The Issue The issue to be determined in this matter is the amount of money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, John Gray, a Medicaid recipient, following Petitioner’s recovery from a third-party.
Findings Of Fact On January 18, 2007, Petitioner was involved in a devastating automobile accident. Another vehicle, driven by Damil Belizaire, crossed a median and collided head-on into the car Petitioner was driving. No evidence indicates that any negligence on the part of Petitioner caused or contributed to the accident or his injury. Petitioner suffered catastrophic injuries from the collision, including a spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia. Following the accident, Petitioner was transported to UF Health Shands Hospital (“Shands”) in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner remained in Shands receiving medical treatment for 77 days. Once Petitioner became medically stable, he was transferred to the Brooks Rehabilitation Center (“Brooks”) in Jacksonville, Florida. There, Petitioner received intensive physical and occupational therapy care. Petitioner remained at Brooks until June 1, 2007, when he was discharged. Petitioner is permanently paraplegic. On April 7, 2008, Petitioner sued Mr. Belizaire seeking to recover his damages from the automobile accident. Petitioner’s lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in Duval County, Case No. 16-2008-CA-004366. On April 1, 2013, Petitioner received a jury verdict in his favor and was awarded a Final Judgment against Mr. Belizaire in the amount of $2,859,120.56, including statutory interest. The damages award was allocated as follows: $128,760.56 for past medical expenses; $1,301,268.00 for future medical expenses; $202,670.00 for the loss of earnings in the past; $916,422.00 for loss of earning capacity in the future; $50,000.00 for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the past; and $260,000.00 for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the future. Despite his verdict awarding damages, Petitioner has only been able to recover $10,000.00 from Mr. Belizaire. Mr. Belizaire’s automobile liability insurance company paid Petitioner $10,000, which was the limit of his bodily injury liability insurance policy. The Agency, through its Medicaid program, paid a total of $65,615.05 for Petitioner’s medical care resulting from the 2007 automobile accident.2/ This administrative matter centers on the amount the Agency is entitled to be paid to satisfy its Medicaid lien following Petitioner’s recovery of $10,000 from a third-party. Under section 409.910, the Agency may be repaid for its Medicaid expenditures from any recovery from liable third-parties. The Agency claims that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect $3,750 regardless of the full value of Petitioner’s damages. (The Agency subtracted a statutorily recognized attorney fee of $2,500 from $10,000 leaving $7,500. One-half of $7,500 is $3,750.) Petitioner asserts that pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of Petitioner’s recovery than the amount it calculated using the section 409.910(11)(f) formula. Petitioner specifically argues that the Agency’s Medicaid lien must be reduced pro rata, taking into account the full value of Petitioner’s personal injury claim as determined by the Final Judgment entered in the underlying negligence lawsuit. Otherwise, application of the default statutory formula under section 409.910(11)(f) would permit the Agency to collect more than that portion of the settlement representing compensation for medical expenses. Petitioner maintains that such reimbursement violates the federal Medicaid law’s anti-lien provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1), and Florida common law. Petitioner contends that the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s recovery should be reduced to the amount of $230.00. Based on the evidence in the record, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Accordingly, the Agency is entitled to recover $3,750.00 from Petitioner’s recovery of $10,000 from a third- party to satisfy its Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration is required by law and rule of the Agency to include the gain or loss on the sale of depreciable assets as the result of a sale or disposal, in the calculation of Medicaid allowable costs.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation which is incorporated in part herein as follows: Petitioner purchased Orlando General Hospital ("OGH"), Medicaid provider number 120065, on December 31, 1990. Upon its sale, OGH merged into and became part of Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., wherein after it was known as Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital East ("Florida Hospital East"). Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital East is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation. Florida Hospital East assumed all of the assets and liabilities of OGH. OGH filed a terminating cost report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 1990. On December 31, 1990, the date of sale of OGH to Petitioner, OGH incurred a loss on the sale of the hospital, a depreciable asset. The loss on the sale of OGH was included on both OGH's Medicaid and Medicare terminating cost reports. A loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is the amount that the net book value of the asset sold exceeds the purchase price. A gain or loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is a capital cost. Due to the mechanism of the cost report, a loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is divided into "periods" based upon the time period to which the loss relates. The portion of the loss related to the fiscal year in which the asset is sold is referred to as a "current period" loss. The portion of the loss that relates to all fiscal years prior to the year in which the asset is sold is referred to as a "prior period" loss. Gains and losses related to the current period are included on Worksheet A of the Medicare and Medicaid cost report. Current period capital costs flow to Worksheet B-II Part and B Part III [sic] of the Medicaid cost report. Gains and losses related to the prior period are included on Worksheet E of the Medicare and Medicaid cost reports. OGH's current period is the fiscal year ending 12/31/90. OGH's prior periods in which it participated in the Medicaid Program are 10/24/84 through 12/31/89. OGH's audited Medicaid cost report included in allowable Medicaid costs a loss on the sale of OGH related to the current period. OGH's audited Medicaid cost report did not include in allowable Medicaid costs a loss on the sale of OGH related to the prior periods. The loss on the sale of OGH related to the current period was included in Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicaid cost report. These costs, including the loss on the sale of OGH, flowed to Worksheet B Part II. OGH's audited Medicare cost report included as allowable Medicare costs the loss on the sale of OGH related to both the current and prior periods in the amount of $9,874,047. The loss from the sale of OGH related to the current period was included on Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicare cost report. The costs from Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicare cost report flowed to Worksheet B Part II of OGH's audited Medicare cost report. The loss related to the prior period was included on Worksheet E Part B of OGH's audited Medicaid cost report. The Agency utilizes costs included on Worksheet A of the Medicaid cost report to calculate Medicaid allowable costs. The Agency utilizes the capital costs included on Worksheet B Part II and/or B Part III to calculate allowable Medicaid fixed costs. The Agency does not utilize costs included on Worksheet E Part III to calculate Medicaid allowable costs. The Agency reimburses providers based upon Medicaid allowable costs. aa. The Agency did not include the portion of the loss on the sale of OGH related to the prior periods in the calculation of the OGH's Medicaid allowable costs. bb. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (Intermediary), contracted with the Agency to perform all audits of Medicaid cost reports. Agency reimbursement to Medicaid providers is governed by Florida's Title XIX Inpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan (Plan), which has been incorporated in Rule 59G-6.020, Florida Administrative Code. The Plan provides that Medicaid reimbursement for inpatient services shall be based upon a prospectively determined per diem. The payment is based upon the facility's allowable Medicaid costs which include both variable costs and fixed costs. Fixed costs include capital costs and allowable depreciation costs. The per diem payment is calculated by the Agency based upon each facility's allowable Medicaid costs which must be taken by the agency from the facility's cost report. Capital costs, such as depreciation, are found on Worksheet B, Part II and Part III. The Plan requires all facilities participating in the Medicaid program to submit an annual cost report to the Agency. The report is to be in detail, listing their "costs for their entire reporting year making appropriate adjustment as required by the plan for the determination of allowable costs." The cost report must be prepared in accordance with the Medicare method of reimbursement and cost finding, except as modified by the Plan. The cost reports relied upon by the Agency to set rates are audited by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. which has been directed by the Agency to follow Medicare principles of reimbursement in its audit of cost reports. Prior to January 11, 1995, the Plan did not expressly state whether capital gains or losses relating to a change of facility ownership were allowable costs. The 1995 amendment to the Plan contained language expressly providing "[f]or the purposes of this plan, gains or losses resulting from a change of ownership will not be included in the determination of allowable cost for Medicaid reimbursement." No change was made by the amendment to the Medicare principles of reimbursement regarding the treatment of gains