The Issue The issue is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("Respondent" or "AHCA"), in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioners, from a third party, pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2016).
Findings Of Fact On June 4, 2015, at approximately 11:36 p.m., Rodriguez- Gomez was struck by a car while lawfully walking across the street at the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and North 62nd Avenue in Hollywood, Florida. During the accident, Rodriguez-Gomez suffered catastrophic physical and neurological injuries. Rodriguez- Gomez's injuries included an open skull fracture, left pelvis fracture, and right fibula and tibia fractures. He was transported to the hospital where he underwent extensive medical intervention to save his life. On June 11, 2015, seven days after the accident, Rodriguez-Gomez died as a result of his injuries. Rodriguez-Gomez was survived by his three adult sons and three minor children. Rodriguez-Gomez's medical care related to his injury was paid by Medicaid, and the Medicaid program provided $49,115.61 in benefits associated with his injury. The $49,115.61 represented the entire claim for past medical expenses. Rodriguez-Gomez's funeral bill totaled $3,250.00 and was paid by his surviving children. Armando Rodriguez-Gomez was appointed the personal representative of the Estate of Santos Rodriguez-Gomez ("Estate"). Armando Rodriguez-Gomez, as personal representative ("Personal Representative") of the Estate, brought a wrongful death action to recover both the individual statutory damages of Rodriguez-Gomez's six surviving children, as well as the individual statutory damages of the Estate against the driver and owner ("Defendant") of the vehicle that caused the accident. Joseph Abdallah ("Abdallah"), a civil trial attorney with the law firm of Kanner & Pintaluga in Boca Raton, Florida, represented the Personal Representative and Estate in the wrongful death action. During the pendency of the wrongful death action, AHCA was notified of the action, and AHCA asserted a $49,115.61 Medicaid lien against the Estate cause of action and settlement of that action. The Personal Representative, on behalf of Rodriguez- Gomez's six surviving children, as well as on behalf of the Estate, compromised and settled the wrongful death action with Defendant for the available insurance policy limits of $100,000.00. By letter, Abdallah as the Estate's attorney handling the wrongful death claim notified AHCA of the settlement. The letter requested that AHCA advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $49,115.61 Medicaid lien. AHCA has neither filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the wrongful death settlement nor started a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. AHCA, through its Medicaid program, spent $49,115.61 on behalf of Rodriguez-Gomez, all of which represents expenditures paid for Rodriguez-Gomez's past medical expenses. No portion of the $100,000.00 settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The taxable costs incurred in pursuing Defendant totaled $2,086.68. The formula at section 409.910(11)(f), as applied to the entire $100,000.00 settlement, requires payment of $36,456.66 and AHCA is demanding payment of $36,456.66 from the $100,000.00 settlement. Petitioners have deposited the section 409.910(11)(f) formula amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA, pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights; and this constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). At the final hearing, Petitioners presented, without objection, the expert valuation of damages testimony of Abdallah. Abdallah is a trial attorney in both Florida and New York who practices exclusively personal injury law and handles cases involving wrongful death, catastrophic injury, and other types of negligence involving injury. Abdallah's expertise also encompasses evaluation of personal injury cases based on staying abreast of all State of Florida jury verdicts. At hearing, Abdallah explained that he served as lead counsel during Petitioners' proceeding, and, during his representation of the Estate, he met with the Personal Representative numerous times and reviewed Rodriguez-Gomez's accident report and medical records before he filed the lawsuit and amended complaint in this matter. Abdallah testified that Rodriguez-Gomez had a very close relationship with his children. Abdallah credibly explained the process he took to develop an opinion concerning the value for the damages suffered in this case. He started by looking at the wrongful death statute, section 768.21, Florida Statutes, to determine what damages could be recovered. Petitioners established through unrebutted testimony of their trial attorney and expert witness that personal injury actions can be grouped in the following categories: medical expenses; net accumulations; funeral expenses; loss of parental companionship and instruction; and mental pain and suffering. Abdallah testified that since Rodriguez-Gomez was a day laborer, there was not a claim for net accumulations of the Estate. He concluded that the compensable damages were limited to past medical expenses, loss of parental companionship, instruction, guidance, and mental pain and suffering from the date of the injury for each of the six sibling children. Abdallah evaluated jury verdicts of recent cases involving wrongful death and surviving children to determine what the valuation of the claim for the loss of parental companionship, instruction, guidance, and mental pain and suffering would be for Rodriguez-Gomez's six surviving children. Abdallah also researched circuit court cases to determine appropriate allocation amounts for Medicaid liens. At hearing, Abdallah testified specifically about two comparable jury verdicts involving wrongful death and surviving children that he researched and used to support his valuation, Melissa Corsini, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrew Corsini, Jr., Deceased v. Carlos Riol, Case 09-5397-CA, 11FJVR 3-3, 2011 WL 845897 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Collier Jan. 13, 2011)1/; and Thomas Christopher Heike v. Sr. Singh Enterprises, LLC., Case No. CACE 16011472, 28 Fla. JVRA 3:22, 2017 WL 9286313 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Broward Nov. 26, 2017),2/ circuit court orders that were entered regarding allocation regarding Medicaid liens. In Corsini, each surviving child received $460,000.00 and in Heike each surviving child received $500,000.00 for their damages associated with their father's death. Abdallah's review of comparable jury verdicts revealed that each of Rodriguez- Gomez's six children's claim for losses associated with their father's death would have a very conservative value between $200,000.00 and $800,000.00 each. Abdallah also round-tabled the cases with other experienced attorneys and partners in his law firm to determine the value, and they each agreed that the $200,000.00 to $800,000.00 is a conservative valuation to use for each of the surviving children when determining the value of the Estate's wrongful death case. Based on his review to determine the value of Petitioners' claim, Abdallah credibly and persuasively put all the numbers together and opined that the valuation of the Estate's damages of $49,115.61 paid by Medicaid and the six surviving children's damages of $200,000.00 to $800,000.000 each totaled conservatively $1,200,000.00 to $4,800,000.00, and the conservative total value of all damages recoverable in the wrongful death lawsuit is $1,249,115.61 to $4,849,115.61. Abdallah testified that $1,249,115.61 is the conservative value to use for the damages. Abdallah's compelling and credible testimony further explained that the $100,000.00 settlement constituted a recovery of approximately eight percent of the $1,249,115.61 value of the damages. Abdallah determined that eight percent should be applied to each damage category and should be reduced based on the ultimate settlement. He then went on to apply the eight percent to the total medical expenses that were paid and further testified that a recovery of $3,929.25 in past medical expenses is eight percent of the $49,115.61 claim for past medical expenses. Abdallah's testimony was credible, persuasive, and is accepted. The evidence demonstrates that the total value of the damages related to Rodriguez-Gomez's injury was $1,249,115.61 and that the settlement amount, $100,000.00 was eight percent of the total value. The $100,000.00 settlement does not fully compensate Petitioners for the total value of their damages. Petitioners have established that the $100,000.00 settlement amount is eight percent of the total value ($1,249,115.61) of Petitioners' damages. Using the same calculation, Petitioners correctly showed that eight percent of $49,115.61 (Petitioners' amount allocated in the settlement for past medical expenses), $3,929.25, should be the portion of the Medicaid lien paid. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent should be reimbursed for its Medicaid lien in a lesser amount than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount payable to Respondent in satisfaction of the Agency’s Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioners from a third party, pursuant to section 409.910(17), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Nazyrah Jones was born May 13, 2008, at North Florida Regional Hospital. The attending physician was Dr. Anthony Agrios.2/ During her birth, Nazyrah suffered an anoxic brain injury, a deprivation of oxygen to her brain. As a result, Nazyrah is totally disabled, unable to sit up, stand, crawl, walk, speak, or feed herself. Nazyrah is unable to swallow and requires frequent suctioning of her airway to remove substances which are, or may become, aspirated. Nazyrah’s condition is permanent. Nazyrah’s mother, Callena Jones, lives alone with Nazyrah and is Nazyrah’s primary care-giver. Ms. Jones relies upon a home-health care agency, to assist with Nazyrah’s daily care. Ms. Jones currently attends Webster University where she is working toward a master’s degree in mental health counseling. No evidence was introduced upon which to base a finding that Ms. Jones is employed. Claims for compensation for birth-related neurological injuries alleging medical malpractice are governed by Florida’s Neurological Injury Compensation Plan administered by the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA), pursuant to sections 766.301 through 766.316, Florida Statutes. NICA is the exclusive remedy for such medical malpractice claims, except that a civil action “shall not be foreclosed where there is clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or malicious purpose or willful and wanton disregard of human rights, safety, or property[.]” § 766.303(2), Fla. Stat. Ms. Jones filed a civil medical malpractice lawsuit on her behalf and on behalf of Nazyrah, against both North Florida Regional Hospital and Dr. Agrios, alleging “willful and wanton misconduct” on behalf of the medical providers. Petitioners obtained a settlement of $825,000.003/ from the medical providers related to Nazyrah’s injuries. Petitioners presented no evidence as to what portion of the $825,000.00 total settlement was designated by the parties as compensation to Petitioners for medical expenses, or conversely, for various other types of damages either Nazyrah or her mother may have suffered, such as pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, or loss of future earnings. Neither the settlement agreement itself, nor any documents prepared in connection therewith, was introduced into evidence. No witness offered any testimony on this issue. