of Griffis’ claim, but as an attorney, rather than a sworn witness. Judge Decker took the $6 million figure, plus economic damages in the sum of $211,518, plus past medical expenses of $324,552.44 for a total of $6,536,070.44. That was then divided into the $500,000 settlement figure amount. That resulted in a factor of 7.649 percent, which, applied to the “value of the case” amount, resulted in a figure of $458,919.49. Applying the factor to economic damages resulted in an amount of $16,179.01. The past medical expenses amount, once factored, resulted in a figure of $24,825.01.1/ After hearing the evidence presented at his motion hearing, Judge Decker entered an Order dated April 21, 2015, establishing the past medical expenses amount, i.e., the Agency’s lien, at $24,901.50. The Order did not address future medical expenses because they were not sought by Petitioner. Inasmuch as his future medical costs would be paid by VA, his attorneys did not add potential medical expenses to the claim.2/ A copy of Judge Decker’s Order was received into evidence in the instant proceeding (although, pursuant to section 90.202, Florida Statutes, it could have been officially recognized by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge). The Order, along with Griffis’ other exhibits and Mr. Smith’s testimony, constituted the evidence in this matter.
The Issue At issue are the actual expenses, if any, for medically necessary and reasonable medical and hospital, habilitative and training, residential, and custodial care and service, for medically necessary drugs, special equipment, and facilities and for related travel currently required for the infant, and the reasonable expenses, if any, incurred in connection with the filing of the claim for compensation, including reasonable attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact Background Michael Lebrun (Michael) is the natural son of Barnabas Lebrun and Rolande Lebrun, and was born October 9, 1990, at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Dade County, Florida. At birth, Michael suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," as that term is defined by Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, and he was accepted by respondent, Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA) for coverage under the Florida-Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the Plan). Section 766.301, et seq., Florida Statutes. Consistent with Section 766.305(6), Florida Statutes, NICA's acceptance of the claim was approved by final order of March 30, 1994, and NICA was directed to pay "past medical expenses, a reasonable attorney's fee, and . . . future expenses as incurred" in accordance with Section 766.31, Florida Statutes. The order further reserved jurisdiction to resolve "any disputes, should they arise, regarding petitioners' entitlement to past medical expenses, a reasonable attorney's fee, and subsequently incurred expenses." At petitioners' request, a hearing was held to address, pertinent to this order, medically necessary and reasonable expenses alleged to be currently required by the infant, and the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the filing of the claim for compensation, including reasonable attorney's fees. Petitioners did not, however, at any time prior to hearing, present any requests for compensation to NICA which identified any specific needs of the infant which they felt should be covered by the Plan, but were currently unmet. 2/ Notably, the parties' stipulation, which resolved that Michael was covered under the Plan, approved by order of March 30, 1994, provided: 8. The Claimants and the Association hereby agree as follows: * * * The Association will pay all benefits, past and future, as authorized by Section 766.31, Florida Statutes. The Association and Alan Goldfarb, Esquire, the attorney for the Claimants, agree that a reasonable sum for attorneys fees and services and certain expenses incurred in the representation of the Claimant in this case will be determined at a future date. In absence of an agreement for a specific amount, either party may request a hearing for determination. * * * 11. The Parties agree that the issues of the actual expenses for medically necessary and reasonable medical and hospital, habilitative and training, residential and custodial care and service, for medically necessary drugs, special equipment and facilities, and for related travel as per Florida Statute 766.31 and for a reasonable attorney's fee and expenses, may be determined by the Hearing Officer if a dispute arises regarding the same. The association is not aware of any specific disputes regarding the services being provided to Michael Lebrun but acknowledges that petitioners have requested a hearing regarding the same. . . . * * * 16. In order for the Association to carry out its responsibility as provided in this stipulation, the Claimants shall provide within thirty (30) days of the date of approval of this stipulation, the following: A complete list (with copies, invoices, addresses, etc.) of all known past expenses for which the Claimants seek reimbursement in accordance with the terms and provisions of this stipulation document for medical and related expenses previously incurred; and A fully executed authorization of release of any and all medical records, insurance program records, and such other authorization as may, from time to time, reasonably be required by the Associa- tion to complete its duties hereunder; and Such other reasonable information as