The Issue The issue to be decided in this proceeding is the amount to be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA” or the “Agency”), from the proceeds of a personal injury settlement received by Petitioner, Joseph Pinto Domingo, referred to herein as either “Petitioner” or “Domingo,” to reimburse Medicaid for expenditures made on his behalf.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are derived from the exhibits and oral testimony at final hearing, as well as from the stipulated facts between the parties. On July 13, 2012, Domingo’s parents took him to a hospital emergency room (“ER”) with complaints of a persistent fever, runny nose, congestion and a cough. He was 24 months old at the time and had been sick for a few days. After evaluation by hospital ER staff, Domingo was found to have a fever of 103 degrees Fahrenheit. He was treated with Tylenol, but minutes later began to have seizures. He experienced on-going seizure activity that compromised his ability to breathe, resulting in a catastrophic hypoxic ischemic brain injury. As a result of his brain injury, Domingo is permanently disabled and unable to stand, walk, ambulate, speak, eat, toilet or care for himself in any manner. As a result of Domingo’s injuries, he suffered both economic and non-economic damages, including but not limited to: pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of ability to enjoy life, disability, disfigurement, lost ability to earn money, and extensive medical expenses, past and future. Of course Domingo’s parents also suffered extensively because of Domingo’s injuries. The medical care Domingo received for treatment of his injuries was paid for by Medicaid. The amount paid by Medicaid for his treatment was $641,174.03 (the “Lien Amount”). Domingo’s parents brought medical malpractice claims against the ER physician, the ER nurse practitioner, a professional association to which the doctor belonged, and the hospital. During the course of litigation, it was determined that a conservative value of Domingo’s claim for damages would be thirty million dollars ($30,000,000.00), referred to herein as the “Claim Amount.” After years of litigation, a settlement was reached wherein Domingo was to be paid ten million dollars ($10,000,000), which will be called the “Settlement Amount.” An undisclosed portion of the Settlement Amount, presumably 25 percent or $2,500,000, was paid for attorneys’ fees. Domingo’s recovery was therefore less than $10,000,000. The Settlement Amount was paid by two separate entities: 1) the physician, nurse practitioner, and their professional associations (collectively the “Association”); and 2) the hospital where Domingo presented to the ER for treatment. The Association paid $2,000,000 of the Settlement Amount and the hospital paid $8,000,000. Both entities entered into settlement agreements with Domingo (through his parents). Domingo offered into evidence a Complete Liability Release from the Association and a General Release from the hospital which Domingo’s representatives had signed. In the releases, the Association and the hospital were released from further liability for and in consideration of payments made to Domingo in the amounts described above. The releases, by their terms, are considered “settlement agreements” between the parties thereto. The hospital’s settlement agreement indicated that $170,937 was being allocated for Domingo’s past medical expenses, recognizing that the Settlement Amount was less than the perceived value of Domingo’s claim. The Association’s settlement agreement did not allocate any of the $2,000,000 sum specifically to past medical expenses; it did acknowledge that the Settlement Amount was less than the value of the Claim Amount. Domingo’s parents and legal counsel signed the releases, wherein all future claims against the defendants were barred. Neither the defendants in the malpractice case nor AHCA were signatories to the releases. The copies of the documents entered into evidence at final hearing were not signed by the Association or the hospital. Oddly, the documents do not even provide a place for the defendants to sign. Nor was there testimony from any principal of the Association or the hospital to verify the terms of the releases-qua-settlement agreements. Nonetheless, the gross Settlement Amount received by Domingo was only one-third, i.e., 33.3 percent, of the Claim Amount. All the parties hereto acknowledge that Domingo did not receive the full potential value of his claim in the Settlement Amount. Domingo continues to reside with his parents, who, despite the difficulties associated with Domingo’s injury and the stress related thereto, have remained married. The parents will be responsible for Domingo’s care for the rest of his life. The parties do not dispute that Domingo’s life situation is grave and serious. But that is not the issue in this proceeding. The economic and non-economic damages for Domingo include several factors: future medical expenses, loss of income, and past medical expenses comprise the economic portion; pain and suffering, loss of consortium, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and disability, to name a few, make up the non-economic damages. Of all the postulated damages, only the past medical expenses (i.e., the Lien Amount) are finite and absolute. In fact, the parties have stipulated that “[Domingo’s] medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid and Medicaid provided $641,174.03 associated with [Domingo’s] injury.” All the other damages are