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, all of the settlement might have been apportioned to medical care, or none of it might have been. Petitioners offered the testimony of Richard Kolodinsky, a civil trial lawyer who has practiced since 1978, has been board certified in civil trial law for approximately 20 years, and is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates, among other professional distinctions. Mr. Kolodinsky was retained by Petitioners to review the case and offer his opinion on the full value, or total damages, of the underlying medical malpractice claim. In preparation for his testimony, Mr. Kolodinsky reviewed Petitioners’ medical records, the Life Care Plan for Nazyrah Jones, the pleadings filed in the underlying medical malpractice lawsuit, a list of payments by Medicaid on behalf of Nazyrah Jones, the NICA statute, the settlement in the underlying medical malpractice lawsuit, the Guardian ad Litem report to the court evaluating the settlement, the court order approving the settlement, and a “tender” from Dr. Agrios. Mr. Kolodinsky testified that, in his opinion, the full value of the underlying medical malpractice claim was at least $25 million. Mr. Kolodinsky testified that his opinion was “based primarily on the Life Care Plan . . . in summary . . . that provided for costs of about $11 million over the child’s lifetime[.]”4/ Further, he testified that it’s my understanding that Ms. Jones is a college graduate and may have a master’s degree, if I’m remembering correctly, and so I looked at the potential for lost earnings that was also mentioned in the Life Care Plan. And for a college graduate, lifetime earnings are in the range of 2.1 million.5/ The Life Care Plan was not introduced into evidence. Mr. Kolodinsky testified, generally, that a Life Care Plan is usually prepared as evidence in a personal-injury case by a life care planner who evaluates the cost of services, as determined by a physician after examination of the injured party, to be needed by the injured party over his or her lifetime. Mr. Kolodinsky testified that, together, the expenses for Nazyrah’s ongoing care plus Ms. Jones’ potential lost earnings “brings us to a special damages number of about $13 million.”6/ Mr. Kolodinsky next testified as to his opinion of the full value of non-economic damages in the underlying case. His explanation was as follows: And so on top of that, you know, you have of course the noneconomic damages component . . . for a profoundly injured, profoundly handicapped child, that is a life of constant care and deprivation that this child suffers minute to minute and the mother deals with minute to minute and will deal with for the rest of their lives. So, you know, these are big numbers. You know, the valuation on personal injury and medical malpractice claims, you know, there was sort of a rule of thumb that people talk about three times the specials, but that really is a rule of thumb that almost never is accurately applied, and as we all know that is very difficult to predict what a jury would do in any particular cases but you have to think that when you have special damages in the $13 million range that the damages for the child could easily be another $10 million on top of that and for the mom somewhere in the couple million to 5 million range. So, that brings us up to in the 25 million plus range, and if there were no damage caps, if there were no limitations on insurance, if there was no NICA, if there were no problems with the case, and you were looking at, okay, what are the full damages for this case absence of any of those other issues, that’s what I would think that that would be worth.7/ On cross-examination, when questioned whether he had tried cases similar to Nazyrah’s, Mr. Kolodinsky testified, “I don’t do NICA cases and in part because of the limitations on damages,”8/ and that he has never tried a case involving an anoxic injury at birth “because of NICA.”9/ Mr. Kolodinsky has tried cases in which a child was a victim of medical malpractice, and has tried cases which involve Medicaid and Medicare liens. Mr. Kolodinsky conducted no jury verdict research and did not compare this case to any case tried to verdict. Mr. Kolodinsky’s testimony regarding Petitioners’ economic damages was imprecise, utilizing hedging language such as costs “of about $11 million” and earnings “in the range of $2.1 million.” Mr. Kolodinsky provided no basis for his opinions other than the Life Care Plan, which was not introduced into evidence and the genesis and role of which was explained only in the most general terms. Mr. Kolodinsky’s testimony regarding Petitioners’ non- economic damages was lacking in detail, failed to establish the basis for his opinion, and was unpersuasive. No other evidence was introduced as to the basis for Mr. Kolodinsky’s opinion on the full value of the non-economic damages in the underlying medical malpractice claim. Mr. Kolodinsky’s opinion was the only evidence introduced on the issue of valuing the total damages in the underlying medical malpractice claim. Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the Florida state agency authorized to administer Florida’s Medicaid program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. The Florida Statutes provide that Medicaid shall be reimbursed for medical assistance that it has provided if resources of a liable third party become available. § 409.910(1), Fla. Stat. Florida Medicaid, through AHCA, paid $172,890.44 for Nazyrah’s medical expenses. Thus, Respondent has asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $172,890.44 against any proceeds received from a third party. The amount to be recovered for Medicaid medical expenses from a judgment, award, or settlement from a third party is determined by the formula in section 409.910(11)(f), which establishes the amount at one-half of the total recovery, after deducting attorney’s fees of 25% of the recovery and all taxable costs, up to the total amount actually paid by Medicaid on the recipient’s behalf. The parties stipulated that application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) to the entire proceeds of the settlement yields $172,890.44.10/ Petitioners argued that the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser amount than the lien of $172,890.44. Petitioners offered two theories for calculating the correct amount to be reimbursed to the Agency. The first theory, and the one advanced by Petitioners’ expert, is that the Agency should recover from its lien in the same proportion that Petitioners’ recovered from the full value of the damages in the underlying case. Petitioners again relied upon Mr. Kolodinsky to establish the proportion of the Medicaid lien which the Agency should be reimbursed under this theory. In this regard, Mr. Kolodinsky testified as follows: So then you look at what proportion the settlement is to the 25 million and you get I think it’s like 3 or 4 percent. We can do the math and determine correctly. Then you apply the percentage, the 3 or 4 percent, to the $172,000 that Medicaid is seeking and that’s the net that Medicaid gets; 4 percent, 3 percent of 172,000, because that is the proportion that the settlement was of the total value of the case.11/ Mr. Kolodinky’s testimony, again, was imprecise and unpersuasive. Assuming the full value of the damages at $25 million, Petitioners recovered 3.3% of the full value of their claim in the $825,000 settlement. Under Petitioners’ first theory, the Agency should be reimbursed 3.3% of its lien for medical expenses, or $5,705.38.12/ Under an alternate theory, advanced for the first time in Petitioners’ Proposed Final Order, Petitioners maintain the Agency should recover in the same proportion that past medical expenses are to the full value of the damages in the underlying case. Under this theory, Petitioners designate the amount paid by Medicaid, $172,890.44, as Petitioners’ past medical expenses. Petitioners introduced no direct evidence to establish the amount to be recovered by the Agency under this theory. Petitioners posit, correctly, that $172,890.44 is .69% of $25 million. Applying that percentage to the settlement amount returns a figure of $5,692.50, which Petitioners claim is due to the Agency in satisfaction of its lien.13/ Both theories rely upon establishing the full value of damages in the underlying medical malpractice claim at $25 million. Petitioners did not prove the value of the damages in underlying medical malpractice by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioners failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory lien amount of $172,890.44 exceeds the amount actually recovered in the settlement for medical expenses.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Micaiah McCray, from a medical-malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on November 11, 2008. In the months following birth, Petitioner underwent several surgeries and procedures including a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement on January 26, 2009, a repair of incomplete atrioventricular canal defect on April 15, 2009, and Nissen Fundoplication and revision of gastrostomy tube on July 8, 2009. On July 23, 2009, Petitioner was admitted to St. Mary’s Medical Center with suspected bronchitis and exacerbation of reactive airway distress. During this hospitalization, on or about August 15, 2009, Petitioner suffered a stroke involving the right hand and part of the right leg. A CT scan of Petitioner’s brain revealed a left middle cerebral artery distribution infarction suggesting a large ischemic infarct. Petitioner’s condition stabilized and Petitioner was released from the hospital on August 27, 2009, with the following discharge summary: Exacerbation of reactive airway disease Bronchitis Mitral stenosis Mild pulmonary hypertension Hypersecretory upper airway Pansinusitis Clostridium difficile colitis Hypoxemia with oxygen dependency Gastroesophageal reflux disease, status post fundoplication Left cerebral infarction of unknown etiology Endocardial cushion defect status post atrioventricular canal repair Bilateral optic nerve colobomas Rule out CHARGE association/Goletz syndrome On September 21, 2009, Petitioner was admitted to Palms West Hospital with a diagnosis of respiratory distress. Petitioner’s condition improved and he was discharged home on September 25, 2009. Subsequent to that hospitalization, an MRI performed on October 19, 2009, revealed new acute strokes. In the years following Petitioner’s strokes, he underwent numerous surgeries, procedures, and therapies for a multitude of medical conditions. Petitioner’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by both private health insurance and Medicaid. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $217,545.58. United Healthcare and Aetna provided $37,090.17 and $3,231.72 in benefits, respectively. Total healthcare expense incurred for Petitioner’s injuries was $257,867.47. Petitioner is developmentally delayed and cannot walk or crawl. Petitioner requires a wheelchair or stroller for mobility and requires positioning and trunk support to maintain a seated position. His ability to independently explore his environment is severely restricted. Petitioner is completely dependent on others for activities of daily living. He cannot bathe, dress, or eat on his own. He requires a feeding tube, and receives professional in-home services to monitor his respiration and heartrate, manage his GJ tube, administer medication, and monitor bowel and bladder function. Petitioner does not vocalize words and has limited communication. He has no function of his right hand and has tightness in the right leg below the knee. Petitioner’s condition is permanent. Petitioner’s parents brought a medical malpractice action on his behalf in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County against Tenet St. Mary’s Inc., d/b/a St. Mary’s Medical Center; Palms West Hospital Limited Partnership, d/b/a Palms West Hospital; David Evan Mound Drucker, M.D.; South Florida Pediatric Surgeons, P.A.; Physicians Professional Liability Risk Retention Group; Alberto Antonio Marante, M.D.; Florida Pediatric Critical Care, P.A.; Diego Maurcio Diaz, M.D.; Gerard Minor, P.A.-C; Children’s Center Gastroenterology & Nutrition, P.A.; Chartis Claims, Inc.; Lexington Insurance Company; Eunice Cordoba, M.D; and Edwin Liu, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Pediatric Neurologist of Palm Beach (Defendants). Petitioner’s action alleged, among other theories, that the Defendants failed to recognize in Petitioner a sickle cell trait and properly treat Petitioner’s dehydration, a factor contributing to Petitioner’s strokes. Petitioner’s parents retained Scott Marlowe Newmark, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims for over 30 years, to represent Petitioner in the medical malpractice action against Defendants. In preparation for litigation, Stephanie P. Chalfin, M.S., prepared a life care plan for Petitioner. The plan sets out the need for future medical care, equipment, hospitalizations, surgeries, medications, and attendant care, through Petitioner’s expected life span. In this case, Petitioner’s life expectancy is an additional 66.9 years. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, J. Rody Borg, Ph.D., an economist, prepared a report assigning a present value between $24,373,828 and $29,065,995 for the future costs of Petitioner’s life care plan, lost benefits, and lost earning capacity. Mr. Newmark’s expert valuation of the total damages suffered by Petitioner is at least $30 million. Mr. Newmark considered the life care plan and Dr. Borg’s report in arriving at the value of total economic damages. Mr. Newmark then examined jury verdicts in similar cases involving catastrophic injury to value non-economic damages. Of the nine jury verdicts examined, Mr. Newmark highlighted three as particularly relevant because they involved young children with brain injuries similar to Petitioner’s injury and who required life-long care. The nine cases had an average award of $12 million for non-economic damages (past and future pain and suffering). Mr. Newmark arrived at his valuation of Petitioner’s damages at $30 million by considering the low-end of Dr. Borg’s economic damages estimate, $24 million, along with the average jury award for non-economic damages in similar cases. Mr. Newmark’s testimony was credible, reliable and persuasive. Mr. Newmark’s valuation of total damages was supported by the testimony of two additional personal injury attorneys, Mark Finklestein and R. Vinson Barrett, both of whom have practiced personal injury law for more than 30 years and were accepted as experts in valuation of damages (in personal injury cases). Mr. Finkelstein served as Petitioner’s guardian ad litem in the underlying medical malpractice action and agreed with the valuation of total damages at $30 million. In formulating his opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett reviewed the discharge summaries from Petitioner’s hospitalizations, the life care plan, Dr. Borg’s report, and a day-in-the-life video of Petitioner. Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury trial verdicts and awards relied upon by Mr. Newmark. Mr. Barrett likewise agreed with the $30 million valuation of Petitioner’s total damages. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s medical malpractice action during its pendency. Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $217,545.58 against the proceeds of any award or settlement arising out of that action. In 2012 and again in 2015, Petitioner received a series of settlements from the Defendants. The settlements totaled $2,450,000. The settlements do not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of his damages. The settlements are undifferentiated, meaning they are not apportioned to specific types of damages, such as economic or non-economic, past or future. In all of the releases signed by the parties thereto, the parties agreed that, “if an allocation of this settlement is necessary in the future, this allocation should be made by applying the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all [Petitioner’s] damages to the specific damage claim.” Respondent was not a party to the 2012 and 2015 settlements and did not execute any of the applicable releases. Respondent’s position is that it should be reimbursed for its Medicaid expenditures on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the statutory formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting a 25 percent attorney’s fee and taxable costs (in this case, $613,131) from the $2,450,000 recovery, which yields a sum of $1,836,869 then dividing that amount by two, which yields $918,434.50. Under the statute, Respondent is limited to recovery of the amount derived from the statutory formula or the amount of its lien, whichever is less. In the case at hand, Respondent may recover under the statute the full amount of its lien. Petitioner’s position is that reimbursement for past medical expenses should be limited to the same ratio as Petitioner’s recovery amount to the total value of damages. Petitioner urges Respondent should be reimbursed $21,067.77 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The settlement amount of $2,450,000 is 8.17 percent of the total value ($30 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, 8.17 percent of $257,867.47 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid by both Medicaid and private insurance) is $21,067.77. Both Mr. Finklestein and Mr. Barrett testified that $21,067.77 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses. Their testimony is accepted as persuasive. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue On October 3, 2016, Petitioners, Ammar Al Batha, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Abdel-Kader Al Batha, deceased, and Shahira Alshami, individually, filed a Petition to Determine Amount Payable to Agency for Health Care Administration in Satisfaction of Medicaid Lien (Petition) with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes (2016).1/ The final hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2016. On November 30, 2016, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Final Order. In the Motion for Summary Final Order, Respondent asserted that Petitioners, as a matter of law, cannot successfully challenge the amount payable to AHCA under section 409.910(17)(b) because Petitioners are not the Medicaid recipients. On December 2, 2016, Petitioners filed a Motion for Continuance and Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Final Order. That motion was granted by the undersigned on December 6, 2016, and the hearing scheduled for December 14, 2016, was canceled. On December 12, 2016, Petitioners filed an Objection to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Final Order, asserting that a Medicaid recipient’s right to challenge the payment of a Medicaid lien through DOAH does not die with the recipient, and the recipient’s representative is entitled to challenge the amount payable to AHCA under the procedure in section 409.910(17)(b). Both Respondent’s Motion for Summary Final Order and Petitioners’ Objection to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Final Order have been duly considered in preparation of this Summary Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On July 2, 2015, Abdel-Kader Al Batha (Mr. Al Batha) was involved in a car accident in Broward County, Florida. In this accident, Mr. Al Batha suffered catastrophic physical and neurological injuries, and, as a result, died on July 20, 2015. Mr. Al Batha was survived by his spouse, Shahira Alshami (Ms. Alshami). Mr. Al Batha’s medical care related to his injury was paid by Medicaid, and AHCA, through the Medicaid program. Medicaid provided $143,663.18 in benefits associated with Mr. Al Batha’s injury. This $143,663.18 represented the entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Al Batha’s funeral expenses were in the amount of $3,850. As a result of Mr. Al Batha’s injury and death, Ms. Alshami suffered economic and non-economic damages, which are defined and limited by the Florida Wrongful Death Act to loss of support, services, companionship, and protection from the date of injury, as well as her mental pain and suffering from the date of injury per section 768.21, Florida Statutes. In addition, the Estate of Abdel-Kader Al Batha (the Estate) suffered economic damages, which are defined and limited, by the Florida Wrongful Death Act, to medical expenses, funeral expenses, and loss of net accumulations per section 768.21(6). Altogether, the total combined monetary value of Ms. Alshami and the Estate’s individual damages, and the value a jury would assign to these damages, are no less than $2,500,000 to $5,000,000. Ammar Al Batha, as the Personal Representative of the Estate, brought a wrongful death action to recover both the individual statutory damages of Ms. Alshami, as well as the individual statutory damages of the Estate, against the driver/owner of the vehicle that caused the accident (Defendant). While Ms. Alshami and the Estate’s damages have an exceedingly high monetary value in excess of $2,500,000 to $5,000,000, there were significant limitations to recovering the full value of these damages from the Defendant associated with disputed facts, liability, and policy insurance limits of the primary responsible parties. Based on these significant limiting factors, the wrongful death action was settled through a confidential settlement. While settlement was appropriate given the limiting factors, that does not negate that in the settlement, Ms. Alshami and the Estate are not being fully compensated for all their damages, and they are only receiving a fraction of the total monetary value of all their damages. Understanding that the settlement does not fully compensate Ms. Alshami and the Estate for all their damages, and in the settlement they are only receiving a fraction of the total monetary value of all the damages, including only a fraction of the $143,663.18 claim for past medical expenses, the parties to the settlement made an allocation to the claim for past medical expenses. This allocation was based on the calculation of the ratio the settlement bore to the total monetary value of all damages. Using the conservative valuation of all damages of $2,500,000, the parties calculated that Ms. Alshami and the Estate were receiving 44.5 percent of the total monetary value of all their damages in the settlement, and accordingly they were receiving in the settlement 44.5 percent, or $63,930.12, of their $143,663.18 claim for past medical expenses. In making this allocation, the parties agreed that: The settlement does not fully compensate Mr. Al Batha’s surviving spouse and the Estate of Abdel-Kader Al Batha for all the damages they have suffered and the settlement only compensates them for a fraction of the total monetary value of all the damages; The damages have a value in excess of $2,500,000; The claim for past medical expenses was $143,663.18; and Allocation of the $63,930.12 of the settlement to past medical expenses, and the remainder of the settlement toward the satisfaction of claims other than the past medical expenses, is reasonable and proportionate based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all the damages. The parties memorialized the allocation of $63,930.12 of the settlement to past medical expenses in the General Release (Release). The Release stated: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement may not fully compensate Releasing Party for all of the damages they have allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Released Parties without regard to this settlement only compensating Releasing Party for a fraction of the total claimed monetary value of their alleged damages. The parties agree that Releasing Party’s alleged damages may have a value in excess of $2,500,000, of which approximately $143,663.18 represents the claimed amount for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Releasing Party’s damages and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $63,930.12 of this settlement to Releasing Party’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the claimed total monetary value of all Releasing Party’s damages. As a condition of Mr. Al Batha’s eligibility for Medicaid, Mr. Al Batha, before his death, assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third parties, medical expenses paid by Medicaid. During the pendency of the wrongful death action, AHCA was notified of the action, and AHCA, through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $143,663.18 Medicaid lien against the Estate’s cause of action and settlement of that action. The attorney handling the wrongful death claim notified AHCA of the settlement by letter and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed General Release. The letter explained that the damages had a value in excess of $2,500,000, and the settlement represented only a 44.5 percent recovery of the $143,663.18 claim for past medical expenses, or $63,930.12. The letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $143,663.18 Medicaid lien. AHCA calculated its payment pursuant to the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) based on the gross settlement, which includes those funds compensating Ms. Alshami for her individual claim for pain and suffering and loss of support, services, and companionship. This resulted in AHCA demanding payment for the full amount of the Medicaid lien, or $143,663.18.