may be required by the Association, which relates to the provision of Michael [sic] [medical] or habilitative care or the payment of Michael's bills. Petitioners' failure to file a claim with NICA for benefits they were of the opinion that Michael currently required, but had not received, or supply NICA with the requested information to evaluate any request for benefits, was contrary to their obligation, as evidenced by the forgoing stipulation. Such failing was not, however, raised by NICA prior to hearing, nor did it object to such failing during the course of hearing. Accordingly, while, if timely raised, petitioners' failure to first provide NICA an opportunity to address the specifics of a claim for benefits prior to hearing could have been appropriately addressed, such failure is not a bar to the resolution of the issues presented. 3/ Michael's past and current history Following six months of life, Michael was referred to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS), Children's Medical Services, Early Intervention program. Through his Early Intervention coordinator, Michael was initially provided services, at public expense, through what is known as the "Birth through Two" ("B-2") services program. That program is a public service program for handicapped children through 36 months of age, or until their transition to the Dade County Public Schools Special Education Pre-K Program, and is jointly funded by DHRS and the Dade County Public Schools. As of the date of hearing, Michael had been receiving, and was scheduled to continue to receive until his transition into the Pre-K Program, physical therapy three times a week at forty-five minutes a session and occupational therapy four times a week at forty-five minutes a session, including oral stimulation, through United Cerebral Palsy. Such other services or items of special equipment that Michael needed were also ordered or provided, at public expense, through the auspice of his Early Intervention coordinator. As of July 5, 1994, some two weeks following the hearing in this case, Michael was scheduled to transition from the B-2 Program into the Pre-Kindergarten Exceptional Education Program (Pre-K program), where he would receive a different level of rehabilitative services. According to the proof, once he transitions into the Pre-K program, Michael will receive sixty minutes per week of physical therapy and thirty to forty-five minutes of occupational therapy, during the course of the school day. Such therapies are not quantified by frequency or duration of a therapy session predicated on the well founded belief that a child's responsiveness to therapy will vary from day to day and, accordingly, the frequency of delivery is left to the discretion of the individual therapist. As provided by the School Board, physical therapy primarily deals with the functional mobility, positioning and musculoskeletal "status" of the lower extremity of the student, and occupational therapy primarily addresses the functioning of the upper extremities, classroom positioning and improvement of visual and perceptual motor skills to function in an educational program. Although available, the School Board does not propose to offer speech therapy to Michael since it has concluded, based upon evaluations and observations, that his speech development is commensurate with his present level of cognitive functioning and that no developmental deficiency exists. As noted, the physical therapy and occupational therapy provided by the School Board during the school year is predicated on what it perceives is necessary for the student to profit from the educational program. Under the circumstances, the services provided are not necessarily an objective evaluation of the medically necessary and reasonable habilitative services the infant may need for treatment; 4/ however, in some cases they may be. Whether the services to be provided the infant in this case will meet such standard can not, based on the record in this case, be resolved; however, if not, such services should be available, subject to available appropriations, through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Section 409.905, Florida Statutes. In addition to his apparent need for physical and occupational therapy, Michael also exhibits various self-abusive behaviors which require therapeutic correction. Such treatment was requested by Michael's Early Intervention coordinator, through Developmental Services, on February 18, 1994. As of the date of hearing, it was not shown whether Michael had or had not begun to receive such services. The subject claim At hearing, petitioners offered no proof of any expenses previously incurred for which they sought reimbursement, 5/ and their claim, relative to the current needs of Michael, was limited to certain equipment, therapy and attendant care which Paul M. Deutsch, Ph.D. ("Mr. Deutsch"), perceived was required for Michael. 