and losses on the sale of depreciable assets. The Medicare principles of reimbursement provides that gains and losses from the disposition of depreciable assets are includable in computing allowable costs. The Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15)(PRM), identifies the methods of disposal for assets that are recognized. They include a bona fide sale of depreciable assets, but do not mention a change of ownership. PRM Section 132 treats a loss on a sale of a depreciable asset as an adjustment to depreciation for both the current and periods. Depreciable assets with an expected life of more than two years may not be expensed in the year in which they are put into service. They must be capitalized and a proportionate share of the cost expensed as depreciation over the life of the property. To do so, the provider must estimate the useful life of the property based upon the guidelines of the American Hospital Association, and divide the cost by the number of years of estimated life. It is this yearly depreciation figure which is claimed on the cost report and which is reimbursed. When a depreciable asset is sold for less than book value (net undepreciated value), the provider suffers a loss. Petitioner claims that Medicare holds that in such a case it must be concluded that the estimated depreciation was erroneous and the provider did not receive adequate reimbursement during the years the asset was in service. Medicare accounting procedures do not distinguish between the treatment of a loss on the sale of depreciable assets as related to current and prior periods. PIM Section 132 requires that Medicare recognize the entire loss as an allowable cost for both the current and prior periods, and Medicare treated Petitioner's loss from the sale of its facility as an allowable cost for Medicare reimbursement under both current and prior periods. With the adoption of the January 1995 amendment, however, the wording of the state plan was changed to specifically prohibit gains or losses from a change of ownership from being included in allowable costs for Medicaid reimbursement. This was the first time the state plan addressed gains and losses on the disposal of depreciable assets resulting from a change of ownership. The Agency contends, however, that it has never reimbursed for losses on disposal of property due to a change of ownership, and that the inclusion of the new language was to clarify a pre-existing policy which was being followed at the time of the 1995 amendment, and which goes back to the late 1970s. It would appear, however, that the policy was never written down; was never conveyed to Blue Cross/Blue shield; was never formally conveyed to Medicaid providers; and was never conveyed to the community at large. When pressed, the Agency could not identify any specific case where the policy was followed by the Agency. While admitting that it is Agency practice not to treat losses from the sale of depreciable assets in prior periods as an allowable cost, Petitioner contends that it has been the Agency's practice to treat the loss on the sale of depreciable assets relating to the current period as an allowable cost, and cited several instances where this appears to have been done. The Agency contends that any current period losses paid were paid without knowledge of the Agency, in error, and in violation of the plan. On October 25, 1996, the Agency entered a Final Order in a case involving Florida Hospital/Waterman, Inc., as Petitioner, and the Agency as Respondent. This case was filed by the Petitioner to challenge the Agency's treatment of the loss on the sale of Waterman Medical Center, Inc., another of Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation, and the Final Order in issue incorporated a stipulation into which the parties had entered and which addressed the issue in question here. The stipulation included certain position statements including: A loss on the sale of depreciable assets is an allowable cost under the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement. The State Plan does not specify that the loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is to be treated in a manner different than under the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement. Thus the loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is an allowable cost under the State Plan. The Agency agrees, in accordance with the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement, that under the terms of the State Plan, prior period losses for Waterman will be allocated to prior periods and included in the calculation of the per diem and per visit rates. According to William G. Nutt, Petitioner's director of reimbursement, the only difference between the facts of the Waterman case and the instant case is that they relate to the sale of different facilities. The treatment of loss on the sale of depreciable assets as outlined in the Waterman stipulation is in conflict with the amended Plan and with the unwritten and unuttered Agency policy as urged by the Agency in this case. The Agency agreed in one case to a treatment of loss which it now rejects in the instant case. Petitioner urges that subsequent to the settlement of the Waterman case, but before the instant case was set for hearing, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations during which, according to counsel for the Agency, they made "significant" progress toward applying the settlement in the Waterman case to the current case. In a motion filed to delay the setting of this case for hearing, counsel for the Agency indicated the parties were "finalizing" settlement to resolve the case without resorting to a final hearing, and in a follow-up agreed motion for continuance, advised that the "parties [had] finalized a settlement document [which they were] in the process of executing. The settlement agreement reached by the parties was signed by a representative of the Petitioner and then forwarded to the Agency for signature. The document was not signed by the Agency, and when Petitioner sought enforcement of the "settlement" by an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, the request was denied as being outside the jurisdiction of the judge, and the matter was set for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order including the loss on the sale of Orlando General Hospital as an allowable cost for determining Petitioner's entitlement to Medicaid reimbursement for both current and prior years. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanne B. Erde, Esquire Broad and Cassel Miami Center Suite 3000 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Esquire Steel Hector & Davis LLP 215 South Monroe Street Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Mark S. Thomas, Esquire Madeline McGuckin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue is the amount of Petitioner’s personal injury settlement proceeds that should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), to satisfy its Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency authorized to administer Florida’s Medicaid program. See § 409.902, Fla Stat. On July 6, 2011, Petitioner suffered a catastrophic injury to his spinal cord as a passenger in a car involved in a single-car accident. Petitioner was permanently rendered an incomplete quadriplegic unable to walk (for more than 10 to 15 steps), stand, ambulate, eat or toilet without assistance. Prior to the accident, Petitioner was a senior at the University of South Florida, who intended to become a physical therapist. Additionally, he was heavily involved in mixed martial arts and won amateur of the year in 2010. Petitioner’s medical care related to the car accident was paid by Medicaid. Medicaid provided $177,747.91 in benefits associated with Petitioner’s car accident. This amount, $177,747.91, represents the past medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, and for which AHCA seeks reimbursement. There is no dispute that Medicaid paid $177,747.91 for Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Petitioner brought a PI action against the driver of the car, the owner of the car and the insurance carrier providing uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance covering the accident. This PI action sought to recover all of Petitioner’s damages associated with his injuries. During the pendency of Petitioner’s PI action, AHCA was notified of the action. On April 25, 2014, AHCA notified Petitioner’s then counsel (Gene Odom, Esquire) that a preliminary lien of $177,747.91 was in place, and that an itemized accounting would be provided. It was unknown if the defendants, in the PI case, knew of the Medicaid lien during the negotiations. There was no evidence presented that AHCA participated in the PI action, any settlement negotiations, agreed to any settlement(s), or executed the actual settlements. The PI lawsuit was settled in 2017 through a series of confidential settlement(s) totaling $1,000,000.3/ The total settlement was comprised of $100,000 in uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, $100,000 in bodily injury coverage, $500,000 in coverage from the leased vehicle, and $300,000 in settlement of a bad faith claim. Petitioner’s condition and his need for continuing care are not in dispute. A life-care plan (Petitioner’s Exhibit 2) identifying the “medical basis for life-care planning” for Petitioner was prepared by John L. Merritt, M.D. Dr. Merritt did not testify at hearing. Application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioner’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $177,747.91 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 constituted “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). The Medicaid program spent $177,747.91 towards Petitioner’s past medical expenses. There was no testimony that any portion of this amount was paid for Mr. Eady’s future medical expenses. No testimony was received as to any taxable costs associated with the action at law. The parties did not stipulate to the amount of any attorneys’ fees related to the settlement(s). The parties did not divulge an amount (if any) designated in the settlement(s) to pay for Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Mr. Guito