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 is whether, for the 2001-02 cost-reporting year, Respondent is entitled to recoupment of Medicaid reimbursements that it paid to Petitioner, in connection with its operation of numerous intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (ICF/DD) and, if so, what is the amount of the overpayments.
Findings Of Fact The Audit For over 40 years, Petitioner has operated as a not- for-profit provider of ICF/DD services. These cases involve a compliance audit of ten of Petitioner's 2001-02 cost reports. During 2001-02, Petitioner operated over 300 ICF/DDs-- both owned and leased--in eight states and earned an annual revenue of over $90 million. A typical facility is a group home serving 24 developmentally disabled residents, although some of Petitioner's facilities serve much larger numbers of residents. Respondent outsourced the compliance audit of Petitioner's 2001-02 cost reports, as well as a similar audit of Petitioner's 2002-03 cost reports, which are not involved in these cases. Prior to completing the audit, the outside auditor withdrew from the engagement because it had concluded that it would be required to issue a disclaimer of opinion--an auditing nonopinion, as described below. In late 2005, two and one-half years after the outside auditor had commenced its work, Respondent's staff auditors assumed responsibility for the compliance audit. After examining the outside auditor's workpapers, Respondent's staff auditors found it necessary to re-perform at least some of the field work. By letter dated January 3, 2006, Respondent advised Petitioner of this development and, among other things, requested information about 16 identified motor vehicles and a statement concerning the 1981 Piper airplane noted in the May 29, 2002 Insurance sub-committee minutes. What was the plane used for and in what cost centers and accounts are the costs recorded? Possible costs would include fuel, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, and any salaries. Petitioner responded by a letter dated March 3, 2006, but this letter is not part of the record. Evidently, not much audit activity took place for the next couple of years. By letter dated January 25, 2008, Respondent advised Petitioner of several potential audit adjustments and noted that Petitioner had not provided the "detail general ledger" and information on aircraft and vehicles that Respondent had sought in its January 3, 2006 letter. In March 2008, Respondent's staff auditor visited Petitioner's main office in Miami and audited Petitioner's records for three days. He confirmed the existence of a 1981 Piper aircraft and a second aircraft, which he was unable to identify. Respondent's staff auditor determined that he still lacked information necessary to determine if Petitioner's aircraft expenses were reasonable when compared to common- carrier expenses. By letter dated May 12, 2008, Respondent informed Petitioner that, after the March 2008 onsite visit, several issues remained. Among the issues listed were the costs of two private aircraft, for which Respondent requested access to all flight and maintenance logs and detailed documentation of business purpose of trips, identification of aircraft bearing two cited tail numbers, the names of pilots on Petitioner's payroll, and any other cost information justifying the cost of the aircraft compared to common-carrier costs. By letter dated June 13, 2008, Petitioner responded to the May 12, 2008 letter. This letter states that the 1981 Piper was sold at an undisclosed time, and the maintenance logs had been delivered with the plane. The letter supplies registration documentation for the two tail numbers, a personnel file checklist for the pilot, and justification for the cost of operating an aircraft compared to the cost of using common carriers. On December 4, 2008, Respondent's staff auditor conducted an exit conference by telephone with Petitioner's principals and its independent auditor. Respondent's staff auditor proposed audit adjustments of various cost items that the auditor had guessed involved the aircraft. Petitioner did not agree with these proposed audit adjustments or various others that Respondent's staff auditor proposed. For the next 17 months, neither side contacted the other, until, on May 12, 2010, Respondent issued examination reports for the 2001-02 cost-reporting period. It had taken Respondent over seven years to issue examination reports based on cost reports that Petitioner had filed on February 3, 2003, for a cost-reporting year that had ended almost two years earlier. Cost Items in Dispute On January 28, 2011, Respondent filed a Notice of Filing of a spreadsheet that lists all of the adjustments that have been in dispute. During the hearing, the parties announced the settlement of other cost items. As noted by the Administrative Law Judge, these adjustments are shown on the judge's copy of this filing, which is marked as Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 1 among the original exhibits. Most of the items in dispute are Home Office costs, which are allocated to each of Petitioner's audited facilities. With the reason for disallowance, as indicated in the examination reports, as well as the Schedule of Proposed Auditing Adjustment (SOPAA) number, the Home Office costs in dispute are: Other consultants. "To disallow out of period costs." $7,000. SOPAA #19. Professional fees--other. "To disallow out of period costs." $1,500. SOPAA #20. Administrative Travel. "To disallow out of period costs." $1,038. SOPAA #21. Transportation--repairs. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $36,496. SOPAA #22. Transportation--fuel and oil. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $78,336. SOPAA #22. Insurance. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $24,000. SOPAA #22. Transportation--Depreciation. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $106,079. SOPAA #22. Transportation--Interest. "To remove airplane costs not documented as being reasonably patient care related." $57,714. SOPAA #22. Staff Development Supplies. "To remove unreasonable cash awards." SOPAA #26. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge encouraged the parties to try to settle as many of the issues as they could and, as to the aircraft issues, consider entering into a post-hearing stipulation due to the lack of facts in the record concerning this important issue. The parties produced no post-hearing stipulation and have not advised the Administrative Law Judge of any settled issues. The Administrative Law Judge has identified the remaining issues based on the issues addressed in the parties' Proposed Recommended Orders. With two exceptions, the remaining issues are all addressed in each Proposed Recommended Order. One exception is the Country Meadows return-on-equity issue, which neither party addressed. There is a small discrepancy between the amount of this adjustment on Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 1 and elsewhere in the record, so this issue may have been settled. If so, Respondent may ignore the portions of the Recommended Order addressing it. Also, Respondent failed to address the $123,848 in transportation salaries and benefits. Based on the services corresponding to these expenses and the motivation of Respondent's staff auditor in citing these reimbursements as overpayments, as discussed below, the decision of Respondent's counsel not to mention these items is understandable. The remaining issues are thus: Burial costs of $4,535 at the Ambrose Center. Return on equity adjustment of $3,418 at the Country Meadows facility. Legal fees of $4,225 for the Bayshore Cluster as out-of-period costs. Inclusion of state overhead of $9,529 at Mahan Cluster, $9,529 at Dorchester Cluster, and $9,529 at Bayshore Cluster. Transportation Salaries and Benefits of $123,848 at Main Office. Individual Cost Items Burial Costs After the death of an indigent resident at Petitioner's Ambrose Center, the family contacted Petitioner and informed it that they desired a burial, not a cremation, but could not afford to pay for any services. Petitioner's staff contacted several vendors about the cost of a simple burial service and, after negotiating a discount due to the unfortunate circumstances, selected a vendor. The vendor duly performed the burial service, which was attended by survivors of the deceased's group home, and Petitioner paid the vendor $4,535 for the service. For a burial service, the amount paid was reasonable. Petitioner's staff determined that the burial would have therapeutic value to the surviving residents of the deceased's group home. The quality of life of the residents is enhanced to the extent that they identify with each other as family. Petitioner's staff justifiably determined that a burial service would help sustain these familial relationships by bringing to the survivors a sense of closure, rather than subjecting them to the jarring experience of an unmarked departure of their fellow resident from their lives. However, routine counseling or therapy could have achieved the same results at less cost than a burial service. Out-of-Period Costs The so-called out-of-period costs are $1,038 of rental-car fees, $1,500 of computer consultation fees, $4,225 of legal fees, and $7,000 of "duplicated" insurance broker services. "Out-of-period" means that the expenses were incurred, and should properly be reported, outside of the cost- reporting year ending June 30, 2002. Generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) incorporate