6/ As to the items of equipment recommended by Mr. Deutsch, many were age specific and no longer required or had otherwise been provided through a public assistance program. Currently, according to Mr. Deutsch, Michael is in need of the following equipment: (1) TLC bath seat; (2) prone stander; (3) exercise mat; (4) hand-held shower; (5) wheelchair backpack; and, (6) Rifton pottychair. At the time of final hearing, the prone stander had been ordered through Children's Medical Services, but a TLC bath seat and hand-held shower had not. There was, however, no showing that the Lebruns desired such items or that the TLC bath seat and held-held shower were needed for Michael's care. Indeed, Michael can sit in the bathtub where he is regularly bathed by his parents without a TLC bath seat or hand-held shower. Should the Lebruns decide in the future that such items would be beneficial to them in the care of Michael, they are certainly able to ask NICA for such items; however, currently, they have demonstrated no desire or need for them. As to the wheelchair backpack, the proof fails to demonstrate that Michael needs such item because he does not suffer from any medical condition that requires the transport of special medical equipment. Likewise, Michael does not currently require a Rifton pottychair since he is not currently being "potty trained" nor is there any expressed expectation to begin such training in the known future. Michael also does not currently require an exercise mat since he is not receiving any home therapy. As for rehabilitative services, Mr. Deutsch recommends that in addition to the services that Michael is to receive through the Dade County Public School system that he receive two physical therapy sessions, two occupational therapy sessions, and two speech therapy sessions each week. Given that Mr. Deutsch was not specifically aware of the therapies Michael was receiving and was to soon receive, that he had never participated or observed any therapy sessions with Michael, and offered no specific reasons as to why these additional therapies were necessary to treat Michael's condition, Mr. Deutsch's opinion is rejected. Indeed, Mr. Deutsch's recommendations appear to be little more than a generic model, without specific reference to the needs of Michael and the benefits that might reasonably be expected from additional therapies, if any. Notably, Mr. Deutsch's life care plan recommends an annual evaluation by health care specialists to address Michael's specific needs for physical, occupational and speech therapy. That recommendation is a tacit recognition of the fact that each disabled child does not require the same services, and recognizes that the need for services is appropriately left to health care professionals involved with Michael's care. Significantly, the record is devoid of any proof, apart from public services, that petitioners or their counsel ever acted on Mr. Deutsch's recommendation, made May 27, 1993, that Michael receive an annual evaluation by health care specialists to address his need for such services. While the nature and frequency of services requested were not shown to be medically necessary or reasonable at the time of hearing, the record does demonstrate that Michael requires rehabilitative services and special equipment, which, although ordered through public service programs, may not have been provided or may not be adequate. Given the circumstances, it would be appropriate for NICA to continue its coordination with public service agencies, as discussed infra, to assure that Michael receives the services and special equipment he requires in a timely manner. 7/ Moreoever, since the proof fails to demonstrate whether a medical assessment has been made, it would be appropriate and in the best interests of the child for NICA to coordinate with the public service agencies to assure a comprehensive medical assessment is made of Michael's current need for speech therapy and to determine whether additional physical and occupational therapy may be warranted. Should there currently exist no obligation or ability, because of lack of funding or otherwise, for the public service agencies to provide a medical evaluation, therapy as needed, or special equipment, or should the agencies fail to timely provide a medical evaluation, therapy or special equipment, though required by law to do so, it would be appropriate for NICA, with the parents' consent, to provide those services or equipment until the appropriate pulbic service agency accepts responsibility for the provision of those services and equipment. Finally, Mr. Deutsch has recommended that "attendant care" be provided to the Lebrun family at the rate of two to four hours a day to provide consistency in the care of Michael while allowing the parents a respite. Notably, the Lebruns, who speak regularly with NICA, have never made such a request, and there was no showing that such services are necessary at this time. 8/ Attendant care is generally provided in the home to assist with an individual's daily living skills, such as bathing, moving the individual in and out of a wheelchair or repositioning. Attendant care is not necessary at this time as Michael is still quite small and he is mobile. Indeed, there was no proof at hearing that the Lebruns were incapable, by virtue of any circumstance, to care for Michael, or that he required inordinate care. NICA's activities NICA, consistent with its obligations under law, has maintained communication with Michael's Early Intervention coordinator at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Children's Medical Services, as well as Michael's staffing specialist with the Dade County Public Schools, to monitor Medicaid services to Michael and, if necessary, provide any services those agencies are unable to provide. NICA, through its Executive Director, Lynn Dickinson, has met personally with the Lebruns on numerous occasions, and has routinely spoken with them by telephone, regarding Michael's care and any perceived needs they may have had for his care. At no time, during the course of any of those conversations, did the Lebruns ever request any attendant care or any other service or equipment recommended by Mr. Deutsch. 