is a PI attorney and Petitioner’s step- father. Mr. Guito is employed by McIntyre, Thanasides, Bringgold, Elliott, Grimaldi and Guito. He has practiced law for 29 years and, in addition to the PI work, handles cases involving civil litigation, medical malpractice, and catastrophic injury. Mr. Guito has tried numerous jury trials and represented individuals who have suffered spinal cord injuries. Mr. Guito stays abreast of jury verdicts as it is important to understand what types of damages juries are awarding, whether they are more conservative or liberal in damages, and how the juries view evidence. As a routine part of his practice, Mr. Guito evaluates the damages suffered by injured people. He has experience in dealing with life-care planners, vocational rehabilitative experts, economists, and other lawyers involved with claims for significant injuries and damages. Mr. Guito assisted attorneys in prosecuting Mr. Eady’s case in order to maximize his recovery.4/ Mr. Guito reviewed the accident report, various engineering expert reports, Mr. Eady’s medical records and his life-care plan. Mr. Guito opined that Mr. Eady’s damages are in excess of $15,000,000. Mr. Barrett is a PI attorney with experience in medical malpractice, medical products and pharmaceutical products liability, and catastrophic injury cases. Mr. Barrett is a seasoned trial attorney. However, “as of a couple of months ago,” he is “in-between law firms” deciding whether to form a new firm or “quit it [the practice of law] all together.” In response to a question about reviewing medical records and life-care plans, Mr. Barrett testified that because these types of cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, he has to evaluate each case to determine whether the contingent fee is enough to “pay a staff of -- in my case, 20 or so employees. Pay a lease, pay for a building, pay for all the things, all the overhead, [and] pay a salary.” Mr. Barrett did not “honestly . . . remember how the tender was stated” when asked if he was tendered specifically as an expert in the allocation of settlements in a Division hearing. When asked if it mattered how damages are allocated in a settlement, Mr. Barrett provided there might be tax consequences because in punitive damages “you don’t get the same percentages,” which “could have an affect [sic] on lien recoveries.” He further qualified his answer by stating “you’ve already . . . won the case because you’ve got an allocation in the jury verdict.” This case is based on confidential settlements, not a jury verdict. Mr. Barrett explained Mr. Eady’s damages: [Mr. Eady] was a passenger in a Jaguar, which, I took from the complaint, was a new car or a car that belonged to an agency. And it was driven by an employee, or Bailee, or something of that agency. Who took too tight a turn and rolled the car. And, apparently, there was some intrusion from the top of the car, from the ceiling of the car. And from the nature of the damage, it’s almost certain that he hit his head on the top of the car and broke, or dislocated several vertebrae in his neck. Such that his fourth cervical vertebrae was – well, I would call it a crush or a burst fracture, down to where it intruded on the fifth cervical vertebrae. And there was extreme, not total, damage to his spinal cord, in the area of the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae, such that he became what’s called a partial quadriplegic. By “partial,” we can firmly define and say that he had, initially, no feeling or use at all in his lower extremities, with a lot of pain and some partial movement of his upper extremities. *** [H]e was very motivated to recover. . . . [H]e was still striving to get better. And he had made some progress, he was able to -- some use of his arms. Mr. Barrett “paid most attention to . . . [Mr. Eady’s] life care plan,” which Mr. Barrett thought was a “preliminary” plan. Mr. Barrett acknowledged the $1,000,000 settlement, but opined that the settlement did “not in any way” fully compensate Mr. Eady for the full amount of his damages. Mr. Barrett suggested that Petitioner’s damages were in the range of $25,000,000 to $35,000,000. There was no suggestion that the settlement was forced upon Petitioner. Mr. Guito and Mr. Barrett spoke in generalities, speculations, and reasonableness as to the settlement in relation to the Medicaid lien. Each suggested what they thought a jury would do, if presented with the facts in this case. Their testimony suggested that a lesser amount of the total recovery should be allocated for Mr. Eady’s past medical expenses in this instance. Mr. Barrett accepted Mr. Guito’s suggestion that $15,000,000 was a conservative damage estimate. They postulated that because Petitioner only received $1,000,000 in settlement of what should have been at least a $15,000,000 award (or 6.66 percent of the $1,000,000 settlement), then Medicaid should only recover 6.66 percent from the settlement. The witnesses asserted that AHCA’s reimbursement for Petitioner’s past medical expenses should only be $11,838.01, or 6.66 percent of the $1,000,000 settlement amount. This is often referred to as the “proportionality test” or “pro-rata test.” For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned does not agree with Petitioner’s position. Application of the formula contained in section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioner’s $1,000,000 settlements would require payment to ACHA in the amount of $177,747.91, the actual amount of the funds expended by Medicaid.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), is to be reimbursed for medical expenses paid on behalf of Markus Smith (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Smith”) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ from settlement proceeds he received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits accepted into evidence, admitted facts set forth in the pre- hearing stipulation, and matters subject to official recognition. Facts Pertaining to the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation and the Medicaid Lien On February 12, 2018, Mr. Smith was 26 years old and working for $11.00 an hour as a custodian for E&A Cleaning at All Saints Academy, in Winter Haven, Florida. While leaving the school just before 9:00 a.m., Mr. Smith came to a traffic light at the school’s entrance. When the light turned green and Mr. Smith moved into the intersection, another car ran the red light and slammed into the driver’s side of Mr. Smith’s vehicle. Mr. Smith was severely injured and transported to Lakeland Regional Medical Center where he stayed until approximately April 13, 2019. Mr. Smith’s injuries included, but were not limited to, a collapsed lung, altered mental state, intracerebral hemorrhage, traumatic subdural hematoma, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, traumatic intraventricular hemorrhage, lumbar transverse process fracture, and a left ankle fracture. Mr. Smith required surgery to repair his left ankle, and he now walks with a severe limp. He experiences a constant, dull ache in his left ankle and is unable to walk any significant distance without experiencing severe pain. It is very difficult for Mr. Smith to stand, and he has a constant fear of falling because his balance is “terrible.” Mr. Smith is left-handed, and the accident left him with very limited use of his left hand. Since the accident, Mr. Smith’s vision has been blurry, and he suffers from double vision. He believes that his impaired vision would prevent him from obtaining a driver’s license. As described above in paragraph 3, Mr. Smith suffered a brain injury during the accident, and there was some bleeding inside his skull. He now has difficulty forming long-term memories and often records conversations so that he has a record of what was said. Since the accident, Mr. Smith has been struggling with anger and depression. He has difficulty controlling his anger and is prone to random outbursts of rage. He has experienced suicidal thoughts and asked his current caretaker if she would kill him, if he gave her a knife. Since being released from the hospital, Mr. Smith has not received any physical or occupational therapy. He was receiving some mental health treatment and taking medicine to treat his depression and memory issues. However, he cites a lack of transportation as to why he is no longer receiving any care. Mr. Smith has not worked since the accident, and the Social Security Administration has determined that he is disabled. After leaving the hospital, Mr. Smith stayed with his girlfriend. After they separated, Mr. Smith lived with his father. Since November of 2018, he has been living with his father’s ex-wife in Georgia. Mr. Smith, through counsel, filed a lawsuit against the driver and owner of the car that slammed into him. They settled Mr. Smith’s claims for the available policy limits of $100,000.00. There was no other liable person or other insurance available to Mr. Smith to compensate him for his injuries. AHCA provided $74,312.38 in Medicaid benefits to Mr. Smith and determined through the formula in section 409.910(11)(f), that $36,596.54 of Ms. Smith’s settlement proceeds was subject to the Medicaid lien. Mr. Smith, through counsel, deposited the entire settlement proceeds of $100,000.00 into an interest bearing account pending resolution of AHCA’s interest. Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim David Dismuke was identified as Mr. Smith’s expert witness. Since 2012, Mr. Dismuke has been a board-certified trial lawyer, and approximately one percent of attorneys in Florida possess that credential. That designation essentially means that an attorney can represent that he or she is an expert in civil trial practice. Mr. Dismuke has his own law practice and has handled at least 34 civil jury trials. Over the course of his 18-year legal career, he has assessed the value of at least 2,000 personal injury cases, including ones involving brain injuries. Mr. Dismuke also has extensive experience in valuing the individual components of a damages award: Q: Before we get to this final opinion, Mr. Dismuke, in your practice, have you had to allocate portions of settlements between past medical expenses, usual medical expenses, and the other elements of damages? A: Many times. Q: And for what purpose would you do that sort of allocation? A: We do it, we do it frequently. We do it often times in situations just like this, where we’re trying to determine what an appropriate amount would be for either a Medicare or Medicaid lien, health insurance liens, we deal with it in situations, and we have lien issues on almost every case. Q: And do you also do it when you are trying to help clients figure out how, and in what manner, to structure their settlements, so they can have enough money for their future medical expenses and pay their old medical expenses? A: Yes, we do. And in fact to make another point, every single case I have to allocate [] the value [of past medical expenses], that’s one element of damages, what the value of future [medical expenses] is, that’s another element of damages, past lost wages, another element of damages, future lost wages, another element of damages, pain and suffering, inconvenience, you know, the noneconomic stuff. Every case we make these, we make these determinations. That’s how we come to total value on every case that we settle or get a verdict on. Q: And even on the ones that you settle for less than full value, are you still performing that same evaluation of the allocation of the various elements of damages? A: Yes sir. Mr. Dismuke has similar experience with Medicare set asides: Q: Now, another area where you allocate between elements of damages is where you require a Medicare set aside, isn’t that true? A: That’s correct. Q: Now, tell the court what a Medicare set aside is? A: A Medicare set aside is something that we put in place to protect the future interest of Medicare for when there’s a settlement. So we receive a large settlement that the person is still going to require future medical care, so we have to evaluate what is a reasonable amount of that settlement to set aside to protect Medicare’s future interests, so the client doesn’t just get a windfall from the settlement. Q: And have you done that? A: Multiple times. Q: And that requires you to evaluate the total settlement and allocate between past medical expenses, future medical expenses, pain and suffering and other elements of damages? A: That’s correct. In Mr. Dismuke’s opinion, Mr. Smith’s total damages easily amount to $1 million and could be as high as $2 to $3 million. Mr. Dismuke values Mr. Smith’s lost wages at no less than $750,000.00. While Mr. Smith is not currently receiving medical treatment, Mr. Dismuke believes those expenses would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions of dollars. However, the damages resulting from Mr. Smith’s pain and suffering would be the largest component of his total damages. Mr. Dismuke believes that Mr. Smith’s past medical expenses would be the smallest component of his total damages given Mr. Smith’s age, future needs, and lost wages. With regard to allocating $10,000.00 of Mr. Smith’s total recovery to past medical expenses, Mr. Dismuke testified that a “$10,000 allocation of the $100,000 settlement is perfectly reasonable if not, more than generous, given the past [medical expenses] in this case of around $70,000. So setting forth ten percent of that is a generous allocation for past medical expenses.” Findings Regarding the Testimony Presented at the Final Hearing The undersigned finds that the testimony from Mr. Dismuke was compelling and persuasive as to the total damages incurred by Mr. Smith. While attaching a value to the damages that a plaintiff could reasonably expect to receive from a jury is not an exact science, Mr. Dismuke’s considerable experience with litigating personal injury lawsuits makes him a very compelling witness regarding the valuation of damages suffered by an injured party such as Mr. Smith. The undersigned also finds that Mr. Dismuke was qualified to present expert testimony as to how a damages award should be allocated among its components, such as past medical expenses, economic damages, and noneconomic damages.2/ AHCA offered no evidence to counter Mr. Dismuke’s opinions regarding Mr. Smith’s total damages or the past medical expenses he recovered. Accordingly, it is found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the total value of Mr. Smith’s personal injury claim is no less than $1 million and that the $100,000.00 settlement resulted in him recovering no more than 10 percent of his past medical expenses. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that $10,000.00 amounts to a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Mr. Smith and payable to AHCA.
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), out of her settlement proceeds, as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Alia Juarez ("Alia") was born on September 12, 2016. A few hours after birth, Alia was found, in the arms of a relative in her mother's hospital room, to be unresponsive and not breathing. She was resuscitated, but suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of lack of oxygen. Due to the catastrophic and permanent brain damage, Alia is unable to ambulate, communicate, toilet, eat or care for herself in any manner. She is completely dependent on others for every aspect of her daily life. Alia's medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid and Medicaid provided $168,054.34 in benefits. Accordingly, Alia's entire claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $168,054.34. Alia's parents and natural guardians, Sandra Perez Luna and Jose Luis Juarez, brought a medical malpractice claim against the medical providers responsible for Alia's care ("Defendants") to recover all of Alia's damages associated with her injuries, as well as their own damages associated with their daughter's injuries. The medical malpractice claim against the Defendants was settled for a lump sum unallocated settlement of $925,000. Due to Alia being a minor, court approval of the settlement was required and the court approved the settlement by Order of November 26, 2018. As a condition of Alia's eligibility for Medicaid, Alia assigned to AHCA her right to recover from liable third-parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of Alia's medical malpractice claim, AHCA was notified of the claim. AHCA did not "institute, intervene in, or join in" the medical malpractice action to enforce its rights as provided in section 409.910(11), or participate in any aspect of Alia's medical malpractice claim against the Defendants. Instead, AHCA asserted a $168,054.34 Medicaid lien against Alia's cause of action and settlement of that action. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Alia's $925,000 settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $168,054.34 Medicaid lien. Petitioner presented the testimony of Alfred R. Bell, Jr., Esquire, a Florida attorney with 22 years' experience in personal injury law, including medical malpractice. Mr. Bell is board-certified in Civil Trial by the Florida Bar. He represented Alia and her family in the medical malpractice action. As a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured clients. He also stays abreast of jury verdicts in his area by reviewing jury verdict reporters and discussing cases with other trial attorneys. He was accepted as an expert in valuation of damages without objection. Mr. Bell explained the seriousness of Alia's injuries, stating that within a few hours of being born, Alia went from a healthy baby to a child who will never have a normal life. Mr. Bell testified that Alia is unable to swallow and requires suction every five to 15 minutes and will be dependent on others for her care for the remainder of her life. "I can't think of much worse to have happened to a child than the damages that she suffered," said Mr. Bell. The damages of Alia's parents are similarly catastrophic. Mr. Bell testified that he had reviewed life care plans and economist reports in cases involving similar injuries to children and the present value of Alia's future needs would approach $20 million. Further, her lost ability to earn money in the future would have a present value of $1.7 million. Mr. Bell testified that to these economic damages, the value of Alia's noneconomic damages would be added. Mr. Bell outlined that the "worst damage in my opinion that she sustained isn't an economic damage, it's the damage to the person because that's something that you can't give them back what's been taken away." Mr. Bell testified that Alia's noneconomic damages would have a similar significant value. Based on his training and experience, including the review of jury verdicts in comparable cases, Mr. Bell opined that the damages recoverable in Alia's case had a conservative value of $20 million. Petitioner also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire, a Tallahassee trial attorney with more than 40 years' experience. His practice is dedicated to plaintiff's personal injury, as well as medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. He has handled cases involving catastrophic brain injury to children and handles jury trials. He routinely makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. He was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages without objection. Based on his training and experience, Mr. Barrett opined that Alia's damages are conservatively valued in excess of $20 million. He testified that Alia's economic damages alone would have a value of $20 million and then, her noneconomic damages would also have a value of $20 million alone. In regard to the noneconomic damages, Mr. Barrett testified that the jury verdicts in cases comparable to that of Alia's case support his valuation of Alia's damages--noting that the average noneconomic award alone in those comparable verdicts was $19.4 million. Both experts testified that using $20 million as the value of all damages, Alia only recovered 4.63 percent of the value of her damages. Accordingly, they opined that it would be reasonable, rational, and conservative to allocate 4.63 percent of the settlement, or $7,780.92, to past medical expenses paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of damages, propose a different valuation of the damages, or contest the methodology used to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. In short, Petitioner's evidence was unrebutted. The testimony from Mr. Bell and Mr. Barrett is compelling and persuasive. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that $7,780.92 of the settlement represents reimbursement for past medical expenses.
