The Issue The issue in this case is the amount that must be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Respondent) from the proceeds of Petitioner’s confidential settlement to satisfy Respondent’s Medicaid lien against the proceeds pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2019).1
Findings Of Fact Paragraphs 1 through 9 are the facts admitted8 and agreed upon by the parties, and required no proof at hearing. On December 7, 2012, A.F., an eight-year-old female, underwent an initial psychiatric evaluation. Following this assessment, A.F. was started on treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). A.F. was 4 Respondent’s Proposed Final Order provided that “Petitioner presented two witnesses: Andrew Needle, Esq., and Kenneth Bush, Esq.” The undersigned did not hear any testimony from Mr. Needle or Mr. Bush. 5 Respondent’s Exhibit 1, a “Provider Processing System Report,” contained a different “Total Claims” amount than the amount of A.F.’s medical expenses paid by AHCA to which the parties stipulated. Without testimony this exhibit is hearsay, and cannot support a finding of fact. As discussed at hearing, the parties agreed to use the stipulated amount: $261,334.61. 6 Although Petitioner’s PFO recites that Petitioner “did not order a transcript of the proceedings,” a review of the filed transcript shows otherwise. See Hearing Tran, pg. 10, lines 4–7. 7 The Hearing Transcript was electronically filed with DOAH on August 3, 2020; the hard– copy original Transcript was filed with DOAH on August 14, 2020. 8 Statement 3 has been reworded for clarity purposes. prescribed 18mg of the ADHD drug9 that was the subject of the personal injury litigation. On March 30, 2013, at the age of nine, and shortly after her ADHD medication was uptitrated from 18mg to 27mg daily, A.F. attempted suicide by way of hanging with a scarf fastened to her bunk bed. That action detrimentally impeded oxygen flow to A.F.’s brain for a dangerously prolonged period of time, resulting in extensive neurological damage and substantial motor impairment; ultimately leaving A.F. in a permanent vegetative state. Ms. Lopez, on behalf of A.F., brought a product liability and medical malpractice action to recover all of A.F.’s damages related to her prescription of the ADHD drug. This action was brought against various pharmaceutical and medical malpractice defendants. As a result of the alleged medical malpractice and pharmaceutical product liability claims, A.F. suffered a massive hypoxic brain injury. Since this incident and the resulting hypoxic brain injury, A.F. has been in a permanent vegetative state requiring 24/7 skilled nursing care. In 2020, Ms. Lopez, on behalf of A.F., settled her tort action for a limited confidential amount, due to significant liability challenges with her claims; even though she believed that A.F.’s injuries were tens of millions of dollars in excess of the recovery. AHCA was properly notified of A.F.’s lawsuit against the defendants and indicated it had paid benefits related to the injuries from the incident in the amount of $261,334.61. AHCA has asserted a lien for the full amount it paid, $261,334.61, against A.F.’s settlement proceeds. AHCA has maintained that it is entitled to application of section 409.910’s formula to determine the lien amount. Applying the statutory 9 The name of the drug is not being used based on the terms in the confidential settlement. reduction formula to this particular settlement would result in no reduction of the lien given the amount of the settlement. AHCA paid $261,334.61 on behalf of A.F., related to her claim against the liable third parties. The parties stipulated that AHCA is limited by section 409.910(17)(b) to the past medical expense portion of the recovery and that a preponderance of the evidence standard should be used in rendering this Final Order. There were two settlements regarding A.F.’s care and treatment: one with the doctor(s) who allegedly committed medical malpractice; and the second involving the pharmaceutical maker of the ADHD drug prescribed to A.F. Although AHCA was notified when the medical malpractice case was settled, AHCA did not file a lien on any of the recovery from the medical malpractice settlement. Limited information about the medical malpractice settlement was discussed, but the medical malpractice settlement is not considered in this Final Order. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 is a February 16, 2019, letter (lien letter) from Conduent Payment Integrity Solutions, a subcontractor to Health Management Systems which is an authorized agent of AHCA “to operate the Florida Medicaid Casualty Recover Program.” In addition to directing A.F.’s counsel to review section 409.910, to determine the “responsibilities to Florida Medicaid,” Mark Lyles, Conduent’s case manager and author of this letter also posted the amount of the lien asserted by AHCA: $261,334.61. A.F. lives with her mother, sister, grandmother, and Ms. Lopez’s significant other. Everyone in the household can and does provide care and assistance to A.F. when necessary. Ms. Lopez rarely leaves A.F. in someone else’s care. A.F. is unable to speak and requires total care. Ms. Lopez described the injuries sustained by A.F. Ms. Lopez also detailed the care she has provided and is continuing to provide to A.F. since the event. A.F.’s activities of daily living (ADLs) must be met with assistance in every aspect of her being. When A.F. wakes up each morning: she is given all her medications; her diaper is changed; she is fed via a feeding tube; she is given lung treatments each morning; her trachea tube is cleaned and changed at times; and she is turned or moved every two hours to prevent sores forming on her skin. A.F. is on a ventilator at night and every four hours she is catheterized because she stopped urinating. In October 2019, A.F. started having seizures. Ms. Lopez testified that A.F.’s care is mentally and emotionally draining, and very tiring. She further added A.F.’s care is very repetitive and the “best way to describe it [each day] is the movie GROUNDHOG DAY,” (Columbia Pictures 1993); the same thing, every day. A.F. is confined to her hospital bed, a wheelchair, or a chair to which she can be secured. Although Ms. Lopez testified that A.F. is “entitled” to skilled nursing care 24/7, Ms. Lopez has learned how to care for A.F. because “they can’t staff me” with a skilled nurse (presumably referring to a Medicaid standard for care). Mr. Rafferty is a Florida board-certified civil trial lawyer with 26 years’ experience in personal injury law. He concentrates and specializes in pharmaceutical cases, including defective drug cases involving catastrophic injury, throughout Florida and the United States. As part of his ongoing practice, he routinely evaluates the damages suffered by injured clients, and relies on his own experience and his review of other jury verdicts to gauge any likely recovery for non-economic damages. Mr. Rafferty continues to handle cases involving similar injuries suffered by A.F. Mr. Rafferty was tendered and without objection was accepted as an expert regarding valuation of personal injury damages. Mr. Rafferty, along with Nathan Carter as co-counsel, represented A.F. and her mother in the civil litigation. He testified to the difficulties associated with pharmaceutical litigation in general, and then focused on the problematic causation and liability issues related to A.F. and her injuries. Mr. Rafferty met with the family; observed A.F. can no longer perform her ADLs; reviewed all of A.F.’s medical information; evaluated how the medication was uptitrated causing A.F.’s injury; analyzed the causation, liability issues, and fault; developed economic damages figures; and valued non-economic damages. Mr. Rafferty credibly testified regarding the evaluations he made regarding A.F.’s injuries and the pharmaceutical product prescribed. The non-economic damages included A.F.’s pain and suffering, both future and past, her loss of capacity to enjoy life, and her mental anguish. Mr. Rafferty explained the importance of assessing all of the elements of damages A.F. suffered as a result of her catastrophic injuries. Mr. Rafferty’s unrefuted testimony placed the total full value of A.F.’s damages conservatively in excess of $100,000,000.00.10 Mr. Rafferty included A.F.’s pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of quality of life, plus the economic damages. Further, using the $100,000,000.00 valuation amount and the confidential settlement proceeds, Mr. Rafferty opined that A.F. recovered only 4.75% of the full measure of all her damages. Mr. Rafferty reviewed Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, and as an experienced trial attorney understood the letter to contain the “lien for past medical” expenses of $261,334.61. Mr. Rafferty added that he routinely uses this type of approach with lien holders in his practice. Mr. Rafferty’s testimony was uncontradicted and persuasive on this point. Mr. Carter is an AV-rated Florida civil trial lawyer with 25 years’ experience in personal injury law, with an active civil trial practice. He has always handled plaintiff’s medical malpractice, product liability, and car accident-type litigation. As a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured clients, including the liability, causation, and possible damages. Mr. Carter 10 For ease of discussion, the conservative total amount, $100,000,000.00 will be used. All the witnesses agreed that the economic value of the case was above $70 million and the non- economic damages were at least $30 million. confirmed that it is essential to have every element (liability, causation, and damages) evaluated because these types of cases are expensive in both time and money. Mr. Carter specifically looks at the injuries sustained, who the plaintiff is, how the injuries have affected their life, and the permanency of those injuries. He continues to handles cases with catastrophic injuries. Mr. Carter testified that the injuries suffered by A.F. were “worse than almost, almost any case … handled.” He added that A.F.’s damages were “catastrophic” and “one of the worst damage cases [he had] ever seen.” Mr. Carter was tendered and without objection was accepted as an expert regarding valuation of medical malpractice damages.11 Mr. Carter testified that “as a matter of course, [we] put every lienholder on notice as soon as we learn about them” and “then throughout the case.” Mr. Carter was in regular contact with Mr. Lyles. The medical malpractice case was settled before the pharmaceutical action. After the medical malpractice case was settled, Mr. Carter understood that AHCA would not negotiate on the medical malpractice settlement. When