estimates by experts, based on comparisons of other cases and/or their professional experience. Domingo asserts that inasmuch as he received only about 33.3 percent of his Claim Amount, he should only have to pay 33.3 percent of the Lien Amount. His assertion is essentially based on a mathematical calculation which seeks to make Domingo as whole as possible. The calculation is offered as an equitable way to provide Domingo with more of the Settlement Amount than he might otherwise retain. As discussed more fully below, the mathematical calculation runs afoul of statutory provisions. The amount allocated by the hospital for Domingo’s past medical expenses ($170,397), is 26.6 percent of the Lien Amount. This is because the hospital’s share of the $10,000,000 settlement ($8,000,000) represents 26.6 percent of the alleged value of the claim, according to Petitioner. (The undersigned could not mathematically reconcile this percentage, but based on the findings and conclusions herein, the calculation is not relevant.) The Association did not allocate a specific amount for past and medical expenses, but Domingo argues that a factor of 33.3 percent should be applied to their settlement payment, as the Settlement Amount is 33.3 percent of the Claim Amount. Other than the accuracy of that mathematical calculation, Petitioner does not provide any basis for applying the percentage to the Lien Amount. AHCA was made aware of the settlement discussions between Domingo and his healthcare providers, but chose not to be involved in the process. Rather, AHCA established the amount of the lien and asserts that the entire Lien Amount should be paid from the Settlement Amount.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Joni M. Doheny, from a settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On July 7, 2014, Ms. Doheny, who was then 57 years old, was a passenger on a motorcycle whose drunk driver veered into oncoming traffic and was struck by a sports utility vehicle (SUV), ejecting her from the point of impact approximately 100 feet through the air and over pavement. As a result of the accident, Ms. Doheny suffered severe, catastrophic and horrible injuries with wounds to her head, wounds to her arms, wounds to her hands and her left leg almost ripped from her body at the knee. Ms. Doheny was intubated at the scene and airlifted to Tampa General Hospital. She was diagnosed with compound fractures of her left tibia and fibula, puncture wound of her right knee, severe injury to her left arm and hand resulting in amputation of her left ring finger, a laceration to her forehead, and a traumatic brain injury. Amputation of her leg was recommended, but Petitioner elected to save her leg. She underwent numerous surgeries associated with her leg and other extensive injuries and was in the hospital until September 12, 2014. Ms. Doheny was again admitted to the hospital for treatment of her injuries on December 2 through 9, 2014, and January 21 through February 5, 2015. Throughout the process, she was in extreme pain and remains in pain to date. Currently, Petitioner cannot walk and requires a wheelchair for mobility. She has no significant function of her left hand and no significant function in her left leg. She is dependent on others for activities of daily living. She also has severe impacts to her emotional well-being and suffers from depression, anxiety and pain. Her condition is permanent and she most likely will not be able to obtain employment sufficient to support herself or replace the income/earning capacity she had as a realtor prior to her injuries. She is no longer a Medicaid recipient. Petitioner’s past medical expenses related to her injuries were paid by both personal funds and Medicaid. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $257,640.53. Unpaid out-of-pocket expenses totaled $119,926.41. Thus, total past healthcare expenses incurred for Petitioner’s injuries was $377,566.94. Ms. Doheny brought a personal injury claim to recover all her damages against the driver of the SUV (Driver) who struck the motorcycle Ms. Doheny was riding, her Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Policy (UM Policy), and the restaurant which had served alcohol to the driver of the motorcycle (Restaurant). Towards that end, Petitioner retained James D. Gordon, III, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims for over 30 years, to represent Petitioner in her negligence action against the Defendants. The Driver maintained a $10,000 insurance policy. On November 10, 2014, prior to suit being filed, Ms. Doheny settled her claim against the Driver for an unallocated $10,000. Ms. Doheny’s UM Policy had a policy limit of $300,000. Likewise, on November 10, 2014, Ms. Doheny settled her claim against her UM Policy for an unallocated $300,000. The Restaurant maintained a $1,000,000 liquor liability insurance policy. On September 2, 2015, and again prior to suit being filed, Ms. Doheny settled her claim against the Restaurant for $1,000,000. The settlements totaled $1,310,000.00 and do not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of her damages. As indicated, $310,000.00 of the settlements was not apportioned to specific types of damages, such as economic or non-economic, past or future. One million dollars of the settlements was apportioned with 20 percent of those funds allocated to past medical expenses. No dollar amount was assigned to Ms. Doheny’s future medical care needs, and there remains uncertainty as to what those needs will be. Additionally, neither Petitioner nor others on her behalf made payments in the past or in advance for her future medical care, and no claim for reimbursement, restitution or indemnification was made for such damages or included in the settlement. However, given the loss of earning capacity and the past and present level of pain and suffering, the bulk of the settlement was clearly intended to provide future support for Ms. Doheny. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s negligence action, around September 3, 2015. Thereafter, Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $257,640.53 against the proceeds of any award or settlement arising out of that action. Respondent was not a party to the 2015 settlements and did not execute any of the applicable releases. Mr. Gordon’s expert very conservative valuation of the total damages suffered by Petitioner is at least $5 million. In arriving at this valuation, Mr. Gordon reviewed the facts of Petitioner’s personal injury claim, vetted the claim with experienced members in his law firm and examined jury verdicts in similar cases involving catastrophic injury. The reviewed cases had an average award of $6,779,214 for total damages and $4,725,000 for non-economic damages (past and future pain and suffering). Mr. Gordon’s valuation of total damages was supported by the testimony of one additional personal injury attorney, R. Vinson Barrett, who has practiced personal injury law for more than 30 years. In formulating his opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett reviewed the discharge summaries from Petitioner’s hospitalizations. Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury trial verdicts and awards relied upon by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Barrett agreed with the $5 million valuation of Petitioner’s total damages and thought it could likely have been higher. The settlement amount of $1,310,000 is 26.2 percent of the total value ($5 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, 26.2 percent of $377,566.54 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid in part by Medicaid) is $98,922.54. Both experts testified that $98,922.54 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses. Their testimony is accepted as persuasive. Further, the unrebutted evidence demonstrated that $98,922.54 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses since Petitioner recovered only 26.2 percent of her damages thereby reducing all of the categories of damages associated with her claim. Given these facts, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Therefore, the amount of the Medicaid lien should be $98,922.54.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, from the proceeds of a 1 All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2019 version unless otherwise stated. third party settlement, in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Mary Bishop, is a person for whom Medicaid paid medical care expenses for injuries that she suffered in an accident. Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, is the state agency that administers the Medicaid program in Florida. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. Stipulated Facts On June 25, 2014, Petitioner suffered catastrophic injuries when she fell from a moving vehicle while being transported between two medical facilities. In the accident, Petitioner suffered permanent catastrophic injuries, including severe brain damage, a broken shoulder, a broken arm, and a punctured lung. As a result of her injuries, Petitioner's leg was amputated below the knee. Medicaid paid for Petitioner's medical care related to the injury. Through Respondent, Medicaid provided $293,149.98 in benefits for Petitioner's medical care. This amount constitutes Petitioner's entire claim for past medical expenses. Petitioner's daughter, Nicole Milstead, was appointed Petitioner's guardian. Milstead, as Petitioner's guardian, pursued a personal injury claim against the parties allegedly liable ("Tortfeasors") for Petitioner's injuries to recover all of Petitioner's damages. Petitioner's personal injury claim was settled through a series of confidential settlements in a lump-sum of $2,000,000 ($2 million).2 During the pendency of Petitioner's personal injury claim, Respondent was notified of the claim and asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $293,149.98 against Petitioner's cause of action and settlement of that action. Respondent did not institute a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, nor did it intervene or join in Petitioner's claim against the Tortfeasors. By letter, Respondent was notified of Petitioner's $2 million settlement with the Tortfeasors. 2 At the final hearing, testimony revealed that in addition to the $2 million settlement, there was a $100,000 settlement allocated to Petitioner's husband associated with his claims relative to Petitioner's injuries. The parties have agreed to address this $100,000 settlement separately, so this proceeding only concerns the $2 million settlement received by Petitioner. See Joint Stip., Aug. 17, 2020. Respondent has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Petitioner's settlement with the Tortfeasors. The Medicaid program, through Respondent, paid $293,149.98 on behalf of Petitioner, which represents the amount paid for her past medical expenses. If the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) is applied to Petitioner's $2 million settlement, then the full amount of the $293,149.98 Medicaid lien should be