The Issue The issue is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement offer received on behalf of Petitioner, Ciara Thomas.
Findings Of Fact Ciara Thomas is a six-year-old female who currently resides in St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent is the state agency authorized to administer Florida's Medicaid program. See § 409.902, Fla. Stat. On October 18, 2012, Ciara, then two and one-half weeks shy of her third birthday, was severely injured when she fell into a bathtub and was scalded by hot water. At that time, Ciara, her mother, and a brother were tenants of a residential dwelling located at 8181 91st Terrace, Seminole, Florida, which was owned by Selvie Berberi, the landlord. Ciara suffered from second- and third-degree burns over 65 percent of her total body surface area, and in particular, to her back, buttocks, chest, bilateral tower extremities, bilateral upper extremities, and genitals. Ciara received extensive medical care and treatment for her scald burns at Tampa General Hospital, where she was hospitalized from October 18, 2012, through January 9, 2013. The parties have stipulated that through the Medicaid program, AHCA spent $174,675.05 on behalf of Ciara. Because of the extensive nature of the burns on her lower extremities and entire back, Ciara has undergone five skin grafts. She has completed physical therapy in the burn center and does not anticipate any further medical treatment until she is fully grown. Ciara has very visible scars over much of her body, which will not likely improve over time. The skin feels rubbery, with no smooth texture, and it is affected by the weather. Whenever she is outside, Ciara must be completely covered with clothing. She attends school but cannot play outdoors due to potential injury or infection. Because of the condition of her skin, she is subjected to stares by other persons and students, causing her to be extremely self- conscious. Petitioner filed suit in Pinellas County Circuit Court against the landlord in negligence for her failure to provide safe and proper working plumbing to the rental home. Among other things, the water heater had been set far above the legal limits of 120 degrees. During the pendency of that litigation, the landlord's homeowner's insurance company offered payment in settlement in the amount of $101,000.00, representing the $100,000.00 coverage limit for bodily injury liability, and $1,000.00 as payment of the coverage limit of the policy's medical payments provisions. At hearing, Ciara's mother indicated that she intends to accept the offer if it is approved by the court. AHCA contends it should be reimbursed for Medicaid expenditures on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting a 25 percent attorney's fee ($25,250.00) and taxable costs ($879.59) from the $101,000.00 recovery, which yields a sum of $74,870.41. This amount is then divided by two, which yields $37,435.21. Under the statute, Respondent is limited to recovery of the amount derived from the statutory formula or the amount of the lien, whichever is less. Petitioner agrees that under the statutory default allocation, AHCA would be entitled to $37,435.21. Section 409.910(17)(b) provides that a Medicaid recipient has a right to rebut the default allocation described above. Utilizing that provision, Petitioner asserts that reimbursement should be limited to the same ratio as her recovery amount is to the full or total value of her damages. Under this theory, Petitioner contends that had her case gone to trial, a jury would have awarded at least $3.5 million, or the mid-point between $3 million and $4 million. Because the settlement represents a recovery of 2.9 percent of the valuation of her total damages, Petitioner contends she should pay 2.9 percent of AHCA's past medical expenses, or $5,066.00, to satisfy the Medicaid lien. The statute requires that Petitioner substantiate her position by clear and convincing evidence. To support the proposed full value of damages, Petitioner presented the testimony of Keith Ligori, a trial attorney in Tampa for the last 15 years, who specializes in all types of personal injury cases. Mr. Ligori has handled similar cases "numerous times," and on a daily basis he makes assessments of the valuation of potential claims. He is familiar with the reasonable valuation of personal injury cases in the greater Tampa Bay area, including Pinellas County. Mr. Ligori presented fact and opinion testimony on the issue of valuation of damages. Before forming his opinion on damages in this case, Mr. Ligori reviewed the medical records, including photographs of Ciara, interviewed the child and her mother, and discussed the case with her trial counsel. He also relied on his training and experience and familiarity with other cases in the Tampa Bay area. Based on his review of the case, Mr. Ligori valued total damages, conservatively, at $3.5 million. This figure took into account non-economic factors, including mental anguish, loss of ability or capacity to enjoy life, disability, and scarring and disfigurement, and economic damages consisting of the medical expenses paid by AHCA. Mr. Ligori testified that if he was actually trying the case before a jury, he would seek damages of between $5 million and $10 million. The undersigned finds the valuation of damages at $3.5 million to be credible and persuasive and is hereby accepted. In summary, by clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner has demonstrated that, conservatively, the full value of her damages is $3.5 million. The settlement amount of $101,000.00 is 2.9 percent of the total value of Petitioner's damages. The application of this factor to total medical expenses incurred by AHCA results in an allocation of $5,066.00 as a reasonable payment of the Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), is to be reimbursed for medical expenses paid on behalf of Markus Smith (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Smith”) 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, admitted facts set forth in the pre- hearing stipulation, and matters subject to official recognition. Facts Pertaining to the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation and the Medicaid Lien On February 12, 2018, Mr. Smith was 26 years old and working for $11.00 an hour as a custodian for E&A Cleaning at All Saints Academy, in Winter Haven, Florida. While leaving the school just before 9:00 a.m., Mr. Smith came to a traffic light at the school’s entrance. When the light turned green and Mr. Smith moved into the intersection, another car ran the red light and slammed into the driver’s side of Mr. Smith’s vehicle. Mr. Smith was severely injured and transported to Lakeland Regional Medical Center where he stayed until approximately April 13, 2019. Mr. Smith’s injuries included, but were not limited to, a collapsed lung, altered mental state, intracerebral hemorrhage, traumatic subdural hematoma, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, traumatic intraventricular hemorrhage, lumbar transverse process fracture, and a left ankle fracture. Mr. Smith required surgery to repair his left ankle, and he now walks with a severe limp. He experiences a constant, dull ache in his left ankle and is unable to walk any significant distance without experiencing severe pain. It is very difficult for Mr. Smith to stand, and he has a constant fear of falling because his balance is “terrible.” Mr. Smith is left-handed, and the accident left him with very limited use of his left hand. Since the accident, Mr. Smith’s vision has been blurry, and he suffers from double vision. He believes that his impaired vision would prevent him from obtaining a driver’s license. As described above in paragraph 3, Mr. Smith suffered a brain injury during the accident, and there was some bleeding inside his skull. He now has difficulty forming long-term memories and often records conversations so that he has a record of what was said. Since the accident, Mr. Smith has been struggling with anger and depression. He has difficulty controlling his anger and is prone to random outbursts of rage. He has experienced suicidal thoughts and asked his current caretaker if she would kill him, if he gave her a knife. Since being released from the hospital, Mr. Smith has not received any physical or occupational therapy. He was receiving some mental health treatment and taking medicine to treat his depression and memory issues. However, he cites a lack of transportation as to why he is no longer receiving any care. Mr. Smith has not worked since the accident, and the Social Security Administration has determined that he is disabled. After leaving the hospital, Mr. Smith stayed with his girlfriend. After they separated, Mr. Smith lived with his father. Since November of 2018, he has been living with his father’s ex-wife in Georgia. Mr. Smith, through counsel, filed a lawsuit against the driver and owner of the car that slammed into him. They settled Mr. Smith’s claims for the available policy limits of $100,000.00. There was no other liable person or other insurance available to Mr. Smith to compensate him for his injuries. AHCA provided $74,312.38 in Medicaid benefits to Mr. Smith and determined through the formula in section 409.910(11)(f), that $36,596.54 of Ms. Smith’s settlement proceeds was subject to the Medicaid lien. Mr. Smith, through counsel, deposited the entire settlement proceeds of $100,000.00 into an interest bearing account pending resolution of AHCA’s interest. Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim David Dismuke was identified as Mr. Smith’s expert witness. Since 2012, Mr. Dismuke has been a board-certified trial lawyer, and approximately one percent of attorneys in Florida possess that credential. That designation essentially means that an attorney can represent that he or she is an expert in civil trial practice. Mr. Dismuke has his own law practice and has handled at least 34 civil jury trials. Over the course of his 18-year legal career, he has assessed the value of at least 2,000 personal injury cases, including ones involving brain injuries. Mr. Dismuke also has extensive experience in valuing the individual components of a damages award: Q: Before we get to this final opinion, Mr. Dismuke, in your practice, have you had to allocate portions of settlements between past medical expenses, usual medical expenses, and the other elements of damages? A: Many times. Q: And for what purpose would you do that sort of allocation? A: We do it, we do it frequently. We do it often times in situations just like this, where we’re trying to determine what an appropriate amount would be for either a Medicare or Medicaid lien, health insurance liens, we deal with it in situations, and we have lien issues on almost every case. Q: And do you also do it when you are trying to help clients figure out how, and in what manner, to structure their settlements, so they can have enough money for their future medical expenses and pay their old medical expenses? A: Yes, we do. And in fact to make another point, every single case I have to allocate [] the value [of past medical expenses], that’s one element of damages, what the value of future [medical expenses] is, that’s another element of damages, past lost wages, another element of damages, future lost wages, another element of damages, pain and suffering, inconvenience, you know, the noneconomic stuff. Every case we make these, we make these determinations. That’s how we come to total value on every case that we settle or get a verdict on. Q: And even