the “entire case” was completed, Mr. Carter notified Mr. Lyles, and then received the lien letter. As an experienced trial attorney he understood the letter to contain the “final lien figure:” $261,334.61. Mr. Carter also met with the family, reviewed all of A.F.’s medical information and records, and evaluated the medication that was uptitrated. Mr. Carter utilized a similar detailed analysis of A.F.’s injuries and her current condition. Mr. Carter also described the severity of A.F.’s injuries that entered into his decision to pursue the civil case and to testify in this proceeding. Mr. Carter analyzed the causation, liability issues, and fault. He evaluated the economic damages figures and valued non-economic damages 11 Mr. Carter was offered as an expert in medical malpractice damages. His insight in the combined totality of the medical malpractice and pharmaceutical product litigation warranted consideration, but AHCA’s failure to include the medical malpractice settlement precluded any consideration of that settlement. Without a more decisive understanding of what “pretty significant” means, ACHA’s attempt to question Mr. Carter’s knowledge of A.F.’s past medical expenses is unpersuasive. such as pain and suffering, both future and past, loss of capacity to enjoy life, scarring and disfigurement, and mental anguish. Mr. Carter opined A.F.’s damages could have easily been in excess of $100,000,000.00. Mr. Carter further opined that A.F.’s non-economic damages were “very significant” and “could have driven the total value of damages in excess of the $100,000,000.00.” However, Mr. Carter testified he used $100,000,000.00 in order to resolve the Medicaid lien. Mr. Carter used the same mathematical approach he has used in other lien issues: he divided the confidential settlement amount by the conservative full value of damages ($100,000,000.00) and arrived at a recovery of 4.75% of the full measure of her damages. Mr. Carter’s testimony was uncontradicted and persuasive on this point. Mr. McKenna is a board-certified, AV-rated Florida civil trial lawyer with 25 years’ experience in personal injury law, who maintains an active civil trial practice. He has always practiced plaintiff’s work, and has tried between 40 and 50 cases to verdict. In the last 15 years, Mr. McKenna testified that “at least half … focused on … catastrophic cases either from the medical malpractice arena or from general liability trucking arena.” Mr. McKenna has reviewed thousands of personal injury cases relative to damages, and provided a detailed explanation of how he evaluates damages of catastrophic injury cases. He further provided that half of his cases were wrongful death cases and the other half were physical or brain injury cases. Mr. McKenna also provided the various resources he uses to keep abreast of personal injury verdicts and settlements. Mr. McKenna was tendered as “an independent expert attorney as to valuation of damages.” Mr. McKenna was not involved in the underlying civil litigation, but became A.F.’s guardian ad litem, appointed by the trial judge, to offer his “opinions regarding the reasonableness of the potential medical malpractice settlement, and ... the pharmaceutical settlement” which is the subject of this Final Order. Respondent did not object to Mr. McKenna’s tender and he was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages. Mr. McKenna testified that he reviewed the facts and circumstances of both the medical malpractice and the pharmaceutical sides and the chronologies of A.F.’s medical records. He acquired an “intimate understanding” of A.F’s on going care and treatment in light of the injuries she sustained. Mr. McKenna agreed with Messrs. Rafferty and Carter that the non-economic damages in this case were very significant, and he agreed with their conservative $100,000,000.00 valuation of her total damages. Further, Mr. McKenna testified that the normal course for resolving liens in Florida was to look at the total value of damages in relation to the recovery to get a ratio by which to reduce the lien amount. Based on his past experiences in resolving Medicaid liens, other courts have resolved such liens using the formula from the Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services. v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006), with the only other alternative formula found in section 409.910. The testimony of Petitioner’s three experts regarding the total value of damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Petitioner proved that the confidential settlement does not fully compensate A.F. for the full value of her damages. As testified to by the experts, A.F.’s recovery represents only 4.75% of the total value of her claim. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of damages, or propose a different valuation of the damages. In short, Petitioner’s evidence was unrebutted. AHCA did, however, contest the methodology used to calculate the allocation of past medical expenses, but was unpersuasive. The parties stipulated to the value of the services provided by Florida Medicaid as $261,334.61. It is logical and rational to conclude that this figure is the amount expended for A.F.’s past medical expenses. Applying the 4.75% pro rata ratio to $261,334.61 equals $12,413.39, which is the portion of the settlement representing reimbursement for past medical expenses and the amount recoverable by AHCA for its lien. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence as set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) that AHCA should be reimbursed at the lesser amount: $12,413.39.
The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes (sometimes referred to as "17b"), Respondent's recovery of medical assistance expenditures from $500,000 in proceeds from the settlement of a products liability action must be reduced from its allocation under section 409.910(11)(f) (sometimes referred to as "11f")1 to avoid conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1) (Anti-Lien Statute)2; and, if so, the amount of Respondent's recovery.
Findings Of Fact As a result of a motor vehicle accident that took place on May 27, 2012, Petitioner sustained grave personal injuries, including damage to his spinal cord that has left him a paraplegic incapable of self-ambulation of more than a few steps, except by means of a wheelchair or rolling walker. Petitioner was a passenger in a 2003 extended-cab Ford F-150 pickup truck that was driven at a high rate of speed by his brother, who lost control of the vehicle in a curve, over-corrected, and caused the vehicle to rollover three times, ejecting Petitioner with such force that he traveled a distance of 150 feet in the air. The force of the rollovers crushed the vehicle's roof, which caused Petitioner's door latch to fail, allowing Petitioner's door to open and Petitioner to be expelled from the relative safety of the passenger compartment. In settlement negotiations, Petitioner's trial counsel claimed that Ford F-150s of the relevant vintage suffered from deficient door latches, but the forces to which the latch were subjected were overwhelming and well beyond reasonable design limits: the truck's door could not have resisted these forces unless it had been welded to the frame. The one-vehicle accident was substantially, if not entirely, caused by Petitioner's brother, who was intoxicated and is now serving a five-year sentence in prison for his role in the crash. Petitioner shared some responsibility because he likely was not wearing a seatbelt when the truck rolled over. Petitioner's brother and another passenger who were not ejected from the vehicle sustained minor injuries. Petitioner commenced a products liability action against Ford Motor Company and the manufacturer of the door latch. Ford Motor Company defended the case vigorously. Expert witnesses were unable to find any federal safety standards that had been violated in connection with the vehicle, the door latch, or the performance of the vehicle and door latch during the rollovers. The manufacturer of the door latch raised a substantial defense of a lack of personal jurisdiction. At the time of the incident, Petitioner was a 25-year-old plumber and construction worker. He was the sole means of support for his three young children. He has undergone an arduous course of rehabilitation to gain wheelchair-dependent self-autonomy. At the time of the settlement, which appears to have resolved the products liability action, the putative true value of Petitioner's case was $6 million, consisting of $154,219 of past medical expenses, $2.1 million of future medical expenses, $800,000 of lost wages and loss of future earning capacity, and about $2.95 million of noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering and loss of consortium. Petitioner has proved each of these damages components, so the putative true value is the true value (sometimes referred to as the "actual true value"). Petitioner settled the case for $500,000, representing a settlement discount of 91.7% from the true value of $6 million (Settlement Discount). Petitioner has paid or incurred $147,000 in attorneys' fees and about $123,000 in recoverable costs in prosecuting the products liability action. Respondent has expended $154,219 of medical assistance. Under the 11f formula, which is described in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent would recover approximately $126,000 from the $500,000 settlement. This provisional 11f allocation provides the point of reference for determining whether Petitioner has proved in this 17b proceeding a reduced recovery amount for Respondent. Having proved the Settlement Discount of 91.7% from the actual, not putative, true value to the settled value, Petitioner has proved that each damages component of the true value, including past medical expenses, must be proportionately reduced by 91.7% to identify the portion of the settlement proceeds representing past medical expenses, which, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, is the only portion of the proceeds subject to the Medicaid lien. Reducing the past medical expenses of $154,219 by 91.7% yields about $12,800, which is Respondent's tentative 17b recovery. As mentioned in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent's recovery must bear its pro rata share of the attorneys' fees and costs paid or incurred to produce the settlement. The total fees and costs of $270,000 represent 54% of the settlement. The record provides no reason to find that these fees and costs are unreasonable in amount or were not reasonably expended to produce the $500,000 settlement. Reducing Respondent's recovery of $12,800 by 54% yields $5888, which is Respondent's 17b recovery.
