Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein either the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (Department), or the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, (Agency), its successor agency, operated the Medicaid Program in Florida, a state and federally funded program to provide medical services to indigent and eligible individuals, including children, in Florida. Petitioner, Neonatology Associates, Inc., (NAI), is a provider to the Medicaid Program of the State of Florida, and is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. Its Medicaid provider number is 067920-01. It has been a Medicaid provider for approximately thirty years. Medicaid and Children's Medical Services (CMS) were, at one time, both separate components of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On July 1, 1993, responsibility for Medicaid was assigned to the Agency for Health Care Administration. Medicaid, and its fiscal agent, FMMIS, are not now and never have been a part of either Children's Medical Services or Regional Perinatal Intensive Care Center (RPICC) and neither CMS nor RPICC have ever been a part of Medicaid or its fiscal agent. RPICC serves only peripherally to Medicaid as a claims transmittal agency or billing agent. That relationship was formalized by a contract which is considered by FMMIS as a billing agent contract. The parties stipulated prior to the hearing that the medical services, which are represented by Petitioner to have been performed were actually performed and rendered, and that all of the patients for the disputed claims are assumed to be Medicaid eligible. The parties stipulated at the hearing that the five claims were submitted by Petitioner to RPICC in a timely manner; that the five claims were received by RPICC within a twelve month period from the date of service; that there was a problem at RPICC which precluded the transmittal of these five claims in a timely manner to the Florida Medicaid Management Information System, (FMMIS), the office with which they were to be filed for payment; and that there was communication by telephone and in person between officials of Petitioner, RPICC, and the Department/Agency, (CMS), in an effort to resolve the filing difficulty. These claims relate to five patients, M.H., M.C., C.J., B.A. and R.W. Claims which are not received by Medicaid or its fiscal agent within twelve months of service may not be paid pursuant to law described in the trade as the "twelve month rule." The five claims in issue here were transmitted electronically to RPICC by NAI's agent, Ms. Chandler, the RPICC billing clerk at All Children's Hospital, where the service was rendered, for subsequent re- transmittal by RPICC to FMMIS. This procedure is authorized by the Agency. However, due to technical problems not further identified, the claims were never received by FMMIS. RPICC, a part of the Department's Children's Medical Services, and operated by the University of Florida, does not adjudicate claims but merely gathers and analyzes neonatology data for statistical reporting. FMMIS, Medicaid's fiscal agent since July 1, 1993, is operated by a private vendor. The contract between Medicaid and the University under which RPICC data services are provided, and that between NAI and Medicaid, which provides for medical services, both contain the same "boiler plate" clauses. Both NAI and RPICC transmit electronic claims to Medicaid for adjudication, but neither is a party of or agent of Medicaid. FMMIS is Medicaid's agent for payment. RPICC data processing services charges are paid to the University of Florida by Children's Medical Services under their contract. Medicaid pays only for the actual medical care provided to indigent mothers and their sick newborn children. NAI has a contract with Medicaid. RPICC has a contract with Medicaid. Children's Medical Services has a contract with RPICC at the University of Florida. These are the only formal agreements involved in this situation. The contract between NAI and Medicaid provides that NAI will submit Medicaid claims "in accordance with program policies." Medicaid policy provides that receipt of electronic claims submission to Medicaid or its fiscal agent, FMMIS, takes place only upon acceptance and confirmation by FMMIS. Acceptance occurs when each claim is assigned its own identification number. Medicaid policy also provides that submittal of a claim to RPICC does not constitute receipt of the claim by Medicaid or its fiscal agent, and submittal of a claim to RPICC does not toll the running of time accounted for under the twelve month rule. The relationship between Medicaid and the RPICC data center may be likened to that of RPICC's being a billing transmittal agent for FMMIS. RPICC does not process claims submitted to it but merely forwards those it receives to the fiscal agent which operates the FMMIS. Medicaid, by letter from Mr. Thomas Arnold, dated March 5, 1990, authorized FMMIS to receive Medicaid claims from RPICC. That letter does no more than offer providers an option to have RPICC bill the fiscal agent for them, thereby creating a "billing agent" status for RPICC. It does not state that submittal of claims by providers to RPICC constitutes filing a claim with Medicaid or the fiscal agent so as to toll the running of the twelve months limit. The Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook made available to all providers expressly states that all claim inquiries be made to Consultec, a private computer services provider. Both Mr. Blasioli and the Agency's regional claims representative noted that NAI did not contact Consultec regarding the computer problems regarding the instant claims prior to the expiration of the twelve month claim filing limit. Neither did NAI make use of RPICC's internal claims tracking system during the period in issue. The evidence establishes that NAI experienced difficulty in submitting the five claims in issue. Nonetheless, within a month of being employed by NAI, its billing administrator advised Medicaid that he had addressed the problem and had established procedures with RPICC's data center to prevent future claims from exceeding the twelve month limit. NAI's difficulty with the five claims in issue were first brought to the attention of Medicaid personnel after the twelve month filing limit had expired. Though the claims in issue here were submitted electronically, NAI could have submitted these claims directly to FMMIS by traditional paper claim, omitting the RPICC channel and its potential for technical problems. It chose not to do