The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of Case Number 01-2295, reflect statements of agency policy which should have been adopted as rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties United is a foreign insurer, domiciled in the State of Wisconsin holding a certificate of authority from the Department to transact the business of insurance in this state. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. The Department, through its agency head, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, has regulatory jurisdiction over United in connection with certain matters set forth in the Complaint. The regulatory scheme for out-of-state health insurance companies Health insurance companies operating pursuant to in-state regulatory schemes are subject to oversight regulation of the corporate entity including financial solvency and market conduct. Rates are required to be filed and approved prior to being used in the state. The review process involves a review of the rates to determine if they are reasonable in relation to the benefits provided. In regard to this, the Department has rules which it has adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which it uses to determine the standards and formulae for making that determination. Certain out-of-state health insurers, such as United, are not subject to such stringent regulation. No review of premium rates is conducted by the Department in the case of these insurers, but it would be incorrect to state that they are not subject to regulation by the Department at all. Approximately 40 percent of the health insurance market in Florida is written through out-of-state group arrangements that do not provide policyholders consumer protections afforded to policyholders holding in-state policies regulated by the Department. United is required by Florida law to provide certain types of coverage. United must also ensure that certificates of coverage provided to residents of Florida contain the following language: The benefits of the policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the law of a state other than Florida. Indent Background At all times pertinent, American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS), was a Florida-licensed administrator authorized to market and administer United's out-of-state group health insurance plans in Florida. AMS, like United, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. In May 1993, United, through AMS, filed for approval with the Department pursuant to Section 627.5515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), as an out-of-state group health insurer who would provide policies to be offered through an Alabama entity called the Prescription For Good Health Trust, which was formed primarily for the purpose of providing group insurance. The Department approved this filing. On March 2, 1995, the Department participated by conference call in a Regulatory Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The mission of the task force was to attempt to address a number of problems facing the insurance market. One of the problems discussed was rate protection for consumers when faced with "tier rating" or "tier blocking." The two terms are synonymous and mean, as to group health insurance, reclassifying insureds subsequent to having been initially placed in a class. This practice will be discussed in more detail below. In 1996, United made a filing for the Prescription For Good Health Trust which proposed tier rating. Sometime during 1996, after the Department objected to the filing, United withdrew it. The Department had never seen such a filing previously. United is the only health insurer to assert before the Department that reclassification by movement between classes would be permissible under the Florida Insurance Code. Section 627.6515(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a group health insurance policy issued or delivered outside this state under which a resident of Florida is provided coverage, shall comply with the provisions of Part VII, of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as health policies issued within the state. Part VII of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme for group health insurance. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth a number of exemptions. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, provides an exemption for an insurer like United, which provides health insurance through an association formed for a purpose other than that of offering insurance, which provides the language referred to in paragraph 5, supra, on the face of the certificate, and which offers the bundle of coverages provided in Subsection (c). This exemption applied to the Prescription For Good Health Trust. The Department concedes that it has no authority to set premium rates for out-of-state insurers like United. In November 1996, United through AMS, filed with the Department, pursuant to Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, a request for approval of an out-of-state group health insurance policy termed the "MedOne Choice" plan. This plan was to be offered through an Ohio association called the Taxpayers' Network, Inc. (TNI). The association was formed primarily for purposes other than providing insurance. In January, 1997, the filing was accepted by the Department as meeting the requirements of Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes. Chapter 96-223, Laws of Florida, created Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 25, 1996. When created, the section only addressed the renewability of individual coverage. Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida, substantially amended Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 30, 1997. Subsequent to the amendment, the section addressed certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy. This statute, along with Sections 627.6571 and 627.6487, Florida Statutes, implemented the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The basic theory of the HIPAA legislation is that an insurance company cannot simply cancel a health insurance policy without providing other options. On or about September 25, 1998, United, through AMS, notified all Prescription For Good Health Trust certificate holders that the policy forms through which their coverage had been provided were being discontinued, effective as of each certificate holder's 1999 renewal date. Upon discontinuance of the Prescription For Good Health Trust Plans, the only United health insurance plans available in Florida were the MedOne Choice plans offered through TNI. Membership in TNI was available to anyone upon submitting an application form and paying the membership fee. Membership in TNI was a prerequisite to continuance of a persons' health insurance coverage under United's MedOne Choice plan. United guaranteed each certificate holder, upon joining TNI, that upon request, they would be issued coverage under the Classic Benefit Plan (one of the TNI MedOne Choice plans) without regard to their health status. However, there was no guarantee that premiums would not rise. Certificate holders were also advised that if they desired coverage under a MedOne Choice plan other than the guaranteed issue Classic Benefit plan, they could apply for any of the other TNI plans. Only if the applicant met the underwriting guidelines for the plan for which they applied, would they be issued coverage under another MedOne Choice plan. Between October 1998 and early January 1999, United responded to questions and concerns raised by the Department about the decision to discontinue the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, and whether the plan of discontinuance was in compliance with Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. Specifically, discussions were had concerning the movement of insureds from the class in which they were originally assigned to another class at the time of renewal. United entered an agreement with the Department on January 14, 1999, whereby United would offer to certificate holders an additional guaranteed issue TNI plan and would cap the rate for the guaranteed issue plans at no more than twice the premium then currently being paid for the discontinued Prescription For Good Health Trust plan. In accordance with this agreement, United notified certificate holders of the additional guaranteed issue option available to them. Later in 1999, United discontinued the trust plan in accordance with their agreement with the Department. During the process of discontinuance, no certificate holder requested conversion coverage under Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes. Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes, provides that an insured may assert his or her right to a "converted policy," which provides for certain health insurance continuation rights. The Department determined that United's rate for the conversion policy, pursuant to the agreement, was within 200 percent of the standard risk rate and that the notice of the conversion privilege was contained in the certificate of coverage issued to Florida residents. Thus, the Department concluded that United was in compliance with the agreement of January 14, 1999. On May 19, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that the discontinuance of her coverage by United did not mean she was being discriminated against because the policy had been terminated for all members. The letter further recited that the Department did not have the ability to regulate United because it was not domiciled in Florida and her insurance was being provided to a group, referring to TNI, that was not registered in Florida. On July 27, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that United had an obligation to offer a replacement policy but that United had the right to underwrite the policy and charge additional premium. This statement also referred to TNI. Section 627.6425(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "except as otherwise provided in this section, an insurer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual." For the purpose of the aforementioned Section, the term "individual health insurance" means health insurance coverage, as described in Section 627.6561(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, offered to an individual in the state, "including certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy issued to an association outside this state. " As noted earlier, Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes enacted in Florida which implemented HIPAA. HIPAA provides for continuation of health insurance of an insureds health policy but does not limit the premiums which an insurer can charge for coverage. Although Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, does not have the words "guaranteed