the principle of materiality. At least for the purpose of determining the cost-reporting year in which to account for an expense, the materiality threshold for Petitioner is tens of thousands of dollars. The out-of-period issue, which involves the integrity of the cost-reporting year, is different from the other issues, which involve the allowability of specific costs. The cost items under the out-of-period issue are all allowable; the question is in which cost-reporting year they should be included. The test of materiality is thus whether the movement of these cost items from one cost-reporting year to an adjoining cost-reporting year will distort the results and, thus, Petitioner's Medicaid reimbursements. Given Petitioner's revenues, distortion would clearly not result from the movement of the subject cost items, even if considered cumulatively. In theory, Petitioner could be required to amend the cost report for the year in which any of these expenses were incurred, if they were not incurred in the subject cost- reporting year. Unfortunately, by the time Respondent had generated the SOPAAs, the time for amending the cost reports for the adjoining cost-reporting years had long since passed, so a solution of amending another cost report means the loss of the otherwise-allowable cost. This result has little appeal due to Respondent's role in not performing the audit in a timely, efficient manner, but each out-of-period cost is allowable for different reasons. The car-rental expense arises out of an employee's rental of a car for business purposes in June 2001. The submittal and approval of the travel voucher, which are parts of the internal-control process, did not take place until after June 30, 2001. Although Petitioner's liability to the rental-car company probably attached at the time of the rental, the contingency of reimbursement for an improper rental was not removed until the internal-control process was completed, so it is likely that this is not an out-of-period expense. The legal expenses included services provided over the three months preceding the start of the subject cost-reporting year. The attorney submitted the invoice to Petitioner's insurer. After determining that Petitioner had not satisfied its applicable deductible, after June 30, 2001, the insurer forwarded the bill to Petitioner for payment. Absent evidence of the retainer agreement, it is not possible to determine if Petitioner were liable to the law firm prior to the insurer's determination that the payment was less than the deductible, so it is unclear whether this is an out-of-period expense. The computer-consulting work occurred about three months before the end of the preceding cost-reporting year, but the vendor did not bill Petitioner until one year later. This is an out-of-period expense. To the extent that these three items may have been out-of-period expenses, it is not reasonable to expect Petitioner to estimate these liabilities and include them in the preceding cost-reporting year. This is partly due to the lack of materiality explained above. For the car-rental and computer expenses, it is also unreasonable to assume that Petitioner's employees responsible for the preparation of the cost reports would have any knowledge of these two liabilities or to require them to implement procedures to assure timely disclosure of liabilities as modest as these. The last cost item is $7,000 for insurance broker services. This is not an out-of-period expense. In its audit, Respondent determined that this amount represents a sum that was essentially a duplicate payment for services over the same period of time to two different insurance brokers. This is a payment for services over the same period of time to two different insurance brokers for nonduplicated services reasonably required by Petitioner. Given the size and the nature of its operations, Petitioner has relatively large risk exposures that are managed through general liability, automobile liability, director and officer liability, property, and workers' compensation insurance. Paying premiums of $4-5 million annually for these coverages, which exclude health insurance, Petitioner retains insurance brokers to negotiate the best deals in terms of premiums, collateral postings, and other matters. Petitioner experienced considerable difficulty in securing the necessary insurance in mid-2001. At this time, Petitioner was transitioning its insurance broker services from Palmer and Kay to Gallagher Bassett. Difficulties in securing workers' compensation insurance necessitated an extension of the existing policy to July 15, 2001--evidently from its original termination date of June 30, 2001. Due to these market conditions, Petitioner had to pay broker fees to Palmer and Kay after June 30, 2001, even though, starting July 1, 2001, Petitioner began to pay broker fees to Gallagher Bassett. There was no overlap in insurance coverages, and each broker earned its fee, even for the short period in which both brokers earned fees. Employee Cash Awards Petitioner paid $8,500 in employee cash awards in the 2001-02 cost-reporting year as part of a new policy to provide relatively modest cash awards to employees with relatively long terms of service. For employees with at least 20 years of service, Petitioner paid $100 per year of service. The legitimate business purpose of these longevity awards was to provide an incentive for employees to remain with Petitioner, as longer-tenured employees are valuable employees due to their experience and lack of need for expensive training, among other things. The disallowance arose from the application of a nonrule policy that has developed among Respondent's staff auditors: employee compensation is not an allowable cost unless it is includible in the employee's gross income. The evident purpose of the nonrule policy is to exclude from allowable costs payments to employees who, due to their prominence in the ranks of the provider, are able to cause the provider to structure the payments so as to avoid their inclusion in the recipient's gross income (and possibly deprive a for-profit provider of an offsetting deduction for the payments). For the 2001-02 cost-reporting year, only three employees qualified for these payments. Two had 30 years of service, so each of them received $3,000, and one had 25 years of service, so he or she received $2,500. The total of the payments at issue is thus $8,500. The record contains ample support for the finding that the addition of $3,000 to the annual compensation paid to any of Petitioner's employees would not result in excessive compensation. Return on Equity During the cost-reporting year, Petitioner maintained $128,000 in a bank account dedicated for the use of the Country Meadows facility. This sum represented about three months' working capital for Country Meadows. At the time, Respondent encouraged providers to maintain cash reserves of at least two months' working capital, so this sum was responsive to Respondent's preferred working capital levels. Consistent with its purpose as working capital, funds in this account were regularly withdrawn as needed to pay for the operation of Country Meadows. The record does not indicate whether the bank paid interest on this account. Also, the concept of return on equity does not apply to a not-for-profit corporation such as Petitioner, which, lacking shareholders, lacks equity on which a return might be calculated or anticipated. State Overhead at Three Clusters This item involves three ICF/DD clusters that, at the time, were owned by, and licensed to, the State of Florida. Petitioner operated the facilities during the cost-reporting year pursuant to a lease and operating agreement. As in prior cost-reporting years, Respondent did not disallow the depreciation included in the subject cost reports for these three clusters. The record does not reveal whether Petitioner or the State of Florida bore the economic loss of these capital assets over time. But the treatment of depreciation costs is not determinative of the treatment of operating or direct care costs. During the subject cost-reporting year, for these three clusters, the State of Florida retained various operational responsibilities, including admissions. However, the costs at issue arise from the expenditures of the State of Florida, not the provider. The costs include the compensation paid to several, state-employed Qualified Mental Retardation Professionals, who performed various operational oversight duties at the three clusters, and possibly other state employees performing services beneficial to these three clusters. Petitioner never reimbursed the State of Florida for these costs. There is no dispute concerning the reasonableness of the compensation paid these employees by the State of Florida, nor the necessity of these services. The issue here is whether Petitioner is entitled to "reimbursement" for these costs, which amount to $5,139 per cluster, when the costs were incurred by the State of Florida, not Petitioner. Disallowed Transportation Costs and Airplane Costs The $123,848 in disallowed Main Office Transportation salary and benefits represents the salary and benefits of eight Main Office van drivers, who earn about $15,000 per year in pay and benefits. At least 40 residents of the Main Office are not ambulatory, but, like all of the other residents, need to be transported for medical, recreational, and other purposes. There probably remains no dispute concerning these expenses. They are reasonable