The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner from a settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On October 18, 2013, Jose Fourcoy, who was then 39 years old, was on the premises of an air-conditioning shop that refurbished air-conditioners, waiting for them to discard their scrap metal. While there, an employee who was disassembling an air conditioner with a blowtorch ignited a gas tank and caused an explosion and fire. The fire spread across the floor engulfing Mr. Fourcoy in flames. The fire was extinguished and Mr. Fourcoy’s long-term girlfriend/common law wife and young child, who were waiting for Mr. Fourcoy and witnessed the event, immediately took Mr. Fourcoy to the hospital. As a result of the accident, Petitioner suffered severe, catastrophic and very painful injuries with 2nd, 3rd and 4th degree burns to about 17 percent of his body, including both his legs, his right arm and the right side of his face, mouth and throat. He was admitted to the hospital on two occasions. Amputation of both legs was recommended but rejected by Petitioner. Eventually, Mr. Fourcoy spent one and a half months undergoing numerous surgeries and skin grafts first with pig skin and then with his own skin from other parts of his body. Throughout the process he was in extreme pain. Currently and as a result of the burn injury, he has neurological problems with his legs and other areas of his body including constrictions and chronic pain syndrome in both legs. Additionally, he has post-traumatic stress disorder, moderate to severe anxiety with flashbacks, irritability, forgetfulness and reduced self-regulation. The pain Mr. Fourcoy suffers is chronic and will be with him the rest of his life. His injuries have resulted in a 50-percent impairment of his whole body. Further, his chronic pain, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders have caused him not to be able to do the things he used to do, including loss of consortium, inability to enjoy playing with his young son, inability to play sports, and general inability to enjoy life. Mr. Fourcoy’s legs are deformed and disfigured and he cannot straighten them without severe pain. He is unable to wear long pants due to the pain they cause. Petitioner cannot walk and requires a wheelchair/rolling chair for mobility. He is dependent on others for activities of daily living. His condition is permanent and he most likely will not be able to obtain employment sufficient to support himself or replace the income/earning capacity he had as a scrap metal recycler prior to his injuries, which income could have provided for him during the 35.1 years he is expected to live. Petitioner is no longer a Medicaid recipient. Petitioner’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by both personal funds and Medicaid. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $119,673.33. Unpaid out-of-pocket expenses totaled $36,423.04. Thus, total past healthcare expenses incurred for Petitioner’s injuries was $156,096.37. Petitioner brought a personal injury claim to recover all his damages against the owner of the air-conditioning shop and premises where the accident occurred (Defendants). Towards that end, Petitioner retained Stuart H. Share, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims for over 30 years, to represent Petitioner in his negligence action against the Defendants. Ultimately, Petitioner settled his personal injury action for $850,000, which did not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of his damages. The settlement was allocated and the settling parties agreed that: 1) Mr. Fourcoy’s damages had a value in excess of $3,400,000, of which $156,096.37 represented his claim for past medical expenses; and 2) allocation of $39,024.09 of the $850,000 settlement to Mr. Fourcoy’s claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate based on the same ratio the settlement bears to the total monetary value of all Mr. Fourcoy’s damages. The General Release stated, in pertinent part: JOSE FOURCOY, has claimed damages in excess of $3,400,000, of which $156,096.37 represents JOSE FOURCOY’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of JOSE FOURCOY’s injuries and this settlement $39,024.09 has been allocated to JOSE FOURCOY’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 JOSE FOURCOY’s damages. Further, JOSE FOURCOY may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses JOSE FOURCOY will incur in the future. However, JOSE FOURCOY, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for JOSE FOURCOY’s future medical care and JOSE FOURCOY 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. No dollar amount was assigned to Petitioner’s future medical care needs, and there remains uncertainty as to what those needs will be. Additionally, neither Petitioner nor others on his behalf made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care, and no claim for reimbursement, restitution or indemnification was made for such damages or included in the settlement. On the other hand, given the loss of earning capacity and the past and present level of pain and suffering, the bulk of the settlement was clearly intended to provide future support for Petitioner. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s negligence action around July 13, 2015. Thereafter, Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $119,673.33 against the proceeds of any award or settlement arising out of that action. No portion of the $119,673.33 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Fourcoy represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. Respondent was not a party to the 2015 settlement and did not execute any of the applicable releases. Mr. Share’s expert and conservative valuation of the total damages suffered by Petitioner is at least $3,400,000. In arriving at this valuation, Mr. Share reviewed the facts of Petitioner’s personal injury claim, vetted the claim with experienced members in his law firm, and examined jury verdicts in similar cases involving catastrophic injury. The reviewed cases had an average award of $3,639,577.62 for total damages and $2,418,390.31 for non- economic damages (past and future pain and suffering). Mr. Share’s valuation of total damages was supported by the testimony of one additional personal injury attorney, R. Vinson Barrett, who has practiced personal injury law for more than 30 years. In formulating his opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett reviewed the discharge summaries from Petitioner’s hospitalizations. Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury trial verdicts and awards relied upon by Mr. Share. Mr. Barrett agreed with the $3.4 million valuation of Petitioner’s total damages and thought it could likely have been higher. The settlement amount of $850,000 is 25 percent of the total value ($3.4 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, 25 percent of $156,096.37 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid in part by Medicaid) is $39,024.09. Both experts testified that $39,024.09 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses. Their testimony is accepted as persuasive. Further, the unrebutted evidence demonstrated that $39,024.09 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses since Petitioner recovered only 25 percent of his damages, thereby reducing all of the categories of damages associated with his claim. Given these facts, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Therefore, the amount of the Medicaid lien should be $39,024.09.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that the Agency for Health Care Administration is entitled to $39,024.09 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander R. Boler, Esquire Xerox Recovery Services Group 2073 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 (eServed) Floyd B. Faglie, Esquire Staunton and Faglie, P.L. 189 East Walnut Street Monticello, Florida 32344 (eServed) Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stuart Williams, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes (17b), Petitioner1 has proved that Respondent's recovery, under section 409.910(11)(f) (11f), of $685,615 in medical assistance expenditures2 from $10.4 million in proceeds from the settlement of a personal injury action must be reduced to avoid conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1) (Anti-Lien Statute)3 ; and, if so, what is the maximum allowable amount of Respondent's recovery.
Findings Of Fact Shortly before midnight, on January 20, 2015, Petitioner, then 11 years old, suffered catastrophic injuries when she was ejected from a vehicle that rolled over on Interstate 75 near Micanopy. Petitioner has been left in a persistent vegetative state after suffering a traumatic brain injury, malignant cerebral edema, a depressed skull fracture, a contrecoup subdural hematoma, bilateral pulmonary hemorrhage, and fractured ribs. The vehicle, a 2003 Ford Expedition, was driven by its owner, a 42-year-old woman who was a friend of a cousin of one of Petitioner's family members. The driver had transported Petitioner, her brother, and two other persons from Tampa to Gainesville. After attending a college basketball game, the driver discovered that the right rear tire was flat, so she called a national automobile service company to install the spare tire. Even though the spare tire was 11 years old, the person whom the company dispatched on the service call replaced the flat tire with the spare tire. While driving south on Interstate 75 in the left lane, the installed spare tire blew out. The driver lost control of the vehicle, which rolled over once, hurdled the guardrail, and came to rest, upright, in the emergency lane adjacent to the left lane of the northbound lanes. The primary liability for the accident was borne by the driver. Two of the tires on the vehicle were so worn as to reveal their steel belts. The driver had ignored a warning five months earlier to replace at least two of the vehicle's tires. Additionally, expert witnesses testified that the driver could have controlled the vehicle after the blowout, so as to avoid the rollover. Due to the age of the tire, it is difficult to find fault with the manufacturer of the vehicle or the manufacturer or vendors of the tire. The automobile service company and the technician bore more blame than the manufacturers, although there was a factual dispute about whether, prior to changing the tire, the technician had warned the driver that it was unsafe. Petitioner herself bore considerable responsibility for her injuries because she was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the blowout. The other passengers were belted, remained within the vehicle, and suffered no more than minor injuries. The roof over Petitioner's seat survived the wreck intact, so she likely would have suffered no more than minor injuries if she had been wearing her seatbelt. Petitioner filed a personal injury action against the manufacturers of the vehicle and the failed tire, vendors of the failed tire, companies responsible for changing the tire, and driver of the vehicle. In confidential settlements, Petitioner obtained $10.4 million, which was unallocated among the damages components. Claiming a true value of $40 million for the case, Petitioner accurately calculates a 74% settlement discount.5 The driver was unable to satisfy a large judgment. The driver carried liability insurance with a policy limit of $25,000, which the insurer immediately offered to avoid a bad-faith claim. The record is silent as to the creditworthiness of the other, less-liable parties. The parties agree that the past medical expenses component of the settlement proceeds was $685,614. This sum represents the total medical assistance expenditures made by Respondent and another agency. 5 From the settlement proceeds, Petitioner's attorneys collected $4 million in attorneys' fees and $400,000 in costs, leaving Petitioner with a net recovery of $6 million, but Petitioner has not sought to reduce Respondent's recovery by a proportional share of these fees and costs. A conservative estimate of the loss of future earning capacity was $1.3 million. These sums support about $2 million of the $40 million putative true value of the case. The question is thus whether another $38 million in damages was supported by other damages components--mostly future medical expenses and past and future noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering. The 1st Update of the Life Care Plan, dated November 5, 2018 (Life Care Plan), includes all applicable treatments, except the cost of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which is $7150 per set of 26 sessions. Treatments include periodic evaluations by a neuropsychologist, physiatrist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, speech therapist, pediatric pulmonary consultant, pulmonary consultant, pediatric ear, nose and throat consultant, pediatric gastroenterology consultant, pediatric neurologist, and multidisciplinary team. Other listed expenses include pharmaceuticals; periodic diagnostic services, such as imaging studies and lab work; the preparation and maintenance of orthiotics and durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, hospital and shower beds, lifts, suction machines, oxygenation equipment, a home generator, and an augmentive communication device; feeding and incontinence equipment and supplies; in-home skilled care on a continual basis; adaptive vans and medical transportation services; architectural modifications to the home; the installation of a special in-home ventilation system; annual hospitalizations of one-week duration each; and various surgeries. The components of the Life Care Plan, including the costs of the goods and services and the stated intervals on which they are to be provided, all appear to be reasonable and necessary. An important issue regarding the Life Care Plan is the number of years that these costs are reasonably expected to be incurred. The evidentiary record provides no basis to find that Petitioner will recover significant function, so the question is whether the Life Care Plan has incorporated a reasonable remaining life expectancy in light of the catastrophic injuries that Petitioner has suffered. Having progressed from a coma to a minimally conscious state, Petitioner exhibits some awareness of her surroundings and her mother and father, who report that she has verbalized once or twice in the past two years, although she is incapable of speech. Petitioner's youth at the time of the accident may have helped her avoid organic decline, at least over the first five years after the accident. She is now five feet, nine inches tall and weighs 163 pounds. Her height prior to the accident is unavailable, but she weighed 110 to 115 pounds. Petitioner cannot walk or assist with transfer, but she can stand without assistance and can move her limbs. Petitioner no longer is fed by a PEG tube and her ability to swallow is slowly improving. She can open her mouth in response to the sight of a spoon and is able to eat puréed food. Petitioner requires oxygenation and suffers from sleep apnea, but needed a ventilator only for the first six months after the accident. She has had only an occasional respiratory infection and has suffered no seizures. On these facts, the Life Care Plan reasonably projected Petitioner's remaining life expectancy to be slightly in excess of 30 years. Thus, the Life Care Plan conservatively estimates the present value of the future medical expenses at not less than $37 million. The pain and suffering that Petitioner has suffered are considerable, as are other noneconomic damages. Given the relatively short span between the accident and the settlement and the longer span between the settlement and the projected end of Petitioner's life, the greater amount of these noneconomic damages probably will relate to the future. Based on comparable jury verdicts, a reasonable estimate of past and future noneconomic damages is not less than $10 million. The presentation of damages to a jury would not have been impeded by extrinsic factors. Petitioner's family would have made excellent witnesses to support the damages claims. Petitioner's lead trial counsel is experienced in personal injury cases, has produced numerous large verdicts and settlements, and presented himself at hearing as a thoughtful, patient, and effective communicator with a firm grasp of the facts and law--in sum, an attorney who would have maximized Petitioner's chances for a good damages verdict. The settlement discount was partly explained by the family's need for funds to care for Petitioner. Medicaid has not paid for the hyperbaric oxygen treatments that have proven somewhat efficacious, nor for renovations to the family home necessitated by Petitioner's disabilities. Petitioner's family lacks the financial means to pay these expenses on their own. At the time of the accident, Petitioner's father was on full disability due to back injuries, her mother worked as an administrative assistant, and the family's home had been constructed by Habitat for Humanity. The sooner the family received the settlement proceeds, the sooner they could obtain additional goods and services for Petitioner. Petitioner has proved by any standard of proof that the true value of the case exceeds $40 million. Applying the settlement discount of 74% to the past medical expenses component of the settlement proceeds, Respondent's recovery is limited to 26% of $685,614, or $178,260, as Petitioner contends. For the benefit of Respondent, Petitioner has deposited into an interest-bearing account an amount equal to the Medicaid lien, pending a determination of Respondent's proper recovery amount.