paid to Respondent. Petitioner deposited the $293,149.98 Medicaid lien amount into an interest-bearing account for the benefit of Respondent, pending the outcome of an administrative determination of Respondent's right regarding the Medicaid lien. Pursuant to section 409.910(17), such deposit constitutes "final agency action" under chapter 120. Facts Found Pursuant to Evidence Adduced at Final Hearing As stated above, on June 25, 2014, Petitioner, who had a long history of mental illness, leapt from a moving vehicle on I-95 while being transported between a mental health provider's office and the assisted living facility where she resided. As a result, Petitioner suffered severe injuries, including traumatic brain injury. She was in a coma; intubated; ventilated; suffered multiple fractures resulting in a right foot below-knee amputation; multiple upper right extremity injuries, including humeral and shoulder injuries; cervical and thoracic vertebrae fractures; fractured ribs; fractured fingers; and multiple-organ failure. She had open reduction and internal fixation surgery on her elbow and an exploratory laparotomy. In all, she was hospitalized for approximately eight months. As a result of the injuries she sustained, Petitioner is unable to bathe herself, dress herself, or cut her food without assistance. She has a prosthetic foot and uses a walker; has limited use of her arm, and is significantly scarred and disfigured. She suffers extreme pain in her upper right extremity, and as a result of her traumatic brain injury, experiences difficulty in problem-solving, which leads to her frustration. Petitioner requires attendant care 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Overbeck testified as a fact and expert witness on behalf of Petitioner. He is a Florida Bar Board-Certified attorney in civil trial practice, and has nearly 30 years of experience in a broad range of personal injury-related matters, including assessing the damages value of cases involving catastrophic injury, and the allocation of settlements in various contexts, including the Medicaid lien context. Overbeck represented Petitioner in her personal injury case against liable third parties, including the assisted living facility in which Petitioner resided; the mental health outpatient facility where she was receiving counseling at the time of her accident; the entity that was transporting Petitioner when she jumped from the moving vehicle; the driver of the vehicle from which Petitioner jumped; and the transport coordinator who arranged the vehicle transportation for Petitioner. Ultimately, Petitioner's claims against the liable third parties settled for a total of $2 million. Because Petitioner's case settled before trial, a life care plan and economist report was not prepared. However, based on Overbeck's experience regarding life care plans in similar cases, he opined that Petitioner's future medical needs would have a value of between $1 million and $3 million. Additionally, he testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner's non-economic damages (i.e., pain and suffering) would constitute the greatest part of any jury verdict, and that, based on cases involving catastrophic injuries and other circumstances similar to Petitioner's, her non-economic damages would be valued on the order of $15 million to $18.5 million. Overbeck opined that Petitioner's damages had a value in excess of $8 million, which he described as a "conservative" valuation. Thus, the $2 million settlement did not fully compensate Petitioner for the full value of her damages. According to Overbeck, Petitioner's $2 million third-party recovery represents only 25% of the value of her damages, using the conservative $8 million valuation of those damages. Overbeck testified that because Petitioner recovered only 25% of her total damages, conservatively valued at $8 million, it is fair and reasonable that 25% of the $2 million third-party recovery be allocated for Petitioner's past medical expenses. This would amount to $73,287.50 to be paid to Respondent in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. Barrett also testified as an expert witness on behalf of Petitioner. Barrett is a trial lawyer who has over 40 years of experience in personal injury law. His experience includes handling catastrophic injury cases, including those involving traumatic brain injury. As part of his practice, he stays abreast of jury verdict awards and routinely makes assessments regarding the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Barrett testified that based on his experience in cases involving parties who suffered catastrophic injuries similar to Petitioner's, he estimated the value of Petitioner's damages to be in the $8 million to $12 million range, with $8 million "being the basement." Based on his review of life care plans and economist reports for persons who suffered traumatic brain injury and needed "24/7" care, Barrett testified that Petitioner's claim for future medical expenses would be high. Additionally, he concurred with Overbeck that Petitioner's claim for non-economic damages would be very high and would comprise the greater part of any damages award. Based on cases he reviewed, Barrett valued Petitioner's non-economic damages alone at over $8 million. Barrett opined that the $2 million settlement amount did not fully compensate Petitioner for all of the damages she suffered, and represented 25% of the conservative $8 million valuation of her damages. He testified that because the $2 million third-party settlement amount that Petitioner recovered represented 25% of the total value of her damages, it was "very reasonable" for 25% of her third party recovery to be allocated to past medical expenses. Respondent did not call any witnesses or present any countervailing evidence regarding the value of Petitioner's damages. Thus, Petitioner's evidence in this proceeding is unrebutted.