The Issue What is the proper amount of Petitioner's personal injury settlement payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), to satisfy AHCA's $191,298.99 Medicaid lien under section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the evidence presented at the hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On August 9, 2018, Petitioner, Russell Wellington ("Wellington"), who was 59 years old, was driving a motorcycle in the inside northbound lane of U.S. Highway 1 at or near mile marker 99 in Monroe County, Florida. A vehicle driven by JI Young Chung ("Chung"), and owned by a car rental company, was northbound in the outside lane on U.S. Highway 1. Chung turned left into Wellington’s motorcycle causing him to be ejected from the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, Wellington sustained catastrophic injuries including a right leg amputation, a fractured pelvis, fractured humerus, fractured ribs, kidney failure, and a head injury. Wellington is now disabled and unable to work. JPHS p. 10, ¶1. Wellington’s medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid, and Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $191,298.99 in benefits. This $191,298.99 constituted Wellington’s entire claim for past medical expenses. JPHS p. 10, ¶2. Wellington pursued a personal injury claim against the driver and owner of the car that struck his motorcycle (“tortfeasors”) to recover all his damages. JPHS p. 10, ¶3. The other driver, Chung, maintained an insurance policy with only $100,000 in insurance limits, and had no other recoverable assets. The rental company that owned the vehicle maintained an insurance policy with only $10,000 in insurance limits. Wellington’s personal injury claim against the tortfeasors was settled for an unallocated lump sum amount of $110,000.00. JPHS p. 10, ¶4. As a condition of Wellington’s eligibility for Medicaid, Wellington assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third-parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) ; § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of Wellington’s personal injury claim, AHCA was notified of the claim and asserted a $191,298.99 Medicaid lien against Wellington’s cause of action and settlement of that action. JPHS p. 10, ¶5. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene or join in Wellington’s claim against the tortfeasors. JPHS p. 10, ¶6. By letter, AHCA was notified of Wellington’s settlement. JPHS p. 10, ¶7. AHCA has not filed a motion to set-aside, void, or otherwise dispute Wellington’s settlement. JPHS p. 10, ¶8. The Medicaid program, through AHCA, spent $191,298.99 on behalf of Wellington, all of which represents expenditures paid for Wellington’s past medical expenses. JPHS p. 10, ¶9. Wellington’s taxable costs incurred in securing the $110,000.00 settlement totaled $766.78. JPHS p. 10, ¶10. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Wellington’s $110,000.00 settlement requires payment to AHCA of $40,866.61. JPHS p. 11, ¶11. Petitioner has deposited the section 409.910(11)(f) formula amount in an interest bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). JPHS p.11, ¶12. Testimony of Steven G. Jugo, Esquire Steven G. Jugo, Esquire ("Jugo"), was called by Petitioner. He has been an attorney for 41 years and practices with the law firm of Jugo & Murphy in Miami, Florida. For the past 37 years, Jugo has practiced exclusively plaintiff’s personal injury, medical malpractice, and wrongful death law. He routinely handles jury trials and cases involving catastrophic injury. He is familiar with reviewing medical records, reviewing accident reports, and deposing fact and expert witnesses. He stays abreast of jury verdicts in his geographic area by reviewing jury verdict reporters and discussing cases with other trial attorneys. He is a member of several trial attorney organizations including the Florida Justice Association and the American Association for Justice. As a routine part of his practice, Jugo makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured clients. He briefly explained his process for making these determinations. Jugo is familiar with, and routinely participates in, processes involving the allocation of settlements in matters including health insurance liens, workers' compensation liens, and Medicare set-asides, as well as, allocations of judgments made by judges post-verdict. Jugo represented Wellington in his underlying personal injury claim. Jugo reviewed the accident report, reviewed Wellington’s medical records, met with Wellington numerous times, and deposed the driver of the vehicle that struck Wellington’s motorcycle. As a result of the accident, Wellington underwent many surgeries and extensive medical intervention. Jugo felt that Wellington’s injuries have tremendously impacted his life in a negative way. He explained that Wellington is no longer able to work and he is no longer able to adequately care for or play with the three young children he adopted. Without objection by AHCA, Jugo testified that based on his professional training and experience, it was his opinion that a very conservative value for Wellington’s damages would be $4 million. Jugo explained that his valuation of Wellington’s total projected damages was based on his experience, his comparison of Wellington’s case to similar jury verdicts, and discussions about the case with other attorneys. He explained that the jury verdicts outlined in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9 were comparable to Wellington’s case and supported his valuation of Wellington’s total and projected damages in this case. Jugo detailed that about 70 percent of the verdicts he reviewed which were similar in nature, were in the $5 million range. He opined that this demonstrated that Wellington’s total and projected damages would also have a minimum value of $4 million. Jugo discussed the value of Wellington’s damages with other attorneys, and they agreed with the valuation of Wellington’s total projected damages being in excess of $4 million. Wellington’s personal injury claim was brought against the driver and the rental car company that owned the vehicle which struck Wellington’s motorcycle. The vehicle driver, Chung, maintained an insurance policy with only $100,000.00 in coverage, and had no other recoverable assets. Jugo explained that because the vehicle was owned by a rental car company, the law shielded the rental car company from suit. Nonetheless, he explained that the rental car company had a $10,000.00 insurance policy it made available. As a result, the total settlement was $110,000.00. Jugo believed that the personal injury settlement did not fully compensate Wellington for all of his projected personal injury damages. Without objection by AHCA’s counsel, Jugo testified that based on a conservative value of all damages of $4 million, Wellington recovered in the settlement only 2.75 percent of the value of his total and projected damages. Again, without objection, he testified that because Wellington recovered only 2.75 percent of his total and projected damages, he recovered in the settlement only 2.75 percent of his $191,298.99 claim for past medical expenses, or $5,260.72. Jugo also testified that it would be reasonable to allocate $5,260.72 of the settlement to past medical expenses, stating “[t]hat’s the maximum amount I believe should be allocated to past medical expenses.” Testimony of R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire ("Barrett"), has been a trial attorney for over 40 years. He is a partner with the law firm of Barrett, Nonni and Homola, P.A., in Tallahassee. His legal practice is dedicated to plaintiff’s personal injury and wrongful death cases. He has handled cases involving automobile accidents and catastrophic injuries. Barrett routinely handles jury trials. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts by periodically reviewing jury verdict reports and discussing cases with other trial attorneys. He is a member of the Florida Justice Association and the Capital City Justice Association. As a routine part of his practice, Barrett makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. He briefly explained his process for making these assessments. It has been part of his law practice to gain familiarity with settlement allocation involving health insurance liens, Medicare set-asides, and workers’ compensation liens. He is also familiar with the process of allocating settlements in the context of Medicaid liens, and he described that process. Barrett has been accepted as an expert in the valuation of personal injury damages in federal court, as well as numerous Medicaid lien hearings at DOAH. Barrett addressed the instant case. He was familiar with Wellington’s injuries and the circumstances resulting in the injuries. Barrett detailed the extensive nature of Wellington’s injuries and the general impact of such injuries. Barrett testified, without objection, that based on his professional training and experience, he believed Wellington’s damages had a conservative value of $4 million. More specifically, he stated, “I felt that the damages were conservatively, very conservatively, $4 Million. I believe this case, if it had gone to a jury could well have gone up into the eight figures, probably would have, I think. If I was asking for damages in this case in front of a jury, it would probably be somewhere, between $8 and 12 million or even a little higher, if I was in South Florida jurisdiction.” Barrett has been accepted as an expert in the valuation of personal injury damages in other cases at DOAH. Barrett explained that the jury verdicts outlined in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9 involved injuries comparable to Wellington’s injuries and supported his valuation of Wellington’s total and projected damages at $4 million. Barrett went on to explain that the average trial verdict and award he reviewed from Exhibit 9 was $5.5 million and the average award for pain and suffering was $3,788,333.00. Barrett believed that the jury verdict in the Nummela case, from Exhibit 9, most closely tracked Wellington’s case. Barrett explained that the injuries suffered by Nummela compared most closely with Wellington’s injuries and he noted the similarities. Barrett also pointed out that the jury in Nummela had determined that the damages had a value of $9.5 million, which Barrett testified was in line with what he believed a jury would have awarded to Wellington, if this matter had proceeded to trial. Barrett was aware that Wellington’s case had settled for the insurance policy limits of $110,000.00. He testified that this settlement amount did not fully compensate Wellington for all the personal injury damages he had suffered. Barrett testified, without objection by AHCA’s counsel, that using a conservative value of $4 million for all projected damages, the $110,000.00 settlement represented a recovery of 2.75 percent of the total and projected damages. Barrett testified, again without objection, that because only 2.75 percent of his damages were recovered in the settlement, only 2.75 percent of the $191,298.99 claim for past medical expenses was recovered by Wellington in the settlement, namely $5,260.72. Barrett testified that it would be reasonable to allocate $5,260.72 of Wellington’s settlement to his past medical expenses. Inexplicably, AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any contradictory evidence as to a lower value of Wellington’s projected or total damages, or call any witnesses to contest the methodology used to calculate the $5,260.72 allocation to past medical expenses. The unrebutted evidence supports that Wellington’s total and projected damages had a value in excess of $4 million. By applying the same ratio to AHCA's lien that the settlement ($110,000.00) bears to the total projected monetary value of all the damages ($4,000,000.00), a finding is reached that $5,260.72 of the settlement is fairly allocable to past medical expenses. Under the proportionality methodology, the $110,000.00 settlement represents a 2.75 percent recovery of the expert’s total and projected damages of $4 million ($110,000.00 is 2.75 percent of $4 million). Applying this same 2.75 percent to the $191,298.99 claim for past medical expense, the experts opined that Wellington recovered $5,260.72 in past medical expenses in the settlement.2 Of particular consequence to this case, AHCA did not call any expert witnesses, nor did it present any evidence, to rebut or contradict Petitioner's experts or proposed allocation of $5,260.72 in the settlement to past medical expenses. Likewise, AHCA did not dispute or present any persuasive evidence or arguments that Wellington’s injuries were overstated or incorrectly described by Messrs. Jugo or Barrett. 2 This methodology is commonly referred to as the proportionality test or pro-rata formula. On AHCA's cross-examination of the attorney experts, the methodology used by them to arrive at their opinion concerning a fair allocation of past medical expenses in Wellington’s settlement was not persuasively challenged or overcome by AHCA. Simply put, the amount of $5,260.72 proposed by Petitioner as a fair allocation of past medical expenses from the settlement agreement was not successfully refuted or challenged by AHCA. Under the circumstances and proof presented in this case, Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that $5,260.72 was a fair allocation of the total settlement amount to past medical expenses. AHCA failed to develop any adequate basis or evidence in the record to reject Jugo’s or Barrett’s opinion, or to reach any other conclusion concerning a fair allocation, other than the amount of $5,260.72 presented by the evidence and proposed by Petitioner.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), from settlement proceeds received from third parties by Petitioners, Ray A. Siewert and Rose E. Siewert, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Mr. Siewert.