The Issue At issue are the actual expenses, if any, for medically necessary and reasonable medical and hospital, habilitative and training, residential, and custodial care and service, for medically necessary drugs, special equipment, and facilities and for related travel currently required for the infant, and the reasonable expenses, if any, incurred in connection with the filing of the claim for compensation, including reasonable attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact Background Michael Lebrun (Michael) is the natural son of Barnabas Lebrun and Rolande Lebrun, and was born October 9, 1990, at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Dade County, Florida. At birth, Michael suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," as that term is defined by Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, and he was accepted by respondent, Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA) for coverage under the Florida-Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the Plan). Section 766.301, et seq., Florida Statutes. Consistent with Section 766.305(6), Florida Statutes, NICA's acceptance of the claim was approved by final order of March 30, 1994, and NICA was directed to pay "past medical expenses, a reasonable attorney's fee, and . . . future expenses as incurred" in accordance with Section 766.31, Florida Statutes. The order further reserved jurisdiction to resolve "any disputes, should they arise, regarding petitioners' entitlement to past medical expenses, a reasonable attorney's fee, and subsequently incurred expenses." At petitioners' request, a hearing was held to address, pertinent to this order, medically necessary and reasonable expenses alleged to be currently required by the infant, and the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the filing of the claim for compensation, including reasonable attorney's fees. Petitioners did not, however, at any time prior to hearing, present any requests for compensation to NICA which identified any specific needs of the infant which they felt should be covered by the Plan, but were currently unmet. 2/ Notably, the parties' stipulation, which resolved that Michael was covered under the Plan, approved by order of March 30, 1994, provided: 8. The Claimants and the Association hereby agree as follows: * * * The Association will pay all benefits, past and future, as authorized by Section 766.31, Florida Statutes. The Association and Alan Goldfarb, Esquire, the attorney for the Claimants, agree that a reasonable sum for attorneys fees and services and certain expenses incurred in the representation of the Claimant in this case will be determined at a future date. In absence of an agreement for a specific amount, either party may request a hearing for determination. * * * 11. The Parties agree that the issues of the actual expenses for medically necessary and reasonable medical and hospital, habilitative and training, residential and custodial care and service, for medically necessary drugs, special equipment and facilities, and for related travel as per Florida Statute 766.31 and for a reasonable attorney's fee and expenses, may be determined by the Hearing Officer if a dispute arises regarding the same. The association is not aware of any specific disputes regarding the services being provided to Michael Lebrun but acknowledges that petitioners have requested a hearing regarding the same. . . . * * * 16. In order for the Association to carry out its responsibility as provided in this stipulation, the Claimants shall provide within thirty (30) days of the date of approval of this stipulation, the following: A complete list (with copies, invoices, addresses, etc.) of all known past expenses for which the Claimants seek reimbursement in accordance with the terms and provisions of this stipulation document for medical and related expenses previously incurred; and A fully executed authorization of release of any and all medical records, insurance program records, and such other authorization as may, from time to time, reasonably be required by the Associa- tion to complete its duties hereunder; and Such other reasonable information as may be required by the Association, which relates to the provision of Michael [sic] [medical] or habilitative care or the payment of Michael's bills. Petitioners' failure to file a claim with NICA for benefits they were of the opinion that Michael currently required, but had not received, or supply NICA with the requested information to evaluate any request for benefits, was contrary to their obligation, as evidenced by the forgoing stipulation. Such failing was not, however, raised by NICA prior to hearing, nor did it object to such failing during the course of hearing. Accordingly, while, if timely raised, petitioners' failure to first provide NICA an opportunity to address the specifics of a claim for benefits prior to hearing could have been appropriately addressed, such failure is not a bar to the resolution of the issues presented. 3/ Michael's past and current history Following six months of life, Michael was referred to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS), Children's Medical Services, Early Intervention program. Through his Early Intervention coordinator, Michael was initially provided services, at public expense, through what is known as the "Birth through Two" ("B-2") services program. That program is a public service program for handicapped children through 36 months of age, or until their transition to the Dade County Public Schools Special Education Pre-K Program, and is jointly funded by DHRS and the Dade County Public Schools. As of the date of hearing, Michael had been receiving, and was scheduled to continue to receive until his transition into the Pre-K Program, physical therapy three times a week at forty-five minutes a session and occupational therapy four times a week at forty-five minutes a session, including oral stimulation, through United Cerebral Palsy. Such other services or items of special equipment that Michael needed were also ordered or provided, at public expense, through the auspice of his Early Intervention coordinator. As of July 5, 1994, some two weeks following the hearing in this case, Michael was scheduled to transition from the B-2 Program into the Pre-Kindergarten Exceptional Education Program (Pre-K program), where he would receive a different level of rehabilitative services. According to the proof, once he transitions into the Pre-K program, Michael will receive sixty minutes per week of physical therapy and thirty to forty-five minutes of occupational therapy, during the course of the school day. Such therapies are not quantified by frequency or duration of a therapy session predicated on the well founded belief that a child's responsiveness to therapy will vary from day to day and, accordingly, the frequency of delivery is left to the discretion of the individual therapist. As provided by the School Board, physical therapy primarily deals with the functional mobility, positioning and musculoskeletal "status" of the lower extremity of the student, and occupational therapy primarily addresses the functioning of the upper extremities, classroom positioning and improvement of visual and perceptual motor skills to function in an educational program. Although available, the School Board does not propose to offer speech therapy to Michael since it has concluded, based upon evaluations and observations, that his speech development is commensurate with his present level of cognitive functioning and that no developmental deficiency exists. As noted, the physical therapy and occupational therapy provided by the School Board during the school year is predicated on what it perceives is necessary for the student to profit from the educational program. Under the circumstances, the services provided are not necessarily an objective evaluation of the medically necessary and reasonable habilitative services the infant may need for treatment; 4/ however, in some cases they may be. Whether the services to be provided the infant in this case will meet such standard can not, based on the record in this case, be resolved; however, if not, such services should be available, subject to available appropriations, through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Section 409.905, Florida Statutes. In addition to his apparent need for physical and occupational therapy, Michael also exhibits various self-abusive behaviors which require therapeutic correction. Such treatment was requested by Michael's Early Intervention coordinator, through Developmental Services, on February 18, 1994. As of the date of hearing, it was not shown whether Michael had or had not begun to receive such services. The subject claim At hearing, petitioners offered no proof of any expenses previously incurred for which they sought reimbursement, 5/ and their claim, relative to the current needs of Michael, was limited to certain equipment, therapy and attendant care which Paul M. Deutsch, Ph.D. ("Mr. Deutsch"), perceived was required for Michael. 6/ As to the items of equipment recommended by Mr. Deutsch, many were age specific and no longer required or had otherwise been provided through a public assistance program. Currently, according to Mr. Deutsch, Michael is in need of the following equipment: (1) TLC bath seat; (2) prone stander; (3) exercise mat; (4) hand-held shower; (5) wheelchair backpack; and, (6) Rifton pottychair. At the time of final hearing, the prone stander had been ordered through Children's Medical Services, but a TLC bath seat and hand-held shower had not. There was, however, no showing that the Lebruns desired such items or that the TLC bath seat and held-held shower were needed for Michael's care. Indeed, Michael can sit in the bathtub where he is regularly bathed by his parents without a TLC bath seat or hand-held shower. Should the Lebruns decide in the future that such items would be beneficial to them in the care of Michael, they are certainly able to ask NICA for such items; however, currently, they have demonstrated no desire or need for them. As to the wheelchair backpack, the proof fails to demonstrate that Michael needs such item because he does not suffer from any medical condition that requires the transport of special medical equipment. Likewise, Michael does not currently require a Rifton pottychair since he is not currently being "potty trained" nor is there any expressed expectation to begin such training in the known future. Michael also does not currently require an exercise mat since he is not receiving any home therapy. As for rehabilitative services, Mr. Deutsch recommends that in addition to the services that Michael is to receive through the Dade County Public School system that he receive two physical therapy sessions, two occupational therapy sessions, and two speech therapy sessions each week. Given that Mr. Deutsch was not specifically aware of the therapies Michael was receiving and was to soon receive, that he had never participated or observed any therapy sessions with Michael, and offered no specific reasons as to why these additional therapies were necessary to treat Michael's condition, Mr. Deutsch's opinion is rejected. Indeed, Mr. Deutsch's recommendations appear to be little more than a generic model, without specific reference to the needs of Michael and the benefits that might reasonably be expected from additional therapies, if any. Notably, Mr. Deutsch's life care plan recommends an annual evaluation by health care specialists to address Michael's specific needs for physical, occupational and speech therapy. That recommendation is a tacit recognition of the fact that each disabled child does not require the same services, and recognizes that the need for services is appropriately left to health care professionals involved with Michael's care. Significantly, the record is devoid of any proof, apart from public services, that petitioners or their counsel ever acted on Mr. Deutsch's recommendation, made May 27, 1993, that Michael receive an annual evaluation by health care specialists to address his need for such services. While the nature and frequency of services requested were not shown to be medically necessary or reasonable at the time of hearing, the record does demonstrate that Michael requires rehabilitative services and special equipment, which, although ordered through public service programs, may not have been provided or may not be adequate. Given the circumstances, it would be appropriate for NICA to continue its coordination with public service agencies, as discussed infra, to assure that Michael receives the services and special equipment he requires in a timely manner. 