and necessary. The explanation for why these costs were disallowed starts with the inability of Respondent's staff auditor to find the aircraft expenses in the financial records of Petitioner. It is not possible to determine why the audit failed to identify these expenses prior to the issuance of the examination report. On this record, the only plausible scenario is that Respondent's outside auditor was off-the-mark on a number of items while conducting the audit, Petitioner's representatives lost patience and became defensive, and, when the outside auditor withdrew from the engagement, Respondent's staff auditors, already fully engaged in other work, may not have had the time to add this substantial responsibility to their workload. It is clear, though, that, after the departure of Respondent's outside auditor, the audit failed due to a combination of the lack of Petitioner's cooperation and Respondent's lack of diligence. Unable to identify the aircraft expenses after years of auditing left Respondent with options. It could have continued the audit process with renewed diligence until it found the aircraft expenses. Or it could have declared as noncompliant the cost report, the underlying financial records, or Petitioner itself. Instead, Respondent converted the examination report from what it is supposed to be--the product of an informed analysis of Petitioner's financial records--to a demand to pay up or identify these expenses and, if related to aircraft, justify them. The problem with Respondent's choice is that, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, an audit requires Respondent to proceed, on an informed basis, to identify the expenses, analyze them, and, if appropriate, determine that they are not allowable--before including them as overpayments in an examination report. Proceeding instead to cite overpayments on the basis of educated guesses, Respondent entirely mischaracterized the $123,848 in transportation salaries and benefits, which did not involve any aircraft expenses. Respondent's educated guesses were much better as to the remaining items, which are $36,496 in transportation repairs, $78,336 in transportation fuel and oil, $24,000 in insurance, $106,079 in transportation depreciation, and $57,714 in transportation interest. But the process still seems hit-or-miss. Thinking that he had found the pilot's salary in the item for the van drivers' salaries, Respondent's staff auditor missed the pilot's salary, which was $30,000 to $40,000, as it was contained in an account containing $1.3 million of administrative salaries. Respondent's staff auditor also missed the hanger expense, which Petitioner's independent auditor could not find either. On the other hand, Respondent's staff auditor hit the mark with the $78,336 of fuel and oil, $106,079 of depreciation, and $36,496 in repairs--all of which were exclusively for Petitioner's aircraft. Respondent's staff auditor was pretty close with the transportation interest, which was actually $60,168. It is difficult to assess the effort of Respondent's staff auditor on insurance; he picked a rounded number from a larger liability insurance account, which includes aircraft insurance, but other types of insurance, as well. Respondent correctly notes in its Proposed Recommended Order that the auditing of aircraft expenses requires, in order, their identification, analysis, and characterization as allowable or nonallowable. As Respondent argues, the analysis must compare the aircraft expenses to other means of transportation or communication to determine the reasonableness of the aircraft expenses. As Respondent notes elsewhere in its Proposed Recommended Order, the analysis also must ensure that a multijurisdictional provider, such as Petitioner, has fairly allocated its allowable costs among the jurisdictions in which it operates. Although Respondent's staff auditor found a number of aircraft expenses, he did not try to compare these expenses with other means of travel or communication, so as to determine the reasonableness of these aircraft expenses, or determine if Petitioner had allocated these costs, as between Florida and other jurisdictions, in an appropriate manner. The failure of the examination report, in its treatment of the expenses covered in this section, starts with the failure to secure the necessary information to identify the expenses themselves, but continues through the absence of any informed analysis of these expenses. Respondent's staff auditor used the examination report's treatment of the items covered in this section as a means to force Petitioner both to identify and explain these costs. The fact that Respondent's staff auditor guessed right on many of the aircraft expenses does not mean that he had an informed basis for these guesses. At one point during his testimony, Respondent's staff auditor seemed pleasantly surprised that he had been as accurate as he was in finding these expenses. But, regardless of the basis that he had for the identification of these expenses, Respondent's staff auditor never made any effort to analyze the expenses that he had chosen to include in the examination report as aircraft expenses. Nor is the record insufficient to permit such analysis now. Among the missing data is the number of planes that Petitioner owned at one time during the subject cost-reporting year. It is now clear that, for awhile, the number was two, probably at the end of the cost-reporting year, but this was unknown at the time of the issuance of the examination report. It is unclear, even now, for how long Petitioner owned two planes, or whether it operated both planes during the same timeframe. Cost comparisons are impossible without the knowledge that the cost-comparison exercise is for one or two private aircraft. Likewise, Respondent lacked basic information about the aircraft, such as the planes' capacities and costs of operation, per hour or per passenger mile. Again, this information remains unknown, so it is still impossible to establish a framework for comparison to the costs of common carriers. The record includes a three-page log provided during the audit process by Petitioner to Respondent, which appears never to have analyzed it, probably due to its determination that it had not identified the aircraft expenses adequately. The log shows 118 trips for purposes other than maintenance or engineering during the subject cost-reporting year. The log shows the cities visited and a very brief description of the purpose of the trip. Not the detailed description requested by Respondent, the proffered description is often not more than the mention of a facility or meeting. The log does not show the duration of the trip, but often notes the number of persons on the plane. If the aircraft costs identified above, including the unassessed pilot salary, are divided by the number of trips, the per trip cost is about $2,600. Some trips list several persons, as many as seven. Some trips list only one or two persons. Some trips list "staff," so it is impossible to tell how many persons traveled. And some trips provide no information about the number of travelers. It is a close question, but these findings alone do not establish that the use of the aircraft was unreasonable when compared to common carriers. Also, Respondent lacked any information about the purpose of the trips, so as to be able to determine if they were necessary or whether they could have been accomplished by videoconference or telephone. And the hearing did not provide this information. Respondent's staff auditor also never considered allocation methods, which is understandable because this analysis would necessarily have followed the identification process, in which he justifiably lacked confidence, and the cost-comparison analysis, which he had never undertaken. At the hearing, Respondent's staff auditor briefly mentioned other allocation methods, but never criticized the approved allocation method used by Petitioner. Although an approved allocation method might not offset disproportionate travel expenses to West Virginia and Connecticut, the record is insufficient to determine that the chosen allocation method was inappropriate or transferred excessive expenses to Florida for Medicaid reimbursement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order determining that, for the 2001-02 cost- reporting year, Petitioner has been overpaid $23,370 (including $3,418 for return on equity, if not already settled), for which recoupment and a recalculation of Petitioner's per-diem reimbursement rate are required. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Lake, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt, P.A. 2650 Soutwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Justin Senior, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue What is the proper amount of Petitioners' personal injury settlement payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), to satisfy AHCA's $51,130.05 Medicaid lien under section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the evidence presented at the hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On January 31, 2007, Rickey D. ("Rickey"), who was then four years old, was struck by a car outside an apartment complex. Rickey suffered severe life-threatening injuries, including a fractured femur, fractured skull, and a closed head injury with traumatic brain damage. JPHS, pp. 9 and 10, ¶ 1. Rickey's medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid. Medicaid provided $51,130.05 in benefits associated with Rickey's injury. The $51,130.05 constituted Rickey's entire claim for past medical expenses. JPHS, p. 10, ¶ 2. Rickey's parents and natural guardians, Lolita D. and Rickey O.D., brought a personal injury claim against the driver/owner of the car that caused the accident and the apartment complex where the accident occurred ("Defendants"). They sought recovery of all of Rickey's damages associated with his injuries, as well as their own individual damages associated with their son's injuries. JPHS, p. 10, ¶ 3; Pet. Ex. 4. The personal injury action was settled for a lump sum, unallocated amount of $285,000.00, which consisted of $275,000.00 paid by the apartment complex and $10,000.00 in bodily injury/uninsured motorist ("BI/UM") insurance policy limits paid by the driver.1/ The circuit court in Miami-Dade County approved the minor's settlement by entry of an Order Approving Settlement, dated February 2, 2014. 