The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), out of his settlement proceeds, as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 1, 2013, Josiah Delva ("Josiah"), who was only 18-months-old, was presented to a hospital with a fever and emesis. He was discharged only one and a half hours later after he was misdiagnosed with a "normal" condition. The following day, Josiah's fever continued, and he began suffering from a purpuric rash on his body and decompensated septic shock. He was taken back to the Emergency Room where he was diagnosed with meningococcal meningitis and meningococcal bacteremia and grew Moraxella catarrhalis in his sputum. Josiah was admitted to and remained in the intensive care unit of the hospital for five months. Due to the necrosis, which was caused by the meningococcus, Josiah's left arm below the elbow, his right leg below his knee, and the toes of his left foot were all amputated. In addition, he required bilateral patellectomies (removal of his knee caps). Josiah's medical care related to the injury was paid by AHCA's Medicaid program. Medicaid provided $237,408.60 of the costs associated with Josiah's injury. The $237,408.60 paid by Medicaid constituted Josiah's entire claim for past medical expenses. Josiah's parents and natural guardians, Jennifer Paulino Delva and Johnny Delva, brought a medical malpractice suit against the medical providers and staff responsible for Josiah's care ("Defendant medical providers") to recover all of Josiah's damages as associated with his injuries. As a condition of Josiah's eligibility for Medicaid, Josiah assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third parties any medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H); § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action, and it asserted a $237,408.60 Medicaid lien against Josiah's cause of action and future settlement of that action. AHCA made payments totaling $237,408.60 related to Josiah's injuries for which the defendant medical providers are liable. Josiah's lawsuit ultimately settled in December of 2018 or January of 2019 for the gross unallocated sum of $550,000.00. Petitioner deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights, and this constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). There were $146,110.61 in attorney's fees and costs incurred to make the recovery. The parties stipulated that operation of the statutory formula to Josiah's settlement would require repayment to AHCA in the amount of $185,694.69. Witness Testimony Zarahi Nunez was accepted, with no objection, as an expert in life care planning. She met with the Delva family and consulted with medical professionals regarding the treatment needs and options for Josiah. She also reviewed the appropriate manuals to determine a course of treatment for Josiah. Ms. Nunez developed a life care plan, along with dollar figures for each aspect of treatment totaling $5,998,080.19.2/ Mrs. Delva testified how she noticed that Josiah developed a fever and was vomiting on New Year's Eve (December 31, 2012). After midnight, he vomited again, so Mrs. Delva brought him to the hospital. He was discharged a few hours later around 4:00 a.m. on New Year's Day (January 1, 2013). Josiah was diagnosed with a stomach flu, and was given a prescription to stop vomiting. Josiah developed a rash, which concerned Mrs. Delva. Upon talking to medical professionals via phone, Mrs. Delva determined that Josiah's rash would not change with pressure on his skin. This apparently indicated that his white blood cell count was low. Mrs. Delva immediately rushed Josiah to the hospital upon the doctor's instruction. At the hospital, Josiah bypassed triage as the rash continued to spread and as symptoms of sepsis became apparent. The doctors diagnosed Josiah as having a bacterial meningitis infection and treated him. His organs began shutting down and his body turned colors from the rash. Mrs. Delva vividly explained the horror of: watching multiple physicians rush to her son's bedside; seeing the Emergency Room go into quarantine due to her son's infection; providing the names of all the people Josiah had come into recent contact so that they could be given precautionary antibiotics; having the health department remove all of Josiah's things from the house to prevent the spread of the infection; and seeing her son essentially die on the table and be resuscitated. Josiah was in the hospital from January 1 through May 2, 2013. Due to the lack of blood circulation, Josiah lost multiple body parts. His left hand at the wrist, his right leg at the ankle, and part of his left foot were amputated, and both knee caps were removed. His skin is tough and scarred. According to Mrs. Delva, had the doctor properly diagnosed Josiah when they first arrived after midnight on New Year's Day, he would not have suffered the extent of his injuries. Mrs. Delva and her husband have four children, including Josiah, and she detailed the extent to which the family facilitates Josiah's needs. Josiah's siblings do not always understand the extra attention needed by Josiah from their parents. She explained every day is a constant struggle, and most notably explained, the need to travel from Miami to Tampa to Shriner's Hospital ten or more times per year for check-ups and to update Josiah's prosthetics. No witness testified to Josiah's or his parents claim for noneconomic damages. While it is clear that the malpractice caused grievous pain and suffering to the family that will last Josiah's entire life, no expert was presented to discuss the valuation of these damages. No testamentary or other evidence was advanced to show how the $550,000.00 settlement amount should be allocated between past medical expense damages and other elements of damages. Petitioner's Theory of the Case Petitioner's counsel argues that the total value of the case that Petitioner should reasonably have expected to be awarded by a jury was $110,735,488.79. Counsel explained that this number represents the past medicals paid by Medicaid, $6 million for future medicals, $20 million for past pain and suffering, $80 million for future pain and suffering, and $2 million each (a total of $4 million) for Mr. and Mrs. Delva's loss of consortium claims. Petitioner argues that