9/ Attorney's fees and costs Although duly noticed at petitioners' request, as an issue to be heard, petitioners offered no proof, as required by Section 766.31(1)(c), Florida Statutes, to support their claim for an award of reasonable attorney's fees. As for costs, the only proof offered concerned an agreed fee arrangement with Mr. Deutsch. According to Mr. Deutsch, he agreed to a cap of $3,000 just to cover expenses. What those expenses were, are or will be, was not, however, explained of record, and it cannot be concluded, based on the proof, that such $3,000 cap is reasonable or recoverable.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Yesica Cardenas, from a personal injury settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On December 31, 2010, Yesica Cardenas (“Ms. Cardenas”) was a passenger on a motor scooter that was involved in an accident on State Road 112 in Miami, Florida. As a result of this accident, Ms. Cardenas suffered serious physical injury, including amputation of her left leg below the knee. (JPHS p. 8) Ms. Cardenas’ past medical expenses related to her injuries were paid in part by Medicaid, and Medicaid provided $89,518.80 in benefits. This $89,518.80 in benefits paid by Medicaid, combined with $12,449.80 in medical bills not paid by Medicaid, constituted Ms. Cardenas’ entire claim for past medical expenses. Accordingly, Ms. Cardenas’ claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $101,968.60. (JPHS p. 8) Ms. Cardenas, or others on her behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for Ms. Cardenas’ future medical care, and no claim for damages was made for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Ms. Cardenas brought a personal injury lawsuit in Miami-Dade County to recover all of her damages against those responsible for her injuries (“Defendants”). (JPHS p. 8) On September 9, 2015, Ms. Cardenas compromised and settled her lawsuit with the Defendants for the amount of $240,000. (JPHS p. 8) In making this settlement, the settling parties agreed that: 1) the settlement did not fully compensate Ms. Cardenas for all her damages; 2) Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $2,400,000, of which $101,968.60 represented her claim for past medical expenses; and 3) allocation of $10,196.86 of the settlement to Ms. Cardenas’ claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate. In this regard, the General Release and Settlement Agreement (“Release”) memorializing the settlement stated: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate RELEASOR for the damages she has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to all claims against [Defendants] without regard to this settlement only compensating the RELEASOR for a fraction of the total monetary value of her alleged damages. The damages have a value in excess of $2,400,000, of which $101,968.60 represents RELEASOR’S claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of the RELEASOR’S alleged injuries and this settlement, the parties settled this matter for 10% of the value of the damages ($240,000.00) and as such, have allocated $10,196.86 of this settlement the RELEASOR’S claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of her other claims. 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 RELEASOR’S alleged damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that the RELEASOR may need future medical care related to her alleged injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for these future medical expenses that the RELEASOR may incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that the RELEASOR, or others on her behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for the RELEASOR’S future medical care and the RELEASOR 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. (JPHS p. 8-9) As a condition of Ms. Cardenas’ eligibility for Medicaid, Ms. Cardenas assigned to AHCA her right to recover from liable third parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of Ms. Cardenas’ personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA, through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $89,518.80 Medicaid lien against Ms. Cardenas’ cause of action and settlement of that action. (JPHS p. 9) By letter of September 11, 2015, AHCA was notified by Ms. Cardenas’ personal injury attorney of the settlement and provided a copy of the executed Release and itemization of $2,711.70 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $2,400,000, and the $240,000 settlement represented only a 10-percent recovery of Ms. Cardenas’ damages. Accordingly, she had recovered only 10 percent of her $101,968.60 claim for past medical expenses, or $10,196.86. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. (JPHS p. 9) AHCA did not respond to Ms. Cardenas’ attorney’s letter of September 11, 2015. (JPHS p. 9) AHCA did not file an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Ms. Cardenas’ settlement with the Defendants. (JPHS p. 9) AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. (JPHS p. 9) The Medicaid program spent $89,518.80 on behalf of Ms. Cardenas, all of which represents expenditures paid for Ms. Cardenas’ past medical expenses. (JPHS p. 9) No portion of the $89,518.80 paid by the Medicaid program on behalf of Ms. Cardenas represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. (JPHS p. 10) Ms. Cardenas is no longer a Medicaid recipient. (JPHS p. 10) AHCA has determined that $2,711.70 of Ms. Cardenas’ litigation costs are taxable costs for purposes of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula calculation. (JPHS p. 10) Subtracting the $2,711.70 in taxable costs and allowable attorney’s fees, the section 409.910(11)(f) formula applied to Ms. Cardenas’ $240,000 settlement requires payment of $88,644.15 to AHCA in satisfaction of its $89,518.80 Medicaid lien. Since the $89,518.80 Medicaid lien amount is more than the $88,644.15 amount required to be paid to AHCA under the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $88,644.15 from Ms. Cardenas’ $240,000 settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. (JPHS p. 10) 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, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). (JPHS p. 10) Testimony of Michael Weisberg Mr. Weisberg has been an attorney since 1967 and is a partner with Weisberg and Weisberg, P.A. Mr. Weisberg explained that he is a civil trial attorney who has spent 30 years handling insurance defense, and in the last 20 years has focused his practice on plaintiff personal injury. Mr. Weisberg testified that over his career, he has handled approximately 550 jury trials to verdict and he often handles cases involving catastrophic injuries. Mr. Weisberg testified that as a routine and daily part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Petitioner proffered Mr. Weisberg as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties, and AHCA did not object to the proffer. Mr. Weisberg was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Weisberg represented Ms. Cardenas relative to her personal injury action. He explained that as part of his representation, he reviewed Ms. Cardenas’ medical records, met with her doctors, reviewed the accident report, took the deposition of persons involved in the accident, took the deposition of witnesses to the accident, and met with Ms. Cardenas many times. Mr. Weisberg gave a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to Ms. Cardenas’ injury. He explained that Ms. Cardenas was a hostess at a restaurant in a Miami Beach hotel. After her shift ended, she was asked to stay and continue working. After the restaurant closed, she was unable to take the Metro Mover home because it ceased running at midnight. Instead, she was given a ride home by a co-worker who had a motor scooter. The co-worker’s motor scooter was too slow for the highway he chose to travel upon, and it was struck from behind by a motorcycle. Ms. Cardenas was thrown off the motor scooter. She was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital where her leg was amputated a few inches below the knee. Due to her lack of financial resources, Ms. Cardenas was provided limited rehabilitation and she was provided only a rigid prosthetic leg that did not have a flexible ankle/foot. Mr. Weisberg explained that this injury has had a negative impact on Ms. Cardenas’ life. Because of the limitations presented by having an amputated leg, she has had difficulty maintaining her relationship with her friends and has become isolated. She is unable to enjoy her previous pastime of shopping due to the injury and is unable to play with her son in the same manner as before. Mr. Weisberg testified that Ms. Cardenas’ injury has caused Ms. Cardenas to suffer from depression and “she is not a happy girl.” Mr. Weisberg testified that Ms. Cardenas’ claim for past medical expenses related to her injury was $101,968.60, which consisted of $89,518.80 in Medicaid benefits and $12,449.80 in medical bills not paid by Medicaid. Mr. Weisberg testified that Ms. Cardenas, or others on her behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for future medical care, and no claim was brought to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. Mr. Weisberg testified that through his representation of Ms. Cardenas, review of Ms. Cardenas’ file, and based on his training and experience, he had developed the opinion that the value of Ms. Cardenas damages was “a minimum of five million dollars.” In support of his valuation, he compared Ms. Cardenas’ case to a case he had tried to jury verdict involving a man with a preexisting leg amputation who was struck by a bus and suffered a degloving injury to his other leg. This client regained use of the injured leg and the jury still awarded him $1.3 million. Mr. Weisberg explained that if that client’s less severe injury where he regained use of his injured leg, warranted a $1.3 million verdict, then “a person with no leg, a reasonable verdict, in my opinion . . . would be in excess of five million dollars.” Mr. Weisberg also testified that he “round tabled” Ms. Cardenas’ case with five other experienced attorneys, and they believed Mr. Weisberg’s valuation of Ms. Cardenas’ damages at $5 million was low. Further, Mr. Weisberg testified that he had reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 11 and he believed those cases were comparable to Ms. Cardenas’ case and supported his valuation of Ms. Cardenas’ damages as being in excess of $5 million. Mr. Weisberg explained that the driver/owner of the motor scooter Ms. Cardenas was riding, as well as the driver/owner of the motorcycle that struck the motor scooter, did not have liability insurance or assets, so no recovery was possible against them. Instead, a lawsuit was brought against the restaurant under the theory that by requesting Ms. Cardenas to work after her shift was finished, they caused her to be unable to use public transit and rely upon transport home by way of the motor