renewable" contained within the statute, the gist of the statute is that if a person has a health policy, the person has the right to continued coverage. The Department contends that the statute also means that there can be no reclassification or movement between classes at the time of renewal. On March 30, 2000, the Department notified United that it believed the discontinuance of Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, in accordance with the January 1999 agreement, may have violated Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. A Department publication dated January 4, 2001, entitled, "The Florida Health Insurance Market, Issues and Possible Market Reform Measures," noted that there are "an increasing number of carriers attempting to establish HIPAA eligible individuals as a separate rating class with premium charges ranging from 300 to 500 percent of standard rates. While the Department has found such a rating practice to be in violation of the Florida Insurance Code, many carriers have continued to protest this interpretation. Carriers contend the surcharge practice is both actuarially sound and interpreted as a HIPAA permissible practice by other states." In the 2001 legislative session, the Department sought additional regulatory authority concerning out-of-state group insurers, such as United, along with numerous other changes to the Florida Insurance Code which are unrelated to the issues addressed in this Order. The Florida Legislature failed to approve the requested legislation. Tier rating When a group health policy is underwritten, the members of the group may be divided into classes. The classes are based on risk, which is a function of the probability of claims and the cost of claims. Classes may be denominated, for example, as preferred, manual, and substandard. Very healthy persons are put in the preferred class and pay lower premiums relative to other classes. Average persons are put in the manual class because the likelihood and cost of claims may be average. Persons who for actuarial reasons are determined to have an above-average likelihood of claims and whose claims are apt to be costly, are placed in the substandard class. It, perhaps, goes without saying that the individuals in the substandard class must pay higher premiums for the same coverage as others in the group. If the group health policy is guaranteed renewable, certificate holders may continue their coverage. However, premiums within a class can be increased. It is general industry practice to increase the premiums by class when the time for renewal occurs, if the loss experience is such that there is a requirement to increase premiums. As earlier noted, the Department asserts that only by raising premiums for an entire class may premiums be raised. The Department insists that this requirement is part of the definition of "guaranteed renewable." It became United's practice to move insureds between classes. Therefore, for instance, if a person in the group who had been a member of the preferred class experienced the need for costly medical services, then that person might be moved to the manual or substandard class. This would inevitably result in that person paying an increased premium. On the other hand, a person in the substandard class, who was subsequently determined to be a good risk, might be moved to the preferred or manual class and experience reduced premiums as a result. When a substandard class becomes populated with persons who cause the payment of costly claims, premiums increase within that class. Premiums may increase to the point where persons egress the plan, which leaves the class with fewer and sicker members. Eventually, under such a plan, there will be no members, because the premiums will inflate to the point that the benefits, in relation to the amount of the premium, will render the plan uneconomical. This sequence of events is often referred to as the health insurance "death spiral." One of the asserted evils which the Department seeks to combat in the Complaint is the "death spiral." HIPAA eligibles In 1996, when HIPAA became law and Florida enacted laws to implement it, a practice sometimes referred to as "rating up" occurred among some carriers in the industry. As noted earlier, HIPAA and the state statutes implementing it, guarantee that an individual, who through no fault of his own, loses his or her group health insurance coverage has the opportunity to obtain substitute health insurance. A person in this category is referred to as HIPAA eligible. Companies providing insurance under these laws are cognizant of the fact that persons in good health generally decline to purchase this type of insurance but that persons who are in bad health, and who will, therefore, likely have costly claims, will purchase it if they can afford it. This results in a desire on the part of insurers, to charge higher premiums for HIPAA eligible persons than they might charge persons in a comparable, non-HIPAA plan. It is a permissible underwriting practice to take into consideration age, health, and a myriad of other actuarial considerations when developing premium rates for HIPAA eligibles. If an insurer factors in the knowledge that unhealthy persons are more likely than healthy persons to obtain a policy based on HIPAA and charge higher premiums as a result, then "rating up" occurs. The Department contends in its Complaint that "rating up" is discriminatory and, therefore, forbidden by the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (UITPA), Section 626.951, et seq., Florida Statutes. United allegedly arrives at rates for HIPAA eligibles solely based on the fact that the individuals are HIPAA eligible which if true, would be "rating up." Immediately prior to April 30, 1998, the Department received a memorandum from the federal Health Care Financing Administration addressing three general problems with insurance practices regarding HIPAA eligibles. One of the three problems addressed in the memorandum was the practice of "rating up." In response, the Department issued Informational Memorandum 98-103M on April 30, 1998, addressing the three problems. The Department announced that it had concerns similar to that of the Health Care Financing Administration, and would address them in administrative rules implementing HIPAA and Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida. However, no rules addressing these concerns have been adopted. Insurance carriers disagree with the Department as to whether "rating up" is unfairly discriminatory and therefore a violation of the UITPA. The Department is addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations. The evidence adduced at the hearing did not elucidate exactly what "addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations" means. Count Three in the Complaint represents the first time an administrative action has been brought against an insurer addressing this practice. The definition of guaranteed renewable Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled "Filing of Forms and Rates for Life and Health Insurance." Rule 4-149.006(4)(o)3, Florida Administrative Code, provides for a definition of "guaranteed renewable." However, Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, does not address out-of-state group health insurers, such as United, because the Department has no authority to require the filing of forms and rates in the case of out-of-state health insurers like United. A life and health insurance treatise written by Black and Skipper states that the definitions of the categories of renewable health insurance policies are not uniform among the states. It is the Department's position that Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, applies to out-of-state trusts, such as United's Prescription For Good Health Trust, even though the word "trust" is not used in the statute. It is apparent that if there is no limit on the amount of premium a health insurer can charge at the time of renewal, a guarantee of renewal can be meaningless. This fact is ameliorated by rate-setting in the case of highly regulated health insurers such as domestic insurers. In the context of this case, it is not the renewability of a policy that is the gist of the problem. Rather, it is whether rates can be increased on persons through the movement of insureds from one class to another. The allegations of the Complaint In order to determine which statements are alleged to be unadopted rules, it is necessary to refer to Counts Two through Seven of the Complaint. These counts will be summarized, in seriatim. Count Two alleges that persons who continued their participation in TNI were unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against because some members were reclassified based on their health status present at that time (1999), rather than being retained in the class in which they resided when the policy was initially issued. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that this practice violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, which is a section in the UITPA. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Three alleges that all of those individuals formerly covered through the Prescription For Good Health Trust who were at the time of their discontinuance HIPAA eligible, were, arbitrarily and without regard to health status, assigned a premium rate of either three or five times the base rate for TNI as a whole. Count Three alleges that this assignment unfairly discriminated against the HIPAA eligible individuals who were of the same actuarially supportable class and essentially the same hazard. Count Three further alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Four alleges that the enactment of Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, in 1996, as amended in 1997, statutorily determined that the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan was "guaranteed renewable" as that term is used and understood in the insurance industry. It further alleged that the term "guaranteed renewable” means that once an insurer classifies an individual as a member of an actuarially supportable class for rate and premium applicable to the specified coverage, that individual may not thereafter be charged a premium which is different from any other member of the same class and cannot be moved to another class. The complaint states that United unlawfully moved insureds from one class to another. Count Four additionally alleged that when United discontinued the Prescription For Good Health Trust, the prerequisite for individuals to obtain renewed health insurance coverage was reclassification of some of those individuals to different actuarially supportable classes based on their health status then pertinent to those individuals. It was further alleged that higher premiums were charged to