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Findings of Fact On October 15, 2017, the Siewerts were involved in a motorcycle versus automobile crash, which required extensive hospital, skilled nursing, therapy, and other medical treatment including, but not limited to, a four- level spinal fusion procedure and rehabilitative care and services for Mr. Siewert and multiple leg surgeries for Mrs. Siewert, that ultimately led to an above-the-knee amputation (hereinafter referred to as the “auto claims”). On January 3, 2018, Mr. Siewert was discharged from a rehabilitation facility to his home, where he began receiving home health nursing, physician, and therapy services. On January 22, 2018, Mr. Siewert was diagnosed with an abscess near his surgical site, which was allegedly not properly addressed in the days that followed. On January 31, 2018, Mr. Siewert was hospitalized due to worsening neurological deficits, namely in his lower body, and he was transferred to the hospital that had performed his prior spinal surgery. On February 1, 2018, Mr. Siewert had another spinal surgery to address an abscess compressing on his spinal cord, leading to the decreased neurological function. The damage done to his spinal cord preoperatively was significant enough that he has been unable to walk since January 31, 2018, and remains bedbound to present. Mr. Siewert has a neurogenic bladder/bowel, wears diapers, has to be catheterized multiple times per day,1 and is unable to ambulate. To date, he is living with his wife in a single room residence at a skilled nursing facility in the Orlando area, where he is expected to remain.2 The Siewerts brought the following claims: negligence claims relating to the auto claims; nursing home neglect claims under chapter 400, Florida Statutes; and medical malpractice claims under chapter 766, Florida Statutes, each of which were pursued against several companies/entities, individuals, and healthcare providers, seeking, in part, compensable damages to the Siewerts for past bills and future economic needs as well as noneconomic mental pain and suffering and consortium claims for their injuries and losses. In April 2021, the Siewerts settled one of the medical malpractice claims for a limited confidential amount. The Siewerts have had a health plan with Aetna Better Health of Florida, which is a Medicaid plan through AHCA, that has retained the services of Equain relating to the settlement of part of the Siewerts’ medical malpractice claims (referred to below as “Aetna”). Aetna was properly notified of the Siewert’s medical malpractice claims against those defendants and indicated it had paid benefits related to the injuries from the incident in the amount of $75,923.82, as it relates to the settlement at issue. Through their counsel, the Siewerts have asked Aetna to accept a reduced lien amount given the other claims still pending and large 1 The evidence adduced at hearing indicates that Mr. Siewert has now been fitted with a permanent abdominal suprapubic catheter. 2 Though Mrs. Siewert could manage in an assisted living facility, Mr. Siewert could not. Thus, Mrs. Siewert has chosen to stay in the skilled nursing facility to be with her husband. total case value. Nonetheless, Aetna has continued to assert a lien, for the amount of $75,923.82, against the Siewerts’ settlement proceeds relating to the single settlement. Aetna has maintained that it is entitled to application of section 409.910’s formula to determine the lien amount. Applying the statutory reduction formula to this particular settlement would result in no reduction of this lien given the amount of the settlement. The Siewerts also have been covered by AHCA’s fee-for-service Medicaid program. AHCA has contracted with Health Management Systems and Conduent to run its recovery program. AHCA was properly notified of the Siewerts’ medical malpractice claims against those defendants. AHCA provided medical assistance benefits related to the injuries from the incident in the amount of $33,836.09. Through their counsel, the Siewerts have asked AHCA to accept a reduced lien amount. AHCA has continued to assert a lien for the amount of $33,836.09, against the Siewerts’ settlement proceeds relating to the single settlement. AHCA has maintained that it is entitled to application of section 409.910’s formula to determine the lien amount. Applying the statutory reduction formula to this particular settlement would result in no reduction of this lien given the amount of the settlement. AHCA’s $33,836.09 payment and Aetna’s $75,923.82 payment total $109,759.91, and this amount constitutes Mr. Siewert’s claim for past medical expense damages. There remain claims against numerous other defendants which also relate to the AHCA and Aetna liens at issue, including all remaining defendants in the auto and medical malpractice claims. Repayment to AHCA’s Medicaid program is prioritized by law and contract over Medicaid-managed care plans Facts Adduced at Hearing During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, nor did it intervene or join in the medical malpractice action against the Defendants. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlement. The Medicaid program, through AHCA, spent $33,836.09 on behalf of Mr. Siewert, all of which represents expenditures paid for past medical expenses. No portion of the $33,836.09 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Siewert represented expenditures for future medical expenses. The $33,836.09 in Medicaid funds paid by AHCA is the maximum amount that may be recovered by AHCA. There was no evidence of the taxable costs incurred in securing the settlement. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to the settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $33,836.09 Medicaid lien asserted by AHCA, and the full $75,923.82 Medicaid lien asserted by Aetna. Petitioners have deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). There was no suggestion that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement. The evidence firmly established that Mr. Siewert incurred economic damages, consisting of lost future earnings, past medical expenses, and future medical expenses. Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Marx testified that those economic damages totaled roughly $2,000,000. However, the economic loss analysis upon which their testimony was based showed a total of $1,770,775 in future life care needs for Mr. Siewert, reduced to present value.3 The only direct evidence of past medical expenses was the $109,759.91 in Medicaid expenditures. There was no evidence of other economic damages. Thus, the evidence established that economic damages total $1,880,534.90. The total amount of damages for Mr. Siewert was calculated to be $10,000,000, which was described as a conservative figure based on the knowledge and experience of Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Marx, and based on an analysis of representative jury verdicts involving comparable facts and damages. However, Mr. Gilbert engaged in a more detailed analysis of Mr. Siewert’s non-economic damages, which requires review. Although comparable jury verdicts suggest that it could be considerably more, Mr. Gilbert testified that his calculation, though subjective, would include $3,000,000 in non-economic damages in the past three years, and an additional $4,000,000 in non-economic damages into the future based upon a projected 12-year life expectancy, for a total amount of non-economic damages of $7,000,000. That figure was accepted by both of the testifying experts. As part of Petitioners’ calculation of the total value of the claim was $1,000,000 in loss-of-consortium damages incurred by Mrs. Siewert. Although the loss of consortium technically applies to the loss of the full marital relationship previously enjoyed by Mrs. Siewert, who is not the Medicaid recipient, that value was included as an element of the claim and settlement. Based on the forgoing, the evidence supports, and it is found that $9,880,534.90, as a full measure of Petitioners’ combined damages, is a conservative and appropriate figure against which to calculate any lesser 3 Respondent objected to the life care plan on the basis of hearsay. However, the plan was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Mr. Siewert would be expected to incur $1,770,775 for future care, but was offered as evidence of the more general value of a claim in litigation. Furthermore, the life care plan, even if inadmissible, could be used as support of an expert opinion as to claim valuation “when those underlying facts are of a type relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinions expressed.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 704.1 (2020 Edition). A life care plan is evidence that, for that purpose, would “be sufficiently trustworthy to make the reliance reasonable.” Id. portion of the total recovery that should be allocated as reimbursement for the Medicaid lien for past medical expenses. The full value of the settlement is 5.06 percent of the $9,880,534.90 value of the claim.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Genesis Belinaso (Petitioner), from a medical malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on August 29, 2011. At 11 months of age, Petitioner was diagnosed with Gaucher Disease, Type I. On September 21, 2012, when she was approximately 13 months of age, Petitioner was admitted to the hospital for the insertion of a central venous port (mediport) for treatment of her Gaucher Disease with Cerezyme infusions. The mediport insertion on the right side was unsuccessful, and it was inserted on the left side. Petitioner did not wake up from anesthesia and experienced seizure activity. Radiographic evaluation with CT and MRI of the brain revealed subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral edema, and herniation. Petitioner required an emergency craniotomy, duraplasty and partial right temporal lobectomy, with the operative note diagnosing a right internal carotid artery stroke and possible dissecting aneurysm of the internal carotid artery bifurcation. A post-operative CT revealed significant infarction of the right cerebral hemisphere. A subsequent intracranial hemorrhage resulted in recurrent/worsening of cerebral edema. Petitioner was transferred to Jackson Memorial Hospital where she underwent numerous neurological surgeries and procedures associated with catastrophic brain damage from the strokes suffered on September 21, 2012. As a result of the catastrophic brain damage, Petitioner suffers from left side hemiplegia and severe cognitive deficits. She is permanently disabled and unable to care for herself. She will need some form of care for the rest of her life. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $301,085.18 on behalf of Petitioner, all of which represents expenditures paid for Petitioner’s past medical expenses. The $301,085.18 paid by Medicaid constituted Petitioner’s entire claim for past medical expenses. No portion of the $301,085.18 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Petitioner represented expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. Petitioner’s parents and natural guardians, Cintia Aquino and Jonas Belinaso, brought a medical malpractice claim against Petitioner’s medical providers, including the physician and the hospital, to recover Petitioner’s damages, as well as their damages associated with their child’s injury. The physician responsible for the unsuccessful mediport insertion (“Settling Tortfeasor”), maintained only an insurance policy with a policy limit of $250,000.00. Petitioner’s medical malpractice claim against the Settling Tortfeasor was settled during the pre-suit period for the insurance policy limit of $250,000.00. The Release of All Claims with the Settling Tortfeasor (“Release”) stated, inter alia: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate Genesis Belinaso and her parents for all of the damages that they have allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete RELEASE as to RELEASEES without regard to this settlement only compensating Genesis Belinaso and her parents for a fraction of the total monetary value of their alleged damages. The parties agree that the alleged damages sustained by Genesis Belinaso and her parents, have a potential full value in excess of $25,000,000, of which $301,085.18 represents Genesis Belinaso’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Genesis Belinaso’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $3,010.85 of this settlement to the claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all of the damage claims sustained by Genesis Belinaso and her parents. Further, the parties acknowledge that Genesis Belinaso may need future medical care related to her injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses Genesis Belinaso will incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that Genesis Belinaso, or others on her behalf, have not made payments in advance for Genesis Belinaso’s future medical care and Genesis Belinaso has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The Release did not further differentiate or allocate the $250,000.00 total recovery. Thus, this proceeding was brought by Petitioner pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b) to establish “that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past and future medical expenses than the amount calculated by the agency pursuant to the formula set forth in paragraph [409.910](11)(f).” The acceptance of the Settling Tortfeasor’s policy limits was expressly conditioned on all claims against the hospital being preserved. Because Petitioner was a minor, Court approval of the settlement was required. Accordingly, on July 29, 2015, Circuit Court Judge Maria M. Korvick entered an Order Approving Settlement. There is no evidence that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement. There was no evidence of any manipulation or collusion by the parties to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to past medical expenses for Petitioner’s medical care. During the pendency of Petitioner’s medical malpractice claim, AHCA was notified of the claim. AHCA, through its collections contractor Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $301,085.18 against any proceeds received from a third party as a result of Petitioner’s cause of action and settlement of that action. By letter of September 24, 2015, Petitioner’s medical malpractice attorney notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed Release and itemization of Petitioner’s $85,095.49 in litigation costs. The letter explained that the damages suffered had a value in excess of $25,000,000, and that the $250,000.00 settlement represented only a one-percent recovery of Petitioner’s $301,085.18 claim for past medical expenses. The letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $301,085.18 Medicaid lien. AHCA responded to the September 24, 2015, letter on November 2, 2015. AHCA indicated that it had calculated the section 409.910(11)(f) formula amount owed from the $250,000.00 settlement and, under the formula, $74,735.15 was owed to AHCA in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. AHCA requested a “check made payable to ‘Agency for Health Care Administration’ in the amount of $74,735.15.” AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee of $62,500.00 from the $250,000.00 recovery left a sum of $187,500.00. AHCA then deducted $38,029.71 in approved taxable costs, which left a sum of $149,470.29, half of which is $74,735.15. That figure establishes the maximum amount that could be reimbursed from the third-party recovery in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. Thus, application of the formula allows for sufficient funds from the settlement proceeds to satisfy the Medicaid lien amount of $74,735.15. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Petitioner’s settlement, nor has it commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. Petitioner deposited the section 409.910(11)(f) formula amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, pursuant to section 409.910(17). At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Mr. Rossman. Mr. Rossman, who is board-certified in civil trial practice, demonstrated considerable experience handing personal injury and medical malpractice cases in the Miami area. Mr. Rossman testified that the standard of care in his field of practice requires a careful evaluation of a case from the time of intake through the trial. That evaluation, which includes an assessment of the value of the damages, includes a comparison of other jury verdicts in comparable cases as “the barometer of what is happening.” In assessing the value and worth of a case, it is common practice for counsel to retain a life care planner and an economist, and information provided by such persons is reasonably relied upon by persons in Mr. Rossman’s field of expertise. Mr. Rossman had extensive knowledge of the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by Petitioner, and was familiar with the information provided in Petitioner’s Habilitation Assessment and Present Value Analysis. Mr. Rossman testified that Petitioner’s total economic damages were $8,367,417.18, which included $301,085.18 in past medical expenses; $1,330,634.00 in lost earning capacity over Petitioner’s lifetime; and $6,735,698.00 for future life care needs. The future life care costs included those for future medical, surgical, diagnostic, and therapeutic needs, specialized equipment and supplies, attendant care, and related needs. The $6,735,698.00 amount estimated for future life care needs was the most conservative figure among the scenarios presented in the Present Value Analysis. Mr. Rossman also estimated the non-economic damages associated with Petitioner’s claim to be in the range of $12 million for Petitioner, and $3 million each for Petitioner’s parents, for a total of $18 million. His assessment of non- economic damages was based not only on his own knowledge and experience, but included an analysis of comparable jury verdicts, which is information reasonably relied upon by persons in Mr. Rossman’s field of expertise. As a result of his expert analysis, Mr. Rossman testified that, as a case of absolute liability with full damages awarded, Petitioner’s claim had a minimum value of $25 million dollars. Mr. Rossman’s testimony was credible, and is accepted. At the final hearing, Petitioner also presented the expert testimony of Mr. Barrett. Mr. Barrett has focused his practice for the past 30 years on personal injury cases, with the past 10 years devoted to medical malpractice and pharmaceutical products liability cases. Evaluation of personal injury cases and medical malpractice cases is a daily component of his practice. In preparation for his testimony, Mr. Barrett reviewed the reports of Petitioner’s life care planner and economist, Petitioner’s medical records, and other materials that are included in the record of this proceeding. Mr. Barrett routinely reviews jury verdict reports, and applied his knowledge and experience to Petitioner’s claim. Based on his review, Mr. Barrett concurred that the overall value of Petitioner’s claim was, conservatively, in the $25 million range, with the same general breakdown for economic and non- economic damages. Mr. Barrett’s testimony was credible, and is accepted. The evidence was clear and convincing that the total value of the damages related to Petitioner’s injury was, conservatively, $25 million, and that the settlement amount was one percent of the total value. The evidence was equally clear and convincing that the allocation for past medical expenses reflected in the court-approved Release was of the same ratio to the total past medical expenses as was the settlement amount to the reasonable value of the claim. There was no evidence that the allocation was subject to any form of manipulation to increase or decrease the accounting of past medical expenses.
The Issue The issue in this case is the amount that must be paid to Respondent from the proceeds of Petitioner’s confidential settlement with one defendant to satisfy Respondent’s Medicaid lien against the proceeds.
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 2010, Petitioner, then 19 years old, was thrown from his all-terrain vehicle (ATV) when the rubber portion of one tire separated from the rim, and the ATV rolled over. Petitioner was taken by air ambulance to Orlando Regional Medical Center, a trauma center in the area, where it was determined that Petitioner suffered a burst fracture of the eighth and ninth thoracic vertebrae (T-8 and T-9). The nature of this injury was described in layman’s terms by Petitioner’s trial counsel in the pending personal injury lawsuit as follows: In a burst fracture, the vertebra literally bursts, breaking into small bone fragments; in Petitioner’s case, one of the bone fragments sliced through the spinal cord at the T-8/T-9 level, resulting in complete paraplegia with zero function below that level. Two days later, Petitioner underwent surgery that involved putting in rods and bone grafts, and performing a spinal fusion. Three weeks later, Petitioner was transferred to ORMC Lucerne Rehabilitation Hospital, where he received care in the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Center. He was discharged on November 10, 2010. After his discharge, Petitioner had outpatient physical therapy and occupational therapy for several weeks. Petitioner developed complications that required readmission to the hospital on February 18, 2011. He was admitted initially with a kidney stone and pyelonephritis. He was placed in an induced coma, became septic, developed respiratory distress, and was placed on a ventilator. He remained hospitalized until March 28, 2011. Petitioner then restarted outpatient physical therapy and occupational therapy, which continued for several months. Petitioner was paralyzed from the chest down, and has been determined to be disabled by the Social Security Office. Nearly all of Petitioner’s past medical expenses following the ATV incident were paid for by Medicaid. As of March 2, 2015, the total amount of medical assistance provided by the Medicaid program was $322,222.27, representing over 92 percent of the $347,044.67 paid in total for past medical expenses. The rest of Petitioner’s medical expenses were paid for by United HealthCare ($1,457.40) and Medicare ($23,365.00). Petitioner brought a lawsuit to recover his damages against multiple defendants who are allegedly liable for his injuries under tort theories of products liability and negligence (tort lawsuit). The date on which the tort lawsuit was filed was not established in the record; the third amended complaint, in evidence, was filed on March 12, 2015. Petitioner’s lead counsel, Manuel Reboso, testified at hearing that the tort lawsuit was pending and set for trial in February 2016. Discovery was ongoing, but no expert witness depositions had been taken yet. AHCA is not a party in Petitioner’s tort lawsuit, but was notified of the action at some point after it was filed. By letter dated March 2, 2015, AHCA asserted a $322,222.27 Medicaid lien against Petitioner’s cause of action and any future settlement of, or recovery from, that action. Thereafter, AHCA updated the Medicaid lien amount to $324,607.25. On April 8, 2015, Petitioner reached a settlement with one defendant. The terms are reduced to writing in a document called “Confidential Settlement Agreement, General Release, and Indemnity Agreement” (settlement agreement). The settlement agreement is executed by Petitioner, one defendant, and the defendant’s insurer. The settlement did not resolve the tort lawsuit. The other parties to the tort lawsuit were not parties to the settlement. The settlement agreement was not presented to or reviewed by the trial court for approval. Instead, the settlement agreement is confidential, and the tort lawsuit continues. To the extent possible, the confidentiality will be protected, as set forth in a Protective Order that seals and restricts the disclosure of specified exhibits. The settlement agreement is an “undifferentiated settlement”; that is, “[t]here is no section of the release that goes through and itemizes the different elements of damage.” (Tr. at 93). Although the settlement agreement does not itemize the different elements of damage, one provision sets forth the agreement between Petitioner and the settling defendant that Petitioner’s “alleged damages have a value in excess of $25,000,000” (emphasis added), and that Petitioner and the settling defendant “have agreed to allocate $4,817.56 of this settlement to [Petitioner’s] claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses.” Mr. Reboso testified at hearing that the amount allocated in the settlement agreement to past medical expenses is incorrect. When asked why the parties allocated that amount in the settlement agreement, Mr. Reboso candidly admitted, “Because math is not my forte. I calculated it wrong. . . . Had I done the math correctly, that would be the correct number, $13,881.79.” (Tr. at 71-72). He admitted that he drafted this provision, and intended to put in the amount that bears the same proportion to the total past medical expenses as the settlement amount bears to the total value of Petitioner’s damages. Accordingly, by his testimony, he offered a “correction” to the settlement agreement’s allocation for past medical expenses, from $4,817.56 to $13,881.79. According to Mr. Reboso’s own testimony, then, the settlement agreement’s “agreed” allocation of $4,817.56 for past medical expenses is unreasonable. By letter dated April 24, 2015, Mr. Reboso notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed settlement agreement, along with an itemization of Petitioner’s litigation costs in the tort lawsuit. The letter requested AHCA to advise Petitioner of the amount AHCA would accept from the settlement proceeds. AHCA responded by letter dated July 6, 2015, setting forth its calculation of the amount payable pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). As set forth in AHCA’s letter, the statutory formula first deducts from the settlement proceeds a 25 percent allowance for attorney’s fees. Next, the remaining proceeds are further reduced by $106,559.62, as the taxable costs incurred in connection with the tort lawsuit. After deducting the attorney fee allowance and the taxable costs, the remainder is then divided by two. The result of the statutory formula calculation is that the amount of settlement proceeds payable to AHCA is $321,720.16. The parties stipulated that AHCA’s July 6, 2015, letter accurately sets forth the calculation of the statutory formula amount. Petitioner does not dispute AHCA’s calculation of the attorney fee allowance, nor does Petitioner dispute the amount of taxable costs determined by AHCA and used in the statutory formula calculation. There is also no dispute that AHCA has spent more than $321,720.16 in payments through the Medicaid program for past medical assistance provided to Petitioner as a result of injuries sustained in the September 2010 ATV incident. As of the March 2, 2015, AHCA letter, the medical assistance provided by Medicaid totaled $322,222.27. The parties stipulated that “[n]o portion of the $322,222.27 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Villa represent expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for [future] medical care.” By the same token, there was no showing that the Medicaid program would ever pay in advance, or prepay, future medical expenses of current Medicaid beneficiaries. As authorized by section 409.910(17)(b), Petitioner initiated this proceeding to “contest the amount designated as recovered medical expense damages” payable to AHCA pursuant to the statutory formula. Accordingly, Petitioner endeavored to prove “that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past and future medical expenses than the amount calculated” pursuant to the statutory formula. Petitioner attempted to prove that the settlement agreement’s provision regarding total damages and allocation to past medical expenses should be accepted as reasonable and adopted. However, neither the agreed total value of “alleged” damages nor the agreed allocation of settlement proceeds to compensate for past medical expenses in Petitioner’s settlement agreement with one defendant can be credited as reasonable products of arms-length adversarial negotiation. Instead, the partial allocation to just one part of one category of damages (medical expenses) was admittedly prepared by Mr. Reboso shortly after notice of the Medicaid lien, and appears pointedly designed for use in this proceeding to support Petitioner’s positions. No other purpose for the limited allocation to only past medical expenses was suggested. And Mr. Reboso expressly opined that the limited allocation stated in the settlement agreement is not a reasonable allocation; instead, he supports an allocation that is three times the number in the settlement agreement. The one- sided nature of this provision in the settlement agreement could not be more clearly revealed than by Mr. Reboso’s concession that the settling parties “agreed” to an incorrect allocation to past