7/ Moreoever, since the proof fails to demonstrate whether a medical assessment has been made, it would be appropriate and in the best interests of the child for NICA to coordinate with the public service agencies to assure a comprehensive medical assessment is made of Michael's current need for speech therapy and to determine whether additional physical and occupational therapy may be warranted. Should there currently exist no obligation or ability, because of lack of funding or otherwise, for the public service agencies to provide a medical evaluation, therapy as needed, or special equipment, or should the agencies fail to timely provide a medical evaluation, therapy or special equipment, though required by law to do so, it would be appropriate for NICA, with the parents' consent, to provide those services or equipment until the appropriate pulbic service agency accepts responsibility for the provision of those services and equipment. Finally, Mr. Deutsch has recommended that "attendant care" be provided to the Lebrun family at the rate of two to four hours a day to provide consistency in the care of Michael while allowing the parents a respite. Notably, the Lebruns, who speak regularly with NICA, have never made such a request, and there was no showing that such services are necessary at this time. 8/ Attendant care is generally provided in the home to assist with an individual's daily living skills, such as bathing, moving the individual in and out of a wheelchair or repositioning. Attendant care is not necessary at this time as Michael is still quite small and he is mobile. Indeed, there was no proof at hearing that the Lebruns were incapable, by virtue of any circumstance, to care for Michael, or that he required inordinate care. NICA's activities NICA, consistent with its obligations under law, has maintained communication with Michael's Early Intervention coordinator at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Children's Medical Services, as well as Michael's staffing specialist with the Dade County Public Schools, to monitor Medicaid services to Michael and, if necessary, provide any services those agencies are unable to provide. NICA, through its Executive Director, Lynn Dickinson, has met personally with the Lebruns on numerous occasions, and has routinely spoken with them by telephone, regarding Michael's care and any perceived needs they may have had for his care. At no time, during the course of any of those conversations, did the Lebruns ever request any attendant care or any other service or equipment recommended by Mr. Deutsch. 9/ Attorney's fees and costs Although duly noticed at petitioners' request, as an issue to be heard, petitioners offered no proof, as required by Section 766.31(1)(c), Florida Statutes, to support their claim for an award of reasonable attorney's fees. As for costs, the only proof offered concerned an agreed fee arrangement with Mr. Deutsch. According to Mr. Deutsch, he agreed to a cap of $3,000 just to cover expenses. What those expenses were, are or will be, was not, however, explained of record, and it cannot be concluded, based on the proof, that such $3,000 cap is reasonable or recoverable.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Genesis Belinaso (Petitioner), from a medical malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on August 29, 2011. At 11 months of age, Petitioner was diagnosed with Gaucher Disease, Type I. On September 21, 2012, when she was approximately 13 months of age, Petitioner was admitted to the hospital for the insertion of a central venous port (mediport) for treatment of her Gaucher Disease with Cerezyme infusions. The mediport insertion on the right side was unsuccessful, and it was inserted on the left side. Petitioner did not wake up from anesthesia and experienced seizure activity. Radiographic evaluation with CT and MRI of the brain revealed subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral edema, and herniation. Petitioner required an emergency craniotomy, duraplasty and partial right temporal lobectomy, with the operative note diagnosing a right internal carotid artery stroke and possible dissecting aneurysm of the internal carotid artery bifurcation. A post-operative CT revealed significant infarction of the right cerebral hemisphere. A subsequent intracranial hemorrhage resulted in recurrent/worsening of cerebral edema. Petitioner was transferred to Jackson Memorial Hospital where she underwent numerous neurological surgeries and procedures associated with catastrophic brain damage from the strokes suffered on September 21, 2012. As a result of the catastrophic brain damage, Petitioner suffers from left side hemiplegia and severe cognitive deficits. She is permanently disabled and unable to care for herself. She will need some form of care for the rest of her life. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $301,085.18 on behalf of Petitioner, all of which represents expenditures paid for Petitioner’s past medical expenses. The $301,085.18 paid by Medicaid constituted Petitioner’s entire claim for past medical expenses. No portion of the $301,085.18 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Petitioner represented expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. Petitioner’s parents and natural guardians, Cintia Aquino and Jonas Belinaso, brought a medical malpractice claim against Petitioner’s medical providers, including the physician and the hospital, to recover Petitioner’s damages, as well as their damages associated with their child’s injury. The physician responsible for the unsuccessful mediport insertion (“Settling Tortfeasor”), maintained only an insurance policy with a policy limit of $250,000.00. Petitioner’s medical malpractice claim against the Settling Tortfeasor was settled during the pre-suit period for the insurance policy limit of $250,000.00. The Release of All Claims with the Settling Tortfeasor (“Release”) stated, inter alia: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate Genesis Belinaso and her parents for all of the damages that they have allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete RELEASE as to RELEASEES without regard to this settlement only compensating Genesis Belinaso and her parents for a fraction of the total monetary value of their alleged damages. The parties agree that the alleged damages sustained by Genesis Belinaso and her parents, have a potential full value in excess of $25,000,000, of which $301,085.18 represents Genesis Belinaso’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Genesis Belinaso’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $3,010.85 of this settlement to the 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 of the damage claims sustained by Genesis Belinaso and her parents. Further, the parties acknowledge that Genesis Belinaso may need future medical care related to her injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses Genesis Belinaso will incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that Genesis Belinaso, or others on her behalf, have not made payments in advance for Genesis Belinaso’s future medical care and Genesis Belinaso has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The Release did not further differentiate or allocate the $250,000.00 total recovery. Thus, this proceeding was brought by Petitioner pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b) to establish “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 set forth in paragraph [409.910](11)(f).” The acceptance of the Settling Tortfeasor’s policy limits was expressly conditioned on all claims against the hospital being preserved. Because Petitioner was a minor, Court approval of the settlement was required. Accordingly, on July 29, 2015, Circuit Court Judge Maria M. Korvick entered an Order Approving Settlement. There is no evidence that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement. There was no evidence of any manipulation or collusion by the parties to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to past medical expenses for Petitioner’s medical care. During the pendency of Petitioner’s medical malpractice claim, AHCA was notified of the claim. AHCA, through its collections contractor Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $301,085.18 against any proceeds received from a third party as a result of Petitioner’s cause of action and settlement of that action. By letter of September 24, 2015, Petitioner’s medical malpractice attorney notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed Release and itemization of Petitioner’s $85,095.49 in litigation costs. The letter explained that the damages suffered had a value in excess of $25,000,000, and that the $250,000.00 settlement represented only a one-percent recovery of Petitioner’s $301,085.18 claim for past medical expenses. The letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $301,085.18 Medicaid lien. AHCA responded to the September 24, 2015, letter on November 2, 2015. AHCA indicated that it had calculated the section 409.910(11)(f) formula amount owed from the $250,000.00 settlement and, under the formula, $74,735.15 was owed to AHCA in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. AHCA requested a “check made payable to ‘Agency for Health Care Administration’ in the amount of $74,735.15.” AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee of $62,500.00 from the $250,000.00 recovery left a sum of $187,500.00. AHCA then deducted $38,029.71 in approved taxable costs, which left a sum of $149,470.29, half of which is $74,735.15. That figure establishes the maximum amount that could be reimbursed from the third-party recovery in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. Thus, application of the formula allows for sufficient funds from the settlement proceeds to satisfy the Medicaid lien amount of $74,735.15. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Petitioner’s settlement, nor has it commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. Petitioner 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, pursuant to section 409.910(17). At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Mr. Rossman. Mr. Rossman, who is board-certified in civil trial practice, demonstrated considerable experience handing personal injury and medical malpractice cases in the Miami area. Mr. Rossman testified that the standard of care in his field of practice requires a careful evaluation of a case from the time of intake through the trial. That evaluation, which includes an assessment of the value of the damages, includes a comparison of other jury verdicts in comparable cases as “the barometer of what is happening.” In assessing the value and worth of a case, it is common practice for counsel to retain a life care planner and an economist, and information provided by such persons is reasonably relied upon by persons in Mr. Rossman’s field of expertise. Mr. Rossman had extensive knowledge of the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by Petitioner, and was familiar with the information provided in Petitioner’s Habilitation Assessment and Present Value Analysis. Mr. Rossman testified that Petitioner’s total economic damages were $8,367,417.18, which included $301,085.18 in past medical expenses; $1,330,634.00 in lost earning capacity over Petitioner’s lifetime; and $6,735,698.00 for future life care needs. The future life care costs included those for future medical, surgical, diagnostic, and therapeutic needs, specialized equipment and supplies, attendant care, and related needs. The $6,735,698.00 amount estimated for future life care needs was the most conservative figure among the scenarios presented in the Present Value Analysis. Mr. Rossman also estimated the non-economic damages associated with Petitioner’s claim to be in the range of $12 million for Petitioner, and $3 million each for Petitioner’s parents, for a total of $18 million. His assessment of non- economic damages was based not only on his own knowledge and experience, but included an analysis of comparable jury verdicts, which is information reasonably relied upon by persons in Mr. Rossman’s field of expertise. As a result of his expert analysis, Mr. Rossman testified that, as a case of absolute liability with full damages awarded, Petitioner’s claim had a minimum value of $25 million dollars. Mr. Rossman’s testimony was credible, and is accepted. At the final hearing, Petitioner also presented the expert testimony of Mr. Barrett. Mr. Barrett has focused his practice for the past 30 years on personal injury cases, with the past 10 years devoted to medical malpractice and pharmaceutical products liability cases. Evaluation of personal injury cases and medical malpractice cases is a daily component of his practice. In preparation for his testimony, Mr. Barrett reviewed the reports of Petitioner’s life care planner and economist, Petitioner’s medical records, and other materials that are included in the record of this proceeding. Mr. Barrett routinely reviews jury verdict reports, and applied his knowledge and experience to Petitioner’s claim. Based on his review, Mr. Barrett concurred that the overall value of Petitioner’s claim was, conservatively, in the $25 million range, with the same general breakdown for economic and non- economic damages. Mr. Barrett’s testimony was credible, and is accepted. The evidence was clear and convincing that the total value of the damages related to Petitioner’s injury was, conservatively, $25 million, and that the settlement amount was one percent of the total value. The evidence was equally clear and convincing that the allocation for past medical expenses reflected in the court-approved Release was of the same ratio to the total past medical expenses as was the settlement amount to the reasonable value of the claim. There was no evidence that the allocation was subject to any form of manipulation to increase or decrease the accounting of past medical expenses.