approximately 70 percent of those who renewed or continued, and that premium increases of 200 percent to 300 percent were experienced. Count Four asserted that Section 627.6425(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits such reclassification. Count Four also alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because such reclassification was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Five alleges that on the one year anniversary of renewal with TNI, United unlawfully reclassified additional individuals which resulted in a premium increases of up to 60 percent. Count Five alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Six alleges that within the tier blocks described in Count Two, United unlawfully established numerous sub- classifications based on health related factors pertinent to each individual within that class. It is alleged in the Complaint that these sub-classifications resulted in individuals within the same class being charged a different premium than are other members of the class. Count Six alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Seven alleges that United used a point debit system where an arithmetic number of points are assigned to a corresponding health hazard. The higher the cumulative debit score, the higher the premium. United will decline to insure at all if the cumulative debit score gets sufficiently high. Count Seven alleges that the assignment of points with no criteria for decision-making results in arbitrary and discriminatory point scores. Count Seven alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. In summary, the three statements alleged to be rules are: Practicing tier rating is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. Placing HIPAA-eligible individuals in a premium classification solely on the basis of their HIPAA eligible status is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. The term "guaranteed renewable" prohibits the classification of individuals in a health insurance group at a time other than at the inception of coverage.
The Issue This issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is responsible for payment of certain state employee health insurance premiums.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1986, Ms. Phyllis McCluskey-Titus became employed at Florida State University ("FSU"). She and her husband, John, moved to Tallahassee from outside Florida, so that she could accept her employment. At the time Ms. McCluskey-Titus became employed, Mr. Titus had not yet accepted employment. She appropriately enrolled in the state health insurance plan. Mr. Titus was listed as, and had coverage as, a dependent on her family coverage. In August, 1986, Mr. Titus accepted employment at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center ("TMRMC"). Although TMRMC offered an employee health insurance benefit, Mr. Titus retained his coverage on his wife's plan, because the couple believed the state plan's benefits to be more beneficial. Enrollment in the state health insurance plan requires the payment of premiums. Such premiums are generally paid through joint contributions, by the employee (through payroll deduction) and by the state. However, where spouses are both state employees, and one spouse is listed as an eligible dependent on the other spouse's family coverage, the state makes the full health insurance premium contribution (the "spouse plan"). In August, 1988, Mr. Titus became employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS"). Both FSU (Ms. McCluskey-Titus's employer) and DHRS are state agencies. Therefore, upon Mr. Titus' employment at DHRS, the couple became eligible for the spouse plan. On August 24, 1988, Ms. McCluskey-Titus went to her personnel office and completed the necessary forms to qualify for the spouse plan. At the time of his employment, Mr. Titus received a package of materials from DHRS. Included in the materials was a five page document entitled "EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INFORMATION PACKAGE". The document outlines various insurance benefits and lists premiums related to coverages. On the first page of the information document, under the heading "PREMIUMS (full-time employees)" is the following statement: "If you and your spouse are both employed with State Agencies, please contact the Personnel office for information on the Spouse Program. If you are eligible, the State will pay up to 100% of your premium". Believing that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient, Mr. Titus did not contact his personnel office for information. On the third page of the information document, is a form which was to be completed and returned to the DHRS personnel office. Contained on the form is the following statement: "If your spouse is employed with a State Agency in a Career Service position, please contact the Personnel office to request an application for the Spouse Program". Ms. McCluskey-Titus was not employed in a Career Service position. Mr. Titus believed that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient. He did not obtain or submit an application for the program. Neither form provided to Mr. Titus stated that both spouses were required to submit separate documentation. There is no evidence that either Mr. or Ms. Titus were informed, by either employer or the Respondent, that the failure to complete separate documentation would preclude enrollment in the spouse program and could result in an assessment of unpaid premiums. After Ms. McCluskey-Titus submitted the form to the FSU personnel office, the state discontinued deducting her contribution to the health insurance premium from her check. The couple believed that, since no premium deduction was being withheld, the spouse plan enrollment had been completed. In February, 1989, Mr. Titus was informed that, because he had not completed the appropriate form at the DHRS office, the couple was ineligible for the spouse plan. The Respondent requires that both spouses complete separate documentation in order to enroll in the spouse plan. He completed the form and by March 1, 1989, their coverage in the spouse plan became effective. The Respondent is now attempting to assess Ms. McCluskey-Titus for the $83.46 monthly family coverage premiums which were not deducted from her pay during the five month period preceding Mr. Titus' completion of the appropriate form. The total amount claimed by Respondent is $417.30. The evidence indicates that, but for Mr. Titus' failure to complete and submit the form, the couple would have been entitled to participate in the spouse plan and no premium contribution would be owed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, enter a Final Order dismissing the assessment against the Petitioner for additional insurance premiums in the total amount of $417.30. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-4943 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified, except for last sentence, rejected, argument, not appropriate finding of fact. Statement that prescription drug claims were covered is rejected, not supported by evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. Nature of communication between the respective personnel offices, rejected, not supported by evidence. Respondent Accepted. Rejected, not supported by evidence. 3-4. Accepted as modified. However, requirement that both spouses must submit forms, not supported by evidence. Accepted as to amount, rejected as to indicating that Petitioner was responsible for payment, not supported by evidence. Rejected. Paragraph 2E(2) of the Petition does not state that Mr. Titus failed to read the document, but states only that he took no action. Rejected, not supported by evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis McCluskey-Titus 2353 Skyland Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William A. Frieder, Esq. Department of Administration Room 438, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim against her state group health insurance company for services related to a Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination (MRI) should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by the State of Florida and was a participant in the State of Florida group health insurance plan, which is a self-insured plan administered by the State of Florida in conjunction with the plan's third party administrator, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida (BCBSF). This plan is frequently referred to as the PPO Plan, an acronym for preferred provider organization. Prior to April 26, 2002, Petitioner's physician detected a lump in Petitioner's right breast. Petitioner's physician ordered mammography and ultrasound examinations to be performed on Petitioner's right breast. Those examinations were performed on April 1, 2002. Following those tests, Petitioner's physician ordered an MRI examination of the right breast, which was performed on April 26, 2002, and is the procedure at issue in this proceeding. Following that MRI, Petitioner had another mammography and ultrasound for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Respondent has paid Petitioner's claims for coverage of the mammography and ultrasound examinations. Respondent has denied payment for the professional fee associated with the MRI in the amount of $215.00. Respondent has paid the facility fee associated with the MRI in the amount of $1,705.00. Respondent asserts that the payment of that fee was in error and intends to seek reimbursement for that payment if it prevails in this proceeding. The terms of coverage of the state group health insurance plan are set forth in a document entitled "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document" (Benefit Document). The Benefit Document (at page 31, paragraph 47 of the section entitled "Services Not Covered By The Plan") specifically excludes the following from coverage: 47. Services and procedures considered by BCBSF to be experimental or investigational, or services and procedures not in accordance with generally accepted professional medical standards, including complications resulting from these non-covered services. The Benefit Document has a section entitled "Definitions of Selected Terms Used By The Plan" beginning at page 49. The definition of the phrase "experimental or investigational services", found at page 51, includes, in pertinent part, the following: . . . any evaluation, treatment, therapy, or device that: * * * is generally regarded by experts as requiring more study to determine maximum dosage, toxicity, safety or efficacy, or to determine the efficacy compared to standard treatment for the condition has not been proven safe and effective for treatment of the condition based on the most recently published medical literature of the U.S., Canada or Great Britain using generally accepted scientific, medical or public health methodologies or statistical practices is not accepted in consensus by practicing doctors as safe and effective for the condition is not regularly used by practicing doctors to treat patients with the same or a similar condition The Benefit Document provides at page 51 that BCBSF and the Division of State Group Insurance determine whether a service is experimental or investigational. The testimony of Dr. Wood established that an MRI of the breast is experimental or investigational within the meaning of the Benefit Document. 