medical expenses because Mr. Reboso made a math error in drafting the provision. A more reasonable inference is that the settling defendant, unaffected by this provision, apparently ceded authority to Petitioner to put into the agreement whatever the Petitioner drafted, error and all. As an alternative to relying on the settlement agreement’s partial allocation (in an unreasonably low amount) to past medical expenses, Petitioner attempted to prove the total value of Petitioner’s damages that would be proven to and awarded by a jury if/when the tort lawsuit goes to trial. Petitioner’s position is that the percentage derived from dividing the settlement proceeds by the total damages should be multiplied by the past medical expenses to determine AHCA’s share of the settlement proceeds. In preparation for the trial in the pending tort lawsuit, Petitioner retained experts to evaluate and quantify the economic damages to Petitioner by reason of the injuries from the September 2010 ATV incident. Paul M. Deutsch, Ph.D., a life care planner and vocational rehabilitation specialist with Paul M. Deutsch and Associates, P.A., was retained to prepare a life care plan for Petitioner.5/ Dr. Deutsch also developed some information about Petitioner’s future capacity to work. Dr. Deutsch did not testify in this proceeding. Petitioner also retained F.A. Raffa, Ph.D., an economist with Raffa Consulting Economist, Inc., to develop projections of Petitioner’s damages due to lost income and lost future earning capacity, reduced to present value. Dr. Raffa also reduced to present value the life care plan cost projections developed by Dr. Deutsch. Dr. Raffa did not testify in this proceeding. Both the life care plan and economic report, acknowledged to be hearsay, were admitted for the limited purpose of showing material relied on by Petitioner’s damage valuation experts in formulating their opinions offered at hearing. Mr. Reboso, lead counsel in Petitioner’s tort lawsuit, was accepted as an expert in valuation of damages. He testified that he relied on the Deutsch life care plan and Raffa economic report to gauge Petitioner’s economic damages, and that he relied on his own experience and his review of other jury verdicts to gauge Petitioner’s likely recovery for noneconomic damages. Considering these factors, he offered his opinion that as of the October 5, 2015, hearing date, the total value of Petitioner’s damages is estimated to be $25,000,000. The economic damage estimate is somewhat dated, however; the life care plan indicates that it was prepared on July 11, 2013, more than two years ago; and the economic report is dated October 17, 2013, nearly two years ago. The life care plan also appears to be incomplete.6/ Neither report has been sponsored and defended by its author in testimony, either in this proceeding or in depositions in the pending tort lawsuit in which experts have not yet been deposed. One would expect that both the life care plan and the economic report will be updated before the authors are deposed in the tort lawsuit. That assumption was likely true before Petitioner died on October 31, 2015, given the caveats in the reports regarding changing facts. The life care plan is self- described as a “dynamic document,” while the cover letter to the economic report states: “Please note that this analysis is based upon the best information currently available and is subject to change should additional information be received.” Petitioner’s unfortunate death on October 31, 2015, will alter the tort lawsuit and the expert evidence and opinions offered regarding Petitioner’s damages. Petitioner’s death surely constitutes a change in information that undermines the legitimacy of both the life care plan and the economic report as reasonable predicates for an assessment of Petitioner’s damages. Using two-year-old expert reports that have not been updated or defended in an adversarial proceeding as the sole predicate for offering an opinion as to the total value of Petitioner’s economic damages would have been questionable without consideration of Petitioner’s death. Yet Petitioner’s experts offered their opinions as to what Petitioner’s total damages were as of the October 5, 2015, hearing, relying solely on the two-year-old reports for the projected future economic damages. At hearing, Petitioner’s two experts described the same approach for reaching their identical opinions. As Mr. Reboso explained, he reached his total damage value estimate by taking the mid-point of the range of economic damages identified in the Deutsch and Raffa reports, and adding to that “eight to ten million dollars” for past and future noneconomic damages. He explained that past noneconomic damages would be awarded by a jury for pain and suffering from the date of the incident to the date of the trial, and an additional amount would be awarded by a jury for future pain and suffering from the trial date forward. Mr. Reboso testified that his opinion as to the amount Petitioner is expected to be awarded in a jury trial of his case is supported by comparisons with jury verdicts in other cases. In describing his comparisons, he highlighted such factors as the relative ages and life expectancies of the victims. He offered his opinion that a large noneconomic damage award is likely for Petitioner because he is young. Neither expert offered an opinion as to how much of the total damages amount to which they opined is attributable to future medical expenses. No non-hearsay evidence was offered to prove the amount of future medical expenses, with the exception of Mr. Reboso’s testimony that Petitioner’s future medical expenses would be $9.1 million at the low end. In fairness, however, Mr. Reboso was relying solely on hearsay, and he retreated from that testimony by later admitting uncertainty as to how much of the life care plan cost projections (which are hearsay) were future medical expenses.
The Issue The issue is the amount of money, if any, that must be paid to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to satisfy its Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact Harry Silnicki, at age 52, suffered devastating brain injuries when a ladder on which he was standing collapsed. Mr. Silnicki, now age 59, has required, and will for the remainder of his life require, constant custodial care as a result of his injuries. He has been, and will be into the indefinite future, a resident of the Florida Institute of Neurological Rehabilitation (FINR) or a similar facility that provides full nursing care. Debra Silnicki is the wife and guardian of Mr. Silnicki. Mr. Silnicki, through his guardian, brought a personal injury lawsuit in Broward County, Florida, against several defendants, including the manufacturer of the ladder, the seller of the ladder, and two insurance companies (Defendants), contending that Mr. Silnicki's injuries were caused by a defective design of the ladder. The lawsuit sought compensation for all of Mr. Silnicki's damages as well as his wife's individual claim for damages associated with Mr. Silnicki's damages. When referring to the personal injury lawsuit, Mr. and Mrs. Silnicki will be referred to as Plaintiffs. During the course of the trial, before the jury reached its verdict, the Plaintiffs entered into a High-Low Agreement (HLA) with the Defendants by which the parties agreed that, regardless of the jury verdict, the Defendants would pay to the Plaintiffs $3,000,000 if the Plaintiffs lost the case, but would pay at most $9,000,000 if the Plaintiffs won the case. After a lengthy trial, on March 27, 2013, the jury returned a verdict finding no liability on the part of the manufacturer or any other defendants. Consequently, the jury awarded the Plaintiffs no damages. The Defendants have paid to the Plaintiffs the sum of $3,000,000 pursuant to the HLA (the HLA funds). The HLA constitutes a settlement of the claims the Plaintiffs had against the Defendants.1/ As shown in their Closing Statement (Petitioners' Exhibit 7), dated September 23, 2013, the Silnickis' attorneys have disbursed $1,100,000 of the HLA funds as attorney's fees and $588,167.40 as costs. The sum of $1,011,832.602/ was paid under the heading "Medical Liens/Bills to be Paid/Waived/Reduced by Agreement Pending Court Approval." Included in that sum were payments to Memorial Regional Hospital in the amount of $406,464.49 and a payment to FINR in the amount of $600,000.00. Also included was the sum of $245,648.57, which was to be deposited in an interest-bearing account. Subject to court approval, the Closing Statement earmarked, among other payments, $100,000 for a special needs trust for Mr. Silnicki and a $100,000 payment to Mrs. Silnicki for her loss of consortium claim. AHCA has provided $245,648.57 in Medicaid benefits to Mr. Silnicki. AHCA has asserted a Medicaid lien against the HLA funds in the amount of $245,648.57. As required by section 409.910(17)(a), the amount of the Medicaid lien has been placed in an interest-bearing account. The Closing Statement reflects that should Petitioners prevail in this proceeding by reducing or precluding the Medicaid lien, any amounts returned to Petitioners will be split 50% to FINR, 25% to attorney's fees, and 25% to the Petitioners. Section 409.910(11)(f) provides as follows: (f) Notwithstanding any provision in this section to the contrary, in the event of an action in tort against a third party in which the recipient or his or her legal representative is a party which results in a judgment, award, or settlement from a third party, the amount recovered shall be distributed as follows: After attorney's fees and taxable costs as defined by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, one-half of the remaining recovery shall be paid to the agency up to the total amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid. The remaining amount of the recovery shall be paid to the recipient. For purposes of calculating the agency's recovery of medical assistance benefits paid, the fee for services of an attorney retained by the recipient or his or her legal representative shall be calculated at 25 percent of the judgment, award, or settlement. The parties stipulated that the amount of Petitioners' "taxable costs as defined by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure" is $347,747.05. The parties have also stipulated that if the section 409.910(11)(f) formula is applied to the $3,000,000 settlement funds received by Mr. and Mrs. Silnicki, the resulting product would be greater than the amount of AHCA's Medicaid lien of $245,648.57. That amount is calculated by deducting 25% of the $3,000,000 for attorneys' fees, which leaves $2,250,000. Deducting taxable costs in the amount of $347,747.05 from $2,250,000 leaves $1,902,352.95. Half of $1,902,352.95 equals $951,176.48 (the net amount). The net amount exceeds the amount of the Medicaid lien. Section 409.910(17)(b) provides the method by which a recipient can challenge the amount of a Medicaid lien as follows: (b) A recipient may contest the amount designated as recovered medical expense damages payable to the agency pursuant to the formula specified in paragraph (11)(f) by filing a petition under chapter 120 within 21 days after the date of payment of funds to the agency or after the date of placing the full amount of the third-party benefits in the trust account for the benefit of the agency pursuant to paragraph (a). The petition shall be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. For purposes of chapter 120, the payment of funds to the agency or the placement of the full amount of the third-party benefits in the trust account for the benefit of the agency constitutes final agency action and notice thereof. Final order authority for the proceedings specified in this subsection rests with the Division of Administrative Hearings. This procedure is the exclusive method for challenging the amount of third-party benefits payable to the agency. In order to successfully challenge the amount payable to the agency, the recipient must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past and future medical expenses than the amount calculated by the agency pursuant to the formula set forth in paragraph (11)(f) or that Medicaid provided a lesser amount of medical assistance than that asserted by the agency. Scott Henratty and his firm represented the Plaintiffs in the underlying personal injury case. Mr. Henratty is an experienced personal injury attorney. Mr. Henratty testified that the Plaintiffs asked the jury for a verdict in the amount of $50,000,000 for Mr. Silnicki for his total damages, not including his wife's consortium claim. Mr. Henratty valued the claim at between $30,000,000 and $50,000,000. There was no clear and convincing evidence that the total value of Mr. Silnicki's claim exceeded $30,000,000. Mr. Henratty testified that Plaintiffs presented evidence to the jury that Mr. Silnicki's past medical expenses equaled $3,366,267, and his future medical expenses, reduced to present value, equaled $8,906,114, for a total of $12,272,381. Those two elements of damages equal approximately 40.9% of the total value of the claim if $30,000,000 is accepted as the total value of the claim.3/ The Closing Statement reflects that more than the amount of the claimed Medicaid lien was to be used to pay past medical expenses. Petitioners assert in their Petition and Amended Petition three alternatives to determine what should be paid in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien in the event it is determined that the HLA funds are subject to the lien. All three alternatives are premised on the total value of Mr. Silnicki's recovery being $30,000,000 (total value) and compare that to the recovery under the HLA of $3,000,000, which is one-tenth of the total value. All three methods arrive at the figure of $24,564.86 as being the most that can be recovered by the Medicaid lien, which is one-tenth of the Medicaid lien. Future medical expenses is not a component in these calculations. The portion of the HLA funds that should be allocated to past and future medical expenses is, at a minimum, 30% of the recovery.4/
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioners, Devyn Jeffries (Devyn) and Makayla Jeffries (Makayla), minors, by and through their parents and natural guardians, Theresa Jeffries and Christopher Jeffries, (collectively Petitioners), from settlement proceeds received by Petitioners from third parties.