The Issue What amount from Petitioners’ settlement proceeds should be paid to satisfy Respondent’s Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018)?1/
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts (near-verbatim) On February 13, 2017, Grace Provvedi (Mrs. Provvedi) underwent an outpatient surgical procedure. Post-surgery, a Fentanyl patch was applied to Mrs. Provvedi’s body for the management of pain. Additionally, she was discharged home with a prescription for the oral pain medicines, Lorazepam and Robaxin. Mrs. Provvedi returned for a follow-up doctor’s visit on February 15, 2017. That same day, February 15, 2017, Mrs. Provvedi went into cardiopulmonary arrest at home. She was transported to the hospital where she was ultimately diagnosed with anoxic brain injury due to pain medicine overdose. Mrs. Provvedi remained in a vegetative state until her death on March 24, 2017. Mrs. Provvedi was survived by her husband Timothy Provvedi, their four-year-old child, B.P. and an adult child, Kyle Lima. Mrs. Provvedi’s medical care related to her injury was paid by Medicaid, and AHCA through the Medicaid program provided $54,071.79 in benefits associated with Mrs. Provvedi’s injury. This $54,071.79 represented the entire claim for past medical expenses. Mrs. Provvedi’s funeral bill totaled $11,422.97 and was paid by her surviving husband. Timothy Provvedi was appointed the personal representative of the Estate of Grace Provvedi. Timothy Provvedi, as the personal representative of the Estate of Grace Provvedi, brought a wrongful death claim to recover both the individual statutory damages of Mrs. Provvedi’s surviving spouse and two surviving children, as well as the individual statutory damages of the Estate of Grace Provvedi against the doctor and physician’s group (Defendants) who prescribed the deadly combination of the Fentanyl patch and oral pain medication. Timothy Provvedi, as the personal representative of the Estate of Grace Provvedi, on behalf of Mrs. Provvedi’s surviving husband and two children, as well as on behalf of the Estate of Grace Provvedi, compromised and settled the wrongful death claim with the Defendants for the unallocated lump sum amount of $225,000. During the pendency of the wrongful death claim, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $54,071.79 Medicaid lien against the Estate of Grace Provvedi’s cause of action and settlement of that action. By letter, the attorney handling the wrongful death claim notified AHCA of the settlement. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $54,071.79 Medicaid lien. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the wrongful death settlement. AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $54,071.79 on behalf of Mrs. Provvedi, all of which represents expenditures paid for Mrs. Provvedi’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $225,000 settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The formula at section 409.910(11)(f), as applied to the entire $225,000 settlement, requires payment of the full $54,071.79 Medicaid lien and AHCA is demanding payment of $54,071.79 from the $225,000 settlement. The Petitioners have 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 Statutues, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Additional Findings of Fact Mr. Provvedi, as surviving husband, and the two children of Mrs. Provvedi, suffered economic and non-economic damages. The Estate of Mrs. Provvedi suffered economic damages in the form of medical expenses resulting from the Defendant’s alleged negligence. Mrs. Provvedi’s funeral bill was paid by Mr. Provvedi. Pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act, burial expenses are generally charged to the estate, unless, as in the present case, such expenses are paid by a surviving spouse and reimbursement of the same is not sought from the estate. Mrs. Provvedi, as a condition of eligibility for Medicaid, assigned to AHCA her right to recover medical expenses paid by Medicaid from liable third parties. Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. John W. Pate, a trial attorney with the law firm of Haygood, Orr & Pearson in Irving, Texas. Mr. Pate has been a trial attorney for 14 years and he specializes in representing individuals in personal injury, medical malpractice, and wrongful death cases. Mr. Pate testified that during the last several years, his practice has focused extensively on litigating medical malpractice cases involving the wrongful administration of prescription medications, including opioids like Fentanyl, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, and other drugs which impact an individual’s central nervous system (CNS). Such drugs are often referred to as CNS depressant drugs. Mr. Pate routinely conducts civil jury trials, and as a consequence thereof, he stays abreast of jury verdicts by reviewing jury verdict reporters and discussing cases with other trial attorneys. Although Mr. Pate is not a member of the Florida Bar, he represents injured parties in Florida which necessitates that he stays up-to-date with civil jury verdicts from the State of Florida. Mr. Pate testified that as a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties and credibly explained his process for making such assessments. Without objection, Mr. Pate was recognized as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Pate served as lead attorney in the litigation against the medical providers who treated Mrs. Provvedi. In his capacity as lead attorney, Mr. Pate reviewed Mrs. Provvedi’s medical records, consulted with an anesthesiology and pain management expert in North Carolina, consulted with a plastic surgery expert in Miami, met personally with Mr. Provvedi, and spoke with Mrs. Provvedi’s children. Mr. Pate, in explaining the circumstances that allegedly led to the death of Mrs. Provvedi, testified that on February 13, 2017, Mrs. Provvedi underwent an outpatient surgical procedure at a plastic surgery center. Soon after the surgery, a Fentanyl patch was applied to Mrs. Provvedi’s body for the treatment of pain. Ms. Provvedi was then discharged home with a prescription for Lorazepam and Robaxin, each of which is an oral pain medication. Mr. Pate testified that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns against the use of Fentanyl patches post-surgery, and also warns against the combination of a Fentanyl patch with other CNS depressant drugs, such as Lorazepam and Robaxin. Mr. Pate explained, as to his theory of legal liability against Mrs. Provvedi’s medical providers, that over time the prescribed CNS depressants accumulated in Mrs. Provvedi’s body which resulted in her being found unresponsive two days after surgery. Mrs. Provvedi was transported by EMS to the hospital, where, upon arrival, the Fentanyl patch was removed. Mrs. Provvedi was diagnosed as having suffered from an acute anoxic brain injury and respiratory failure due to a pain medication overdose. Mrs. Provvedi never regained consciousness, and one month later was discharged from the hospital to hospice care where she died on March 24, 2017. Mr. Pate’s undisputed testimony was that his investigation revealed that Mr. and Mrs. Provvedi had a loving and devoted marriage, and that it was emotionally devastating to Mr. Provvedi to watch his wife die over the course of five weeks. Mr. Pate also testified that his investigation revealed that the Provvedi’s minor son, B.P., who was five at the time of Mrs. Provvedi’s death, was profoundly affected by the loss of his mother and that Ms. Provvedi’s adult son, who lived with the Provvedis prior to and at the time of his mother’s passing, was similarly devastated by the death of his mother. Mr. Pate credibly testified that based on his training and experience, the wrongful death damages recoverable in Mrs. Provvedi’s case had a conservative value of between $3,054,071.79 to $5,054,071.79. According to Mr. Pate’s undisputed testimony, Mrs. Provvedi’s estate had a claim for damages in the amount of $54,071.79, which is the amount of medical expenses that were paid, and resulted from Mrs. Provvedi’s injury and death. Mr. Pate excluded the funeral bill from the estate’s damages because the same bill was paid by Mr. Provvedi, as surviving husband. Mr. Pate also testified that the estate likely did not have a viable claim for net accumulations because Mrs. Provvedi did not work outside of the marital home. Mr. Pate testified that a wrongful death claim was brought against the plastic surgeon that operated on Mrs. Provvedi and the surgical facility where the procedure was performed. The basis of the claim was that the doctor violated the standard of care by prescribing the Fentanyl patch to Mrs. Provvedi in clear contravention of the FDA warnings, and it was error to prescribe the other oral pain medicines in conjunction with the Fentanyl patch. Mr. Pate testified that he expected the at-fault parties to dispute causation, but ultimately the main issue was that the alleged at-fault parties had only $250,000 in insurance coverage. Mr. Pate credibly testified that expenses associated with litigating the wrongful death case would be considerable and would significantly erode any likely net recovery. Given these concerns, the decision was made to settle the case pre-suit for $225,000. Utilizing the conservative value of $3,054,071.79, the $225,000 settlement represents a recovery of only 7.367214 percent of the value of all damages. Thus, only 7.367214 percent of the $54,071.79 claim for past medical expenses was recovered in the settlement, or $3,983.58. Based on the methodology of applying the same ratio the settlement bore to the total monetary value of all the damages to the estate, $3,983.58 of the settlement represents the estate’s compensation for past medical expenses. The allocation of $3,983.58 of the settlement to the estate’s claim for past medical expenses is reasonable and rational. Petitioners have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that $3,983.58 represents the portion of the $225,000 settlement recovered to compensate the estate for medical expenses necessitated by the alleged negligence of the tortfeasors.