The Issue The issues for determination are, first, whether a lesser portion of Petitioner’s total recovery from a third-party tortfeasor should be designated as recovered medical expenses than the share presumed by statute; if so, then the amount of Petitioner’s recovery to which Respondent’s Medicaid lien may attach must be determined.
Findings Of Fact On June 17, 2018, Cruz, then age 28, went boating in Biscayne Bay, near Elliott Key. The boat belonged to Cruz’s cousin, Victor Fonseca (“Fonseca”), who operated the vessel at all relevant times. Others were with them. At some point during this outing, Fonseca’s boat became stuck on a sandbar. Cruz, who was in the water, got close to the boat’s engines, apparently intending to attempt to free the boat. As he did so, Fonseca, who knew or should have known of Cruz’s whereabouts, engaged the engines. Cruz’s clothes became caught in a moving propeller, which dragged him in. The result, predictably, was catastrophic, as the fast-spinning propeller chopped into Cruz’s lower body, causing severe injuries. The medical records describe Cruz’s injuries as including extensive trauma to all muscles of the right thigh and left gluteal muscles, multiple significant fractures of bones in the right leg, a right thigh degloving injury, and a severe rectal injury, which required the surgical removal of his anal sphincter. Post injury, Cruz developed RLE compartment syndrome and underwent a fasciotomy. He suffered an acute pulmonary embolism for which an IVC filter was placed. He underwent multiple surgical debridements and closure procedures. An end-colostomy was also laced. He underwent eternal fixation of his femur fracture. Cruz remained in the hospital for more than one year. The foregoing clinical description is amplified by emergency room photographs, which vividly depict the bodily destruction that the propeller caused. The words “gruesome” and “horrific,” or others to that effect, come to mind when viewing these pictures. It is undisputed that Cruz’s devastating injuries are disfiguring, permanently disabling, and chronically painful. As a result of this accident, Cruz will require medical treatment for the rest of his life. He must use a wheelchair or walker to move about and has been fitted with orthotic devices. Cruz is unable to care for himself and depends upon others to assist him in all activities of daily living. Before his injury, Cruz was employed as a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) technician. He will not be able to resume working in this field, and, indeed, Cruz is unlikely ever to work again. As mentioned, Cruz experiences chronic pain from his injuries, and he is unable to sit normally for extended periods without discomfort, due to the absence of gluteal muscles. His right thigh now consists, essentially, of skin- wrapped bone, because the muscle and connective tissue are gone. Not surprisingly, Cruz has suffered, and continues to suffer, adverse emotional effects, including depression. Cruz’s family suffers as well. He and his wife have two children, twins, who were three years old at the time of the accident. As a husband and father of young children, Cruz is no longer able to provide the same level of support and companionship to his family as before becoming disabled. Cruz brought a personal injury lawsuit against Fonseca, the person whose negligence seems likely to have been the sole proximate cause of the accident. (There is no evidence of, nor any reason to infer, the involvement of a defective product or joint tortfeasor. Likewise, there is no persuasive evidence that Cruz’s own negligence contributed to causing the accident.) Unfortunately for Cruz, Fonseca was practically judgment proof. He had no assets upon which to levy and could discharge any judgment in bankruptcy. Fonseca’s homeowner’s policy, having limits of $300,000, was woefully inadequate to satisfy Cruz’s damages, and the insurer initially denied coverage and refused to pay even this relatively scanty sum (as compared to Cruz’s enormous loss) because Fonseca, allegedly, had failed properly to declare his ownership of the boat. Eventually, the insurer tendered its policy limits pursuant to a confidential and complete settlement of Cruz’s claims and the derivative claims of his wife and children for loss of consortium, which the parties entered into on October 17, 2019. Of the $300,000 in insurance proceeds, which were not differentiated between claims or items of damages, the sum of $220,210.98 (“Gross Recovery”) was allocated, by Cruz’s attorney, to the settlement of Cruz’s cause(s) of action. The balance was allocated to the derivative claims of Cruz’s wife and children. Cruz’s Gross Recovery will be further reduced by attorney’s fees in the amount of $44,934.20 and costs totaling $2,842.70, leaving him a Net Recovery of $172,434.08. As mentioned, the recovery was an undifferentiated lump sum. It would be reasonable to infer that the defendant (and his carrier) had little or no interest in negotiating the manner of the plaintiffs’ distribution, between themselves, of the $300,000 settlement. There is no evidence of such bargaining, in any event. Consequently, an allocation of the recovery needed to be made, on the plaintiffs’ side, between the four injured parties (Cruz, his wife, and two children), each of whom had discrete losses for which Fonseca was liable. This is how the Gross Recovery wound up being exactly equal to the amount of medical assistance expenditures made on Cruz’s behalf by Medicaid. Cruz’s attorney testified that he had divided the $300,000 this way to give Cruz’s family members some recovery, albeit a small one, on their consortium claims. Since any allocation of the very limited, and arbitrarily capped, recovery of $300,000 between Cruz, on the one hand, and his family members, on the other, would necessarily be, at best, only very loosely related to the intrinsic value of each injured person’s individual claims; and because the Agency presented no evidence supporting an allocation that would have been as or more reasonable, the undersigned finds, based on the uncontested testimony of Cruz’s attorney, that setting aside approximately three-quarters of the insurance proceeds for the Gross Recovery, to match the Medicaid payments, was a reasonable and rational decision under the circumstances. The Agency was properly notified of Cruz’s personal injury action, and it informed the parties that medical assistance expenditures totaling $220,210.98 had been paid by Medicaid on Cruz’s behalf. The Agency asserted a lien for the reduced amount of $111,078.65 against Cruz’s settlement proceeds, pursuant to the formula found in section 409.910(11)(f). In their Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated to certain facts “which are admitted and require no proof at hearing,” including that the “application of the formula in [section] 409.910(11)(f) requires Mr. Cruz to pay back Medicaid $111,078.65 on its $220,210.98 lien … .” Given that Cruz’s litigation costs totaled $2,842.70, it is mathematically indisputable, based on the section 409.910(11)(f) equation, that the parties used the sum of $300,000 as Cruz’s gross settlement recovery.1 Therefore, although the evidence shows that Cruz’s Gross Recovery was, in fact, $220,210.98, his gross “Stipulated Recovery” is $300,000.2 The Medicaid payments for Cruz’s immediate, post-injury care comprise the lion’s share of his past medical expenses, there being, in addition, only the negligible sum of approximately $2,000, which was paid to the University of Miami Medical Group (“UMMG”). Thus, it is reasonable to treat the Medicaid payments of $220,210.98 as Cruz’s past medical expense damages, as Cruz has done without the Agency’s objection, for simplicity’s sake.3 There is no dispute that, under the anti-lien provision in the federal 1 [(300,000 × 0.75) - 2,842.70)] ÷ 2 = 111,078.65. 2 Had the Gross Recovery, rather than the Stipulated Recovery, been used as the value of the settlement for purposes of computing the default allocation under section 409.910(11)(f), the Agency’s statutory lien would have been reduced further, to $81,157.77. 3 Any difference, mathematically, in the lien amount which would result from adding in the UMMG payment is de minimus, in any event. Medicaid statute, the Agency’s lien attaches only to the portion of Cruz’s recovery attributable to past medical expenses. The ultimate question presented is whether the Agency’s default distribution, in the stipulated amount of $111,078.65, reflects “the portion of the total recovery which should be allocated”4 to Cruz’s recovery of past medical damages, or whether a lesser sum, from the total settlement, “should be allocated” to the recovery of past medical damages. It is Cruz’s burden to prove that the statutory allocation is greater than the amount which “should be” distributed to the Agency, and that the Agency’s default lien amount “should be” adjusted to better reflect the portion of his total recovery attributable to past medical expenses. For purposes of determining the portion of the “total recovery” that “should be allocated” to past medical expense damages, the undersigned will use the Stipulated Recovery as the value of the “total recovery,” even though that figure is greater than Cruz’s actual Gross Recovery, because the parties stipulated to a “total recovery” value of $300,000. To meet his burden, Cruz presented evidence at hearing, as is now typically done in cases such as this, with the goal of establishing the “true value” of his damages. Usually, and again as here, this evidence comes in the form of opinion testimony, from a trial attorney who specializes in personal injury law and represents plaintiffs in negligence actions. Cruz called two experienced plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers, one of whom is also a medical doctor, to give opinions on the valuation of his damages. The undersigned finds their opinions in this regard to be credible and persuasive. Moreover, the Agency did not offer any evidence to challenge Cruz’s valuation; no expert testimony was given, for example, by an attorney specializing in personal injury defense, which might have provided a different perspective on the value of Cruz’s case. Having no evidential basis for discounting or 4 See § 409.910(17)(b), Fla. Stat. disregarding the opinions of Cruz’s expert witnesses, the undersigned bases the findings on valuation that follow upon their unchallenged testimony. Cruz is requesting—and his expert witnesses opined that—the Medicaid lien should be adjusted according to a method that will be referred to herein as a “proportional reduction.” A proportional reduction adjusts the lien so that the Agency’s recovery is discounted in the same measure as the plaintiff’s recovery. In other words, if the plaintiff recovered 25% of the “true value” of his damages, then, under a proportional reduction, the Medicaid lien is adjusted so that the Agency recovers 25% of the medical assistance expenditures. The mathematical operation behind a basic proportional reduction is simple and requires no expertise. Using “r” to signify the plaintiff’s recovery; “v” to represent the “value” of his damages; “m” for medical assistance expenditures; and “x” as the variable for the adjusted lien amount, the equation is: (r ÷ v) × m = x. In these cases, the only unknown number (usually) is v,” i.e., the “value” of the plaintiff’s total damages. “True value,” sometimes also called “full value” or “total value,” is an elusive concept, given that the true value of damages which have not been liquidated by a judgment is not, and cannot be, known in a case that settles before the entry of a judgment. For purposes of this discussion, the undersigned will hereafter use the term “true value” to mean liquidated damages, i.e., damages reduced to judgment. To be clear, this is not how Cruz’s expert witnesses used the term. They used the term to refer to the amount that, had the personal injury case been tried to conclusion, Cruz’s attorneys would have “boarded” for the jury at trial and argued, in closing, that the jury should award the plaintiff for his total damages. For purposes of this discussion, the undersigned will use the term “plaintiff’s best-case value,” or “PBCv” for short, instead of “true value,” to refer to the amount that the plaintiff would have requested at trial in closing argument. Naturally, where there is a PBCv, there is also a “defendant’s best- case value,” or “DBCv.” In a jury trial, DBCv might well be $0, if the defendant is contesting liability, and it will nearly always be, in any event, less than PBCv. As mentioned above, the Agency chose not to present expert witness testimony as to DBCv, or any value. There are other constructs that might be considered in regard to value, such as, for example, the “fair market value” of the plaintiff’s case, or “MKTv” for short. As the undersigned will use the term herein, MKTv means the theoretical amount upon which the plaintiff and a solvent defendant, negotiating at arm’s length and without the constraint of an arbitrary financial cap on the defendant’s ability to pay, such as insurance policy limits or sovereign immunity, would agree to settle the case. MKTv reflects the strengths and weakness of the plaintiff’s case, both legal and factual, the strengths and weaknesses of the defendant’s case, both legal and factual, and all of the other considerations and motives driving the parties to reach a settlement agreement, except the defendant’s ability to pay. Generally speaking, MKTv should be a number greater than DBCv and less than PBCv. A plaintiff who has settled for MKTv effectively has made a full recovery. As the undersigned is using the term, MKTv is similar, but not identical, to the term “settlement value” as described in Mojica v. State, Agency for Health Care Administration, 285 So. 3d 393, 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), which is yet another value construct. “Settlement value,” in the Mojica sense, which is how the undersigned will use the term herein, takes into account, among other factors, the “defendant’s ability to pay.” Id. Because a personal injury plaintiff does not have the option of negotiating with someone other than the potentially liable defendant to get a better deal, however, the “defendant’s ability to pay” does not seem like an appropriate factor to consider in establishing the MKTv of the plaintiff’s case. Put differently, while a settlement for MKTv can fairly be considered a full recovery, a settlement for “settlement value” would arguably not be a full recovery, if the plaintiff were required to accept a settlement discount attributable, in part, to the defendant’s ability to pay. This distinction makes no difference in this case, because Cruz did not recover even the “settlement value” of his case; he had no alternative but to accept the defendant’s limited insurance coverage as payment in full. In other words, in Cruz’s situation, the defendant’s ability to pay was not merely a factor in determining settlement value, it was the only factor. Cruz’s recovery, thus, was arbitrarily capped at $300,000, the coverage limit of the defendant’s only available insurance policy. For purposes of this discussion, the undersigned will refer to a settlement such as Cruz’s as an “arbitrary discount settlement.” An arbitrary discount settlement is “arbitrary” in the sense that the amount of the settlement bears no relationship to MKTv; the plaintiff is simply forced to accept what is, for him, a random haircut owing to a hard limit on the defendant’s ability to pay, which has nothing to do with the plaintiff’s damages or the defendant’s liability therefor.5 The uncontested and unimpeached expert testimony in this case establishes, by any standard of proof, that Cruz’s PBCv is no less than $6 million, which is the conservative figure presented by Cruz’s witnesses. The undersigned, frankly, would not have hesitated to find that Cruz’s noneconomic damages for past and future pain and suffering, alone, should be valued at $6 million, at a minimum, given the severity of the bodily destruction involved here. With respect to the economic damages of lost earning capacity and future medical expenses, Cruz’s evidence persuasively established significant losses, albeit without exactitude. Before his accident, Cruz had been earning 5 The amount of an arbitrary discount settlement should ordinarily be less than the settlement value of the plaintiff’s case, because the defendant’s limited ability to pay is the only relevant factor in determining the amount of an arbitrary discount settlement, whereas settlement value takes other factors into account, including but not limited to the defendant’s ability to pay. approximately $20 per hour as an HVAC technician. Assuming he were able to work full time at the same rate, without a raise, for the next 35 years, his wages would total $1.4 million, more or less. A sophisticated economic analysis would take into account wage growth over time, and it would discount future earnings to present value. As Cruz’s lawyers testified at hearing, however, money was simply not available, given Fonseca’s extremely limited insurance for Cruz’s substantial losses, to justify the expense of hiring an economist to perform such an analysis. The undersigned finds that the evidence is sufficient to prove that the present value of Cruz’s lost wages is at least $1 million, conservatively calculated, in view of the relatively young age (28) at which this previously fit working man became permanently disabled. Specificity in this regard is unnecessary in any event, because Cruz’s pain and suffering damages are easily $6 million. Similarly, Cruz’s evidence proves that he will incur future medical expenses “over six figures.” There is no genuine dispute about this, the Agency having offered no evidence to the contrary. It is undisputed that Cruz will require ongoing medical care, for the rest of his life, to treat complications arising from his severe injuries. To take just one example, the evidence shows that Cruz has yet to undergo a final surgical repair of his rectum. To be sure, in an ideal case, Cruz would have presented a life care plan developed by a suitable expert, cataloguing his future medical needs and estimated expenses, aggregated to a specific dollar amount, reduced to present value, and calculated to a reasonable degree of economic certainty. Unfortunately, paying such an expert for this kind of analysis would further have reduced Cruz’s already limited Net Recovery. The undersigned cannot fault Cruz’s attorneys for electing to forego such an expense, especially since, again, specificity in regard to future medical damages is unnecessary because Cruz’s noneconomic losses, without more, meet or exceed $6 million. Once Cruz made a prima facie showing of PBCv by adducing competent substantial evidence thereof, the Agency, if it wanted to prove that the PBCv in question, $6 million, is an inflated figure, needed to adduce some evidence that would have given the fact-finder an evidentiary basis for discounting or rejecting this value.6 Here, the Agency elected not to present evidence of value, but instead it chose to argue that Cruz has failed to prove that the particular medical-expense allocation he advocates should be made, and that, as a result, the default, statutory allocation should be made. As far as the evidence goes, therefore, the undersigned has no reasonable basis for rejecting the value of $6 million that Cruz’s witnesses testified was a conservative appraisal of Cruz’s total damages. Fonseca’s negligence was likely the sole proximate cause of the accident; there are, accordingly, no obvious weaknesses in Cruz’s case from the standpoint of establishing liability. Cruz testified ably in this proceeding and likely would have proved an excellent witness in the personal injury action, had it gone to trial. The ghastly nature of Cruz’s injuries, and Fonseca’s rather obvious liability for those injuries, likely would have resulted in a substantial plaintiff’s verdict, likely not less than $6 million, as the evidence persuasively shows. The undersigned finds, based on the unrebutted and unimpeached expert testimony adduced, that a proportional reduction methodology identifies the “portion of the total recovery which should be allocated” in this 6 To be clear, the undersigned is not shifting the burden of proof to the Agency. A petitioner, however, does not have the initial burden of putting on the personal injury defense case, in order to prove DBCv, nor does the petitioner have the initial burden of establishing matters, such as comparative negligence, which the defense might have relied upon in an arms-length negotiation to settle the case for value. Defense arguments are matters that the Agency may address in its case, if it wants to show that PBCv is inflated. But the Agency is not required to put on any such evidence. The Agency is free to present no evidence, rely solely on cross- examination of the petitioner’s witnesses to undermine the testimony elicited by the petitioner on direct, and then argue that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof—as the Agency has done in this case. If the Agency takes this approach, however, it loses the opportunity affirmatively to prove that PBCv is too high, and it risks a finding that the unrebutted evidence of PBCv is a fair reflection of value. If, however, the Agency presents evidence of DBCv, MKTv, settlement value, or some alternative value, then the petitioner must rebut the evidence and try to overcome it, for the petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion with regard to establishing the value of the petitioner’s damages. case as past medical expense damages. The undersigned considers Cruz’s unchallenged proof of PBCv sufficient to establish the probable “value” of his case, i.e., v in the proportional reduction formula, where, as here, such evidence, in addition to being unchallenged and unimpeached, is otherwise persuasive to the fact-finder. Although the use of a proportional reduction to determine the portion of the total recovery that “should be allocated” to past medical expenses is justified by the competent substantial evidence presented in this case, it is found that Cruz has advocated using an incorrect value in the proportional reduction formula. Cruz would apply the following values to the variables in the equation: r = $300,000; v = $6 million; and m = $111,078.65. Using these numbers results in a value of $5,553.93 for x, which is the amount of his recovery Cruz would allocate to past medical expense damages and thereby expose to the Medicaid lien. It is incorrect, however, to use the sum of $111,078.65 as the value for m, as Cruz urges. This figure is the amount produced by the statutory formula, which reduces the Agency’s recovery of actual Medicaid expenditures, by default. To use this figure in the proportional reduction formula would impose a double reduction on the Agency—an obvious injustice. The correct number for m is $220,210.98, the amount that Medicaid actually expended on Cruz’s behalf, without reduction. The undersigned finds, based on the evidence presented, including the stipulation as to Cruz’s total settlement recovery, that the correct values for the variables in the proportional reduction equation are: r = $300,000; v = $6 million; and m = $220,210.98. Using these numbers, the value of x is $11,010.55—or, 5% of $220,210.98.7 7 The ratio of 300,000 to 6,000,000 is 0.05. Because the unchallenged expert testimony persuasively shows that a proportional reduction is the appropriate method of adjusting the lien in this case; and because Cruz’s mistaken use of $111,078.65 as the value of m does not undermine the validity of the methodology, which is merely the mathematical expression of an analytical framework whose existence and underlying logic are independent of any specific values for r, v, m, and x, the undersigned does not believe that he must “throw out the baby with the bathwater” and make no lien adjustment simply because Cruz used the wrong value for m. This mistake may easily be corrected based on the evidence of record; and, ordinarily, evidence-based adjustments of a factual nature would be within the province of the fact-finder to make.8 The undersigned determines as a matter of ultimate fact, therefore, that the portion of the Stipulated Recovery that “should be allocated” to past medical expense damages is $11,010.55.