Findings Of Fact On January 24, 2010, Devyn and Makayla were born via emergency C-Section at 27 weeks gestation. During the birthing process, both children suffered severe and permanent brain damage. As a result, Devyn suffers from Cerebral Palsy with spastic paralysis and cognitive developmental disabilities, and Makayla suffers from Cerebral Palsy, failure to thrive, feeding difficulties, and cognitive deficits. Devyn and Makayla’s medical care related to their birth injuries was paid by Medicaid in the following amounts: 1 Respondent’s Proposed Final Order was served by email and received by DOAH at 9:50 p.m. on October 21, 2020. It was, therefore, “filed” at 8:00 a.m. on October 22, 2020, in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.104(3). However, it is accepted and considered as though timely filed. In regard to Devyn, Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $108,068.58 in benefits and Medicaid, through a Medicaid Managed Care Plan known as Simply Healthcare, provided $25,087.08 in benefits. The sum of these Medicaid benefits, $133,155.66, constituted Devyn’s entire claim for past medical expenses. In regard to Makayla, Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $107,912.33 in benefits and Medicaid, through a Medicaid Managed Care Plan known as Simply Healthcare, provided $13,915.84 in benefits. The sum of these Medicaid benefits, $121,828.17, constituted Makayla’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Devyn and Makayla’s parents and natural guardians, Theresa and Christopher Jeffries, pursued a medical malpractice lawsuit against the medical providers responsible for Devyn and Makayla’s care (“Defendants”) to recover all of Devyn and Makayla’s damages, as well as their own individual damages associated with their children’s injuries. The medical malpractice action settled through a series of confidential settlements, which were approved by the court on February 21, 2020. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $108,068.58 Medicaid lien associated with Devyn’s cause of action and settlement of that action and a $107,912.33 Medicaid lien associated with Makayla’s cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, nor did it intervene or join in the medical malpractice action against the Defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of the settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $108,068.58 on behalf of Devyn and $107,912.33 on behalf of Makayla, all of which represents expenditures paid for past medical expenses. No portion of the $215,980.91 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Petitioners represented expenditures for future medical expenses. The $215,980.91 combined total in Medicaid funds paid towards the care of Devyn and Makayla by AHCA is the maximum amount that may be recovered by AHCA. In addition to the foregoing, Simply Health spent $39,002.92 on Petitioners’ medical expenses. Thus, the total amount of past medical expenses incurred by Petitioners is $254,983.83. The taxable costs incurred in securing the settlement totaled $109,701.62. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to the settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $108,068.58 Medicaid lien associated with Devyn and the full $107,912.33 Medicaid lien associated with Makayla. Petitioners have deposited the full Medicaid lien amounts in interest- bearing accounts for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). This case is somewhat unique in that it involves two petitioners, with separate injuries and separate Medicaid expenditures. However, the incident causing the injuries was singular, and resulted in a total settlement of all claims asserted by Devyn, Makayla, and their parents of $2,650,000. Therefore, for purpose of determining the appropriate amount of reimbursement for the Medicaid lien, it is reasonable and appropriate to aggregate the amounts paid in past medical expenses on behalf of Devyn and Makayla, and the economic and non-economic damages suffered by them. There was no suggestion that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement. The evidence firmly established that the total of Devyn’s and Makayla’s economic damages, consisting of lost future earnings, past medical expenses, and future medical expenses were, at the conservative low end, roughly $4,400,000 for Devyn and $2,400,000 for Makayla, for a sum of $6,800,000 in economic damages.2 Based on the experience of the testifying experts, and taking into account jury verdicts in comparable cases, Petitioners established that non- economic damages would reasonably be in the range of $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 for each of the children. Based on the forgoing, it is found that $15,000,000, as a full measure of Petitioners’ combined damages, is very conservative, and is a fair and appropriate figure against which to calculate any lesser portion of the total recovery that should be allocated as reimbursement for the Medicaid lien for past medical expenses. The $2,650,000 settlement is 17.67 percent of the $15,000,000 conservative value of the claim.3
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes, from settlement proceeds he received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on testimony, exhibits accepted into evidence, and admitted facts stated in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation. Facts Concerning Underlying Personal Injury Matter and Giving Rise to Medicaid Lien On January 6, 2012, Arnie Solheim, a then 15-year-old boy, ran away from his group home and was struck by a vehicle while walking up an interstate ramp. Mr. Solheim had a history of running away from his group home residence. As a result of the incident, Mr. Solheim suffered permanent and severe injuries including brain damage, blindness in one eye, and paralysis. Due to his injuries, Mr. Solheim will require 24 hours-a-day supervision for the remainder of his life. Mr. Solheim’s medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid, and Medicaid through AHCA provided $187,302.46 in benefits. Accordingly, $187,302.46 constituted Mr. Solheim’s full claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Solheim’s mother, Rosepatrice Solheim, was appointed Mr. Solheim’s Plenary Guardian. Rosepatrice Solheim, as Mr. Solheim’s Guardian, filed a personal injury action against the parties allegedly liable for Mr. Solheim’s injuries (“Defendants”) to recover all of Mr. Solheim’s damages, as well as her and her husband’s individual damages associated with their son’s injuries. Mr. Solheim’s personal injury action was settled through a series of confidential settlements in a lump-sum unallocated amount. This settlement was approved by the circuit court. During the pendency of Mr. Solheim’s personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a Medicaid lien of $187,302.46 against Mr. Solheim’s cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene or join in Mr. Solheim’s action against the Defendants. By letter dated October 9, 2019, AHCA was notified of Mr. Solheim’s settlement. To date, AHCA has not filed a motion to set-aside, void, or otherwise dispute Mr. Solheim’s settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $187,302.46 on behalf of Mr. Solheim, all of which represents expenditures paid for Mr. Solheim’s past medical expenses. Mr. Solheim’s taxable costs incurred in securing the settlement totaled $76,229.38. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Mr. Solheim’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $187,302.46 Medicaid lien. Expert Testimony Petitioner called two experts to testify on his behalf pertaining to valuation of Petitioner’s damages, Richard Filson and Karen Gievers. Mr. Filson, an attorney practicing law at Filson and Fenge law firm in Sarasota, Florida, has been practicing law for 36 years. He represented Mr. Solheim in the underlying case. In addition to Petitioner’s case, he has represented clients in personal injury matters representing children and childrens’ rights cases, including cases involving brain injury and paralysis. Mr. Filson evaluated Petitioner’s case and opined that $10 million was a conservative valuation of the case. The valuation of the case encompasses past medical expenses, future medical expenses, economic damages, and pain and suffering. Mr. Filson pursued the action against three defendants. He testified that there would be no admission of liability. The group home was alleged to have failed to appropriately evaluate the risk and placement of Mr. Solheim, including placing Mr. Solheim in a locked unit to maintain his safety. However, there were issues with recovering from the facility. There was a dispute regarding the director’s degree of responsibility for Mr. Solheim’s elopement. As a result, Mr. Filson opined that Petitioner settled the case for a lower amount because of liability and collectability issues with the group home. Mr. Filson opined that Mr. Solheim’s $1,150,00.00 settlement represented 11.5 percent of the full $10 million value of his claim, including past medical expenses. He relied upon the comprehensive plan and the extent of Mr. Solheim’s catastrophic injuries to assess the value of the case. Mr. Filson opined that the allocation formula is 11.5 percent. The past medical expenses totaled $187,302.46. That figure multiplied by 11.5 percent would result in recovery of $21,539.78 of the settlement proceeds allocated to past medical expenses. Karen Gievers also testified as an expert regarding valuation of Mr. Solheim’s claim. Ms. Gievers, a licensed attorney for 42 years and a former circuit court judge, focuses her practice on civil litigation. In her practice as an attorney, she has handled personal injury cases involving catastrophic injuries similar to Mr. Solheim’s injuries. Like Mr. Filson, she has also represented children in her practice. Ms. Gievers opined that the value of Mr. Solheim’s case was conservatively estimated at $10 million. She opined that Mr. Solheim’s settlement amount of $1,150,000.00 resulted in a recovery of 11.5 percent of the full value of his claim. She opined that applying the 11.5 percent to each damage category is the appropriate way to allocate the amount of damages across all categories. Thus, applying the allocation formula of 11.5 percent to the $187,302.46 claim for past medical expenses would be $21,539.78. Ms. Gievers looked at Mr. Solheim’s economic and noneconomic damages in her valuation of the case. She reviewed the comprehensive care plan and noted that all costs were not included, which would add to the value of the case being greater than Mr. Solheim’s actual recovery. Petitioner asserted that the $1,150,000.00 settlement is far less than the actual value of Petitioner’s injuries and does not adequately compensate Mr. Solheim for his full value of damages. Therefore, a lesser portion of the settlement should be allocated to reimburse AHCA, instead of the full amount of the lien. Ultimate Findings of Fact Mr. Filson and Ms. Gievers credibly opined that a ratio should be applied based on the full value of Petitioner’s damages, $10,000,000.00, compared to the amount that Petitioner actually recovered, $1,150,000.00. Based on this formula, Petitioner’s settlement represents an 11.5 percent recovery of Petitioner’s full value of damages. Similarly, the AHCA lien should be reduced and the amount of reimbursement to AHCA should be 11.5 percent of the Medicaid lien. Therefore, $21,539.78 is the portion of the third- party settlement that represents the amount AHCA should recover for its payments for Mr. Solheim’s past medical care. The expert witnesses’ testimony was supported by their extensive experience in valuing damages and their knowledge of Mr. Solheim’s injuries. AHCA, on the other hand, did not offer any witnesses or documentary evidence to question the credentials or opinions of either Mr. Filson or Ms. Gievers. AHCA did not offer testimony or documentary evidence to rebut the testimony of Mr. Filson or Ms. Gievers as to valuation or the reduction ratio. AHCA did not offer alternative opinions on the damage valuation method suggested by either Mr. Filson or Ms. Gievers. Based on the record, the testimony of Petitioner's two experts regarding the total value of damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Based on the evidence in the record, the undersigned finds that, Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a lesser portion of Mr. Solheim’s settlement should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount AHCA calculated. Accordingly, AHCA is entitled to recover $21,539.78 from Petitioner’s recovery of $1,150,000.00 to satisfy the Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("Respondent" or "AHCA"), in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioners, from a third party, pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2016).