2/ JPHS, p. 10, ¶ 4 and ¶ 5; Pet. Ex. 5. As a condition of Rickey's eligibility for Medicaid, Petitioners' assigned to AHCA their 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 Petitioners' lawsuit, AHCA was notified of the court action. JPHS, p. 10, ¶ 6. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, or intervene or join in Petitioners' court action against the Defendants.3/ JPHS, p. 10, ¶ 7. Instead, AHCA asserted a $51,130.05 Medicaid lien against Petitioners' cause of action and settlement of that action. JPHS, p. 10, ¶ 6. AHCA did not file a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Petitioners' settlement with the Defendants. JPHS, p. 10, ¶ 8. The Medicaid program spent $51,130.05 on behalf of Rickey, all of which represents expenditures paid for Rickey's past medical expenses. JPHS, p. 10, ¶ 9. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Rickey's $285,000.00 settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $51,130.05 Medicaid lien. JPHS, p. 10, ¶ 10. As ordered by the circuit court, Petitioners deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights. This constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). JPHS, p. 11, ¶ 11. Testimony of Jorge C. Borron, Esquire The only witness called during the hearing was Borron. He has been a trial attorney for 32 years and is a sole practitioner at his Coral Gables law office, Jorge C. Borron, LLC. The majority of Borron's practice is personal injury litigation with a focus on car accidents. He has handled cases involving injuries to children. He routinely handles jury trials, and depending on the year, will have two to four jury trials each year. Borron stays current regarding personal injury verdicts by reviewing jury verdict reporters and discussing personal injury verdicts and valuations with other attorneys in his geographical area. After taking a case, Borron regularly reviews and studies his client's medical records and deposes/interviews doctors and other experts concerning his client's injuries. Borron testified that as a routine part of his practice he makes assessments concerning the value of personal injury damages suffered by his clients. Petitioners proffered Borron as an expert in the valuation of damages. It is worth noting that AHCA did not voir dire Borron and did not object to his tender as an expert in the valuation of personal injury damages.4/ The undersigned ruled that he would consider Borron's opinion testimony on the subject of the valuation of damages.5/ Borron represented Rickey and his family in the underlying personal injury lawsuit. Originally, Attorney Knecht represented Rickey and his family, but Knecht brought Borron into the case in 2013 to handle the jury trial due to Knecht's advanced age. As a part of his representation, Borron reviewed and familiarized himself with the accident report and Rickey's medical records, deposed/interviewed experts and fact witnesses, and met with Rickey and his family numerous times. Rickey's Accident, Injuries, and Prognosis On January 31, 2007, young Rickey followed his older sister out of the apartment where they lived with their parents. He walked between two cars in the parking lot and darted out in front of a car, which struck him. In the accident, Rickey suffered a compound fracture of his femur, a skull fracture, a traumatic brain injury, and lost consciousness. Rickey was transported to Jackson Memorial Hospital where he received medical treatment until he was discharged on February 22, 2007. At the hospital, his discharge papers diagnosed him with a left comminuted femur fracture and a nondisplaced skull fracture. Pet. Ex. 2. Rickey's injury had a tremendous impact on his life. Besides the adverse physical effects from his femur fracture, Rickey suffers from the effects of a traumatic brain injury with cognitive deficits, abnormal behavior issues, and an attention deficit disorder. During his representation of Rickey, Borron sent his client to two neurologists. They both separately diagnosed Rickey with problems associated with the executive function in the frontal lobe of his brain. Dr. Jorge A. Herrara issued a detailed report and concluded, among other things, that Rickey's condition points "to the presence of impairments in the executive functions mediated by the frontal lobes (referring to Rickey's brain)." Pet. Ex. 2, p. 14. The other neurologist, Dr. Ross, conducted an electrocardiograph with abnormal results. The uncontroverted evidence revealed that Rickey's traumatic brain injury is permanent and he will suffer its adverse effects and certain health and emotional-related issues for the remainder of his life. Based on his training, experience, and knowledge of the case, it was Borron's opinion that Rickey's personal injury damages had a value of between $1,500,000.00 to $2,500,000.00. In preparation for settlement mediation in the underlying personal injury case, Borron undertook to estimate the value of Petitioners' claim for future medical expenses as well. He consulted with Rickey's neurologists concerning his prognosis to determine what kind of medical treatment he would need in the future. Based on these discussions, Borron estimated that Rickey would need $815,000.00 in medical care from age nine (his age at the time of mediation) until age 22. In Borron's opinion, adding the $815,000.00 for future medical expenses to Rickey's $51,130.05 claim for past medical expenses would constitute Rickey's total economic damages. Borron opined that the claim for economic damages added to Petitioners' claim for noneconomic damages would push the full value of Rickey's personal injury damages to the range of $1,500,000.00 to $2,500,000.00. Had the case not settled and a trial taken place, Borron testified that he would have expected a jury to determine the value of Rickey's damages to be at, or between, $1,500,000.00 to $2,500,000.00. Borron discussed Petitioners' case with Attorney Knecht and consulted with several other attorneys. They concurred that Rickey's personal injury damages had a value of between $1,500,000.00 to $2,500,000.00. Borron testified that using $1,250,000.00 as the estimated value of all Rickey's personal injury damages would be a conservative value. Due to defenses raised and issues of disputed liability with the apartment complex, the case against the apartment complex settled just prior to trial for $275,000.00, plus a $10,000.00 settlement with the insurance company for uninsured motorist coverage, for a total settlement of $285,000.00. The uncontroverted evidence revealed that the combined settlement of $285,000.00 received by Petitioners did not fully compensate Rickey for the value of his damages. Borron opined that in using the value of all Rickey's damages of $1,250,000.00 compared to the $285,000.00 settlement, that the total settlement amount recovered represented a proportional recovery of 22.8 percent of the true value of all Rickey's personal injury damages. Borron testified that because Rickey only recovered 22.8 percent of the true value of his damages in the global settlement, that Petitioners had likewise recovered only 22.8 percent of Rickey's claim for past medical expenses in the settlement agreement, or $11,657.66. Borron testified that an allocation of $11,657.66 of the $285,000.00 settlement as recovery for Rickey's past medical expenses would be a reasonable and fair allocation. Of particular consequence to this case, AHCA did not call any expert witnesses nor did it present any evidence to rebut Petitioners' presentation, proof, or proposed allocation of $11,657.66 to past medical expenses. AHCA did not dispute or present any persuasive evidence or arguments that Rickey's injuries were overstated or incorrectly described by Borron. On AHCA's cross-examination of Borron, the methodology used by Borron to arrive at his opinion concerning a fair allocation of past medical expenses was not challenged or persuasively overcome by AHCA. Simply put, the amount of $11,657.66 proposed by Petitioners as a fair allocation of past medical expenses from the settlement agreement was unrefuted and unchallenged by AHCA. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that $11,657.66 was a fair allocation of the total settlement amount to past medical expenses. There was no basis or evidence in the record to reject Borron's opinion or reach any other conclusion concerning a fair allocation other than the amount of $11,657.66 proposed by Petitioners.