so. The "twelve month rule" provides for exceptions which are expressly limited to those claims which are delayed by either legal action or lack of proof of recipient eligibility. An additional exception is afforded claims delayed by "crossovers" with Medicare. The rule does not provide for extension of time due to computer system error unless such error relates to processing errors which arise subsequent to Medicaid's acknowledgment of claim receipt. In essence, to justify an exception to the twelve month rule, the computer error must be Medicaid's. The Medicaid program cannot deviate from federally imposed requirements. Should it do so, it faces the potential loss of federal expenditure reimbursement which constitutes fifty-five percent of all money spent by Florida in its operation of the Medicaid program. The program processes 100,000,000 claims annually from more than 60,000 providers, paying out approximately $6,700,000,000 each year. Even minor exceptions to the rules governing the adjudication process could have extensive impact on and consequences to the program and the benefits it imparts to the indigent health care recipients it serves.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying as untimely Petitioner's five claims in issue. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3049 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance accepted as definitions, not Findings of Fact. - 12. Accepted. Merely a restatement of testimony in support of Petitioner's position. Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted. Rejected as no more than a comment on the evidence and a statement of party position. - 20. Accepted as a statement of position, but rejected as probative of any material factual issue. 21. - 24. Accepted. Accepted. & 27. Not Findings of Fact but citations of statute. 28. & 29. Accepted. Not Findings of fact but cites of agency rule. A restatement of Handbook matter. Accepted. - 35. Accepted. Accepted but non-probative argument. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. - 43. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of testimony. - 49. Accepted. 50. & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. 52. - 55. Accepted. 56. - 58. Accepted. 59. & 61. Accepted, but no evidence exists that RPICC's actions constitute receipt of the claim. The evidence of record better suggests that RPICC receives information from providers based upon which it acts as billing agent for the provider and it remains incumbent upon the provider to insure it gets the pertinent information to RPICC in sufficient time for the claim to be billed within the tweleve month constrains. 62. - 65. Rejected as contra to the better evidence of record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the issue. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. & 9. Accepted. 10. - 14. Accepted. Accepted. - 18. Accepted. 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of and comment on testimony. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted but not probative of any material issue of issue of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, and Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Mark S. Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3407 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), as reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of David Brown (“Mr. Brown”) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ from settlement proceeds he received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits accepted into evidence, testimony offered at the hearing, and admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation. Facts Pertaining to the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation and the Medicaid Lien Mr. Brown is the recipient of Medicaid for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. AHCA is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. On February 25, 2015, Mr. Brown, then 46 years old, was involved in a T-bone automobile accident. In the accident, Mr. Brown suffered a fractured wrist, torn shoulder, skin abrasions, a grade 4 bilateral pulmonary contusion, and a right middle cerebral artery infarct (commonly referred to as a stroke) with hemorrhagic contusion. Due to complications related to placement of a trachea, he underwent reconstructive surgery of his throat. Mr. Brown suffered permanent severe brain damage causing him to suffer left hemiparesis and difficulty swallowing or speaking. As a result of the accident, Mr. Brown is now disabled and has difficulty ambulating, eating, and caring for himself without assistance. Mr. Brown’s medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid. AHCA provided $181,975.75 in benefits. A Medicaid Manage Care Plan, known as WellCare, provided an additional $110,559.15 in benefits. The sum of these benefits, $292,534.90, constituted Mr. Brown’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Petitioners pursued a personal injury action against the owner and operator of the car that caused the accident (“Defendant”) to recover all their damages. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene in Petitioners’ action against the Defendant. During the pendency of Mr. Brown’s personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a Medicaid lien of $181,975.75 against Petitioners’ cause of action and settlement of that action. There were liability issues with the case including the degree of comparative negligence that could be attributed to each driver. Specifically, there was a question of which driver had the green light. The personal injury claim ultimately settled for a lump-sum unallocated amount of $2,500,000. By letter, AHCA was notified of settlement of Petitioners’ claim. AHCA has not filed a motion to set-aside, void, or otherwise dispute Petitioners’ settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $181,975.75 for Mr. Brown’s past medical expenses. Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioners’ $2,500,000 settlement authorizes payment to AHCA of the full $181,975.75 Medicaid lien. Petitioners have deposited AHCA’s full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights. As a condition of eligibility for Medicaid, Mr. Brown assigned AHCA his right to recover medical expenses paid by Medicaid from liable third parties Expert Witness Testimony Testimony of Brett Rosen Petitioners presented the testimony of Brett Rosen, the lead trial attorney who litigated the underlying personal injury claim. Mr. Rosen is a shareholder with the law firm of Goldberg and Rosen in Miami, Florida. Mr. Rosen has been a trial attorney for approximately 12 years and he specializes in representing parties in catastrophic injury, personal injury, and wrongful death cases. Mr. Rosen’s firm takes approximately eight to ten cases to trial each year. Since the firm routinely conducts civil jury trials, Mr. Rosen continuously educates himself on jury verdicts by reviewing the Florida Jury Verdict Reporter (a publication of jury verdict reports) and conducting roundtable discussions with other attorneys. Using information found in jury verdict reports, the Daily Business Review, and his experience, Mr. Rosen makes assessments concerning the value of damages sustained by individuals. Without objection, Mr. Rosen was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by Petitioners. In addition to presenting testimony as an expert, Mr. Rosen also presented factual testimony regarding the underlying personal injury claim. As the lead attorney, Mr. Rosen met with Mr. Brown monthly on average during the two years that he represented him. Mr. Rosen also consulted with a neurologist and ENT physician who both treated Mr. Brown. Mr. Rosen testified that Mr. Brown’s vehicle was struck on the right side (commonly referred to as T-bone accident) by a vehicle, causing the vehicle he was driving to flip over onto its side. While Mr. Brown was able to get out of his vehicle, he suffered multiple injuries as further described in paragraph three herein. In addition to the brain injury, he had a tracheostomy that ultimately resulted in a bad outcome. As a result, he could not eat, speak, or drink for approximately two years. Mr. Rosen testified that Mr. Brown’s injuries had significant negative impact on Mr. Brown and his wife, Ms. Jenkins. Mr. Rosen testified that Ms. Jenkins resigned from her job to take care of her husband and assist with his recovery. Ms. Jenkins also suffered loss of consortium damages resulting from Mr. Brown’s injuries. The couple was forced to live with relatives when they could not afford rent. Overall, Mr. Rosen testified that the injuries negatively impacted Mr. Brown’s ability to lead a normal life. Mr. Rosen testified that the litigation of the case involved factual, causation, and legal disputes. There were no eyewitnesses, and the question remained regarding which driver had the green light. In addition, the insurance policy was limited to $50,000. Mr. Rosen later brought a bad faith claim against the insurance company due to their failure to timely tender the policy limits. After fully evaluating the risks, the parties settled the case for $2,500,000. Mr. Rosen testified that the full value of the claim is $10,500,000. However, Petitioners settled the claim for $2,500,000, which represents 23.8 percent of the value of their damages. Mr. Rosen testified that since Mr. Brown only recovered 23.8 percent of his total damages, he recovered in the settlement only 23.8 percent of his $292,534.90 claim for past medical expenses, which amounts to $69,623.38. Mr. Rosen testified that it would be reasonable to allocate $69,623.38 of the settlement to past medical expenses. Testimony of Vinson Barrett Vinson Barrett was also identified as Petitioners’ expert witness. Mr. Barrett, a trial attorney with 40 years of experience, is a partner with the law firm of Barrett, Nonni and Homola. His firm represents clients in medical malpractice, automobile, premise liability, and pharmaceutical products liability cases. Mr. Barrett has conducted numerous jury trials and has handled cases involving catastrophic injuries. Mr. Barrett routinely reviews jury verdict reports, discusses cases with other lawyers, and makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured persons. Mr. Barrett has also served as an expert in a number of cases regarding evaluation of damages. Mr. Barrett was recognized as an expert in the area of evaluation of damages. To evaluate the medical damages suffered by Mr. Brown, Mr. Barrett reviewed the police report, medical records, and the amended life care plan for Mr. Brown. Mr. Barrett also considered the overall level of pain and suffering Mr. Brown would suffer throughout the remainder of his life. Mr. Barrett testified that when compared to other traumatic brain cases, Mr. Brown is a little better off than other traumatic cases he has reviewed because he is able to ambulate using assistive devices and his mental abilities have not been compromised significantly. Mr. Barrett opined that the overall value of the damages would be more than $10,500,000. Mr. Barrett testified that his estimate was a conservative valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett concluded that, accepting Mr. Rosen’s even more conservative valuation, the $2,500,000 settlement constituted 23.8 percent of the full value of Petitioners’ damages. Mr. Barrett testified that allocation of $69,623.38 of the settlement would be a reasonable allocation of damages to the past medical expenses. Ultimate Findings of Fact The undersigned finds that the testimony of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett was credible and persuasive as to the total damages incurred by Petitioners. While assigning a value to the damages that plaintiffs could reasonably expect to receive from a jury is not an exact science, Mr. Rosen’s extensive experience with litigating personal injury lawsuits makes him a very compelling witness regarding the valuation of damages suffered by Petitioners. As a trial lawyer who has testified in nearly 20 cases regarding valuation and allocation of damages, and 40 years of experience handling personal injury matters involving catastrophic injuries, Mr. Barrett is also a credible witness regarding the valuation and allocation of damages in a case such as Mr. Brown’s. The undersigned also finds that Mr. Barrett was qualified to present expert testimony as to how a damages award should be allocated among its components, such as past medical expenses, economic damages, and noneconomic damages. AHCA offered no evidence to counter the expert opinions regarding Petitioners’ total damages or the past medical expenses they recovered. Accordingly, it is found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the total value of Petitioners’ personal injury claim is $10,500,000 and that the $2,500,000 settlement resulted in Petitioners recovering 23.8 percent of Mr. Brown’s past medical expenses. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that $69,623.38 amounts to a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Petitioners and payable to AHCA.