on the ones that you settle for less than full value, are you still performing that same evaluation of the allocation of the various elements of damages? A: Yes sir. Mr. Dismuke has similar experience with Medicare set asides: Q: Now, another area where you allocate between elements of damages is where you require a Medicare set aside, isn’t that true? A: That’s correct. Q: Now, tell the court what a Medicare set aside is? A: A Medicare set aside is something that we put in place to protect the future interest of Medicare for when there’s a settlement. So we receive a large settlement that the person is still going to require future medical care, so we have to evaluate what is a reasonable amount of that settlement to set aside to protect Medicare’s future interests, so the client doesn’t just get a windfall from the settlement. Q: And have you done that? A: Multiple times. Q: And that requires you to evaluate the total settlement and allocate between past medical expenses, future medical expenses, pain and suffering and other elements of damages? A: That’s correct. In Mr. Dismuke’s opinion, Mr. Smith’s total damages easily amount to $1 million and could be as high as $2 to $3 million. Mr. Dismuke values Mr. Smith’s lost wages at no less than $750,000.00. While Mr. Smith is not currently receiving medical treatment, Mr. Dismuke believes those expenses would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions of dollars. However, the damages resulting from Mr. Smith’s pain and suffering would be the largest component of his total damages. Mr. Dismuke believes that Mr. Smith’s past medical expenses would be the smallest component of his total damages given Mr. Smith’s age, future needs, and lost wages. With regard to allocating $10,000.00 of Mr. Smith’s total recovery to past medical expenses, Mr. Dismuke testified that a “$10,000 allocation of the $100,000 settlement is perfectly reasonable if not, more than generous, given the past [medical expenses] in this case of around $70,000. So setting forth ten percent of that is a generous allocation for past medical expenses.” Findings Regarding the Testimony Presented at the Final Hearing The undersigned finds that the testimony from Mr. Dismuke was compelling and persuasive as to the total damages incurred by Mr. Smith. While attaching a value to the damages that a plaintiff could reasonably expect to receive from a jury is not an exact science, Mr. Dismuke’s considerable experience with litigating personal injury lawsuits makes him a very compelling witness regarding the valuation of damages suffered by an injured party such as Mr. Smith. The undersigned also finds that Mr. Dismuke 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.2/ AHCA offered no evidence to counter Mr. Dismuke’s opinions regarding Mr. Smith’s total damages or the past medical expenses he recovered. Accordingly, it is found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the total value of Mr. Smith’s personal injury claim is no less than $1 million and that the $100,000.00 settlement resulted in him recovering no more than 10 percent of his past medical expenses. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that $10,000.00 amounts to a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Mr. Smith and payable to AHCA.
The Issue What amount is payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), as reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioners, Carla Barrientos, a minor, by and through her parents and natural guardians, Asuncion Gutierrez and Carlos Barrientos, pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes, from settlement proceeds they received from third parties?
Findings Of Fact Based on the weight of the credible and undisputed evidence, the total value of Petitioners’ medical malpractice damages was $17.5 million and, thus, the $1.75 million undifferentiated settlement resulted in Petitioners recovering ten percent of Carla’s past medical expenses. Based on the weight of the credible and undisputed evidence, $25,108.19—representing ten percent of total amount of past medical expenses of $251,081.89—is a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Petitioners and payable to AHCA.
The Issue The issue for the undersigned to determine is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), as reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner Elisha Loebell, deceased, by and through Sylvia Loebell, as administrator of the estate of Elisha Loebell (Petitioner), pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018), from settlement proceeds Petitioner received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. On March 12, 2012, Sylvia Loebell (Sylvia), who was 37 weeks pregnant with Elisha Loebell (Elisha), was traveling with her husband through Virginia. Sylvia began experiencing severe back, left flank, and abdominal pain and presented to the emergency room. She was transferred to a hospital where she was given morphine, antibiotics for a suspended kidney infection, and anti-nausea medicine. On or about March 15, 2012, delivery was induced. During the early morning hours of March 16, 2012, extreme difficulty was experienced in the delivery and a vacuum was applied to Elisha’s head. During this time, Sylvia requested delivery via C-section, but the request was ignored. Further, during the delivery process, the medical staff failed to monitor or recognize extreme fetal distress. Eventually, at 5:07 a.m., Elisha was delivered. Elisha’s head was severely bruised, swollen, bleeding, and blistered. She was not breathing and required resuscitation. Elisha was taken to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), but the pediatrician on duty did not arrive in the NICU until over four hours after Elisha was born, and a neonatologist was not consulted until 24 hours after birth. Elisha was diagnosed with catastrophic brain damage due to a lack of oxygen to the brain during and after birth. Due to this catastrophic brain damage, Elisha suffered from quadriplegic cerebral palsy, seizures, global development delay, bilateral cervical blindness, temperature instability, and microcephaly. Elisha was G-tube dependent and required a tracheostomy. After three years of suffering from her extensive birth injuries, Elisha died on April 2, 2015. Elisha was survived by her mother, Sylvia, and her father, Matthew Loebell, who are married and who reside in Florida. Elisha’s medical care related to her injury was paid by Medicaid, and AHCA through the Medicaid program provided $372,654.53 in benefits associated with her injury. This $372,654.54 represents the entire claim for past medical expenses. The costs associated with Elisha’s funeral totaled $3,000.00, which her surviving parents paid. Sylvia was appointed the administrator of the estate of Elisha. Petitioner filed a lawsuit for medical malpractice and wrongful death in Virginia to recover both the individual damages of Elisha’s surviving parents and the individual damages of Petitioner against the medical providers and staff who were responsible for Elisha’s care at the time of her birth (Virginia Defendants). During the pendency of Petitioner’s lawsuit against the Virginia Defendants, Petitioner notified AHCA of the lawsuit, and AHCA asserted a Medicaid lien of $372,654.53 against Petitioner’s lawsuit and settlement of that action. Petitioner settled the lawsuit for medical malpractice and wrongful death with the Virginia Defendants for $1,000,000.00. Those parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Full and Final Release (Release), which stated, in part: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate Elisha Loebell for all of the damages she has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Releases without regard to this settlement only compensating Elisha Loebell for a fraction of the total monetary value of her alleged damages. The parties agree that Elisha Loebell’s alleged damages have a value in excess of $6,372,654.53, of which $372,654.54 represents Elisha Loebell’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Elisha Loebell’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $58,506.76 of this settlement to Elisha Loebell’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the claimed total monetary value of all [of] Elisha Loebell’s alleged damages. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene in Petitioner’s lawsuit against the Virginia Defendants. AHCA has not sought to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlement of Petitioner’s lawsuit. Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioner’s $1,000,000.00 settlement authorizes payment to AHCA of $331,682.12. Expert Witness Testimony Testimony of Charles J. Zauzig, III Petitioner presented the testimony of Charles J. Zauzig, III, the lead trial attorney who litigated Petitioner’s lawsuit against the Virginia Defendants. Mr. Zauzig is a partner with the law firm of Nichols Zauzig in Woodbridge, Virginia. Mr. Zauzig has been a trial attorney for 40 years and focuses his practice on representing parties in medical malpractice cases involving catastrophic injuries and death. Mr. Zauzig tries, on average, three to four jury trials, per year, that result in a verdict. He testified that he is familiar with meeting with injured clients, reviewing medical records, reviewing expert reports, interviewing and deposing fact witnesses, and preparing cases for trial. He further testified that he regularly reviews jury verdict reports in Virginia, and discusses cases, including valuation and jury verdicts, with other attorneys. Mr. Zauzig testified that as a routine part of his practice, he assesses the value of damages that injured clients have suffered. Mr. Zauzig is a member of several trial attorney associations, including the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, American College of Trial Lawyers, American Association of Justice, Southern Trial Lawyers Association, American Board of Trial Advocacy, and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. Mr. Zauzig served on the American Association of Justice’s Board of Governors and chaired its Medical Negligence Group. Petitioners moved, and the undersigned accepted, Mr. Zauzig as an expert in the valuation of damages. AHCA did not oppose Mr. Zauzig’s designation as an expert. As part of his representation of Petitioner in the lawsuit against the Virginia Defendants, Mr. Zauzig met with Elisha’s parents, reviewed Elisha’s medical records, and met with fact and expert witnesses concerning her care. Mr. Zauzig explained that during birth, Elisha suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of being forced into her mother’s pelvis repeatedly during contractions, which were induced through administration of drugs. He further explained that Elisha suffered catastrophic brain damage that resulted in Elisha having severe cerebral palsy, with additional issues such as blindness, respiratory failure, inability to regulate her body temperature, seizures, and difficulties with feeding that required the use of a G-tube. Because of this catastrophic brain damage and resulting issues, Elisha required constant care, much of which her parents provided. Mr. Zauzig testified that after three years, Elisha passed away as a result of her birth injuries. Mr. Zauzig stated that Elisha’s parents suffered deeply during Elisha’s life and as a result of her death. Mr. Zauzig testified that under the Virginia Wrongful Death Act, damages may include the parents’ mental pain and suffering from the date of injury through death of their