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 2012, Luca Weedo’s natural mother, who was 30 weeks pregnant with Luca, was walking on the sidewalk on the east shoulder of Airport Pulling Road in Naples, Florida. At the same time, a Jeep Wrangler was traveling on Airport Pulling Road. As the Jeep Wrangler approached Luca’s natural mother, the left front tire and wheel separated from the Jeep Wrangler. The separated wheel bounced along the roadway at a high rate of speed, crossing the median and northbound lane of Airport Pulling Road. The wheel approached Luca’s natural mother at such a high rate of speed that she was unable to avoid it. She was struck by the wheel and knocked to the ground, which caused her to lose consciousness and suffer a ruptured placenta. Luca’s natural mother was transported to Lee Memorial Hospital. Upon admission, she underwent emergency surgery due to abdominal trauma. Luca was delivered via emergency C-section. Luca was born with extreme fetal immaturity and catastrophic brain damage. Luca remained in the hospital for three months, undergoing numerous medical procedures associated with his serious medical needs and brain damage. Luca now suffers from catastrophic brain damage and a seizure disorder that causes him to have multiple seizures every day. He is unable to ambulate, speak, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Prior to Luca’s birth, his natural mother had decided to place Luca up for adoption. Accordingly, when Luca was discharged from the hospital, the Florida Department of Children and Families asked Debra and Kenneth Weedo to take Luca into their home as a foster child. Kenneth Weedo is a retired truck driver and his wife Debra is a foster parent for medically needy children. Debra and Kenneth Weedo took Luca into their home and adopted him on May 2, 2013. Luca’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by Medicaid, which provided $319,188.20 in benefits. This $319,188.20 paid by Medicaid constituted Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Luca, through his parents and guardians, Debra and Kenneth Weedo, brought a personal injury action to recover all his damages. The lawsuit was initially brought against the owner/driver of the Jeep Wrangler. However, through discovery, it was determined that the party responsible for the wheel separating from the Jeep Wrangler was the tire and rim shop that installed the wheel on the Jeep Wrangler approximately a year prior to the accident (“Tire Shop”). The Tire Shop maintained insurance with a policy limit of $1 million. The Tire Shop’s insurance company tendered the $1 million insurance policy limit, which was accepted by Debra and Kenneth Weedo in settlement of Luca’s claim for damages against the Tire Shop. The General Release and Hold Harmless Agreement (“Release”), executed on December 21, 2015, memorialized the settlement with the Tire Shop as follows, in relevant part: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for all of the damages that he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Second Parties without regard to this settlement only, compensating LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO has alleged his damages have a value in excess of $25,000,000, of which $319,188.20 represents LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s injuries and allegations, $12,767.53 of this settlement has been allocated to LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that this allocation is reasonable and proportionate based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s damages. Further, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO acknowledges that he may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses that LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO will incur in the future. However, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that his family and/or others on his behalf have not made payments in the past or in advance for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s future medical care and LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO 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, it is LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s contention that no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Luca was a minor, Court approval of the settlement was required. Accordingly, on February 17, 2016, Collier County Circuit Court Judge James Shenko approved the settlement by entering an Agreed Order on Petitioner’s Unopposed Petition to Approve Minor’s Settlement. As a condition of his eligibility to receive Medicaid benefits, Luca assigned to AHCA his 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. AHCA was notified of Luca’s personal injury action during its pendency. Through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, AHCA has asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $314,747.23 against Luca’s cause of action and settlement of the personal injury action. This is the amount that the Medicaid program spent on behalf of Luca for his past medical expenses.2/ Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) requires that AHCA be reimbursed for the full $314,747.23 Medicaid lien. Neither Luca nor others on his behalf made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care. 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. Debra Ann Weedo attended the final hearing along with Luca. Ms. Weedo is a foster parent for medically needy children. She testified that she currently has four children in her home: three-year-old Luca; a six-year-old in more or less the same condition as Luca; a five-year-old who is “basically normal”; and an autistic eight-year-old. Ms. Weedo first met Luca in the hospital during his post-birth hospitalization. She was asked to take him as a foster child and visited him several times in the hospital before taking him home at age three months. Ms. Weedo stated that when she brought Luca home, the whole family fell in love with him and “he became our family.” As soon as it was possible, Ms. Weedo and her husband adopted Luca. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca’s siblings interact with him and that Luca knows the voices of his caregivers and “will kind of try to talk to us.” At the hearing, the undersigned observed that Luca is somewhat aware of his surroundings and responsive to voices. Ms. Weedo testified that her family does everything together. Luca travels, goes on vacations, and goes out to eat as part of the family. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca requires 24-hour supervision and that his condition will become progressively worse as he ages. Luca has been on oxygen since December 2014. He must use a BiPAP (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) machine when he sleeps because the oxygen saturation level in his blood tends to be perilously low. He receives his nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. Civil trial attorney Todd Rosen testified on behalf of Petitioner as a fact witness and an expert on the valuation of damages. Mr. Rosen has been an attorney for 15 years and is the principal of the Todd Rosen Law Group in Coral Gables. Mr. Rosen stated that his practice is exclusively devoted to representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases. Mr. Rosen is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Florida Justice Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, and the Dade County Bar Association. Mr. Rosen has handled many jury trials and has represented plaintiffs who have suffered catastrophic brain injuries. A daily part of his practice is to assess the value of damages to injured persons. He stays abreast of jury verdicts in his area and routinely “round-tables” legal issues and damage valuations with other attorneys. Mr. Rosen testified that he was hired by Luca Weedo’s parents to investigate the potential claims they might have on behalf of their son. Mr. Rosen reviewed thousands of pages of Luca’s medical records, the accident report, and insurance policies for the defendants. The records indicated that Luca suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of placental abruption and that this injury had a permanent and devastating impact on the child’s life. Mr. Rosen explained that he could not file a lawsuit until the adoption process was complete, about eight months after the accident. He initially brought the suit against the driver of the Jeep, who had only PIP and property damage insurance and no collectable assets. Mr. Rosen interviewed the Jeep owner and learned the name of the Tire Shop. He made a demand for payment of the Tire Shop’s $1 million insurance policy. The full policy amount was tendered very soon after Mr. Rosen’s demand. Mr. Rosen testified that no life care plan or economist’s report was prepared in this case because the case settled so quickly. He believed that it would have been imprudent to spend money out of the $1 million settlement on a life care plan when the Weedos were not facing the prospect of a jury trial. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca’s past medical care related to the accident was paid by Medicaid. He testified that Medicaid provided $319,188.20 in benefits, representing Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca, or others on his 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. Rosen opined that Luca’s damages had a value “well in excess of” $25 million. Mr. Rosen explained that based on his experience in other cases, he believed the value of Luca’s future life care needs “would be well in excess of at least 10 to 15 million dollars” and that Luca’s non-economic damages would have a high value. Mr. Rosen noted that a jury would also take into account how “wonderful” Debra and Kenneth Weedo are to have devoted their lives to caring for Luca and other children in similar circumstances. Mr. Rosen believed that the $25 million valuation on Luca’s damages was “very conservative.” Mr. Rosen stated that the Tire Shop’s insurance counsel believed they had a strong argument that the owner of the Jeep must have done something to the tires after the Tire Shop put them on the car. However, despite the contested liability, the insurance company readily agreed during informal settlement discussions to pay the policy limits because the lawyers believed they were facing a verdict of up to $50 million. Mr. Rosen testified that the biggest cost factor in assessing Luca’s damages is the 24-hour attendant care that he will require for the rest of his life. Depending on how many caregivers are employed, the skill level required, and the location, attendant care may range from $25 to $40 per hour. Mr. Rosen estimated that a life care plan for Luca would be in the neighborhood of $10 million, including attendant care, nursing, and medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the $1 million settlement did not come close to fully compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Based on the conservative valuation of all Luca’s damages at $25 million, the $1 million settlement represented a recovery of four percent of the value of Luca’s damages. Mr. Rosen testified that because Luca only recovered four percent of the value of his damages in the settlement, he only recovered four percent of his $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53.3/ Mr. Rosen noted that the settling parties agreed in the Release that Luca’s damages had a value in excess of $25 million, as well as to the allocation of $12,767.53 to past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and more than fair because it was based on a conservative estimate of Luca’s damages. He stated, “Me, personally, I believe it should be less, but yes, that is fair just being conservative.” Mr. Rosen 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 noted 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. Because Luca was a minor, court approval of his settlement was required. The court appointed another experienced attorney to act as Luca’s Guardian ad Litem to review the terms of the settlement and make a report to the court as to its appropriateness. The Guardian ad Litem recommended approval of the settlement, and the court adopted that recommendation. Also testifying on behalf of Petitioner as an expert in the valuation of damages was R. Vinson Barrett, a partner in the Tallahassee firm of Barrett, Fasig and Brooks, which Mr. Barrett described as a mid-sized firm that exclusively undertakes personal injury and products liability cases. Mr. Barrett stated that he has been a trial lawyer for 40 years and for the last 15 years has confined his practice to medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability cases. Mr. Barrett testified that he has done many jury trials. He discussed the importance of accurately estimating the value of the damages suffered by his clients because of the heavy investment that a trial firm must make in a complex case. Mr. Barrett stated that a firm can easily spend a quarter of a million dollars on experts and discovery, as well as life care plans, economic analyses, and vocational rehabilitation analyses, among other items required to establish damages. He stated that it is essential not to spend so much money in putting on the case that the client has nothing left after the verdict. Mr. Barrett stated that he has reviewed dozens of life care plans and economist reports, many for children with the same kind of injuries suffered by Luca Weedo. Mr. Barrett testified that he was familiar with Luca’s injuries and had reviewed the accident report, hospital birth records, records from a second hospitalization, medical records from Luca’s neurologist, the Guardian ad Litem report, the court order approving the settlement, Mr. Rosen’s demand letter to the insurance carrier, and each of Petitioner’s exhibits. He had also spoken to Debra Weedo by phone concerning Luca’s medical condition. Mr. Barrett gave a detailed explanation of Luca’s injuries and extent of his disability. He concluded that Luca’s injury “is as bad an injury as you can possibly receive and stay alive . . . . It could not be more catastrophic.” The medical records indicate that Luca will not get better and his prognosis is poor. Mr. Barrett opined that Luca’s life care plan alone would probably exceed $25 million. He conceded “that seems like a huge, huge, huge amount of money,” but explained that it really is not such a large sum when one considers that Luca is supposed to have 24-hour attendant care throughout his lifetime. Life care plans are not limited to the cost of services provided by Medicaid, which is a safety net that “takes care of things that are absolutely essential to keep on breathing.” However, Medicaid does not cover many things that medically needy children require for quality of life, such as wheelchair-equipped vans. The life care plan includes all of the child’s needs. Mr. Barrett testified that a life care planner accounts for every cost, “pill by pill, wheelchair replacement by wheelchair replacement,” then reduces it to present value. Mr. Barrett testified that based on his experience working with life care planners in trial preparation, and his extensive experience in evaluating damages in cases similar to that of Luca Weedo, he had no doubt that $25 million is a conservative estimate of Luca’s pure losses. Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement did not come close to compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Using $25 million as the conservative measure of all his damages, Luca had recovered only four percent of the value of his damages. Mr. Barrett testified that “by equity and basically, now by federal law, you look at the same ratio for the lien that you look at [for] the claimant.” Accordingly, Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement provided Luca with only four percent of Medicaid’s $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53. Mr. Barrett testified that the settling parties’ allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and conservative. Both Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett testified at some length about comparable jury verdicts and prior DOAH Medicaid lien cases involving children with catastrophic brain injuries. This discussion had some value in establishing that $25 million was by no means an unreasonable estimate of Luca Weedo’s damages, but was secondary and supplemental to the directly expressed expert opinions of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett. AHCA presented the testimony of attorney James Bruner, who was accepted as an expert for the limited purpose of comparing the jury verdicts in the cases cited by Petitioner to the facts of the instant case. Mr. Bruner correctly noted that it can be misleading to cite the numbers from a jury verdict without reference to later reductions made on appeal or via settlement pending appeal. Mr. Bruner also effectively demonstrated that there is never a precise correlation between the facts of one case and those of another, and therefore that there cannot be a precise comparison of damages from one case to another.4/ However, the undersigned did not look to the comparative verdicts for such a strict comparison, but simply for the purpose of establishing a range of reasonableness in broadly similar cases. AHCA called no witness to directly contest the valuation of damages made by Mr. Rosen or to offer an alternative methodology to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. No evidence was presented that the settlement agreement was not reasonable given all the circumstances of the case. It does not appear that the parties colluded to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to Medicaid’s payment of costs for Petitioner’s medical care. In fact, the evidence established that the settlement was conservative in its valuation of Petitioner’s claim and that the settling parties could have reasonably apportioned less to Medicaid than they actually did. AHCA was not a party to the settlement of Petitioner’s claim. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee, or $250,000, as well as $8,112.70 in taxable costs, from the $1 million recovery, leaves $741,887.30, half of which is $370,943.65. That figure exceeds the actual amount expended by Medicaid on Petitioner’s medical care. Application of the formula would provide sufficient funds to satisfy the Medicaid lien of $314,747.23. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $25 million total value of the claim was a reasonable, even somewhat conservative, amount. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the strength and sympathy of his case and on the fact that it was limited only by the inability to collect the full amount of the likely judgment, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constituted a fair settlement, including the portion attributed to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes (sometimes referred to as "17b"), Respondent's recovery of medical assistance expenditures from $500,000 in proceeds from the settlement of a products liability action must be reduced from its allocation under section 409.910(11)(f) (sometimes referred to as "11f")1 to avoid conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1) (Anti-Lien Statute)2; and, if so, the amount of Respondent's recovery.