The Issue The issue for determination is the amount of money Petitioner, Jared Bruno Ramella, must pay to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA” or “the Agency”), out of his settlement proceeds as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ More specifically, it must be determined whether Petitioner must pay the default amount of the Medicaid lien, $121,065, pursuant to section 409.910(11)(f); and, if not, what portion of his $775,000 settlement proceeds is due to AHCA.
Findings Of Fact Underlying Accident and Injuries Petitioner, at age 29, was involved in a catastrophic motorcycle accident leaving him paralyzed from his waist down, and with only limited use of his right arm. On the night of November 21, 2014, Petitioner’s motorcycle collided with an oncoming vehicle that had turned left in front of Petitioner. The driver of the oncoming vehicle (“Driver”) did not see Petitioner riding toward her in traffic and Petitioner was unable to stop. Upon impact Petitioner was thrown off his motorcycle and landed approximately 64 feet away. At the scene of the accident, Petitioner had no sensation from his mid-abdomen down. Later, it was determined he suffered a number of injuries including fractures of several of his cervical vertebrae, a broken right leg, severe nerve damage in his right arm, and a brain bleed. Petitioner is permanently paralyzed from the ribs down, has no control over his bowel and urinary functions, and suffers from chronic depression and an anxiety disorder. The injuries have impacted not only his physical abilities, but have also affected his ability to maintain normal family, social and work relationships. Petitioner received extensive medical care for his injuries. In total, as of September 2017, Petitioner’s unpaid past medical expenses (“PME”) related to his injuries totaled $159,818, of which $121,065 was provided by Medicaid.2/ No portion of the PME was incurred for future medical care. Petitioner’s Sources of Recovery As a result of the accident, Petitioner filed a claim for damages with his mother’s insurance policy and received the policy limits, $150,000. Petitioner filed a similar claim against the Driver’s personal insurance policy and received the policy limits, $25,000. Personally, the Driver had no collectable assets. She and her family business, however, maintained a number of insurance policies with Auto Owners Insurance Co. (“Auto Owners”), with a total coverage limit of $100,000. Petitioner made a claim against these policies, but Auto Owners declined to tender the policy limits to him. In 2015, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against the Driver in circuit court. Ultimately, Auto Owners settled with Petitioner for $600,000. In exchange for the settlement funds, Petitioner agreed to dismiss the lawsuit, and execute a full release of the Driver for the accident and Auto Owners for a potential bad faith claim. In total, Petitioner received $775,000 in gross settlement proceeds (“GSP”) from the following sources: 25,000 USAA (Driver’s personal policy) 150,000 Allstate (Petitioner’s mother’s policy) 100,000 Auto Owners (Driver’s self-employment policy) 500,000 Auto Owners (bad faith settlement) $775,000 Gross Settlement Proceeds Mr. Brennan testified that even though the Driver would have been found liable had the matter gone to trial, the $100,000 policy limit was the best Petitioner could hope to recover even with a favorable jury verdict because the Driver was “judgment proof.” Based on Auto Owner’s refusal to tender the policy limits, Petitioner was able to recover $500,000 in settlement proceeds above the policy limits. Had Petitioner not pursued litigation, the most Petitioner would be able to recover would be $275,000. On September 21, 2017, Petitioner notified AHCA of the Auto Owner’s settlement and asked AHCA what amount it would accept in satisfaction of its $121,065 Medicaid lien. AHCA did not reply to Petitioner’s inquiry. Petitioner deposited $121,065 in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights by DOAH. Allocation of Past Medical Expenditures The parties stipulated that under the default formula found in section 409.910(11)(f), Petitioner is required to pay the Agency the full amount of the $121,065 Medicaid lien from the $775,000 total settlement proceeds. The settlement agreement with Auto Owners contained a paragraph titled “Allocation of Settlement.” This paragraph stated Petitioner’s damages were valued as more than $12 million, and $7,973.71 of the $600,000 was allocated for past medical bills. Allocation of Settlement. Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate Plaintiff for all of the damages he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Releasees (as more fully described . . . below) without regard to this settlement only compensating Plaintiff for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. The parties agree that Plaintiff’s alleged damages have a value in excess of $12,000,000, of which $159,474.11[3/] represents Plaintiff’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $7,973.71 of this settlement to Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff’s alleged damages. The settlement agreement between Petitioner and Auto Owners was fully executed on September 22, 2017. AHCA was not a party to the settlement agreement or release. Although the parties stipulated to a number of facts and figures, they did not stipulate to the total provable damages (“TPD”). Regardless, Petitioner proved by the preponderance of the evidence that TPD was equivalent to $12 million. More precisely, Petitioner established through unrebutted evidence and testimony of his trial attorney and his expert witness that personal injury actions can be broken down into the following categories: past lost wages; future lost income; past medical amounts billed; future medical expenses; and noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. This is consistent with terminology used in other administrative proceedings defining TPD as “all components of a plaintiff’s recoverable damages, such as medical expenses, lost wages, and noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering).” See Smathers v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., Case No. 16-3590MTR, 2017 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 540, at *7 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 13, 2017). According to the testimony, jury awards--which are one manifestation of a TPD determination--in similar personal injury cases can be estimated to be approximately 2.85 times the first four categories, or TPD = 2.85 x (A + B + C + D). Petitioner proved that his past economic damages (A + C)–-which include the total amount billed for medical services and lost income as of the date of the settlement--were approximately $1,058,159.4/ Petitioner also offered into evidence an economic report projecting future lost income assuming Petitioner’s loss of total earning capacity; and a “future life care plan” report that projected future medical expenses. Together, these reports established Petitioner’s future economic damages (B + D) would be conservatively estimated at $3,576,376. The present day value of these future damages would be $3,892,550. Based on these figures, Petitioner’s TPD can be calculated to be approximately $12 million: TPD = ($1,058,159 + $3,892,550) x 2.85 = $12,151,926. Mr. Brennan testified that based on his experience and the research he conducted in connection with filing Petitioner’s lawsuit, he believed the total value of the lawsuit was in a range between $12 and $16 million. Mr. Barrett testified that based on his familiarity with jury trials involving similar injuries, in his expert opinion, a jury verdict would have been between $12 and $18 million, noting “12 million is certainly a very conservative figure for his pure damages.” Both witnesses also testified the $775,000 settlement amount did not fully compensate Petitioner. There was no dispute at the hearing that the GSP is a fraction of the cost for future medical expenses, and does not begin to cover Petitioner’s future loss of earning potential or his noneconomic damages. The portion of Petitioner’s GSP that can be allocated as PME paid by the Agency remains to be determined. Under a “settlement-to-value” formula, AHCA would recover the same portion of its lien as the portion of GSP in relation to his TPD, or equal to GSP/TPD x (PME). See Smathers, 2017 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 540, at *8. Here, the GSP represented approximately 6.46 percent of the TPD. Applying this percentage to the PME using the “settlement-to-value” formula, the Agency could only recover $10,324. In other words, the amount of settlement funds attributable to medical expenditures can be determined as: $775,000 (GSP) X $159,818 (PME) $12,000,000 (TPD) In support of this formula, Petitioner submitted--again without an objection from AHCA--orders from various Florida circuit courts reducing Medicaid liens by applying this formula. Mr. Barrett’s unrebutted testimony corroborated this evidence that the “settlement-to-value” formula should be applied to Petitioner’s PME, noting this method was “logical, and that is how it is done. That’s the trade practice.” Given that Petitioner’s witnesses were the only witnesses, these witnesses were knowledgeable and credible, and there was no contrary testimony or evidence, Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that $10,324 constitutes the portion of the GSP that can fairly be allocated toward Petitioner’s PME.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount payable to Respondent in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioner from a third party, pursuant to section 409.910(17), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 35-year-old female who currently resides in Homestead, Florida. Respondent is the state agency authorized to administer Florida's Medicaid program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. On or about February 15, 2012, Petitioner was struck by a motor vehicle and severely injured while attempting to rescue her young son, who had run into a busy street in front of her home in Hollywood, Florida. Petitioner suffered a fractured skull and broken leg. She was hospitalized and received medical care for her injuries. Subsequently, she was treated by an orthopedic physician and a neurologist. She estimated that she last received care or treatment from these physicians in August 2013. The Florida Medicaid program paid $35,952.47 in medical assistance benefits on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner filed a lawsuit against the owners of the vehicle that struck her. On January 11, 2013, Petitioner and the owners of the vehicle that struck Petitioner ("Releasees") entered into a "Release and Hold Harmless Agreement" ("Settlement") under which the Releasees agreed to pay Petitioner $150,000 to settle any and all claims Petitioner had against them. Attached to the Settlement was a document titled "Addendum to Release Signed 1/11/13" ("Addendum"), which allocated liability between Petitioner and the Releasees and provided a commensurate allocation of the Settlement proceeds for past and future medical expense claims. The Addendum stated in pertinent part: The parties agree that a fair assessment of liability is 90% on the Releasor, Mirta B. Agras, and 10% on the Releasees. Furthermore, the parties agree that based upon these injuries, and the serious nature of the injuries suffered by the Releasor, Mirta B. Agras, that $15,000.00 represents a fair allocation of the settlement proceeds for her claim for past and future medical expenses. Petitioner testified that she primarily was at fault in the accident. She acknowledged that the statement in the Addendum that she was 90% at fault for the accident and the Releasees were 10% at fault was an estimate that she formulated entirely on her own, without obtaining any legal or other informed opinion regarding the apportionment of respective fault. Petitioner is not a physician, registered nurse, or licensed practical nurse. There was no evidence presented establishing that she has any medical training or expertise. Thus, there is no professional basis for Petitioner's position that 10% of the Settlement proceeds represents a fair, accurate, or reasonable allocation for her medical expenses. Rather, her position appears to be based on the intent to maximize the Settlement proceeds that are allocated to non-medical expenses, so that she is able to retain a larger portion of the Settlement proceeds. Respondent did not participate in discussions regarding the Settlement or Addendum and was not a party to the Settlement. Petitioner acknowledged that she still receives medical bills related to the injuries she suffered as a result of the accident, and that she still owes money for ambulance transportation and physician treatment. She was unable to recall or estimate the amount she owes. No evidence was presented regarding the actual amount of Petitioner's medical expenses incurred due to her injury. Petitioner has not paid any of her own money for medical treatment, and no entities other than Medicaid have paid for her medical treatment. Since being injured, Petitioner continues to experience medical problems, including pain, dizziness, memory loss, difficulty in walking or standing for extended periods, inability to ride in vehicles for extended periods, balance problems, and difficulty watching television or staring at a computer screen for extended periods. Petitioner claims that, nonetheless, she has not been told that she would need additional medical care or treatment. On or about January 31, 2013, Respondent, through ACS, asserted a Medicaid claim pursuant to section 409.910(17), seeking reimbursement of the $35,952.47 in medical assistance benefits it paid on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner instead sought to reimburse Respondent $15,000, the amount that Petitioner and Releasees agreed in the Addendum represented a fair allocation of the Settlement proceeds for Petitioner's claim for past and future medical expenses. When Petitioner and Respondent were unable to agree on the amount Petitioner owed Respondent in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien, Petitioner paid ACS the $35,952.47 alleged to be owed Respondent and filed the Petition initiating this proceeding.