child, as well as sorrow thereafter, and medical expenses. See Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-50 through 8.01-95 (2018). He testified that based on his professional training and experience, including a review of comparable Virginia jury verdicts, the damages suffered in the Petitioner’s lawsuit against the Virginia Defendants had a value in excess of $6,372,654.53. Mr. Zauzig noted that one of his first medical malpractice trials involving a brain injury at birth resulted in a $6,000,000.00 verdict, in which each parent received a $3,000,000.00 verdict. Mr. Zauzig also testified that in 2002, a jury returned a verdict of $6,000,000.00 to the surviving parents of an infant wrongful death in a comparable venue in Virginia. Mr. Zauzig stated that these comparable verdicts supported his valuation of Petitioner’s damages being in excess of $6,000,000.00. Mr. Zauzig testified that Petitioner could also recover, under the Virginia Wrongful Death Act, Elisha’s past medical expenses, which totaled $372,654.53. Thus, he concluded that it would be reasonable to value the combined damages at $6,372,654.53. Mr. Zauzig admitted that the theory of liability and causation in the Petitioner’s lawsuit—that the medical professionals should have stopped the drugs given to induce delivery when they determined the baby was in distress and should have instead performed a caesarian section—was novel and controversial. He testified that many experts disagree over whether this theory of liability was the cause of the injuries Elisha suffered. Mr. Zauzig believed that the Virginia Defendants would vigorously defend this case on the issues of causation and standard of care, and that he expected that they would attack these issues in pre-trial motions. Mr. Zauzig testified that based on these concerns, the parties settled this lawsuit for $1,000,000.00. He further testified that this settlement did not fully compensate Elisha’s parents and Petitioner for the full value of damages. He testified that based on a valuation of all damages of $6,372,654.53, the $1,000,000.00 settlement represented a recovery of 15.7 percent of the value of the damages recovered in the $1,000,000.00 settlement. According to Mr. Zauzig, as Elisha’s parents and Petitioner only recovered 15.7 percent of the value of the damages, it would be reasonable to allocate 15.7 percent of the claim for past medical expenses ($372,654.53), or $58,506.76. Mr. Zauzig noted that in the Release, the Virginia Defendants agreed that the damages had a value in excess of $6,372,654.53, of which $372,654.53 represented the claim for past medical expenses. He further noted that the parties to the Release agreed to allocate $58,506.76 of the settlement to past medical expenses, which he further testified was reasonable. Testimony of R. Vinson Barrett Petitioner also presented the testimony of Mr. Barrett, a trial attorney with over 40 years of experience, who is a partner with the law firm of Barrett, Nonni and Homola, P.A., in Tallahassee. Mr. Barrett dedicates his legal practice to representing plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Mr. Barrett has conducted numerous jury trials and has represented clients with catastrophic brain injuries. Mr. Barrett testified that he routinely reviews jury verdict reports and makes assessments concerning the value of damages that injured parties have suffered. He also explained the process for making these assessments. He further testified that he is familiar with settlement allocation in the context of health insurance liens, Medicare set-asides, and workers’ compensation liens. The Division and other courts have accepted Mr. Barrett as an expert in the evaluation and valuation of damages. Petitioners moved, and the undersigned accepted, Mr. Barrett as an expert in the valuation of damages. AHCA did not oppose Mr. Barrett’s designation as an expert. Mr. Barrett testified that he was familiar with Elisha’s injuries and Petitioner’s lawsuit for medical malpractice and wrongful death against the Virginia Defendants. He detailed the cause of her injury, the level of round-the-clock care Elisha required for her short life, and the impact and trauma her parents suffered as a result of her injuries and death. Mr. Barrett opined, based on his review of Virginia and Florida jury verdicts, that a conservative estimate of the overall value of the damages would be $3,000,000.00 per parent, along with the past medical expenses of $372,654.53, for a total valuation of $6,372,654.53. Mr. Barrett testified that Petitioner and the Virginia Defendants settled the lawsuit for $1,000,000.00, which did not fully compensate Elisha’s parents. Mr. Barrett opined that using his conservative valuation of $6,372,654.53, the $1,000,000.00 settlement represented a 15.7 percent recovery of the value of the damages. Mr. Barrett further testified that because the settlement represented 15.7 percent of the damages, an allocation of 15.7 percent of the claim for past medical expenses, or $58,506.76, was reasonable and appropriate. Ultimate Findings of Fact The undersigned finds that the testimony of Mr. Zauzig and Mr. Barrett was credible and persuasive as to the total damages incurred by Petitioner. Mr. Zauzig’s extensive experience in litigating catastrophic injuries and death, and medical malpractice actions, along with his experience as the lead trial counsel in Petitioner’s lawsuit against the Virginia Defendants, made him a compelling witness regarding the valuation of damages that Petitioner suffered, and the allocation of damages. Mr. Barrett’s vast experience as a trial lawyer, who has previously testified numerous times before the Division and other courts regarding valuation and allocation of damages, similarly made him a credible witness regarding the valuation and allocation of damages in Petitioner’s lawsuit against the Virginia Defendants. AHCA’s attorney cross-examined Mr. Zauzig and Mr. Barrett on some of the underpinnings of how each reached their opinions, but ultimately offered no evidence to counter these expert opinions regarding Petitioner’s total damages or the past medical expenses recovered. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the total value of Petitioner’s medical malpractice and wrongful death claim is $6,372,654.53, and that the $1,000,000.00 settlement resulted in Petitioner recovering 15.7 percent of Elisha’s past medical expenses. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that $58,506.76 amounts to a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Petitioners and payable to AHCA.
The Issue This matter concerns the amount of money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Gregory McElveen, a Medicaid recipient, following a settlement recovered from a third party.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding determines the amount the Agency should be paid to satisfy a Medicaid lien following Petitioner’s recovery of a $240,000.00 settlement from a third party. The Agency asserts that it is entitled to recover the full amount of its $72,907.93 lien. The incident that gave rise to this matter resulted from alleged medical malpractice. In 2016, Mr. McElveen saw his primary care physician complaining of pain and redness in his hand. The pain was ultimately traced to a metal shaving that had lodged in his finger. Despite repeated visits complaining of pain and swelling, however, Mr. McElveen’s physician failed to locate and remove the foreign object. In the meantime, his health worsened. On July 17, 2017, Mr. McElveen was admitted to the hospital, and was found to be critically ill with septic emboli. On August 15, 2017, Mr. McElveen died as a result of a systemic infection. He was survived by his wife and three daughters.3 2 By requesting a deadline for filing post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after receipt of the Transcript at DOAH, the 30-day time period for filing the Final Order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 3 Although Mr. McElveen’s three daughters survived his death, in his subsequent wrongful death lawsuit, only one of his daughters was considered a “minor child” under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, because the other two were over the age of 25. § 768.18, Fla. Stat. The Agency, through the Medicaid program, paid a total of $72,907.93 for Mr. McElveen’s medical care, which was the full amount of his past medical expenses. In 2019, Mr. McElveen’s estate brought a wrongful death action against his treating physician.4 Charles T. Moore, Esquire, represented Petitioner’s estate and was the primary attorney handling the litigation. Ultimately, Mr. Moore was able to settle the wrongful death action for $240,000. The Agency was not a party to, nor did it intervene in, Petitioner’s wrongful death lawsuit. Under section 409.910, the Agency is to be repaid for its Medicaid expenditures out of any recovery from liable third parties. Accordingly, when the Agency was notified of the settlement of Petitioner’s lawsuit, it asserted a Medicaid lien against the amount Petitioner recovered. The Agency asserts that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect $72,907.93 to satisfy the medical costs it paid on Petitioner’s behalf. The Agency maintains that it should receive the full amount of its lien regardless of the fact that Petitioner settled for less than what Petitioner believes is the full value of his damages. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of the settlement than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the section 409.910(11)(f) formula. Petitioner specifically asserts that the Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately, taking into account the full value of Petitioner’s damages. Otherwise, the application of the statutory formula would permit the Agency to collect more than that portion of the settlement that fairly represents Petitioner’s compensation for medical expenses. Petitioner insists that reimbursement of the full lien amount violates the federal Medicaid law’s anti-lien provision (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1)) and 4 Petitioner Daniel Hallup was appointed Personal Representative of Mr. McElveen’s estate. Florida common law. Petitioner requests that the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s recovery be reduced to $5,832.63. To establish the value of Mr. McElveen’s damages, Petitioner offered the testimony of Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore has practiced law for 24 years and is a partner with the law firm of Morgan & Morgan in Tampa, Florida. In his practice, Mr. Moore focuses exclusively on medical malpractice causes of action. Mr. Moore represented that he has taken a number of his cases to jury. As part of his practice, Mr. Moore routinely evaluates damages similar to those Petitioner suffered. This activity includes analyzing jury verdicts to keep current on case values, as well as discussing cases with other attorneys. In calculating the value of Mr. McElveen’s wrongful death claim, Mr. Moore reviewed Mr. McElveen’s medical records. Mr. Moore stated that, based on his professional assessment and experience, Mr. McElveen’s damages equaled between three to five million dollars which is the total monetary value of the survivors’ and estate’s wrongful death damages. Therefore, Mr. Moore opined that a conservative value of Mr. McElveen’s damages is $3,000,000. Based on his evaluation, Mr. Moore asserted that the $240,000 settlement was far less than the value of the actual damages Mr. McElveen suffered. Mr. Moore