The Issue The issue in this case is the amount of the Petitioners' personal injury settlement required to be paid to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to satisfy its Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are the grandparents and legal guardians of Taya Rose Savasuk-Maldonado, who is 11 years old. On October 2, 2010, Taya and six family members were involved in a horrific car crash. The driver of another car (the tortfeasor) failed to stop at an intersection and slammed into the family van, which rolled over, ejecting three passengers, including Taya and her great-grandparents. The great- grandparents died on the pavement next to Taya, and Taya suffered severe injuries, including a skull fracture, pancreatitis, bleeding in her abdomen, and severe road rash that required multiple skin graft surgeries and dressing changes so painful that anesthesia was required. Taya has significant, permanent scarring, which has left her self-conscious and unwilling to wear any clothing that exposes her scars, including bathing suits and some shorts. Taya's emotional injuries include nightmares and grief over the loss of both great-grandparents. Other family members also suffered injuries. Taya required emergency and subsequent medical care that has totaled $257,567 to date. It is not clear from the evidence how much, if any, of that total was reduced when providers accepted Medicaid. Future medical expenses are anticipated, but there was no evidence as to the amount of future medical expenses. The tortfeasor had a $100,000/$300,000 Hartford insurance liability policy on the car he was driving at the time of the accident. Hartford agreed to pay the policy limits. The injured family members agreed that $200,000 of the policy limits should be paid to Taya. On October 14, 2013, Hartford and the Petitioners agreed that the Petitioners would release Hartford, the tortfeasor and his wife (the other owner of the car) in return for payment of $200,000 to be held in trust by the Petitioners' attorneys for distribution as follows: $60,000 to be paid to the Prudential Assigned Settlement Services Corporation to fund future payments to Taya beginning in year 2020; up to $84,095 to lienholders in amounts to be determined; and the balance to the Petitioners' attorneys. The parties to that agreement, which did not include AHCA, agreed that $51,513 of the $200,000 should be allocated to payment of Taya's medical bills, with the rest allocated to claims other than medical expenses. There was no evidence that anything has been paid to AHCA towards its Medicaid lien, or that anything has been paid into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA pending the determination of the amount of its Medicaid lien, which at the time was claimed to be $55,944. The owner of the family van involved in the accident had a $10,000/$20,000 GEICO underinsured motorist policy, which also paid the policy limits. Although the evidence was not clear, the Petitioners appear to concede that all $20,000 was recovered by them for Taya's benefit. There was no evidence as to when the family's claim against the GEICO policy settled, or as to any agreement how the $20,000 should be allocated between medical expenses and other kinds of damages. There was no evidence that any of the $20,000 was paid to AHCA towards its Medicaid lien, or into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA pending the determination of the amount of its Medicaid lien. In addition to the insurance policy settlements, the owners of the other car paid the family approximately $250,000 from their own assets, which the family members agreed to apportion among themselves in a manner that was not disclosed by the evidence. There was no evidence as to when those funds were paid to the family, or when any of those funds was paid to Taya's benefit, if any. The evidence was not clear whether any of those funds was paid towards Taya's medical expenses that were not paid by Medicaid. The evidence suggested that some of the $250,000 was paid towards Taya's medical expenses to date, but it is possible that some of those expenses were reduced when providers accepted Medicaid. There was no evidence that any of those funds was paid to AHCA towards its Medicaid lien claim, or into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA, pending a determination of the amount of its Medicaid lien. A personal injury lawyer, who also was Taya's guardian ad litem, testified that the value Taya's claims against the owners of the other car was approximately $1.4 to $1.8 million. He did not testify as to the amount future medical expenses would contribute to the total value he estimated. AHCA has paid $55,710.98 in Medicaid benefits to treat Taya for her accident injuries. (The Petitioners stipulated to this amount.) Lee Memorial Hospital provided medical services for Taya and claims that it is owed $38,317.05, for which it appears to claim a statutory lien. The evidence was that Lee Memorial refused to accept Medicaid in payment for those services. If Medicaid were accepted, the amount of AHCA's lien would be more than $55,710.98, but probably not $38,317.05 more.