scooter. Mr. Weisberg explained that the theory of liability was difficult and there were numerous disputed facts associated with the case. Based on these issues, Ms. Cardenas settled her case for $240,000. Mr. Weisberg testified that the settlement did not fully compensate Ms. Cardenas for the full value of her damages. Mr. Weisberg testified that based on the conservative valuation of all Ms. Cardenas’ damages of $2,400,000, the settlement represented a recovery of 10 percent of the value of Ms. Cardenas’ damages. Mr. Weisberg testified that because Ms. Cardenas only recovered 10 percent of the value of her damages in the settlement, she only recovered 10 percent of her $101,968.60 claim for past medical expenses, or $10,196.86. Mr. Weisberg testified that the settling Defendant was represented by experienced trial attorneys and that the settling parties agreed in the Release that Ms. Cardenas’s damages had a value in excess of $2.4 million, as well as the allocation of $10,196.86 of the settlement to past medical expenses. Mr. Weisberg further testified that the allocation of $10,196.86 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable and rational, as well as conservative, because it was based on a very low-end valuation of her damages of $2.4 million. If a higher valuation of her damages was used, the amount allocated to past medical expenses would have been much less. Mr. Weisberg testified that because no claim was made to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care, no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. He also testified that the parties agreed in the Release that no claim was made for reimbursement of past payments for future medical care, and no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. Testimony of Thomas Backmeyer Thomas Backmeyer has been an attorney since 1970, and since 1996, he has worked as a mediator. Prior to becoming a mediator in 1996, he was board-certified in civil trial law by the Florida Bar and the National Board of Trial Advocates. Mr. Backmeyer testified that he has handled 100 to 125 jury trials, 90 percent of which were personal injury cases. He further testified that in his practice he regularly made assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Petitioner proffered Mr. Backmeyer as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. AHCA did not object to the proffer, and Mr. Backmeyer was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Backmeyer testified that he was familiar with Ms. Cardenas’ injuries and had reviewed the hospital records from Jackson Memorial, pictures of Ms. Cardenas, the Complaint, and Petitioner’s exhibits. Mr. Backmeyer testified that in his opinion, Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $5 million to $10 million. He explained that his valuation was “based on my experience in handling jury trials. It’s based on my experience of dealing with cases over the last twenty years as a mediator, some of which involve amputations of, I can think of one that involved the amputation of a leg of a young lady.” Mr. Backmeyer also testified that he had reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 11 and he found those verdicts comparable with Ms. Cardenas’ case and supportive of his valuation of her damages. He discussed two of the verdicts in relation to Ms. Cardenas’ case. Mr. Backmeyer testified that he was aware of the Cardenas settlement, and that the parties had allocated $10,196.86 to past medical expenses based on a valuation of all damages of $2,400,000. He further testified that he believes allocation of $10,196.86 to past medical expenses was “a generous number” because he believed the value of the damages was much higher than the $2,400,000 valuation used by the parties in calculating the allocation to past medical expenses. AHCA did not propose a differing valuation of Ms. Cardenas’ damages or contest the methodology used by the parties to calculate the $10,196.86 allocation to past medical expenses. The testimony and evidence presented concerning the value of Petitioner’s damages, and the allocation to past medical expenses, was unrebutted. The evidence presented is not in conflict or ambiguous. The parties to the settlement agreed that: 1) Ms. Cardenas was not being fully compensated for all her damages in the settlement; 2) Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $2,400,000, of which $101,968.60 represented her claim for past medical expenses; 3) the parties allocated $10,196.86 of the settlement to past medical expenses based on the same ratio the settlement bore to the total monetary value of all damages; and 4) because there was no claim made for reimbursement, restitution, repayment, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past for future medical care, no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. AHCA was not a party or participant in the settlement. However, the unrebutted evidence and testimony is of sufficient quality and quantity to establish that the value of Ms. Cardenas’ damages was in excess of $2,400,000; the allocation of $10,196.86 to past medical expenses under the method of calculation used was reasonable, fair, and accurate; and no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that $10,196.86 of the settlement represents reimbursement for past and future medical expenses. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the $88,644.15 amount calculated by the Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
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