Findings Of Fact On June 4, 2015, at approximately 11:36 p.m., Rodriguez- Gomez was struck by a car while lawfully walking across the street at the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and North 62nd Avenue in Hollywood, Florida. During the accident, Rodriguez-Gomez suffered catastrophic physical and neurological injuries. Rodriguez- Gomez's injuries included an open skull fracture, left pelvis fracture, and right fibula and tibia fractures. He was transported to the hospital where he underwent extensive medical intervention to save his life. On June 11, 2015, seven days after the accident, Rodriguez-Gomez died as a result of his injuries. Rodriguez-Gomez was survived by his three adult sons and three minor children. Rodriguez-Gomez's medical care related to his injury was paid by Medicaid, and the Medicaid program provided $49,115.61 in benefits associated with his injury. The $49,115.61 represented the entire claim for past medical expenses. Rodriguez-Gomez's funeral bill totaled $3,250.00 and was paid by his surviving children. Armando Rodriguez-Gomez was appointed the personal representative of the Estate of Santos Rodriguez-Gomez ("Estate"). Armando Rodriguez-Gomez, as personal representative ("Personal Representative") of the Estate, brought a wrongful death action to recover both the individual statutory damages of Rodriguez-Gomez's six surviving children, as well as the individual statutory damages of the Estate against the driver and owner ("Defendant") of the vehicle that caused the accident. Joseph Abdallah ("Abdallah"), a civil trial attorney with the law firm of Kanner & Pintaluga in Boca Raton, Florida, represented the Personal Representative and Estate in the wrongful death action. During the pendency of the wrongful death action, AHCA was notified of the action, and AHCA asserted a $49,115.61 Medicaid lien against the Estate cause of action and settlement of that action. The Personal Representative, on behalf of Rodriguez- Gomez's six surviving children, as well as on behalf of the Estate, compromised and settled the wrongful death action with Defendant for the available insurance policy limits of $100,000.00. By letter, Abdallah as the Estate's attorney handling the wrongful death claim notified AHCA of the settlement. The letter requested that AHCA advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $49,115.61 Medicaid lien. AHCA has neither filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the wrongful death settlement nor started a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. AHCA, through its Medicaid program, spent $49,115.61 on behalf of Rodriguez-Gomez, all of which represents expenditures paid for Rodriguez-Gomez's past medical expenses. No portion of the $100,000.00 settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The taxable costs incurred in pursuing Defendant totaled $2,086.68. The formula at section 409.910(11)(f), as applied to the entire $100,000.00 settlement, requires payment of $36,456.66 and AHCA is demanding payment of $36,456.66 from the $100,000.00 settlement. Petitioners have deposited the section 409.910(11)(f) formula amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA, pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights; and this constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). At the final hearing, Petitioners presented, without objection, the expert valuation of damages testimony of Abdallah. Abdallah is a trial attorney in both Florida and New York who practices exclusively personal injury law and handles cases involving wrongful death, catastrophic injury, and other types of negligence involving injury. Abdallah's expertise also encompasses evaluation of personal injury cases based on staying abreast of all State of Florida jury verdicts. At hearing, Abdallah explained that he served as lead counsel during Petitioners' proceeding, and, during his representation of the Estate, he met with the Personal Representative numerous times and reviewed Rodriguez-Gomez's accident report and medical records before he filed the lawsuit and amended complaint in this matter. Abdallah testified that Rodriguez-Gomez had a very close relationship with his children. Abdallah credibly explained the process he took to develop an opinion concerning the value for the damages suffered in this case. He started by looking at the wrongful death statute, section 768.21, Florida Statutes, to determine what damages could be recovered. Petitioners established through unrebutted testimony of their trial attorney and expert witness that personal injury actions can be grouped in the following categories: medical expenses; net accumulations; funeral expenses; loss of parental companionship and instruction; and mental pain and suffering. Abdallah testified that since Rodriguez-Gomez was a day laborer, there was not a claim for net accumulations of the Estate. He concluded that the compensable damages were limited to past medical expenses, loss of parental companionship, instruction, guidance, and mental pain and suffering from the date of the injury for each of the six sibling children. Abdallah evaluated jury verdicts of recent cases involving wrongful death and surviving children to determine what the valuation of the claim for the loss of parental companionship, instruction, guidance, and mental pain and suffering would be for Rodriguez-Gomez's six surviving children. Abdallah also researched circuit court cases to determine appropriate allocation amounts for Medicaid liens. At hearing, Abdallah testified specifically about two comparable jury verdicts involving wrongful death and surviving children that he researched and used to support his valuation, Melissa Corsini, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrew Corsini, Jr., Deceased v. Carlos Riol, Case 09-5397-CA, 11FJVR 3-3, 2011 WL 845897 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Collier Jan. 13, 2011)1/; and Thomas Christopher Heike v. Sr. Singh Enterprises, LLC., Case No. CACE 16011472, 28 Fla. JVRA 3:22, 2017 WL 9286313 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Broward Nov. 26, 2017),2/ circuit court orders that were entered regarding allocation regarding Medicaid liens. In Corsini, each surviving child received $460,000.00 and in Heike each surviving child received $500,000.00 for their damages associated with their father's death. Abdallah's review of comparable jury verdicts revealed that each of Rodriguez- Gomez's six children's claim for losses associated with their father's death would have a very conservative value between $200,000.00 and $800,000.00 each. Abdallah also round-tabled the cases with other experienced attorneys and partners in his law firm to determine the value, and they each agreed that the $200,000.00 to $800,000.00 is a conservative valuation to use for each of the surviving children when determining the value of the Estate's wrongful death case. Based on his review to determine the value of Petitioners' claim, Abdallah credibly and persuasively put all the numbers together and opined that the valuation of the Estate's damages of $49,115.61 paid by Medicaid and the six surviving children's damages of $200,000.00 to $800,000.000 each totaled conservatively $1,200,000.00 to $4,800,000.00, and the conservative total value of all damages recoverable in the wrongful death lawsuit is $1,249,115.61 to $4,849,115.61. Abdallah testified that $1,249,115.61 is the conservative value to use for the damages. Abdallah's compelling and credible testimony further explained that the $100,000.00 settlement constituted a recovery of approximately eight percent of the $1,249,115.61 value of the damages. Abdallah determined that eight percent should be applied to each damage category and should be reduced based on the ultimate settlement. He then went on to apply the eight percent to the total medical expenses that were paid and further testified that a recovery of $3,929.25 in past medical expenses is eight percent of the $49,115.61 claim for past medical expenses. Abdallah's testimony was credible, persuasive, and is accepted. The evidence demonstrates that the total value of the damages related to Rodriguez-Gomez's injury was $1,249,115.61 and that the settlement amount, $100,000.00 was eight percent of the total value. The $100,000.00 settlement does not fully compensate Petitioners for the total value of their damages. Petitioners have established that the $100,000.00 settlement amount is eight percent of the total value ($1,249,115.61) of Petitioners' damages. Using the same calculation, Petitioners correctly showed that eight percent of $49,115.61 (Petitioners' amount allocated in the settlement for past medical expenses), $3,929.25, should be the portion of the Medicaid lien paid. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent should be reimbursed for its Medicaid lien in a lesser amount than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