Findings Of Fact As a result of a motor vehicle accident that took place on May 27, 2012, Petitioner sustained grave personal injuries, including damage to his spinal cord that has left him a paraplegic incapable of self-ambulation of more than a few steps, except by means of a wheelchair or rolling walker. Petitioner was a passenger in a 2003 extended-cab Ford F-150 pickup truck that was driven at a high rate of speed by his brother, who lost control of the vehicle in a curve, over-corrected, and caused the vehicle to rollover three times, ejecting Petitioner with such force that he traveled a distance of 150 feet in the air. The force of the rollovers crushed the vehicle's roof, which caused Petitioner's door latch to fail, allowing Petitioner's door to open and Petitioner to be expelled from the relative safety of the passenger compartment. In settlement negotiations, Petitioner's trial counsel claimed that Ford F-150s of the relevant vintage suffered from deficient door latches, but the forces to which the latch were subjected were overwhelming and well beyond reasonable design limits: the truck's door could not have resisted these forces unless it had been welded to the frame. The one-vehicle accident was substantially, if not entirely, caused by Petitioner's brother, who was intoxicated and is now serving a five-year sentence in prison for his role in the crash. Petitioner shared some responsibility because he likely was not wearing a seatbelt when the truck rolled over. Petitioner's brother and another passenger who were not ejected from the vehicle sustained minor injuries. Petitioner commenced a products liability action against Ford Motor Company and the manufacturer of the door latch. Ford Motor Company defended the case vigorously. Expert witnesses were unable to find any federal safety standards that had been violated in connection with the vehicle, the door latch, or the performance of the vehicle and door latch during the rollovers. The manufacturer of the door latch raised a substantial defense of a lack of personal jurisdiction. At the time of the incident, Petitioner was a 25-year-old plumber and construction worker. He was the sole means of support for his three young children. He has undergone an arduous course of rehabilitation to gain wheelchair-dependent self-autonomy. At the time of the settlement, which appears to have resolved the products liability action, the putative true value of Petitioner's case was $6 million, consisting of $154,219 of past medical expenses, $2.1 million of future medical expenses, $800,000 of lost wages and loss of future earning capacity, and about $2.95 million of noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering and loss of consortium. Petitioner has proved each of these damages components, so the putative true value is the true value (sometimes referred to as the "actual true value"). Petitioner settled the case for $500,000, representing a settlement discount of 91.7% from the true value of $6 million (Settlement Discount). Petitioner has paid or incurred $147,000 in attorneys' fees and about $123,000 in recoverable costs in prosecuting the products liability action. Respondent has expended $154,219 of medical assistance. Under the 11f formula, which is described in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent would recover approximately $126,000 from the $500,000 settlement. This provisional 11f allocation provides the point of reference for determining whether Petitioner has proved in this 17b proceeding a reduced recovery amount for Respondent. Having proved the Settlement Discount of 91.7% from the actual, not putative, true value to the settled value, Petitioner has proved that each damages component of the true value, including past medical expenses, must be proportionately reduced by 91.7% to identify the portion of the settlement proceeds representing past medical expenses, which, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, is the only portion of the proceeds subject to the Medicaid lien. Reducing the past medical expenses of $154,219 by 91.7% yields about $12,800, which is Respondent's tentative 17b recovery. As mentioned in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent's recovery must bear its pro rata share of the attorneys' fees and costs paid or incurred to produce the settlement. The total fees and costs of $270,000 represent 54% of the settlement. The record provides no reason to find that these fees and costs are unreasonable in amount or were not reasonably expended to produce the $500,000 settlement. Reducing Respondent's recovery of $12,800 by 54% yields $5888, which is Respondent's 17b recovery.
The Issue The issue for the undersigned to determine is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Respondent), as reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2020),1 from settlement proceeds he received from third parties.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. On September 6, 2019, Mr. St. Surin was severely injured when his motorcycle struck a car. In this accident, Mr. St. Surin suffered severe and permanent injury to his back, neck, scapula, ribs, and knee. 1 All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification, unless otherwise indicated. Mr. St. Surin’s medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid. Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $28,482.15 in benefits. In addition, Medicaid, through a Medicaid managed care organization known as WellCare of Florida, paid $7,278.25 in benefits. The combined total amount of these benefits, $35,760.40, constitutes Mr. St. Surin’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. St. Surin pursued a personal injury claim against the owner and driver of the car who caused the accident (collectively the “Tortfeasors”) to recover all of his damages. The Tortfeasors’ insurance policy limits were $100,000, and the Tortfeasors had no other collectable assets. Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim was settled for the insurance policy limits of $100,000. During the pendency of Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim, AHCA was notified of the claim and AHCA asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $28,482.15 against Mr. St. Surin’s cause of action and the settlement proceeds. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, or intervene or join in Mr. St. Surin’s action against the Tortfeasors. AHCA was notified of Mr. St. Surin’s settlement by letter. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Mr. St. Surin’s settlement. Application of the formula found in section 409.910(11)(f) would require payment to AHCA of the full $28,482.15 Medicaid lien given the $100,000 settlement. Petitioner has deposited the Medicaid lien amount in an interest- bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending a final administrative determination of AHCA’s rights. Petitioner presented testimony from Scott Kimmel, Esquire. Mr. Kimmel represented Mr. St. Surin in his personal injury claim against the Tortfeasors. Mr. Kimmel is a personal injury attorney and has practiced law for 30 years. Mr. Kimmel testified that he placed a conservative value of $1 million on Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim, but that the personal injury claim was settled for policy limits of $100,000 because the Tortfeasors had no other collectable assets. Using the pro rata allocation methodology, Mr. Kimmel testified that $3,576 of the $100,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses because the personal injury claim was settled for ten percent of its conservative value. Mr. Kimmel’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontradicted. AHCA did not challenge Mr. Kimmel’s valuation of the personal injury claim, or his use of the pro rata allocation methodology to determine the amount of settlement proceeds that should be allocated to past medical expenses, nor did AHCA offer any evidence from which the undersigned could arrive at a different valuation or allocation. There is no reasonable basis to reject Mr. Kimmel’s testimony, and it is accepted here in its entirety. The undersigned finds that the value of Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim is $1 million, and that $3,576.04 of the $100,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this matter is the amount of money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Amora Gonzalez, a Medicaid recipient, following Petitioner’s recovery from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On August 14, 2015, Amora, who was then five years old, was the backseat passenger in a car driven by her mother, Nicalea R. Gonzalez. Amora was secured in a child seat. While Ms. Gonzalez was stopped at a traffic light, a commercial cargo van collided directly into the rear end of her car at a speed of approximately 50 to 60 miles per hour. The impact crumpled the back of Ms. Gonzalez’s vehicle. The collision also severed the seat belt securing Amora’s child seat. Amora was thrown violently forward. Following the accident, Amora was found lying on the back floor of the vehicle, wedged between the front seats. When emergency services personnel arrived, Amora was found lying on the ground exhibiting signs of a severe brain injury. Subsequent CT scans and an MRI revealed that Amora had suffered diffuse axonal injury to her corpus callosum region of the brain, a temporal lobe hematoma, and a subdural hematoma in her right tentorial region. Due to elevated cranial pressure, Amora underwent neurosurgery for placement of an external ventricular drain, and she was placed in a medically induced coma. Amora also underwent a decompressive craniotomy due to continued intracranial pressure. Amora was diagnosed with a neuro cognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury with a behavioral disorder. As a result of her brain injury, Amora suffers from serious cognitive impairment, executive functioning level disabilities, and behavioral disturbances. Amora’s past medical expenses related to the 2015 automobile accident total $108,725.29. Of that amount, the Agency, through the Medicaid program, paid $108,656.31 for Petitioner’s medical care and services. Petitioner did not make any payments on Amora’s behalf for past medical care or in advance for Amora’s future medical care. Ms. Gonzalez pursued a personal injury claim as Natural Guardian and Legal Guardian of the Property of Amora to recover all of Amora’s damages against the driver/owner of the vehicle that caused the car accident (the “Tortfeasor”). The Tortfeasor maintained an insurance policy with limits of $1,000,000 and had no other collectable assets. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the Tortfeasor tendered the $1,000,000 insurance policy limit in compromise and settlement of Amora’s claim for damages. No evidence or testimony was presented at the final hearing indicating that a specific portion of the $1,000,000 settlement was designated to cover past medical expenses. Neither was there any evidence or testimony offered segregating the $1,000,000 settlement between medical and non-medical expenses. The Agency was not a party to the settlement or settlement agreement. When notified of Ms. Gonzalez’s recovery on behalf of Amora, the Agency asserted a Medicaid lien for $108,656.31, the full amount of its medical expenses paid for Amora’s medical costs and services. This administrative proceeding centers on the amount the Agency should be reimbursed to satisfy its Medicaid lien following Petitioner’s recovery of $1,000,000 from a settlement with a third party. Under section 409.910, the Agency may be repaid for its Medicaid expenditures from any recovery from liable third parties. The Agency claims that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect the full amount of its Medicaid lien ($108,656.31) regardless of the actual value of Petitioner’s damages. Using the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, the Agency subtracted a statutorily recognized attorney fee of $250,000 from $1,000,000 leaving $750,000. One-half of $750,000 is $375,000. Because the $375,000 formula amount exceeds the Medicaid lien, the Agency seeks the full $108,656.31. Petitioner asserts that, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of Petitioner’s recovery than the amount it calculated under section 409.910(11)(f). Petitioner specifically argues that the Medicaid lien must be reduced pro rata, taking into account the full value of Amora’s injuries which Petitioner calculates as $8,000,000. Otherwise, application of the default statutory formula under section 409.910(11)(f) would permit the Agency to collect more than that portion of the settlement representing compensation for medical expenses. Petitioner maintains that such reimbursement violates the federal Medicaid law’s anti-lien provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1). Petitioner contends that the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s recovery should be reduced to the amount of $13,590.66. To establish the full value of Amora’s injuries, Petitioner presented the testimony of attorneys Paul Catania and Vince Barrett. Mr. Catania represented Petitioner in the underlying personal injury claim and obtained the $1,000,000 settlement for Amora. Mr. Catania explained that prior to finalizing the settlement, he explored the possibility of collecting a verdict in excess of the policy limits. Mr. Catania concluded that not only were the defendants uncollectable, but multiple claimants were going after the same insurance proceeds. Consequently, Mr. Catania believed that it was in his clients’ best interest to settle expeditiously for the tendered insurance policy limits. Mr. Catania also opined on what he considered to be the actual value of Amora’s damages. Mr. Catania heads a plaintiff’s injury firm and has represented plaintiffs in personal injury cases for over 28 years. Mr. Catania has extensive experience handling cases involving automobile accidents, including catastrophic injury claims and traumatic brain injuries to children. Mr. Catania expressed that he routinely evaluates damages suffered by injured parties as part of his practice. He stays current on jury verdicts throughout Florida and the United States. Mr. Catania was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Catania valued Amora’s damages as conservatively between $8,000,000 and $10,000,000. In deriving this figure, Mr. Catania reviewed the neuro psychological report in Amora’s discharge summary, as well as the subsequent neuro psychological updates that were performed on Amora approximately one year later. Mr. Catania noted Amora’s memory problems, inattention, hyperactivity, and behavioral issues. Mr. Catania relayed how these deficits will affect Amora’s ability to learn and be gainfully employed over her lifetime. Amora will need ongoing speech and occupational therapy. Mr. Catania also considered Amora’s past medical expenses, her wage loss or lost wage capacity, and her past and future pain and suffering. Finally, Mr. Catania testified that, in placing a dollar value on Amora’s injuries, he reviewed nine jury verdicts involving catastrophic injuries similar to Amora’s. Based on these sample results, Mr. Catania was comfortable valuing Amora’s damages conservatively in the $8 million to $10 million range given her injuries and her life expectancy. Mr. Catania testified that the $1,000,000 settlement did not fully or fairly compensate Amora for her injuries. Therefore, Mr. Catania urged that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s settlement be allocated to reimburse the Agency instead of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula amount of $108,656.31. Mr. Catania proposed applying a ratio based on the true value of Amora’s injuries ($8,000,000) compared to the amount Petitioner actual recovered ($1,000,000). Using his estimate of $8 million, the settlement represents a 12.5 percent recovery of the total value of all Amora’s damages. In like manner, the amount of medical expenses should also be reduced to 12.5 percent or $13,590.66. Therefore, in Mr. Catania’s professional judgment, $13,590.66 is the portion of Amora’s settlement that represents her compensation for past medical expenses. Mr. Catania testified that no portion of the settlement represents future medical expenses.2/ Mr. Catania expressed that allocating $13,590.66 for Amora’s past medical expenses is “reasonable” and “rational” under the circumstances. Mr. Barrett also testified on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Barrett is a trial attorney with almost 40 years’ experience and works exclusively in the area of plaintiff’s personal injury, medical malpractice, and medical products liability cases. Mr. Barrett has handled many catastrophic injury matters involving catastrophic injuries and traumatic brain injury to children. Mr. Barrett was accepted as an expert in valuation of damages in personal injury cases. Prior to the final hearing, Mr. Barrett had reviewed Amora’s medical records, as well as Petitioner’s exhibits. He also reviewed the sample jury verdicts Petitioner presented at the final hearing as Exhibit 14. Based on his valuation of Amora’s injuries and his professional training and experience, Mr. Barrett expressed that injuries similar to Amora’s would result in jury awards averaging between $8 and $20 million dollars. In light of Amora’s “catastrophic” injuries, Mr. Barrett valued Amora’s injuries as at least $8 million. Mr. Barrett opined that Mr. Catania’s valuation of $8 million to $10 million was appropriate, if conservative. Mr. Barrett supported Mr. Catania’s proposed method of calculating a reduced portion of Petitioner’s $1,000,000 to represent past medical expenses. With injuries valued at $8 million, the $1,000,000 settlement only compensated Amora for 12.5 percent of the total value of her damages. Therefore, because Amora only recovered 12.5 percent of her damages, the most “reasonable and rational” manner to apportion the $1,000,000 settlement is to apply that same percentage to determine Amora’s recovery for past medical expenses. Petitioner asserts that applying the same ratio to the total amount of medical costs produces a definitive value of that portion of Petitioner’s $1,000,000 settlement that represents compensation for past medical expenses, i.e., $13,590.66 ($108,725.29 times 12.5 percent). The undersigned finds that the competent substantial evidence in the record establishes, clearly and convincingly, that the full value of Amora’s injuries is $8 million. However, the evidence in the record is not sufficient to prove that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s $1,000,000 settlement recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Accordingly, the Agency is entitled to recover $108,656.31 from Petitioner’s recovery from a third party to satisfy its Medicaid lien.