2/ MRI examinations of the breast are not reliable diagnostic tools because such examinations result in an unacceptable number of cases where an MRI produces false negative findings that reflect the absence of cancer where cancer is, in fact, present in the breast. According to Dr. Wood, an MRI cannot be relied upon and should not be used to avoid a biopsy of a suspicious mass because a patient would run an unacceptable risk that the detection of cancer may be delayed or missed. Dr. Wood also testified that radiologists in Florida performing services for the state group insurance health plan have been informed of BCBSF's position. Petitioner's doctors did not inform her prior to the examination that the MRI examination would not be covered by her insurance plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying coverage for the MRI claims submitted by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed with the Collier County Health Department, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, on March 9, 1973. Petitioner's date of birth is November 26, 1916. On October 1, 1980, Petitioner's medical insurance coverage was entered into the payroll system under the Spouse Program, State of Florida plan. The proper amount of premiums under the Spouse Program were paid to Blue Cross Blue Shield from October 1, 1980, up to and including June, 1983. On November 26, 1981, Petitioner reached the age of 65. Under the State plan, coverage at age 65 is automatically reduced and changed to Medicare Supplement Coverage. In order to have remained fully covered, Petitioner would have had to apply for the Medicare insurance prior to reaching age 65, which he did not do. Due to both spouses being covered, there was no change in policy premium deductions even after Petitioner reached age 65 and his State coverage was reduced. The Blue Cross Blue Shield (State program) paid several claims of Petitioner subsequent to his 65th birthday and through December, 1982. On March 8, 1983, Petitioner was admitted to the hospital and on March 11, 1983, heart bypass surgery was performed. Respondent normally notifies the employee and employing agency of the coverage change prior to the employee's 65th birthday, as required by Rule 22K- 1.16, F.A.C. In this case, Respondent did not do so due to a failure in its computer program. Petitioner could have determined that he was required to apply for Medicare coverage had he read in detail a copy of the plan's benefit booklet furnished to all State employees in 1978.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent direct its insurer to pay Petitioner's claims arising from his March, 1983, hospitalization. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John H. Adams 2596 Linwood Avenue Naples, Florida 33962 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an upgrade in her insurance coverage from individual to family status should be granted with a retro-active effective date of October 13, 1994; the date of birth of Respondent's son.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner was initially employed and covered under the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan on July 1, 1993. Petitioner selected individual coverage and completed the appropriate forms indicating such coverage. Effective January 1, 1994, Petitioner's coverage for the 1994 Plan Year continued with individual coverage. Petitioner became pregnant in April, 1994, with an estimated due date of December 6, 1994. However, she went into premature labor on October 12, 1994, at 32 weeks gestation. Attempts to stop her labor were unsuccessful and she delivered a son, Gavon K. Brown, by caesarean delivery on October 13, 1994. On October 22, 1994, Petitioner completed the required forms to change from individual coverage to family coverage. Respondent changed Petitioner's coverage to family coverage effective December 1, 1994. Other Facts Petitioner did not inform the personnel office at her place of state employment, Columbia Correctional Facility in Lake City, Florida of her pregnancy. Petitioner saw a private physician in Gainesville, Florida. The physician was concerned about Petitioner's excessive weight and referred her to the Park Avenue Women's Center in Gainesville sometime near the end of April, 1994. The Park Avenue Women's Center, associated with the University of Florida College of Medicine, treats women with at risk pregnancies. Petitioner was seen there by Dr. Kenneth Kelner, also a professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University of Florida College of Medicine. As a registered nurse, Petitioner was aware that she was at an increased general risk for difficulty with her pregnancy as a result of her excessive weight. On August 5, 1994, as a result of problems with getting a medical bill paid by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Petitioner called offices of the administrator of the Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) in Jacksonville, Florida. In the course of her telephone conversation, Petitioner maintains that she was told she could switch to family coverage in order to cover expenses of her unborn child as late as 30 days prior to the birth, estimated and expected to occur on December 6, 1994. Petitioner had previously received The Benefit Payment Schedule on July 13, 1994, which contained a warning to pregnant women policyholders that single or individual coverage did not include coverage for a child following its birth and that family coverage would need to be in effect prior to the month of the child's birth to afford coverage for the child. During the August 5, 1994 telephone conversation with the representative of BCBS in Jacksonville, Petitioner inquired regarding the amount of the monthly premium for family coverage. Petitioner was referred to the Division of State Employees' Insurance (DSEI) and provided with that telephone number in order to acquire coverage for her unborn child and get further detailed information. Petitioner did not call DSEI. On October 12, 1994, in the course of a routine check-up, it was determined that Petitioner's cervix was dilated. Subsequently, Petitioner gave birth to her son at 1 a.m. on October 13, 1994. On October 13, 1994, Petitioner called the personnel office at her place of employment with the Department of Corrections and informed that office of the birth of her son. Although Petitioner maintains that she was told at that time by someone in the personnel office that her son would immediately be afforded insurance coverage, Petitioner presented no direct admissible evidence in corroboration of this allegation and her testimony in this respect is not credited. On October 22, 1994, while sitting in the hospital lobby waiting to visit her son, who remained in hospital care following his premature birth, Petitioner signed the required papers and forms to change from individual to family coverage. The forms, bearing an effective date for coverage change of December 1, 1994, were returned to Petitioner's personnel office without an accompanying check or other payment for any employee premium co-payment which would have permitted a construction that an earlier coverage effective date should have been assigned the policy change. Based upon the timing of the election made by Petitioner, expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child prior to December 1, 1994, were not covered by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing Susie Simone Brown's petition in this matter. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 6th day of September, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-24. Adopted, not verbatim. 25.-28. Rejected, unnecessary. 29.-40. Adopted by reference. 41.-42. Rejected, unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's proposed findings consisted of one paragraph requesting that Respondent provide coverage for Petitioner's son effective on the date of his birth, October 13, 1994. The proposed finding is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Chief Department of Management Services Division of State Employees' Insurance 2002 Old St. Augustine Rd., B-12 Tallahassee, FL 32301-4876 Susie Simone Brown 2931 Bay Rd. Orange Park, FL 32065 William H. Linder Secretary Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 307 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell General Counsel Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 312 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether the MRI of Petitioner's cervical spine performed on April 8, 2009, was medically necessary and, therefore, covered under the state employee group health plan.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Karina Velasquez ("Petitioner") is employed by the State of Florida. She has participated in the State of Florida Group Health Insurance Plan ("the Plan") since January 1, 2009, including on all dates that are relevant to this proceeding. Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance ("Respondent") operates the Plan through a third party administrator, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. ("BCBSF"). On April 1, 2009, Petitioner, then 24 years old, was examined by Basil M. Yates, M.D., a board-certified neurologic surgeon. When Dr. Yates took Petitioner's medical history, he learned that Petitioner had fallen backward striking the back of her head in 2006. She did not lose consciousness and did not see a doctor. She had also been in a car accident in January 2003, but also did not see a doctor then because she did not have insurance. Around August of 2008, Petitioner began to have occipital cervical headaches (meaning, in the back of neck) and to experience dizziness. Thinking that her symptoms were related to her eyes, she had her eyes examined but they were normal. Petitioner occasionally swims and exercises four times a week at a gym. She jogs, lifts weights, and does aerobics. Dr. Yates' physical examination of Petitioner showed no major discomfort from palpitation of the paracervical musculature (muscles in the area of the cervical spine around the vertebrae) and greater occipital notches (base of the brain). Petitioner has one shoulder slightly higher than the other, but the physical examination was otherwise normal. Following the examination, Dr. Yates ordered a computed tomography ("CT") scan of Petitioner's brain and an magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") of her cervical spine. The CT was ordered to rule out evidence of a prior contusion, hemorrhage, or tumor. The Plan covered the cost of the CT. Dr. Yates ordered an MRI to determine if there was damage to the cervical spine that could be causing muscle spasm or strain resulting from her fall. On April 8, 2009, Petitioner checked in for the MRI at the outpatient clinic at Baptist Hospital. She presented her driver's license and insurance card, and paid a $25 co-pay. Petitioner was later billed $5,174.31 by Baptist Hospital. BCBSF contracts with hospitals to provide services and requires pre-certification, or prior approval, for in-patient services but not for outpatient services. In December 2007, BCBSF mailed a letter to its participating physicians, including Dr. Yates, informing them that, effective January 21, 2008, Magellan Health Services/National Imaging Associates ("NIA") would be the vendor to determine medical necessity for advanced imaging procedures. The letter notes that a voluntary pre-service review process is available, although it is not binding upon BCBSF when it subsequently reviews a claim after a service has been provided. Dr. Yates did not know whether, in addition to the letter, any NIA guidelines were ever sent to his office. He does know that you need permission for "everything" and his staff "automatically" requests prior approval for procedures he orders. BCBSF sent NIA a form requesting a retrospective review of Dr. Yates' request for authorization for Petitioner's MRI. NIA received the form on April 17, 2009, and made the decision to deny coverage on April 22, 2009. The applicable NIA guidelines for cervical spine MRI are, in relevant part, as follows: AUTHORIZE:CHRONIC OR DEGENERATIVE CHANGES (i.e., osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease) Chronic or degenerative changes with any of the following new neurological deficits: Extremity weakness; abnormal gait; asymmetric reflexes. (Document which neurological finding.) Chronic or degenerative changes with changing or new onset of radiculopathy or radiculitis (not radicular pain). Chronic or degenerative changes with new abnormal EMG or nerve conduction study. Chronic or degenerative changes with new extremity numbness or tingling AND trial of conservative treatment for at least six (6) weeks. Chronic or degenerative changes with new extremity numbness or tingling AND failed PT. Exacerbation of chronic back pain unresponsive to trial of conservative treatment, including PT/HEP (home exercise program), for at least six (6) weeks. Chronic or degenerative changes AND RECENT (<4 months) failed PT/HEP (home exercise program) See General Information for HEP requirements. * * * NEW ONSET OF NECK PAIN (Use this section ONLY if no other category is appropriate, check all other categories first.) New onset of neck pain with any of the following neurological deficits: extremity weakness; abnormal gait; asymmetric reflexes. (Document which neurological finding.) New onset of neck pain with radiculopathy or radiculitis (not radicular pain) with no improvement after trial of conservative treatment for at least six (6) weeks. New onset of neck pain with progression or worsening of symptoms during the course of conservative treatment. New onset of neck pain persisting with failed PT. On August 6, 2009, BCBSF denied Petitioner's first level appeal for payment. BCBSF reached its decision after Petitioner's medical records were reviewed by Alan Feren, M.D., a physician employed by NIA who is not licensed in Florida. Dr. Feren's work was reviewed by Constantine Morros, M.D. Dr. Morros is licensed in Florida and is board certified in radiology and nuclear medicine. He has worked for NIA as an independent contractor for eleven years, reviewing non-Florida physicians' recommendations to deny coverage for imaging services ordered by Florida physicians. Dr. Morros considered it important that Petitioner had neck and head headaches without motor or sensory abnormalities. There was no indication of muscle weakness or neurological findings. He noted that the cervical spine films showed degenerative changes, but Petitioner had no documented course of physical therapy or home exercise therapy. Under either category of the guidelines, new onset of neck pain or chronic or degenerative changes, Dr. Morros agreed with Dr. Feren that the MRI was not medically necessary and coverage should have been denied. The category that Dr. Morros relied on in reaching his decision was new onset of neck pain. If Dr. Morros had seen evidence of a four-to-six week trial of physician-assisted physical therapy or a home exercise plan, he would have approved the MRI. Dr. Morros did not have an opinion whether ordering the MRI for Petitioner was reasonable or necessary under the circumstances absent consideration of the guidelines. After the denial of the claim at the first level review by NIA for BCBSF, Respondent also denied Petitioner's second level appeal on September 24, 2009. Its decision was based on the findings of NIA and its conclusion that the MRI was not medically necessary. The terms of coverage of the Plan are set forth in the "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefits Document" ("the Benefits Document"). The Benefits Document provides that, as determined by BCBSF clinical staff and Respondent, services that are not medically necessary are excluded from coverage. The Benefits Document includes the following definition: Medically necessary . . . services required to identify or treat the illness, injury, condition, or mental and nervous disorder a doctor has diagnosed or reasonable suspects. The service must be: consistent with the symptom, diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; in accordance with standards of good medical practice; required for reasons other than convenience of the patient or the doctor; approved by the appropriate medical body or board for the illness or injury in question; and at the most appropriate level of medical supply, service, or care that can be safely provided. The fact that a service is prescribed by a doctor does not necessarily mean that the service is medically necessary. BCBSF and DSGI determine whether a service or supply is medically necessary. In addition to relying on the results of the NIA/BCBSF review, Respondent, at level two, relied, in part, on Dr. Yates' notes from his examination of Petitioner on April 1, 2009, as follows: Discussion: A scan of the brain and MRI of the cervical spine would be appropriate. This is most likely a[n] occipital headache from muscle sprain from the fal[l] back. It would be best benefited by a cervical, shoulder exercise program. (Emphasis added.) Because he suggested that the condition that most likely causing headaches could improve with exercise, Respondent takes the position that Dr. Yates should have prescribed a six- week trial of the cervical, shoulder exercise program before he decided to order an MRI. Dr. Yates however, who has fifty years of experience as a neurologic surgeon, believed that he might have been wrong and that the cervical spine could have been damaged when Petitioner fell. That condition could not have been helped by physical therapy and could only be determined by an MRI. It was Dr. Yates' opinion that the fact that Petitioner had been exercising regularly for several years indicated that physical therapy would not be effective. The point of physical therapy after one assumes that muscles have been damaged by an acute injury is to reactivate and stimulate the muscles, and to increase range of motion so that the muscles can be exercised. Dr. Yates initially determined that Petitioner was past the point of physical therapy. There is no evidence whether Dr. Feren or Dr. Morros knew about Petitioner's exercise routine and how that might have affected their opinions. The NIA Authorization Detail form supports Dr. Yates' decision to take into account Petitioner's exercise routine2 and contradicts the decisions of Dr. Feren and Dr. Morros. The following are questions and answers concerning medical necessity: MEDICAL NECESSITY EVALUATION QUESTION ANSWER Why is this study being ordered? Trauma/Injury Yes What was the date of initial onset? 3 years ago Has there been any treatment or conservative therapy? Yes What treatment or conservative therapy was given? Home therapy, medication What are the primary symptoms? HA/cervical pain Please provide additional clinical reasons for this study. None On May 5, 2009, Dr. Yates reviewed the results of the tests with Petitioner and her husband. The MRI was unremarkable other than showing mild degenerative changes with minimal bulges of three discs and tiny herniation of another disc. The brain scan was unremarkable. From this Dr. Yates concluded that the headaches are not caused by "an organic basis from the spinal cord, nerve roots, but are more related to muscular tension and inadequacy." He reported further that: The only correction for this is to strengthen the supra and parscapular and paracervical musculature. We have sent the patient to therapy for a month to get her some relief and teach her the exercises she should be doing. We gave the patient Naprosyn and Darvocet for discomfort. No other care or treatment should be required. To Dr. Yates, it was unusual to find degeneration of the cervical spine in a 24-year-old. Without the MRI, Dr. Yates would not have known of that condition or that Petitioner, although already exercising regularly, needed to be taught to the best exercises to strengthen muscles in her spine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order approving coverage for the MRI claim submitted by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 31st day of August, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an employee of the State of Florida, and was at all times pertinent, a member of the State Group Health Insurance Program administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. In March of 1984, Petitioner was hospitalized due to severe indigestion and abdominal pain. Petitioner was discharged from the hospital and informed by his physician that if his condition worsened, surgery would be necessary. Petitioner's condition worsened and on May 28, 1984, his physician, R. Klein Bowen, M.D., admitted him to the hospital with a pre-operative diagnosis of chronic acalculus cholecystitis which is chronic inflammation of the gallbladder. On May 29, 1984, said physician operated upon petitioner and his operative report listed the following under the title "Operation": Cholescystectomy. Attempted operative cholangiogram. Incidental appendectomy. The description of the operative procedure stated in the operative report (Respondent's Exhibit 1) establishes that the appendectomy which was performed was accomplished through the same incision which was made for performing the cholescystectomy (gallbladder removal). The operative report stated that the appendix was not acutely inflamed. Subsequent to the operative procedures the Petitioner filed a claim with the State Group Health Insurance Plan administrator, seeking payment for the following charges: May 28, 1984, $90.00 for consultation and case history preparation prior to surgery; May 29, 1984, $1,350.00 Cholescystectomy; May 29, 1984, $375.00 Appendectomy. All of said services were performed by R. Klein Bowen, M.D. The State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan paid the charge for the cholescystectomy and denied the claims for consultation and case history preparation prior to the surgery and for the appendectomy. The State Self- Insurance Plan justified its denial of Petitioner's claim for the above benefits based upon limitations it alleged were contained in the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self-Insurance Plan Benefit Document (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Section VIII entitled "Limitations" in paragraph I. specifies that payment may be made for in-patient medical care physician visits in addition to payment for surgery only when the condition which required medical care is not related to the surgery and does not constitute a part of the pre-operative or post-operative care. Additionally, Section VIII, F. specifies that no additional payment shall be made for a surgical procedure which is an incidental procedure performed through the same incision. Petitioner did not dispute the provisions which Respondent alleged were limitations justifying denial of payment, although he asserted that the provisions contained within the Group Health Self-Insurance Plan Benefit Document were not cost effective and would result in additional expenses and lost time from work and were worthy of reconsideration. However, Petitioner did not present any competent evidence to support his claim or refute the limitations relied upon by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the Petition. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Richardson 2909-198 South Semoran Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32822 Richard L. Kopel, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for the licensure and discipline of persons holding or those eligible to hold various insurance licenses. At all times material to this case, Respondent was licensed and eligible for licensure in this state as a health insurance agent. For all policies described below, Respondent was eligible to receive a sales commission and a bonus package which provided Respondent incentive to complete sales of insurance policies. At all times material to this case, Respondent acted as a sales agent for the following insurance companies: Diversified Health Services, National States Insurance Company, Penn Treaty, and Transport Life. Respondent sold health insurance policies, Medicare supplements, home nursing-care policies, nursing home policies, and booster plans to supplement additional coverage under Part B of Medicare. On or about April 20, 1988, Respondent went to the home of Martha and Sam Klingensmith in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Respondent's visit was in response to an information lead card that Mrs. Klingensmith had mailed to an insurance company. Mr. Klingensmith had had surgery in January, 1988, on a malignant brain tumor. Mrs. Klingensmith was anxious for her husband to receive the best care possible and hoped to obtain insurance benefits to help with the costs associated with that care. Mrs. Klingensmith told Respondent about her husband, who was too sick to be interviewed by Respondent (he was bedridden in another room). At that time Mrs. Klingensmith advised Respondent that she and her husband had Medicare supplement policies through a group policy from AARP. Respondent did not review that policy. On or about April 20, 1988, Respondent completed insurance applications for Mr. and Mrs. Klingensmith for nursing home insurance policies. The application form provided, in part, the following questions: Is the insurance being applied for intended to replace any accident or sickness insurance, health service or health maintenance contract? * * * Complete the following for each person named above who now has insurance in force or pending: * * * Does any person above have or ever had any of the following: (Underline condition) A. Tumor, cancer, malignancy or growth of any kind? * * * g. Disease of the rectum or intestine, stomach, kidney, prostate, urinary bladder, liver, gall bladder? * * * 7.a. Has any person named above consulted or been treated by any physician or practitioner in the last five years? b. Has any person named above been confined in a hospital in the last five years? * * * 9.a. List conditions for which medication has been taken or doctor consulted within the past six months: * * * 10. If any part of questions 6 or 7 was answered YES give details--otherwise--answer question by stating "NONE" On the application form for Mr. Klingensmith, Respondent wrote the following responses: as to question 4, "No" was entered; as to question 5, "NONE" was entered; as to 6.a. "Yes" was checked; as to questions 7a. and 7b., "Yes" was checked; as to question 9, only medications not conditions were listed; and under question 10, the remaining effects were indicated as "Good Health." The answers given by Respondent to questions 5, 9, and 10 were incorrect and contrary to the information Mrs. Klingensmith had given Respondent. Mrs. Klingensmith signed the application for her husband. On Mrs. Klingensmith's application form completed by Respondent on April 20, 1988, the answer to question 5 was incorrect and contrary to the information Mrs. Klingensmith had given Respondent. On or about May 17, 1988, Respondent returned to the Klingensmith home and completed an application for Mr. Klingensmith for an extended care insurance policy. The application for that policy was identical to the one described above. Respondent completed the form and gave the same responses that are indicated above. Respondent knew that Mr. Klingensmith had the National States policy from April, 1988, and he failed to include that information on the application. Further, since Mr. Klingensmith remained bedridden, the response of "good health" to question 10 continued to be false and contrary to the information supplied by Mrs. Klingensmith. On August 17, 1988, Respondent went to the Klingensmith home and completed two applications for Mr. 5 Klingensmith: one for a Medicare supplement insurance policy and one for a hospital confinement indemnity insurance policy; both to be issued by National States. On September 14, 1988, Respondent went to the Klingensmith home and completed an application for Mr. Klingensmith to receive a medical/surgical insurance policy from National States. That application did not disclose any of the prior policies sold by Respondent, was again signed by Mrs. Klingensmith (her husband continued to be gravely ill), and falsely stated that Mr. Klingensmith was in good health. At all times material to the sales of the five policies described above for Mr. Klingensmith, Respondent knew or should have known that Mr. Klingensmith was terminally ill. Respondent either did not report the information given by Mrs. Klingensmith or chose not to inquire further based upon the answers she gave him. Mr. Klingensmith died, at home, in October, 1988. In connection with the Klingensmith policies Respondent was required to complete a certification form pursuant to Rule 4-46.004, Florida Administrative Code. That form is to be signed by the insurance applicant. Without Mrs. Klingensmith's prior consent or knowledge, Respondent executed certification forms on behalf of the Klingensmiths. In August, 1988, Mrs. Klingensmith asked Respondent to examine a cancer insurance policy issued by Bankers Fidelity Life Insurance Company covering the Klingensmiths. Respondent failed to disclose that policy on the applications completed in August and September, 1988. Further, Respondent failed to accurately disclose the benefits of that policy to Mrs. Klingensmith. The cancer policy would provide additional benefits which the Respondent should have known could be helpful since Mr. Klingensmith had been diagnosed with a malignant tumor. In September, 1988, Respondent sold a medical/surgical policy to Charles Areni. Subsequently, in April, 1989, Mr. Areni asked Respondent to assist him in the completion of claims forms. Respondent went to Mr. Areni's home, helped him complete the claims forms, and sold him a National States Medicare supplement insurance policy. At that time, Respondent knew Mr. Areni had been hospitalized since a cancerous prostate problem had reoccurred, and that Mr. Areni was taking medication for pain associated with his most recent surgery. The application completed by Respondent for Mr. Areni was the same form described in paragraph 6 above. Respondent submitted the following false responses to the questions posed by that questionnaire: in response to question 5, "None" was entered; to question 6a. Respondent checked "No" when he knew or should have known (based upon Mr. Areni's answers) that the prostate condition was cancerous; and "None" to question 9. Further, Respondent provided that Mr. Areni was in good health in response to question 10. At that time Mr. Areni was not in good health, and, while his prognosis was uncertain, it was apparent that he was in poor health. On or about January 19, 1989, Respondent went to the home of Ruth Stone in Fort Pierce, Florida. That visit was 7 in response to Mrs. Stone's mailed in lead card. At that time, Mrs. Stone was insured by American Life Assurance Corporation with whom she had a Medicare supplement policy. Mrs. Stone told Respondent about her policy but did not show it to him. Without reviewing the existing policy, Respondent advised Mrs. Stone that a policy he could offer her through National States would be a better buy. Based upon Respondent's representations, Mrs. Stone elected to apply for a policy through Respondent. To that end, Respondent completed the application described in paragraph 6 for Mrs. Stone. Respondent answered question 5 incorrectly since he knew that Mrs. Stone had a current policy. Later, after speaking with her other agent, Mrs. Stone cancelled the National States policy by stopping payment on her check. She later gave a sworn statement to the Department. After Respondent found out about Mrs. Stone's complaint to the Department, he asked her to change her statement since he might lose his job. On or about February 17, 1988, Respondent went to the home of Edward and Julia Whitham in Fort Pierce, Florida. Respondent sold the Whithams Medicare supplement policies to be issued by National States. The policies sold to the Whithams did not cover dental or optical services. At the time they purchased the policies, the Whithams were under the impression that optical and dental services were covered. Respondent signed the certifications required by Rule 4-46.004, Florida Administrative Code, for the Whithams without their prior consent or approval.