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount payable under section 409.910, Florida Statutes,1/ in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien on settlement proceeds received by Petitioner, Victor Hugo Herrera, Sr., from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 2014, unbeknownst to Mr. Herrera, an individual (hereinafter Assailant) entered the common area where Mr. Herrera rented an office. The Assailant stalked Mr. Herrera and forced his way into Mr. Herrera’s office. The Assailant attacked Mr. Herrera in his office and shot Mr. Herrera in the leg. As a result of being shot in the leg, Mr. Herrera had his leg medically amputated above the knee, suffered a collapsed lung, and was comatose for nearly two months. As a result of his severe injuries, Mr. Herrera is now permanently disabled, disfigured, and wheelchair-bound, unable to walk. Mr. Herrera’s medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by Medicaid, which provided $271,344.06 in benefits. Mr. Herrera brought a personal injury lawsuit to recover all of his damages associated with his injuries against the owner of the office and security company responsible for providing security (Defendants). The $271,344.06 paid by Medicaid constituted Mr. Herrera’s entire claim for past medical expenses. On December 11, 2015, Mr. Herrera compromised and settled his personal injury action against the Defendants for $925,000. The General Release of Claims memorializing the settlement with the Defendants stated, inter alia: The First Party, the Second Party and their respective counsel acknowledge that this settlement does not fully compensate the First Party for the damages he has allegedly suffered, but as provided herein this settlement shall operate as a full and complete release as to all claims against Second Party, without regard to this settlement only compensating the First Party for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. These parties agree that the damages suffered by the First Party have a value in excess of $5,000,000.00, of which $271,344.06 represents First Party’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of the First Party’s alleged injuries and this settlement, $50,198.65 of this settlement has been allocated to the First Party’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all of the First Party’s alleged damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that the First Party may need future medical care related to his alleged injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for those future medical expenses the First Party may incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that the First Party, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for the First Party’s future medical care and the First Party has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for payments made to secure future medical care. During the pendency of Mr. Herrera’s personal injury lawsuit, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) was notified of the lawsuit and AHCA, through its collections contractor Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $271,344.06 Medicaid lien against Mr. Herrera’s cause of action and settlement of that action. By letter of January 22, 2016, AHCA was notified by Mr. Herrera’s personal injury attorney of the settlement and provided a copy of the executed release and itemization of Mr. Herrera’s $10,114.38 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Mr. Herrera’s damages had a value in excess of $5,000,000, and the $925,000 settlement represented only an 18.5 percent recovery of Mr. Herrera’s damages. Accordingly, he had recovered only 18.5 percent of his $271,344.06 claim for past medical expenses, or $50,198.65. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $271,344.06 Medicaid lien. AHCA did not respond to Mr. Herrera’s attorney’s letter of January 22, 2016. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Mr. Herrera’s settlement. AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. The Medicaid program spent $271,344.06 on behalf of Mr. Herrera, all of which represents expenditures paid for Mr. Herrera’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $271,344.06 paid by the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Herrera represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. Mr. Herrera and AHCA agree that application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Mr. Herrera’s $925,000 settlement would require payment to AHCA of the full $271,344.06 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited the full Medicaid lien amount 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). At the final hearing, Mr. Zebersky, who represented Mr. Herrera in his underlying personal injury action, testified and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Zebersky has been an attorney for 27 years and has demonstrated considerable experience in handling plaintiffs’ personal injury and insurance class action claims in South Florida. In rendering his opinion as to the value of Mr. Herrera’s claim, Mr. Zebersky explained that, as a routine and daily part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties and he explained his process for making these determinations. Mr. Zebersky was familiar with and gave a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to Mr. Herrera’s claim. In making his valuation determination, Mr. Zebersky reviewed the police report, the State Attorney’s file on the shooting, all of Mr. Herrera’s medical records, and met numerous times with Mr. Herrera and his family. Mr. Zebersky testified that through his representation of Mr. Herrera, review of Mr. Herrera’s file, and based on his training and experience, he had developed the opinion that the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages was $5,000,000. Mr. Zebersky suggested that the $5,000,000 amount was conservative, by testifying that “five million dollars, you know, is probably what the pain and suffering value is especially in Broward County.” In addition to his first-hand experience with Mr. Herrera’s claim, Mr. Zebersky further supported his valuation opinion by explaining that he had “round-tabled” the case with other experienced attorneys and they agreed that the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages was $5,000,000. Further, Mr. Zebersky testified that he had reviewed jury verdicts in developing his opinion and the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 were comparable to Mr. Herrera’s case and support the valuation of Mr. Herrera’s damages at $5,000,000. Mr. Zebersky’s testimony was credible and is accepted. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Mr. Barrett, who was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett has been accepted as an expert in valuation of damages in a number of other Medicaid lien cases before DOAH. Mr. Barrett has been a trial attorney for 40 years, with a primary focus on plaintiff personal injury cases, including medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. Mr. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts and often makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. After familiarizing himself with Mr. Herrera’s injuries through review of pertinent medical records and Petitioner’s Exhibits, including the police report, pictures of Mr. Herrera, Mr. Herrera’s complaint and Mr. Herrera’s General Release of Claims, Mr. Barrett offered his opinion, based upon his professional training and experience, that “five million was a conservative estimate” for the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages and that Mr. Herrera’s damages were “undoubtedly at least five million dollars.” Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 and opined that those verdicts were comparable and supported his valuation of Mr. Herrera’s damages. Mr. Barrett’s testimony was credible and is accepted. AHCA’s designated expert, Mr. Bruner, was not available for testimony at the final hearing. Instead of asking for a continuance, the parties agreed to take Mr. Bruner’s deposition after the final hearing and then file the transcript with DOAH. Further, during the final hearing, AHCA agreed that Mr. Bruner would not be testifying as to the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages. In accordance with that agreement, Mr. Brunner’s deposition was subsequently taken and his deposition transcript was filed on August 3, 2016. At Mr. Bruner’s deposition, AHCA proffered Mr. Bruner as an expert in evaluation of cases and settlements. Petitioner objected on the grounds that Mr. Bruner lacked experience or expertise in personal injury cases and should not be allowed to testify as an expert. Further, Petitioner objected to the relevance of Mr. Bruner’s testimony based on AHCA’s earlier agreement that he would not be testifying concerning the value of the damages suffered. Counsel for AHCA responded to Petitioner’s objection to the relevance of Mr. Bruner’s testimony by agreeing that AHCA would not be seeking any “expert testimony as to evaluation of damages,” but would only be using Mr. Bruner’s testimony to “evaluate” the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12. While Mr. Bruner does not have the same level of experience in personal injury claims as the experts offered by Petitioner, Mr. Bruner has sufficient experience to offer an opinion on the jury verdicts set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, and to that extent, his expertise in the evaluation of cases is accepted. However, because of his lack of recent experience in settling personal injury claims, Mr. Brunner is not accepted as an expert in personal injury settlements.2/ In his deposition testimony, Mr. Bruner criticized the relevance of the 12 verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 on the grounds that, while the verdicts involved amputations of legs, there were factual differences in the mechanism of injury. Mr. Bruner further asserted that, to the extent the verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 included awards for future medical expenses, they should not be considered because, according to Mr. Bruner’s understanding, Mr. Herrera did not recover any future medical expenses in the settlement. Finally, while the juries in the 12 jury verdicts had determined the value of the damages, Mr. Bruner criticized the verdicts because he asserted that it was possible that the cases may have settled post-verdict for less, or that the injured parties may have received less, due to reductions for comparative negligence. On this last point, it appears that Mr. Bruner confused the issue of the value of the damages with the settlement value of the case. The value of the damages is the estimation of the monetary value a jury would assign to the damages. On the other hand, the