explained that Petitioner settled for a much lower amount because his potential recovery was limited due to the fact that the one potential defendant (Mr. McElveen’s physician) was retiring and carried minimal insurance coverage ($250,000). Mr. Moore also felt that the other possible liable parties (including the hospital) had met the appropriate standard of medical care when treating Mr. McElveen. Therefore, Mr. Moore believed that he had settled for the best deal he could under the circumstances, and Mr. McElveen’s estate was not likely to recover more. Finally, to support the Petition to reduce the amount of the Medicaid lien, Mr. Moore explained that Petitioner’s estate received only eight percent of the true value of Mr. McElveen’s damages ($3,000,000 divided by $240,000). Because only eight percent of the damages were recovered, in like manner, the $72,907.93 Medicaid lien should be reduced to eight percent, or $5,832.63, as a fair and reasonable allocation of the amount of Petitioner’s past medical expenses recovered the $240,000 settlement. The Agency did not present evidence or testimony disputing Mr. Moore’s valuation of the “true” value of Petitioner’s damages or his calculation of the amount of the settlement that should be allocated as Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Petitioner also offered the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire, to established the value of Mr. McElveen’s damages. Mr. Barrett is a trial attorney with over 40 years’ experience. Mr. Barrett works exclusively in the area of plaintiff’s personal injury, medical malpractice, and medical products liability cases. He has also handled wrongful death cases. Mr. Barrett expressed that, as a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. In addition, not only does he have personal experience with jury trials, but he stays current in recent jury verdicts and regularly discusses jury results with other attorneys. Mr. Barrett was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured persons. Prior to testifying, Mr. Barrett familiarized himself with the facts and circumstances of Mr. McElveen’s injuries and death. He reviewed Petitioner’s exhibits, including Petitioner’s medical records. He also reviewed the sample jury verdicts Petitioner introduced as Petitioner’s Exhibit 8. Based on his valuation of Petitioner’s injuries, as well as his professional training and experience, Mr. Barrett placed a “very conservative value” on Petitioner’s injuries at $3,000,000. Mr. Barrett explained that injuries similar to Petitioner’s would result in jury awards averaging approximately $3.5 million dollars. Mr. Barrett supported Mr. Moore’s pro rata methodology of calculating a reduced portion of Petitioner’s $240,000 settlement to equitably and fairly represent past medical expenses. With injuries valued at $3,000,000, the $240,000 settlement only compensated Petitioner for eight percent of the total value of his damages. Therefore, the most “fair” and “reasonable” manner to apportion the $240,000 settlement is to apply that same percentage to determine Petitioner’s recovery of medical expenses. Petitioner asserts that applying the same ratio to the total amount of medical costs produces the definitive value of that portion of Petitioner’s $240,000 settlement that represents compensation for past medical expenses, i.e., $5,823.63 ($72,907.93 times eight percent). Similar to Mr. Moore’s testimony, Mr. Barrett’s expert testimony was unrebutted. Further, the Agency did not offer evidence or testimony proposing a more appropriate or different valuation of Mr. McElveen’s total damages, or contesting the methodology Petitioner used to calculate the portion of the $240,000 settlement fairly allocable to Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Based on the testimony from Mr. Moore and Mr. Barrett that the $240,000 settlement does not fully compensate Petitioner for Mr. McElveen’s damages, Petitioner argues that a lesser portion of the medical costs should be calculated to reimburse Medicaid, instead of the full amount of the lien. Petitioner proposes that a ratio be applied based on the true value of Petitioner’s damages ($3,000,000) compared to the amount that Petitioner actually recovered ($240,000). Using these numbers, Petitioner’s settlement represents approximately an eight percent recovery of the full value of Petitioner’s damages. In similar fashion, the Medicaid lien should be reduced to eight percent or approximately $5,832.63 ($72,907.93 times .08). Therefore, Petitioner asserts that $5,832.63 is the portion of his third-party settlement that represents the equitable, fair, and reasonable amount the Florida Medicaid program should recoup for its payments for Petitioner’s medical care. All of the expenditures Medicaid spent on Petitioner’s behalf are attributed to past medical expenses. No portion of the $72,907.93 Medicaid lien represents future medical expenses. The undersigned finds that the unrebutted testimony at the final hearing demonstrates that the full value of Petitioner’s damages from this incident equals $3,000,000. Further, based on the evidence in the record, Petitioner met his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s settlement should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated using the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).5 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the competent substantial evidence adduced at the final hearing establishes that the Agency should be reimbursed in the amount of $5,832.63 from Petitioner’s recovery of $240,000 from a third party to satisfy the Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Ashton Haywood, from personal injury settlements received by Petitioner from third parties.
Findings Of Fact On August 18, 2011, Ashley Williamceau, then 32 weeks pregnant, presented to the emergency room with lower abdominal pain. She was taken to the labor and delivery unit where the nurses had difficulty obtaining a fetal heart beat and failed to note signs and symptoms of a placental abruption. An emergency C-section was performed and Ashton Haywood (“Ashton”) was born without a heart rate and required resuscitation. Ashton’s heart rate remained below 60 until three minutes of life. As a result of the delay in performing the C-section, Ashton suffered a severe hypoxic ischemic brain injury resulting in permanent and irreversible catastrophic brain damage. Ashton is unable to speak, ambulate, eat, toilet or care for himself in any manner. He is dependent on others for every aspect of his daily care. Ashton’s parents and natural guardians, Ashley Williamceau and Jamal Haywood, brought a medical malpractice action in Palm Beach County, Florida, to recover all of Ashton’s damages, as well as their individual claim for damages associated with their son’s injury, against Ashton’s medical providers (“Defendants”). Ashton’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid in part by Medicaid, and Medicaid provided $464,302.93 in benefits. This $464,302.93 paid by Medicaid, combined with $23,386.52 in medical bills not paid by Medicaid, constituted Ashton’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Accordingly, Ashton’s claim for past medical expenses was $487,689.45. Ashton, or others on his behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for Ashton’s future medical care, and no claim for damages was made for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Ashton’s parents and natural guardians, Ashley Williamceau and Jamal Haywood compromised and settled the medical malpractice lawsuit for $5,000,000. In making this settlement, the settling parties agreed that: 1) the settlement did not fully compensate Ashton for all his damages; 2) Ashton’s damages had a value in excess of $35,000,000, of which $487,689.45 represented his claim for past medical expenses; and 3) allocation of $69,642.05 of the settlement to Ashton’s claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate. The Settlement Agreement and Release memorializing the settlement between Petitioner and Defendants provided, in part, as follows: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate Ashton Haywood for all of the damages he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to RELEASEES without regard to this settlement only compensating Ashton Haywood for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. The parties agree that Ashton Haywood’s alleged damages have a value in excess of $35,000,000, of which $487,689.45 represents Ashton Haywood’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Ashton Haywood’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $69,642.05 of this settlement to Ashton Haywood’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all Ashton Haywood’s damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that Ashton Haywood may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses Ashton Haywood will incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that Ashton Haywood, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for Ashton Haywood’s future medical care and Ashton Haywood has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses Because Ashton was a minor, his settlement required Court approval. Accordingly, by Order on Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition for Court Approval of Minor’s Settlement dated August 12, 2015 (“Order Approving Settlement”), the Circuit Court Judge, Honorable Meenu T. Sasser, approved Ashton’s settlement. As a condition of Ashton’s eligibility for Medicaid, Ashton 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 not a party to the settlement between Petitioner and Defendants. By letter of September 24, 2015, Ashton’s medical malpractice attorney notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed Release, copy of the Order Approving Settlement, and itemization of $396,334.04 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Ashton’s damages had a value in excess of $35,000,000 and the settlement represented only a 14.28-percent recovery of Ashton’s $487,689.45 claim for past medical expenses, or $69,642.05. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. AHCA did not file an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Ashton’s settlement with the Defendants. The Medicaid program spent $464,302.93 on behalf of Ashton, all of which represents expenditures paid for Ashton’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $464,302.93 paid by the Medicaid program on behalf of Ashton represent expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. Section 409.910(11)(f) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (f) [I]n the event of an action in tort against a third party in which the recipient or his or her legal representative is a party which results in a judgment, award, or settlement from a third party, the amount recovered shall be distributed as follows: After attorney’s fees and taxable costs . . . one-half of the remaining recovery shall be paid to the agency up to the total amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid. The remaining amount of the recovery shall be paid to the recipient. For purposes of calculating the agency’s recovery of medical assistance benefits paid, the fee for services of an attorney retained by the recipient . . . shall be calculated at 25 percent of the judgement, award, or settlement. Ashton and AHCA agree that application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Ashton’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $464,302.93 Medicaid lien. The full Medicaid lien amount has been deposited into an interest-bearing account pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Pursuant to the formula set forth in 409.910(11)(f), Respondent should be reimbursed $464,302.93, the full amount of its lien. However, the statute provides a method by which a recipient may contest the amount designated as recovered medical expense damages payable to the agency pursuant to the formula set forth in paragraph (11)(f). “In order to successfully challenge the amount payable to the agency, the recipient must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past and future medical expenses than the amount calculated by the agency” pursuant to the formula. § 409.910(17)(b), Fla. Stat. Darryl L. Lewis has been an attorney for 27 years and is a partner with Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. The focus of his practice is plaintiffs’ personal injury and medical malpractice, and he has handled cases throughout Florida and multiple states involving catastrophic injury and death. He testified that over the last 27 years he has handled well over 50 to 75 jury trials, including cases involving catastrophic injury to children. Mr. Lewis has served in executive leadership positions of a number of trial attorney organizations, including the Florida Justice Association, the American Association for Justice, and the Attorney Information Exchange Group, and he is currently on the executive committee of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar. He is also a member of the Kentucky Justice Association, the T.J. Reddick Bar Association, and the Malcolm Cunningham Bar Association. Mr. Lewis testified that as a routine and daily part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. He explained this process which includes extensive meetings with the client, review of medical records and life care plans, review of jury verdicts and settlements secured by his firm, use of focus groups, and “round-tabling” the case with members of his law firm, which “specializes in catastrophic injury cases and is known across the country for getting some of the biggest results for lawyers that do that type of work.” Mr. Lewis was proffered and accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Lewis represented Ashton and his family relative to Ashton’s medical malpractice action. He explained that as part of his representation, he spent countless hours with Ashton and his parents in their home, in the car, and at doctor visits. Further, Mr. Lewis testified that every medical record for Ashton was reviewed, and he reviewed the life care plan, met with the life care planner, traveled to Kentucky and spent hours discussing Ashton’s case with Dr. Ronald Missum (the Economist), and took 70 to 100 depositions of experts and doctors. Mr. Lewis gave a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to Ashton’s premature birth via C-section at 32 weeks’ gestation, and the nature of his catastrophic brain damage. He explained that Ashton’s mother had abdominal pain and was instructed by her obstetrician’s office to go to the emergency room. Once a doctor became involved at the emergency room, it was determined that Ashton’s mother had suffered a placental abruption and she underwent an emergency C-section. Ashton was born with a catastrophic brain injury. Mr. Lewis testified that Ashton’s brain injury is “irreversible and permanent. He’s of the children who are the most injured that you will ever see. He is catastrophically brain injured, and those brain cells don’t grow back. Ashton will never be able to walk. Ashton will never be able to talk. Ashton will never be able to feed himself, so he’s as injured as any human being can be.” Ashton receives his nutrition through a G-tube and he will need 24 hour care for the rest of his life. Mr. Lewis explained that this injury has not only had a devastating impact on Ashton’s life, but also had a profound impact on the life of Ashton’s parents, whose “whole life has changed and they understand that, but they’re dedicated to taking care of Ashton.” Mr. Lewis testified that through his representation of Ashton and his parents, review of Ashton’s file, and based on his training and experience, he had developed the opinion that the value of Ashton and his parents’ damages was between $39 and $53 million. In relation to economic damages, Mr. Lewis outlined his review of the life care plan and the report of the Economist, who was deposed during the litigation. Mr. Lewis testified that the Economist placed the present value of Ashton’s lost ability to earn money at $1,770,057 to $3,300,000 and the present value of Ashton’s future life care needs at $18.6 to $27 million. Accordingly, the present value of Ashton’s lost earnings, future life care needs, and $487,689.45 past medical claim would be between $20,857,746 and $30,787,689. Mr. Lewis then turned to the non-economic damages of Ashton and his parents and noted that “the biggest damages in a case are the non-economic damages.” Mr. Lewis explained that he was “very conservative” in valuing the non-economic damages. He placed the value of Ashton’s non-economic damages at $13 million and noted that this was “very, very low considering his life expectancy as testified by Dr. Lichtblau and Dr. Cullen.” Mr. Lewis opined that Ashton’s parents’ non-economic damages had a conservative value of between $3 and $5 million each. Based on the valuation of Ashton’s economic damages and the non-economic damages of Ashton and his parents, Mr. Lewis testified that the value of Ashton and his parent’s damages was between $39 and $53 million. He testified that the valuation of Ashton’s damages as used by the settling parties, of $35 million was very conservative. In further support of his valuation of the damages, Mr. Lewis explained that he took into consideration jury verdicts and his firm’s experience handling similar cases. He testified that the nine verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 involved injuries comparable to Ashton’s injury. Mr. Lewis’s professional opinion regarding the valuation of Ashton’s damages is credited. Mr. Lewis testified that the settlement did not fully compensate Ashton for the full value of his damages. Mr. Lewis testified that based on the conservative valuation of all Ashton’s damages of $35,000,000, the settlement represented a recovery of 14.28 percent of the value of Ashton’s damages. Mr. Lewis testified that because Ashton only recovered 14.28 percent of the value of his damages in the settlement, he only recovered 14.28 percent of his $487,689.45 claim for past medical expenses, or $69,642.05. Vince Barrett also testified on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Barrett is a trial attorney with almost 40 years’ experience in personal injury, medical malpractice, and medical products liability cases. Mr. Barrett was accepted as an expert in valuation of damages suffered by injured persons. Mr. Barrett testified that he was familiar with Ashton’s injuries and had reviewed the hospital birth records, pediatric neurologist medical records, pediatric pulmonologist medical records, the Defense’s Independent Medical Examination Report of Dr. Cullen, Dr. Lichtblau’s Life Care Plan, the Economist Report, the Complaint, the Release, the Guardian ad Litem Report, a Day-in-the-Life Video, and had spoken to Ashton’s mother concerning Ashton’s medical condition. Mr. Barrett testified that based on his review of the file and “years and years of experience in doing those cases,” the valuation of Ashton’s damages at $35 million was very conservative. Mr. Barrett noted that the Economist had projected the present value of Ashton’s lost earning capacity at between $1,707,057 to $3,300,000 and his future life care needs at $18,657,867 to $27,036,808, and these numbers were in keeping with what he had seen in other catastrophic injury cases. Mr. Barrett testified that the valuation of Ashton’s non- economic damages at $13 million was “extremely conservative” and he believed Ashton’s non-economic damages would be in the range of $15 to $20 million. Further, Ashton’s parents’ non-economic damages had a value of $3 million each. Mr. Barrett testified that his valuation of the non-economic damages was based on “that sort of feeling I just develop over years and years of looking at these and seeing how they come up and also based on jury verdict reports.” Mr. Barrett testified that he was aware that the parties to the settlement had agreed that the damages had a value in excess of $35 million and that because Ashton had only recovered 14.28 percent of his damages in the settlement, the parties had agreed to allocate $69,642.05 of the settlement to past medical expenses. Mr. Barrett testified that the settling parties’ valuation of Ashton’s damages at $35 million was conservative, and the allocation of $69,642.05 to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, fair, and conservative. AHCA called James H.K. Bruner as a witness. Mr. Bruner has been an attorney for 33 years and a member of the Florida Bar since 2004. Since coming to Florida in 2003, he has worked for the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Health, and AHCA, and he was employed for five years by Xerox Recovery Services in relation to collection of Medicaid liens, with such employment ending in April 2013. In 2013, Mr. Bruner became a solo practitioner, and he lists on the Florida Bar website 75 areas of law in which he practices. He testified that he is a general practitioner and he practices “door law,” taking whatever comes in the door. Mr. Bruner testified that 70 percent of his practice is plaintiff personal injury. He testified that over the last two years he has only filed two personal injury lawsuits. He has never filed a medical malpractice lawsuit nor a personal injury lawsuit involving catastrophic, permanent and irreversible brain damage. Mr. Bruner testified that over the last 20 years he has not handled a personal injury jury trial. AHCA tendered Mr. Bruner as an expert in case and settlement valuation, and over Petitioner’s objection, he was accepted as an expert as tendered. Mr. Bruner’s testimony involved a review of the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, and his assertion that cases settle for the full value of the damages. In regard to the jury verdicts in Exhibit 12, Mr. Bruner criticized the verdicts, claiming that while the verdicts involved catastrophic brain injury to children, there were factual differences in the mechanism of injury; thus, making the verdicts irrelevant. Further, while the juries had determined the value of the damages, Mr. Bruner criticized the verdicts because he asserted it was possible that the cases may have settled post-verdict for less or the injured parties may have received less due to reductions for comparative negligence. Finally, Mr. Bruner testified that only verdicts from Palm Beach should be considered, and he would exclude consideration of verdicts from adjoining counties. Mr. Bruner’s testimony is not helpful or persuasive because it did not provide, nor was it offered for the purpose of providing, an alternative value of the damages suffered by Petitioner. AHCA made no attempt to provide an alternative valuation of Petitioner’s damages or contest the value of Petitioner’s damages as testified to by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Barrett. Ultimately, the credible testimony and evidence presented by Petitioner concerning the value of Petitioner’s damages was unrebutted by AHCA.