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance, Office of the Treasurer enter a final order revoking the Respondent's health care insurance license. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Nancy S. Isenberg and Dennis Silverman Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services Room 412, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Kelli Hanley Crabb Battaglia, Ross, Hastings & Dicus, P.A. 980 Tyrone Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 3371014 APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-4986 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraphs 39 through 48 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 6 is accepted as to the fact that the Whithams purchased policies from Respondent; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 8 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 9, it is accepted that the Whithams asked that their policies be reinstated; otherwise rejected as unsupported by the record or irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is accepted as to their complaint against the company but is irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 15 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted with the notation that Mrs. Stone did advise Respondent that she had a policy in effect. She was shopping for a cheaper policy that offered as good or better benefits. Respondent made no effort to review Mrs. Stone's policy. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 17, it is accepted that based upon Respondent's representations, Mrs. Stone purchased a national States policy; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 19, it is accepted that Mrs. Stone spoke with her agent and decided to stop payment on the check to National States; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is not supported by the record and is, therefore, rejected. Paragraph 21 is rejected as-irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 23, it is accepted that the application disclosed a prostate condition; otherwise rejected as not supported by the record. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Paragraph 26 is accepted with the notation that Respondent did not complete the application with all of the pertinent information that Mr. Areni gave him; consequently, Respondent was attempting to have the policy issued when he knew or should have known that Mr. Areni's cancer would preclude him from being eligible. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; see the notation to paragraph 26 above. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted. With regard to the second sentence, it is accepted that Respondent was not supposed to write insurance for cancer patients, however, the overwhelming evidence in this case established that Respondent did just that. The first sentence of paragraph 33 is accepted. It is further accepted that Mrs. Klingensmith executed the applications on behalf of herself and her husband; otherwise the paragraph is rejected as either unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 34 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence since the comment was only made in relation to Mr. Klingensmith's day-to-day behavior. He undoubtedly had some good days relative to his more severe days. It is further concluded that Mr. Klingensmith was never seen by any visiting insurance person other than as a bedridden person. Mr. Bessimer's comment that Mr. Klingensmith could have been napping was not credible in light of the total circumstances known to Respondent. Paragraph 35 is accepted but is irrelevant. The second sentence of paragraph 36 is accepted. With regard to the first sentence of that paragraph, it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mrs. Klingensmith's account of the conversation has been deemed more credible than the Respondent's. Paragraphs 37, 38, and the first sentence of paragraph 39 are accepted. With regard to the remainder of paragraph 39, it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 40 is accepted but is irrelevant.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, was the state agency responsible for the licensure of insurance agents and the regulation of the insurance business in Florida. Respondent, Richard M. Rinker, was licensed by the Petitioner as a health insurance agent engaged in the business of soliciting, selling and servicing health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company. Levon H. and Joan D. Sprague, husband and wife, moved to Florida from New York in August, 1991. Prior to moving to Florida, the Spragues operated a restaurant in New York and purchased health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for themselves and some of their employees. They also owned a H.I.P. policy which was similar to a health maintenance organization, but both that coverage and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage were dropped when they moved to Florida. Because both Mr. and Mrs. Sprague were getting older, and because both had indications of possible future health problems based on experience and family history, upon the recommendation of Mrs. Sprague's father, who had purchased coverage from Respondent and was satisfied with the service received, they contacted Respondent and met with him about purchasing health insurance. The first meeting was on January 6, 1992. At that time, the Sprague's made Respondent aware of the fact that they had no health insurance coverage at that time and that they wanted to purchase coverage which would give them 100 percent reimbursement of all bills for medical care rendered. After some discussion, they agreed to accept less coverage for doctors' bills and other professional services, but were quite adamant in reiterating they wanted a policy that would cover 100 percent of the cost of hospitalization. They emphasized this because of Mr. Sprague's family's history of heart problems and they wanted to be sure the hospital expense would be covered in full. They felt the doctors could wait a while for payment of the full amount of their bills. During the course of his presentation, Respondent utilized a document called a National States Limited Medical-Surgical Hospital Confinement Plan which purportedly outlined the specifics of policy coverage. Under that portion entitled "Specific Benefits", the form read, "This policy pays percent of usual and customary expenses of the following type:". Under the blank space, in smaller type, were the numbers "10, 20, 30, 40". In the blank area, Respondent, by hand, inserted 80 percent. Above, and to the right of that insertion, he also placed the numbers, "100 percent" and "40 percent." Respondent explains this as being his attempt to provide answers to questions asked of him by Mrs. Sprague. He noted that his company does not offer a major medical policy such as desired by the Spragues, and that the only way he could provide coverage close to that which they wanted was to combine policies. Using a yellow highlighter, he also highlighted the words, "Doctor's charges", "doctor's office", "clinic", "hospital", "home", and "surgical or medical center." He also highlighted the terms "annual mammography screening" because Mrs. Sprague had specifically inquired about coverage of that procedure. On that visit, Respondent sold the Spragues two policies each. These were "MSH-1" and "MSH-2" policies which, the Spragues recall, Respondent indicated would provide the total coverage they wanted. Initially, the premium was to be $3,600.00 for the year, but when the Spragues indicated they could not afford that much, after calling his office, Respondent was able to offer them 6 months coverage for one half the price. They were satisfied with this and accepted the policies. Mr. Rinker received as his commission 45 percent of the premium paid in by the Spragues for the first year of the policy. When he departed the Spragues' home, he left with them the policy outline he utilized in his presentation, a large manila envelope containing information regarding his office hours and phone number, and a MSP form required by law. The coverage was not heavily used at first. When, during the first six month period, claims were initially denied because of the waiting period, the Spragues accepted that. After the expiration of the waiting period, all claims submitted for doctors' visits and mammography were covered to at least 80 percent of the amount expected by the Spragues. This was, however, because of the combined benefits paid by the two policies. Neither policy, alone, paid 100 percent percent of the claim. The Spragues were satisfied with this because it was not hospitalization. Later on, however, it became apparent that Mr. Sprague would have to enter the hospital for coronary bypass surgery, and he was admitted on an emergency basis. Before the surgery was done, however, the Spragues wanted to be sure the hospital bills would be paid in full, and they had their daughter- in-law, who had extensive experience in the insurance business prior to that time, to examine the policies. Her review of the policies generated some questions in her mind as to whether they provided 100 percent coverage of all hospital costs. To satisfy herself and her in-laws, utilizing the telephone number for Respondent on the materials left by him with the Spragues, she contacted him and asked, specifically, whether the policies he had sold to the Spragues, provided the 100 percent coverage they desired. His answer was somewhat evasive and non- responsive to her inquiry. He said, "Don't worry. She'll [Ms. Sprague] be able to sleep at night. She has a good policy." This did not satisfy either Ms. Sprague or her mother-in-law, and so she called Respondent again. During this second conversation he admitted that for at least a part of the cost, there was a 40 percent coinsurance provision. Respondent claims that during these calls, Ms. Sprague did not tell him that her father-in-law was to have surgery but only told him about tests. The tests were covered and the bills therefor paid by National States. By the time of these calls, however, Mr. Sprague was already in the hospital and facing the surgery the following morning. There was little that could be done. Mr. Sprague wanted to cancel the surgery but his wife would not allow this and the operation was accomplished. The