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount payable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to satisfy a Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact On November 2, 2012, the Petitioner, then 20 years old, was a restrained passenger in his girlfriend's Ford Mustang when it was t-boned on the passenger side by a Chevy pickup truck operated by Eddie Ellison. On November 2, 2012, immediately prior to the collision, Eddie Ellison, who was driving eastbound on Harney Road in Hillsborough County, Florida, failed to stop at the stop sign at Williams Road. Eddie Ellison was negligent in the operation of his Chevy Truck on November 2, 2012, and caused it to strike the Ford Mustang occupied by the Petitioner. Eddie Ellison's wife, Alberta Ellison, was the co-owner of the Chevy truck. The Petitioner was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the collision, and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner that was a proximate cause of any injury suffered by him as a result of the motor vehicle collision. There was no negligence on the part of any person other than Eddie Ellison that was a proximate cause of the motor vehicle collision on November 2, 2012. When the Hillsborough County Fire and Rescue team arrived at the accident scene at approximately 8:20 p.m., the Petitioner was unresponsive and exhibiting decorticate posturing. He was extricated from the vehicle, intubated at the scene and immediately transported via ambulance to Tampa General Hospital (TGH). The Petitioner arrived at TGH by approximately 8:39 p.m., presenting in critical condition. He was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where he remained for 11 days. The Petitioner suffered serious injuries as a result of the collision, including: injuries to the brain; multiple fractures to the skull, face, jaw, and other head injuries; multiple pelvic fractures; pulmonary contusions; acute respiratory failure; dysphagia; and splenic lacerations. On November 3, 2012, Stephen Reintjes, M.D., performed a ventriculostomy, wherein he drilled through the right parietal region of the Petitioner's skull and placed an external ventricular drain (EVD) into the right lateral ventricle to relieve the Petitioner's elevated intracranial pressure. The EVD was removed on November 12, 2012. On November 6, 2012, David Ciesla, M.D., and a TGH resident, performed a percutaneous tracheostomy, wherein he created an opening through the Petitioner's neck and placed a windpipe because of the Petitioner's prolonged respiratory failure. That same day, John Cha, M.D., performed a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), wherein a feeding tube was placed into the Petitioner's stomach due to the Petitioner's dysphagia. The Petitioner's PEG tube was removed on January 3, 2013. On November 9, 2012, Michael Harrington, M.D., performed an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the Petitioner's right zygomaticomaxillary fracture, and a closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) of the Petitioner's right zygomatic arch fracture. Essentially, screws and plates were implanted into the Petitioner's right cheekbone and then his jaw was wired shut to facilitate healing. The Petitioner's jaw remained wired shut until December 3, 2012, and the MMF hardware was surgically removed on December 20, 2012. On November 13, 2012, the Petitioner was transferred from the ICU to a surgical trauma unit. Once the Petitioner became medically stable on December 6, 2012, he was transferred to the Tampa General Rehabilitation Center (TGRC). There, the Petitioner received intensive physical and occupational therapy, speech and swallow therapy, psychological services, and 24/7 rehabilitation nursing care. The Petitioner remained at TGRC until January 16, 2013, 75 days after the crash, when he was discharged to his home. Medicaid paid a total of $147,019.61 for the Petitioner's past medical expenses. For nearly two years following his discharge, the Petitioner was unable to perform the tasks of daily living and was completely dependent on his parents and girlfriend for his care and supervision. The Petitioner was toileted, bathed, and dressed by his parents and his girlfriend. The Petitioner could not walk without assistance. All of the Petitioner's meals were prepared for him. The Petitioner would become obsessive over minor things, easily agitated, and frequently combative. The Petitioner had violent outbursts which required all three of his caretakers to physically restrain him. If left unattended at meals, the Petitioner would overeat until he would vomit. The Petitioner gained a life-threatening 100 pounds over this period. Beyond the most basic level, the Petitioner could not use a computer, play video games, or engage in an active social life, much less skateboard or participate in any of the other physical activities he once enjoyed. The Petitioner spent the majority of his time at home with his parents and girlfriend watching television, with occasional supervised trips outside the home. On June 12, 2013, the Petitioner filed suit against Eddie Ellison and Alberta Ellison in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No: 13-CA-008277 ("the underlying lawsuit"), seeking to recover damages in excess of $15,000. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the following: medical expenses incurred in the past; medical expenses to be incurred in the future; lost earnings incurred in the past; loss of earning capacity in the future; property damage incurred in the past; pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life sustained in the past; and pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life to be sustained in the future. The Petitioner also seeks to recover costs incurred by the Petitioner in the underlying lawsuit, pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate for actual, out-of-pocket pecuniary losses from the date of the loss, and attorney's fees to the extent allowed by law. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner sued his uninsured motorist carrier, 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company (21st Century), seeking to recover $10,000 in uninsured motorist benefits owed to the Petitioner under an automobile insurance policy paid for by the Petitioner's parents, Richard and Linda Willoughby. The insurer denied coverage and refused to pay the uninsured motorist benefits. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner also sued 21st Century for violation of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, seeking to recover the total amount of the Petitioner's damages from 21st Century as provided in section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner also sought to recover from 21st Century applicable pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees pursuant to sections 624.155, 627.727(10), and 627.428 and taxable costs. On February 13, 2015, the Petitioner agreed to settle his claims against 21st Century for $4,000,000. The Petitioner received the settlement proceeds from 21st Century on March 16, 2015. On March 20, 2015, the Petitioner and 21st Century filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the Petitioner’s claims against 21st Century with prejudice. As of March 20, 2015, the Petitioner had incurred a total of $50,375.32 in taxable costs, which the Petitioner repaid to the Petitioner's counsel out of the 21st Century settlement proceeds. On May 14, 2015, a total of $147,844.16 was transferred into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of the agency's right to benefits under section 409.910. The parties to this proceeding stipulated that, of the $4 million paid by 21st Century, $3.99 million was “bad faith damages,” paid to settle the Petitioner's claim for damages under section 627.727(10), on account of 21st Century's wrongful failure to pay the Petitioner's uninsured motorist claim and other violations of section 624.155. The settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century does not specifically attribute any of the $4 million settlement amount to “bad faith” and states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The settlement agreement further states as follows: The parties agree and acknowledge that this agreement is a settlement of claims which are contested and disputed. Any payments are not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of 21st Century, which expressly denies any liability for this action. The Petitioner also received a total of $20,000 from Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, reflecting the $10,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance and $10,000 limit of uninsured motorist coverage under the automobile insurance policy that insured the driver of the Ford Mustang, Kayliegh Lewis, at the time of the crash. The Petitioner's claims against Eddie Ellison and Alberta S. Ellison remain pending in the underlying lawsuit. As of the July 30, 2015, filing of the Pre-hearing Stipulation, the Ellisons' insurer has only offered the $100,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance to settle all of the Petitioner's claims against the Ellisons. The $4,020,000 paid to the Petitioner does not fully compensate him for the full monetary value of all of his damages. The full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages is at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages was at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner had suffered not less than $23,800 in lost wages. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's work life expectancy through age 67 was 45 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's loss of future earning capacity was within the range of $794,135.92 and $2,093,950.12. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future medical expenses were projected to exceed $5 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's past non-economic damages exceeded $1 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's life expectancy was 59.7 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future non-economic damages were within the range of $5 million to $10 million. Although the parties to this proceeding stipulated that the Petitioner has recovered less than $147,019.61 as payment for past medical expenses, the settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The Petitioner is no longer eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid has not paid or committed to pay any funds for the Petitioner's future medical care.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Joni M. Doheny, from a settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On July 7, 2014, Ms. Doheny, who was then 57 years old, was a passenger on a motorcycle whose drunk driver veered into oncoming traffic and was struck by a sports utility vehicle (SUV), ejecting her from the point of impact approximately 100 feet through the air and over pavement. As a result of the accident, Ms. Doheny suffered severe, catastrophic and horrible injuries with wounds to her head, wounds to her arms, wounds to her hands and her left leg almost ripped from her body at the knee. Ms. Doheny was intubated at the scene and airlifted to Tampa General Hospital. She was diagnosed with compound fractures of her left tibia and fibula, puncture wound of her right knee, severe injury to her left arm and hand resulting in amputation of her left ring finger, a laceration to her forehead, and a traumatic brain injury. Amputation of her leg was recommended, but Petitioner elected to save her leg. She underwent numerous surgeries associated with her leg and other extensive injuries and was in the hospital until September 12, 2014. Ms. Doheny was again admitted to the hospital for treatment of her injuries on December 2 through 9, 2014, and January 21 through February 5, 2015. Throughout the process, she was in extreme pain and remains in pain to date. Currently, Petitioner cannot walk and requires a wheelchair for mobility. She has no significant function of her left hand and no significant function in her left leg. She is dependent on others for activities of daily living. She also has severe impacts to her emotional well-being and suffers from depression, anxiety and pain. Her condition is permanent and she most likely will not be able to obtain employment sufficient to support herself or replace the income/earning capacity she had as a realtor prior to her injuries. She is no longer a Medicaid recipient. Petitioner’s past medical expenses related to her injuries were paid by both personal funds and Medicaid. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $257,640.53. Unpaid out-of-pocket expenses totaled $119,926.41. Thus, total past healthcare expenses incurred for Petitioner’s injuries was $377,566.94. Ms. Doheny brought a personal injury claim to recover all her damages against the driver of the SUV (Driver) who struck the motorcycle Ms. Doheny was riding, her Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Policy (UM Policy), and the restaurant which had served alcohol to the driver of the motorcycle (Restaurant). Towards that end, Petitioner retained James D. Gordon, III, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims for over 30 years, to represent Petitioner in her negligence action against the Defendants. The Driver maintained a $10,000 insurance policy. On November 10, 2014, prior to suit being filed, Ms. Doheny settled her claim against the Driver for an unallocated $10,000. Ms. Doheny’s UM Policy had a policy limit of $300,000. Likewise, on November 10, 2014, Ms. Doheny settled her claim against her UM Policy for an unallocated $300,000. The Restaurant maintained a $1,000,000 liquor liability insurance policy. On September 2, 2015, and again prior to suit being filed, Ms. Doheny settled her claim against the Restaurant for $1,000,000. The settlements totaled $1,310,000.00 and do not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of her damages. As indicated, $310,000.00 of the settlements was not apportioned to specific types of damages, such as economic or non-economic, past or future. One million dollars of the settlements was apportioned with 20 percent of those funds allocated to past medical expenses. No dollar amount was assigned to Ms. Doheny’s future medical care needs, and there remains uncertainty as to what those needs will be. Additionally, neither Petitioner nor others on her behalf made payments in the past or in advance for her future medical care, and no claim for reimbursement, restitution or indemnification was made for such damages or included in the settlement. However, given the loss of earning capacity and the past and present level of pain and suffering, the bulk of the settlement was clearly intended to provide future support for Ms. Doheny. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s negligence action, around September 3, 2015. Thereafter, Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $257,640.53 against the proceeds of any award or settlement arising out of that action. Respondent was not a party to the 2015 settlements and did not execute any of the applicable releases. Mr. Gordon’s expert very conservative valuation of the total damages suffered by Petitioner is at least $5 million. In arriving at this valuation, Mr. Gordon reviewed the facts of Petitioner’s personal injury claim, vetted the claim with experienced members in his law firm and examined jury verdicts in similar cases involving catastrophic injury. The reviewed cases had an average award of $6,779,214 for total damages and $4,725,000 for non-economic damages (past and future pain and suffering). Mr. Gordon’s valuation of total damages was supported by the testimony of one additional personal injury attorney, R. Vinson Barrett, who has practiced personal injury law for more than 30 years. In formulating his opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett reviewed the discharge summaries from Petitioner’s hospitalizations. Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury trial verdicts and awards relied upon by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Barrett agreed with the $5 million valuation of Petitioner’s total damages and thought it could likely have been higher. The settlement amount of $1,310,000 is 26.2 percent of the total value ($5 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, 26.2 percent of $377,566.54 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid in part by Medicaid) is $98,922.54. Both experts testified that $98,922.54 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses. Their testimony is accepted as persuasive. Further, the unrebutted evidence demonstrated that $98,922.54 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses since Petitioner recovered only 26.2 percent of her damages thereby reducing all of the categories of damages associated with her claim. Given these facts, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Therefore, the amount of the Medicaid lien should be $98,922.54.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioners, Devyn Jeffries (Devyn) and Makayla Jeffries (Makayla), minors, by and through their parents and natural guardians, Theresa Jeffries and Christopher Jeffries, (collectively Petitioners), from settlement proceeds received by Petitioners from third parties.
Findings Of Fact On January 24, 2010, Devyn and Makayla were born via emergency C-Section at 27 weeks gestation. During the birthing process, both children suffered severe and permanent brain damage. As a result, Devyn suffers from Cerebral Palsy with spastic paralysis and cognitive developmental disabilities, and Makayla suffers from Cerebral Palsy, failure to thrive, feeding difficulties, and cognitive deficits. Devyn and Makayla’s medical care related to their birth injuries was paid by Medicaid in the following amounts: 1 Respondent’s Proposed Final Order was served by email and received by DOAH at 9:50 p.m. on October 21, 2020. It was, therefore, “filed” at 8:00 a.m. on October 22, 2020, in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.104(3). However, it is accepted and considered as though timely filed. In regard to Devyn, Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $108,068.58 in benefits and Medicaid, through a Medicaid Managed Care Plan known as Simply Healthcare, provided $25,087.08 in benefits. The sum of these Medicaid benefits, $133,155.66, constituted Devyn’s entire claim for past medical expenses. In regard to Makayla, Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $107,912.33 in benefits and Medicaid, through a Medicaid Managed Care Plan known as Simply Healthcare, provided $13,915.84 in benefits. The sum of these Medicaid benefits, $121,828.17, constituted Makayla’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Devyn and Makayla’s parents and natural guardians, Theresa and Christopher Jeffries, pursued a medical malpractice lawsuit against the medical providers responsible for Devyn and Makayla’s care (“Defendants”) to recover all of Devyn and Makayla’s damages, as well as their own individual damages associated with their children’s injuries. The medical malpractice action settled through a series of confidential settlements, which were approved by the court on February 21, 2020. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $108,068.58 Medicaid lien associated with Devyn’s cause of action and settlement of that action and a $107,912.33 Medicaid lien associated with Makayla’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 settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $108,068.58 on behalf of Devyn and $107,912.33 on behalf of Makayla, all of which represents expenditures paid for past medical expenses. No portion of the $215,980.91 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Petitioners represented expenditures for future medical expenses. The $215,980.91 combined total in Medicaid funds paid towards the care of Devyn and Makayla by AHCA is the maximum amount that may be recovered by AHCA. In addition to the foregoing, Simply Health spent $39,002.92 on Petitioners’ medical expenses. Thus, the total amount of past medical expenses incurred by Petitioners is $254,983.83. The taxable costs incurred in securing the settlement totaled $109,701.62. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to the settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $108,068.58 Medicaid lien associated with Devyn and the full $107,912.33 Medicaid lien associated with Makayla. Petitioners have deposited the full Medicaid lien amounts in interest- bearing accounts 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). This case is somewhat unique in that it involves two petitioners, with separate injuries and separate Medicaid expenditures. However, the incident causing the injuries was singular, and resulted in a total settlement of all claims asserted by Devyn, Makayla, and their parents of $2,650,000. Therefore, for purpose of determining the appropriate amount of reimbursement for the Medicaid lien, it is reasonable and appropriate to aggregate the amounts paid in past medical expenses on behalf of Devyn and Makayla, and the economic and non-economic damages suffered by them. 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 Devyn’s and Makayla’s economic damages, consisting of lost future earnings, past medical expenses, and future medical expenses were, at the conservative low end, roughly $4,400,000 for Devyn and $2,400,000 for Makayla, for a sum of $6,800,000 in economic damages.2 Based on the experience of the testifying experts, and taking into account jury verdicts in comparable cases, Petitioners established that non- economic damages would reasonably be in the range of $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 for each of the children. Based on the forgoing, it is found that $15,000,000, as a full measure of Petitioners’ combined 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 $2,650,000 settlement is 17.67 percent of the $15,000,000 conservative value of the claim.3
The Issue The issue in this matter concerns the amount of the money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Malk S. Sunwabeh, a Medicaid recipient, following a settlement recovered from a third party by the Personal Representative of the Mr. Sunwabeh’s estate.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding determines the amount the Agency should be paid to satisfy a Medicaid lien following Petitioner’s recovery of a $275,000 settlement from a third party. The Agency asserts that it is entitled to recover the full amount of its $85,279.65 lien. Malk S. Sunwabeh, the person who received the benefit of the Agency’s Medicaid payments, died as a result of a hit-and-run accident. Petitioner is the duly appointed Personal Representative of Mr. Sunwabeh’s estate and is authorized to bring this action on his behalf. The accident that gave rise to this matter occurred on October 29, 2013. Early that morning, in pre-dawn darkness, Mr. Sunwabeh left his residence to walk to his high school. The well-worn path he followed led him to a divided roadway that ran in front of his school. With no crosswalk or intersection nearby, Mr. Sunwabeh walked straight across the road. Just after Mr. Sunwabeh stepped into the road, he was struck from behind by a car driven by another student. As he lay sprawled on the pavement, a second vehicle (a gas truck) ran over his body. After the accident, Mr. Sunwabeh was transported by ambulance to Shands Hospital in Jacksonville. He immediately underwent surgery. Tragically, Mr. Sunwabeh died during surgery. He was 16 years old. The Agency, through the Medicaid program, paid Shands Hospital a total of $85,279.65 for Mr. Sunwabeh’s medical care, which was the full amount of his medical expenses following the accident.3/ All of the expenditures Medicaid spent on Mr. Sunwabeh’s behalf are attributed to past medical expenses. No portion of the $85,279.65 Medicaid lien represents future medical expenses. Mr. Sunwabeh’s aunt, Kapitola Morgan (Petitioner), was appointed Personal Representative of Mr. Sunwabeh’s estate. Petitioner brought a wrongful death action to recover both the damages of Mr. Sunwabeh’s estate, as well as the individual statutory damages of Mr. Sunwabeh’s mother, against both drivers who hit Mr. Sunwabeh. Johnny Pineyro, Esquire, represented Petitioner in the wrongful death lawsuit. On June 10, 2015, Mr. Pineyro negotiated a $275,000 settlement for Petitioner with the second driver. Under section 409.910, the Agency is to be repaid for its Medicaid expenditures out of any recovery from liable third parties. Accordingly, when the Agency was notified of the wrongful death settlement, it asserted a Medicaid lien against the amount Petitioner recovered. The Agency claims that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect the full amount of the medical costs it paid on Mr. Sunwabeh’s behalf ($85,279.65). The Agency maintains that it should receive the full amount of its lien regardless of the fact that Petitioner settled for less than what Petitioner represents is the full value of the damages. (As discussed below, the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) allows the Agency to collect the full Medicaid lien.) Petitioner, on the other hand, asserts that, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of the settlement than the amount it calculated using the section 409.910(11)(f) formula. Petitioner specifically argues that the Agency’s Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately, taking into account the “true” value of Petitioner’s damages. Otherwise, the application of the default statutory formula would permit the Agency to collect more than that portion of the settlement that fairly represents compensation for past medical expenses. Petitioner insists that such reimbursement violates the federal Medicaid law’s anti-lien provision (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1)) and Florida common law. Therefore, Petitioner requests that the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s recovery be reduced to the amount of $9,065.23. To establish the value of Petitioner’s damages, Petitioner presented the testimony of Mr. Pineyro. Mr. Pineyro heads the Florida Injury Law Firm in Celebration, Florida. He has practiced law for over 20 years and focuses on personal injury, wrongful death, and aviation law. Mr. Pineyro handles jury trials and cases involving catastrophic injury. In his practice, he regularly reviews accident reports, expert reports, and medical records. Mr. Pineyro stays abreast of jury verdicts. He also discusses jury results with members of his firm and other personal injury attorneys. Mr. Pineyro testified that as a routine part of his practice, he ascertains the value of damages suffered by injured parties, and he explained his process for making these determinations. Mr. Pineyro was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured (and deceased) parties. Mr. Pineyro opined that the conservative value of Mr. Sunwabeh’s damages, as well as his mother’s claim for pain, suffering, and loss of her son’s companionship under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, at between $2,500,000 and $5,000,000.4/ In deriving this figure, Mr. Pineyro considered the accident and homicide reports, the medical examiner’s report, and Petitioner’s medical records. Regarding Mr. Sunwabeh’s mother’s damages, Mr. Pineyro described comparable jury verdicts which involved the death of a child. Mr. Pineyro also testified regarding the significant obstacles Petitioner faced to recovering the full amount of damages in the wrongful death lawsuit based on the disputed facts and circumstances of the accident, as well as insurance policy limits. As part of his representation of Petitioner, Mr. Pineyro deposed several fact and expert witnesses and visited the accident scene. Mr. Pineyro conveyed that the first driver who hit Mr. Sunwabeh was not covered by bodily injury insurance, nor did she possess recoverable assets. Therefore, collecting a full damages award against her would prove challenging. Furthermore, Mr. Pineyro expressed that Petitioner did not have a strong liability case against the second driver based on causation and comparative negligence issues. (Mr. Sunwabeh was wearing all black clothes which concealed his fallen body on the road in the early morning gloom.) Mr. Pineyro was prepared to argue a negligence theory asserting that the second driver failed to use reasonable caution and react in time to avoid driving over Mr. Sunwabeh. However, during his testimony, Mr. Pineyro conceded that a defense verdict in favor of the second driver was a real possibility. Consequently, Mr. Pineyro believed that it was in Petitioner’s best interests to settle the lawsuit. Based on Mr. Pineyro’s testimony that the $275,000 settlement did not fully compensate Ms. Sunwabeh’s estate or his mother for their damages, Petitioner argues that a lesser portion of the settlement should be allocated to reimburse Medicaid instead of the full amount of the lien. Petitioner proposes that a ratio should be applied based on the “true” value of Petitioner’s damage claim ($2,585,279) compared to the amount that was actually recovered ($275,000). Using these numbers, the settlement represents a 10.63 percent recovery of the total value of Petitioner’s damages. In like manner, the amount of the Medicaid lien should also be reduced to 10.63 percent or approximately $9,065.23. Therefore, Petitioner asserts that $9,065.23 is the portion of the third-party settlement that represents the fair and reasonable reimbursement of the amount Medicaid paid for Mr. Sunwabeh’s medical care. The Agency was not a party to the wrongful death lawsuit or Petitioner’s settlement. Petitioner was aware of the Medicaid lien and past medical expense damages at the time she settled the lawsuit. No portion of the $275,000 settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The undersigned finds that Petitioner did not meet her burden of proving that the “true” value of Petitioner’s damages from this accident equaled $2,585,279.65. Further, based on the evidence in the record, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Accordingly, the Agency is entitled to recover $85,279.65 from Petitioner’s recovery of $275,000 from a third party to satisfy its Medicaid lien.