settlement value of the case is the amount it settled for with the considerations of liability, causation, the Defendant’s ability to pay, risk of trial, and other limiting factors, which are a calculus in every settlement. Despite Mr. Bruner’s criticisms of the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, the undersigned finds those verdicts supportive of the valuation opinions offered by Petitioner’s experts. Further, Petitioner’s experts’ opinions were not primarily reliant on those 12 verdicts, but were rather based upon their knowledge of Mr. Herrera’s injury and their extensive experience in handling cases involving catastrophic injury, including jury trial experience. Mr. Bruner’s testimony did not provide an alternative value of the damages suffered by Petitioner. The value of $5,000,000 for Mr. Herrera’s claim opined by Petitioner’s experts is unrebutted. Considering the valuation of Mr. Herrera’s claim in the amount of $5,000,000, his $925,000 settlement represents only an 18.5 percent recovery of Mr. Herrera’s damages. Applying that same 18.5 percent to the $271,344.06 paid by Medicaid for past medical expenses results in the sum $50,198.65 from the settlement proceeds available to satisfy AHCA’s Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue is the amount of money, if any, that must be paid to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to satisfy its Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact Harry Silnicki, at age 52, suffered devastating brain injuries when a ladder on which he was standing collapsed. Mr. Silnicki, now age 59, has required, and will for the remainder of his life require, constant custodial care as a result of his injuries. He has been, and will be into the indefinite future, a resident of the Florida Institute of Neurological Rehabilitation (FINR) or a similar facility that provides full nursing care. Debra Silnicki is the wife and guardian of Mr. Silnicki. Mr. Silnicki, through his guardian, brought a personal injury lawsuit in Broward County, Florida, against several defendants, including the manufacturer of the ladder, the seller of the ladder, and two insurance companies (Defendants), contending that Mr. Silnicki's injuries were caused by a defective design of the ladder. The lawsuit sought compensation for all of Mr. Silnicki's damages as well as his wife's individual claim for damages associated with Mr. Silnicki's damages. When referring to the personal injury lawsuit, Mr. and Mrs. Silnicki will be referred to as Plaintiffs. During the course of the trial, before the jury reached its verdict, the Plaintiffs entered into a High-Low Agreement (HLA) with the Defendants by which the parties agreed that, regardless of the jury verdict, the Defendants would pay to the Plaintiffs $3,000,000 if the Plaintiffs lost the case, but would pay at most $9,000,000 if the Plaintiffs won the case. After a lengthy trial, on March 27, 2013, the jury returned a verdict finding no liability on the part of the manufacturer or any other defendants. Consequently, the jury awarded the Plaintiffs no damages. The Defendants have paid to the Plaintiffs the sum of $3,000,000 pursuant to the HLA (the HLA funds). The HLA constitutes a settlement of the claims the Plaintiffs had against the Defendants.1/ As shown in their Closing Statement (Petitioners' Exhibit 7), dated September 23, 2013, the Silnickis' attorneys have disbursed $1,100,000 of the HLA funds as attorney's fees and $588,167.40 as costs. The sum of $1,011,832.602/ was paid under the heading "Medical Liens/Bills to be Paid/Waived/Reduced by Agreement Pending Court Approval." Included in that sum were payments to Memorial Regional Hospital in the amount of $406,464.49 and a payment to FINR in the amount of $600,000.00. Also included was the sum of $245,648.57, which was to be deposited in an interest-bearing account. Subject to court approval, the Closing Statement earmarked, among other payments, $100,000 for a special needs trust for Mr. Silnicki and a $100,000 payment to Mrs. Silnicki for her loss of consortium claim. AHCA has provided $245,648.57 in Medicaid benefits to Mr. Silnicki. AHCA has asserted a Medicaid lien against the HLA funds in the amount of $245,648.57. As required by section 409.910(17)(a), the amount of the Medicaid lien has been placed in an interest-bearing account. The Closing Statement reflects that should Petitioners prevail in this proceeding by reducing or precluding the Medicaid lien, any amounts returned to Petitioners will be split 50% to FINR, 25% to attorney's fees, and 25% to the Petitioners. Section 409.910(11)(f) provides as follows: (f) Notwithstanding any provision in this section to the contrary, in 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 as defined by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 or his or her legal representative shall be calculated at 25 percent of the judgment, award, or settlement. The parties stipulated that the amount of Petitioners' "taxable costs as defined by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure" is $347,747.05. The parties have also stipulated that if the section 409.910(11)(f) formula is applied to the $3,000,000 settlement funds received by Mr. and Mrs. Silnicki, the resulting product would be greater than the amount of AHCA's Medicaid lien of $245,648.57. That amount is calculated by deducting 25% of the $3,000,000 for attorneys' fees, which leaves $2,250,000. Deducting taxable costs in the amount of $347,747.05 from $2,250,000 leaves $1,902,352.95. Half of $1,902,352.95 equals $951,176.48 (the net amount). The net amount exceeds the amount of the Medicaid lien. Section 409.910(17)(b) provides the method by which a recipient can challenge the amount of a Medicaid lien as follows: (b) A recipient may contest the amount designated as recovered medical expense damages payable to the agency pursuant to the formula specified in paragraph (11)(f) by filing a petition under chapter 120 within 21 days after the date of payment of funds to the agency or after the date of placing the full amount of the third-party benefits in the trust account for the benefit of the agency pursuant to paragraph (a). The petition shall be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. For purposes of chapter 120, the payment of funds to the agency or the placement of the full amount of the third-party benefits in the trust account for the benefit of the agency constitutes final agency action and notice thereof. Final order authority for the proceedings specified in this subsection rests with the Division of Administrative Hearings. This procedure is the exclusive method for challenging the amount of third-party benefits payable to the agency. 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 set forth in paragraph (11)(f) or that Medicaid provided a lesser amount of medical assistance than that asserted by the agency. Scott Henratty and his firm represented the Plaintiffs in the underlying personal injury case. Mr. Henratty is an experienced personal injury attorney. Mr. Henratty testified that the Plaintiffs asked the jury for a verdict in the amount of $50,000,000 for Mr. Silnicki for his total damages, not including his wife's consortium claim. Mr. Henratty valued the claim at between $30,000,000 and $50,000,000. There was no clear and convincing evidence that the total value of Mr. Silnicki's claim exceeded $30,000,000. Mr. Henratty testified that Plaintiffs presented evidence to the jury that Mr. Silnicki's past medical expenses equaled $3,366,267, and his future medical expenses, reduced to present value, equaled $8,906,114, for a total of $12,272,381. Those two elements of damages equal approximately 40.9% of the total value of the claim if $30,000,000 is accepted as the total value of the claim.3/ The Closing Statement reflects that more than the amount of the claimed Medicaid lien was to be used to pay past medical expenses. Petitioners assert in their Petition and Amended Petition three alternatives to determine what should be paid in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien in the event it is determined that the HLA funds are subject to the lien. All three alternatives are premised on the total value of Mr. Silnicki's recovery being $30,000,000 (total value) and compare that to the recovery under the HLA of $3,000,000, which is one-tenth of the total value. All three methods arrive at the figure of $24,564.86 as being the most that can be recovered by the Medicaid lien, which is one-tenth of the Medicaid lien. Future medical expenses is not a component in these calculations. The portion of the HLA funds that should be allocated to past and future medical expenses is, at a minimum, 30% of the recovery.4/
The Issue The amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“Respondent” or “AHCA”), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Mitchell Fowler, from settlement proceeds received by Petitioner from third parties.
Findings Of Fact On September 4, 2016, Mr. Fowler suffered a catastrophic and permanent spinal cord injury when he fell at a boat ramp. Mr. Fowler is now a paraplegic unable to walk, stand, or ambulate without assistance. Mr. Fowler’s medical care related to his injury was paid by Medicaid. Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $74,693.24 in benefits and Medicaid, through a Medicaid Managed Care Plan known as Humana, provided $7,941.28 in benefits. The sum of these Medicaid benefits, $82,634.52, constituted Mr. Fowler’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Fowler pursued a personal injury action against the owner/operator of the boat ramp where the accident occurred (“Defendants”) to recover all his damages. The personal injury action settled through a series of confidential settlements in a lump-sum unallocated amount of $800,000. As a condition of Mr. Fowler’s eligibility for Medicaid, Mr. Fowler assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third-parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $74,693.24 Medicaid lien associated with Mr. Fowler’s cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, nor did it intervene or join in the medical malpractice action against the Defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of the settlements. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlements. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $74,693.24 on behalf of Mr. Fowler, all of which represents expenditures paid for past medical expenses. No portion of the $74,693.24 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Fowler represented expenditures for future medical expenses. The $74,693.24 in Medicaid funds paid towards the care of Mr. Fowler by AHCA is the maximum amount that may be recovered by AHCA. In addition to the foregoing, Humana spent $7,941.28 on Mr. Fowler’s medical expenses. Thus, the total amount of past medical expenses incurred by Mr. Fowler is $82,634.52. The taxable costs incurred in securing the settlements totaled $45,995.89. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to the $800,000 settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $74,693.24 Medicaid lien. Petitioner deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest- bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). There was no suggestion that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement. The evidence firmly established that the total of Mr. Fowler’s economic damages, including future medical expenses, were $5,652,761.00 which, added to the $82,634.52 in past medical expenses, results in a sum of $5,735,395.52 in economic damages. Based on the experience of the testifying experts, and taking into account jury verdicts in comparable cases, Petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence that was unrebutted by AHCA, that non-economic damages alone could reasonably be up to $26,000,000. When added to the economic damages, a value of Mr. Fowler’s total damages well in excess of $30,000,000 would not be unreasonable. However, in order to establish a very conservative figure against which to measure Mr. Fowler’s damages, both experts agreed that $15,000,000 would be a reasonable measure of Mr. Fowler’s damages for purposes of this proceeding. Based on the forgoing, it is found that $15,000,000, as a full measure of Mr. Fowler’s damages, is very conservative, and is a fair and appropriate figure against which to calculate any lesser portion of the total recovery that should be allocated as reimbursement for the Medicaid lien for past medical expenses. The $800,000 settlement is 5.33 percent of the $15,000,000 conservative value of the claim.