hospital bills received by the Spragues amounted to approximately $140,000. Of this, the insurance company paid approximately $18,000. Ultimately, the Spragues and the hospital were able to reach an agreement for settlement of the obligation for $40,000. In order to satisfy this, Mr. Sprague was required to liquidate all his investments. He still owes the doctors a substantial sum but is making periodic payments to liquidate those obligations. The policies which Respondent sold to the Spragues were limited medical and surgical expense policies which pay only a limited percentage of incurred medical expenses over a limited period of time. Neither policy pays 100 percent of any medical or surgical expense. Respondent did not clearly communicate this fact to the Spragues. They suffered from the misconception that the policies sold to them by the Respondent paid 100 percent coverage for hospital expense, 80 percent for doctor fees, and 40 percent for medication. Petitioner presented no evidence that what Respondent did was below the standards accepted of sales agents within the health insurance industry. On the other hand, James Quinn, an insurance agent since 1975, who has taught life and health insurance and the legal responsibility of agents in the health insurance area with the approval of the Department since 1985, testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Quinn noted that there are three types of medical policies in use, including basic medical expense, major medical, and comprehensive major medical. The first of these, basic medical expense, permits liberal underwriting and pays policy limits. In Mr. Quinn's opinion, based on the age and preexisting conditions that the Sprague's have, major medical coverage, like they wanted, would cost between seven and ten thousand dollars annually, excluding deductibles. Health insurance coverage outlines, such as used by Respondent in his presentation to the Spragues are, according to Mr. Quinn, reasonably self-explanatory and are left with the insured either when the policy is applied for or is delivered. In the former case, the client is able to read the outline and cancel the policy before delivery, if he so desires. In the latter case, the insured has a set number of days to read the policy after delivery and cancel if he so desires. These outlines do not substitute for the policy, however, and generally, the agent prefers to deliver the policy personally so he can go over it again with the insured. According to Mr. Quinn, it is difficult to explain coverage to prospective insureds because of their unfamiliarity with the terminology and the available benefits. He concluded that the action of the Respondent, in issue here, whereby he used the coverage outline to explain the coverages to the Spragues, was consistent with proper agent conduct and was within industry standards. He also concluded that based on what Respondent had available to sell to the Spragues, he sold them the best package he could, at the time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this matter finding Respondent, Richard Michael Rinker, guilty of a violation of Sections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (13); 626.621(2) and (6); 626.9521, and 626.9541(1)(a)(1), (1)(e)(1), and (1)(k)(1), Florida statutes, and suspending his license as a health insurance agent for nine months. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-0089 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as to finding Mr. Quinn is an expert regarding insurance standards and business practices, but rejected as insinuating those opinions are binding on the Hearing Officer. Rejected notwithstanding the opinions of Mr. Quinn. Accepted, as there is no evidence to the contrary. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as contra to the evidence. Second sentence accepted as to the furnishing, but the quality of the information was less than clear. Balance accepted. & 8. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a waiver of the limitations in the state group health self insurance plan regarding pre-existing conditions during the first 12 months of coverage under the plan.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony presented at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner was first employed by the Department of Transportation as a Clerk Typist Specialist on October 31, 1986. As a new employee, the Petitioner was entitled to select health insurance under the state group health self insurance plan or with a participating health maintenance organization (HMO). The state group health self insurance plan and the HMO's each have different benefits and premiums. The Petitioner's direct supervisor is Ms. Gwen Molander. On October 30, 1986, the day prior to her first day of employment, the Petitioner met with her supervisor to sign the employment paperwork. On that day Ms. Molander called the Department of Transportation personnel office in Lake City for the purpose of finding out whether the state group health self insurance plan would cover pre-existing allergy conditions of the Petitioner's son. Ms. Molander specifically asked the Lake City personnel office if the plan would cover the Petitioner's son if the son was under the care of an allergist. The words "pre- existing condition" were not used in the conversation Ms. Molander had with the Lake City personnel office. The Lake City personnel office told Ms. Molander that the Petitioner's son would be covered even if it was not an open enrollment period. The Petitioner authorized a "double-up" deduction so the health insurance would be effective as of December 1, 1986. The Petitioner's son has been covered as a dependent under the Petitioner's health insurance since December 1, 1986. Based on the information from the Lake City personnel office, the Petitioner believed that the state group health self insurance plan would provide coverage for all of her son's medical expenses without any limitation regarding pre-existing conditions. The Petitioner's son had a pre-existing allergy condition for which he received medical treatment in December of 1986 and thereafter. Since December of 1986 the Petitioner has incurred medical bills of approximately $2,000.00 for treatment related to her son's pre-existing allergy condition. The state group health self insurance plan has refused to pay any of the medical expenses related to the treatment of the pre-existing allergy condition of the Petitioner's son. The state group health self insurance plan contains a provision to the effect that "no payment shall be made for pre- existing conditions during the first 12 months of coverage under the Plan." Accordingly, the refusal to pay described above is consistent with the provisions of the state group health self insurance plan. At the time the Petitioner chose to enroll in the state group health self insurance plan, she could also have chosen any of three HMO programs available to state employees in he Gainesville area. Petitioner chose the state group health self insurance plan because of her belief that it provided coverage for her son's pre-existing allergy condition. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record in this case regarding the coverage provided by the three available HMO's, the limitations (if any) on the coverage, or the cost to the employee of such coverage. At the time the Petitioner chose to enroll in the state group health self insurance plan, her employing office did not have any written information regarding the health insurance options available to new employees. There is no evidence that the Petitioner attempted to obtain information regarding health insurance options from any source other than her direct supervisor and the Lake City personnel office. On the insurance enrollment form signed by the Petitioner, dated October 31, 1986, the Petitioner was put on notice and acknowledged that coverage and the effective dates of coverage under the state group health self insurance plan were governed by Rule Chapter 22K-1, Parts I and II, Florida Administrative Code, and by the plan benefit document, "regard-less of any statements or representations made to me. " The Petitioner has previously worked in the insurance field and she is familiar with limitations on coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration issue a final order in this case denying the relief requested by the Petitioner and dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1485 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties: Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner As noted in the introductory portion of the recommended order in this case, the Petitioner's post-hearing submission consists of a letter dated May 12, 1987. Although the letter does not contain any statements which are identified as proposed findings of fact, in light of the lesson taught by Kinast v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), all factual assertions in the letter of May 12, 1987, have been treated as though they were proposed findings of fact. The references which follow are to the unnumbered paragraphs and sentences of the letter of May 12, 1987. First unnumbered paragraph: This is an introductory comment only. Second unnumbered paragraph: First sentence is rejected as a proposed finding because not supported by evidence in the record. Second sentence is a statement of position rather than a proposed finding. Third sentence is rejected as a proposed finding because not supported by evidence in the record. Fourth sentence is a statement of the relief requested rather than a proposed finding. Fifth sentence is rejected as a proposed finding because it is inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Third unnumbered paragraph: This entire paragraph is rejected as proposed findings because it consists of statement of position and argument rather than proposed facts. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are contained in twelve numbered paragraphs in Respondent's proposed recommended order. The paragraph references which follow are to each of those twelve paragraphs. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: First sentence accepted. Second sentence is rejected in part and accepted in part; first ten words are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The remainder of the sentence is accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance with correction of confused dates and deletion of irrelevant details. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Rejected as irrelevant due to the fact that no such literature was available at Petitioner's employing office. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Juanita L. Resmondo Department of Transportation Maintenance Office Post Office Box 1109 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