the past medicals, as paid by Medicaid in the amount of $234,408.60, represent 0.0021 percent of the total value of the case of $110,735,488.79. Petitioner argues that applying this 0.0021 percent times the actual recovery of $550,000.00 results in Medicaid's pro rata recovery being reduced to $1,155.00 as the portion of the settlement allocable to past medicals.3/ No expert testimony was introduced on the calculation of any element of damages other than future medical expenses.4/ In support of the $110 million dollar plus "total value" of the case, Petitioner provided three jury verdicts to establish comparable pain and suffering awarded in similar circumstances. These cases include: A.H., a minor, et al. v. Trustees of Mease Hospital, Inc., et al., 2018 FL Jury Verdict Rptr. LEXIS 277; Lisa-Marie Carter v. Larry Roy Glazerman, M.D., et al., 2018 FL Jury Verdict Rptr. LEXIS 175; and Cynthia N. Underwood and Stephen R. Underwood v. Katherine Strong, 2017 FL Jury Verdict Rptr. LEXIS 11578. The facts of how the injuries happened and the effects of the injuries, in these cited cases, differ highly from Josiah's case. The first of the three jury verdicts shows a gross verdict award of $9,250,000.00. The third of the jury verdicts show a gross award of $6,132,642. The second of the three jury verdicts shows an award of $109,760,930. This includes the staggering figure of $94 million for pain and suffering damages. The undersigned took official recognition of the docket for the Carter case and the Notice of Appeal filed on March 22, 2018, which show that the Carter verdict is on appeal. Unfortunately, these jury verdicts provide no guidance for calculating Josiah's or his parents' claims for noneconomic damages or the total value of the case.
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount payable to Respondent in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement, judgment, or award received by Petitioner from a third party under section 409.910(17), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that Petitioner, Mr. Nelson Puente, sustained gunshot injuries on or about February 4, 2010, for which he received medical treatment. Mr. Puente had Medicaid at that time, and Medicaid paid the amount of $112,397.79 to treat Mr. Puente for his injuries. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Puente has permanent scars on his abdomen and thigh. Mr. Mario Quintero, Jr., Esquire, represented Mr. Puente in a personal injury case alleging negligent security. Mr. Quintero has been practicing law in Florida for over 30 years, specializing in personal injury litigation. He has tried well over 150 cases and has handled catastrophic injury cases that were similar to Mr. Puente's case. Mr. Quintero is an expert on the valuation of personal injury cases. Mr. Quintero interviewed Mr. Puente regarding the scope of his injuries, reviewed extensive medical records, considered the prognosis for improvement, and examined jury verdict reports and facts from similar cases to reach an opinion as to the value of Mr. Puente's damages. Mr. Quintero testified that if he had presented the case to a jury that he would have asked for damages for past medical expenses, future medical expenses, future loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, permanent scarring, and inability to lead a normal life. Mr. Quintero testified that, in addition to the $112,397.79 paid by Medicaid, the Florida Patients' Compensation Fund2/ or another fund paid for some of Mr. Puente's medical care. There was no evidence presented as to the specific amount that this fund paid. Mr. Quintero testified: I don't have the figures in front of me right now. But it was probably significantly less than Medicaid. * * * I do know, I just don't remember. I am--my file is three boxes large. And for purposes of my testimony here today, I don't believe it was necessary for me to bring in those three boxes and go through everything. So I mentioned it would be less than Medicaid, but I don't remember the exact amount. The exact amount for which the fund's claim was settled was similarly not in evidence, but Mr. Quintero characterized it as a "few thousand dollars." He testified, "They understood the severity of Mr. Puente's injuries and damages, they knew the amount of the settlement, and they took-—they factored in everything and significantly reduced the amount that we had to repay them." Mr. Quintero said that he would have asked a jury for significant damages for future lost earning capacity. He noted that Mr. Puente was 35 years old at the time of the settlement, had a long life expectancy, and the "potential to earn 35 to 40 thousand dollars per year." Mr. Quintero did not offer a dollar estimate of lost future earnings. There was no evidence as to Mr. Puente's occupation. Mr. Quintero admitted on cross- examination that he was "pretty sure" that Mr. Puente was unemployed at the time of his injuries. Mr. Quintero testified that future medical expenses would "probably not" be very large, based upon his understanding that "other than maybe palliative issues with therapy and things like that," there wasn't that much more that could be done for Mr. Puente. Mr. Quintero noted that "there probably would be some rehabilitation that he could benefit from in the future, but nothing major." On cross examination, he admitted that there was nothing in evidence to indicate that there would not be significant future medical expenses for Mr. Puente. No life care plan or testimony from health care personnel, vocational specialists, or economists was introduced. Mr. Quintero stated that it is expensive to have life care plans and economist reports prepared. He stated that they are prepared only when there is adequate insurance coverage, and it is worth the expenditure. Mr. Quintero testified that he believed that 80 to 85 percent of a jury verdict in Mr. Puente's personal injury case would have been based upon pain and suffering and the inability to lead a normal life. He did not elaborate on how he arrived at this conclusion. Mr. Quintero testified that, although the value that a particular jury might put on a case can never be absolutely determined, in his opinion, a reasonable estimate of the value of Mr. Puente's damages was $2.5 million. He testified that, in his opinion, the range of damages would be from $2 million to $5 million and that $2.5 million was a conservative estimate. Mr. Quintero's testimony on this point was credible, Respondent offered no contrary testimony, and the value of Mr. Puente's damages is found to be $2.5 million. The settlement in the personal injury case was for the sum of $100,000. There was no direct evidence as to what portion of the $100,000 total settlement was designated by the parties as compensation to Petitioner for medical expenses, or conversely, for the various other types of damages he may have suffered, such as pain and suffering, scarring and other permanent physical injury, or loss of future earnings. Neither the settlement agreement itself nor any other documents prepared in connection with the settlement were introduced. Mr. Quintero offered no testimony on this issue. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, all of the settlement might have been for medical care, or none of it might have been. It is possible that there was no discussion or understanding among the parties as to what portions of the settlement were to be allocated to Mr. Puente's various categories of damages, but such a conclusion would be pure speculation, for there was no testimony or other evidence to that effect. Mr. Puente did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the settlement was "unallocated" by the parties. The Florida Statutes provide that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the Florida state agency authorized to administer Florida's Medicaid program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. The Florida Statutes provide that Medicaid shall be reimbursed for medical assistance that it has provided if resources of a liable third party become available. § 409.910(1), Fla. Stat. AHCA did not participate in settlement negotiations or sign any of the settlement documents. There was no evidence to suggest that AHCA otherwise released its lien. Application of the formula found in section 409.910(11)(f) to the $100,000 settlement in the personal injury case yields a Medicaid lien in the amount of $33,319.66. The $100,000 total recovery represents four percent of the $2.5 million total economic damages. Mr. Puente failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the settlement was unallocated as to categories of damages. Mr. Puente failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that all categories of damages sought in the personal injury case were, or should be, compromised pro rata in the settlement. Mr. Puente failed to prove the amount of the settlement that should be allocated to medical expenses by clear and convincing evidence. Mr. Puente failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory lien amount of $33,319.66 exceeds the amount actually recovered in the settlement for medical expenses.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 2012, Luca Weedo’s natural mother, who was 30 weeks pregnant with Luca, was walking on the sidewalk on the east shoulder of Airport Pulling Road in Naples, Florida. At the same time, a Jeep Wrangler was traveling on Airport Pulling Road. As the Jeep Wrangler approached Luca’s natural mother, the left front tire and wheel separated from the Jeep Wrangler. The separated wheel bounced along the roadway at a high rate of speed, crossing the median and northbound lane of Airport Pulling Road. The wheel approached Luca’s natural mother at such a high rate of speed that she was unable to avoid it. She was struck by the wheel and knocked to the ground, which caused her to lose consciousness and suffer a ruptured placenta. Luca’s natural mother was transported to Lee Memorial Hospital. Upon admission, she underwent emergency surgery due to abdominal trauma. Luca was delivered via emergency C-section. Luca was born with extreme fetal immaturity and catastrophic brain damage. Luca remained in the hospital for three months, undergoing numerous medical procedures associated with his serious medical needs and brain damage. Luca now suffers from catastrophic brain damage and a seizure disorder that causes him to have multiple seizures every day. He is unable to ambulate, speak, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Prior to Luca’s birth, his natural mother had decided to place Luca up for adoption. Accordingly, when Luca was discharged from the hospital, the Florida Department of Children and Families asked Debra and Kenneth Weedo to take Luca into their home as a foster child. Kenneth Weedo is a retired truck driver and his wife Debra is a foster parent for medically needy children. Debra and Kenneth Weedo took Luca into their home and adopted him on May 2, 2013. Luca’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by Medicaid, which provided $319,188.20 in benefits. This $319,188.20 paid by Medicaid constituted Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Luca, through his parents and guardians, Debra and Kenneth Weedo, brought a personal injury action to recover all his damages. The lawsuit was initially brought against the owner/driver of the Jeep Wrangler. However, through discovery, it was determined that the party responsible for the wheel separating from the Jeep Wrangler was the tire and rim shop that installed the wheel on the Jeep Wrangler approximately a year prior to the accident (“Tire Shop”). The Tire Shop maintained insurance with a policy limit of $1 million. The Tire Shop’s insurance company tendered the $1 million insurance policy limit, which was accepted by Debra and Kenneth Weedo in settlement of Luca’s claim for damages against the Tire Shop. The General Release and Hold Harmless Agreement (“Release”), executed on December 21, 2015, memorialized the settlement with the Tire Shop as follows, in relevant part: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for all of the damages that he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Second Parties without regard to this settlement only, compensating LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO has alleged his damages have a value in excess of $25,000,000, of which $319,188.20 represents LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s injuries and allegations, $12,767.53 of this settlement has been allocated to LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that this allocation is reasonable and proportionate based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s damages. Further, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO acknowledges that he may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses that LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO will incur in the future. However, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that his family and/or others on his behalf have not made payments in the past or in advance for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s future medical care and LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, it is LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s contention that no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Luca was a minor, Court approval of the settlement was required. Accordingly, on February 17, 2016, Collier County Circuit Court Judge James Shenko approved the settlement by entering an Agreed Order on Petitioner’s Unopposed Petition to Approve Minor’s Settlement. As a condition of his eligibility to receive Medicaid benefits, Luca assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third-parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. AHCA was notified of Luca’s personal injury action during its pendency. Through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, AHCA has asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $314,747.23 against Luca’s cause of action and settlement of the personal injury action. This is the amount that the Medicaid program spent on behalf of Luca for his past medical expenses.2/ Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) requires that AHCA be reimbursed for the full $314,747.23 Medicaid lien. Neither Luca nor others on his behalf made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care. No claim for damages was made for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Debra Ann Weedo attended the final hearing along with Luca. Ms. Weedo is a foster parent for medically needy children. She testified that she currently has four children in her home: three-year-old Luca; a six-year-old in more or less the same condition as Luca; a five-year-old who is “basically normal”; and an autistic eight-year-old. Ms. Weedo first met Luca in the hospital during his post-birth hospitalization. She was asked to take him as a foster child and visited him several times in the hospital before taking him home at age three months. Ms. Weedo stated that when she brought Luca home, the whole family fell in love with him and “he became our family.” As soon as it was possible, Ms. Weedo and her husband adopted Luca. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca’s siblings interact with him and that Luca knows the voices of his caregivers and “will kind of try to talk to us.” At the hearing, the undersigned observed that Luca is somewhat aware of his surroundings and responsive to voices. Ms. Weedo testified that her family does everything together. Luca travels, goes on vacations, and goes out to eat as part of the family. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca requires 24-hour supervision and that his condition will become progressively worse as he ages. Luca has been on oxygen since December 2014. He must use a BiPAP (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) machine when he sleeps because the oxygen saturation level in his blood tends to be perilously low. He receives his nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. Civil trial attorney Todd Rosen testified on behalf of Petitioner as a fact witness and an expert on the valuation of damages. Mr. Rosen has been an attorney for 15 years and is the principal of the Todd Rosen Law Group in Coral Gables. Mr. Rosen stated that his practice is exclusively devoted to representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases. Mr. Rosen is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Florida Justice Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, and the Dade County Bar Association. Mr. Rosen has handled many jury trials and has represented plaintiffs who have suffered catastrophic brain injuries. A daily part of his practice is to assess the value of damages to injured persons. He stays abreast of jury verdicts in his area and routinely “round-tables” legal issues and damage valuations with other attorneys. Mr. Rosen testified that he was hired by Luca Weedo’s parents to investigate the potential claims they might have on behalf of their son. Mr. Rosen reviewed thousands of pages of Luca’s medical records, the accident report, and insurance policies for the defendants. The records indicated that Luca suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of placental abruption and that this injury had a permanent and devastating impact on the child’s life. Mr. Rosen explained that he could not file a lawsuit until the adoption process was complete, about eight months after the accident. He initially brought the suit against the driver of the Jeep, who had only PIP and property damage insurance and no collectable assets. Mr. Rosen interviewed the Jeep owner and learned the name of the Tire Shop. He made a demand for payment of the Tire Shop’s $1 million insurance policy. The full policy amount was tendered very soon after Mr. Rosen’s demand. Mr. Rosen testified that no life care plan or economist’s report was prepared in this case because the case settled so quickly. He believed that it would have been imprudent to spend money out of the $1 million settlement on a life care plan when the Weedos were not facing the prospect of a jury trial. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca’s past medical care related to the accident was paid by Medicaid. He testified that Medicaid provided $319,188.20 in benefits, representing Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca, or others on his behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for future medical care and no claim was brought to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. Mr. Rosen opined that Luca’s damages had a value “well in excess of” $25 million. Mr. Rosen explained that based on his experience in other cases, he believed the value of Luca’s future life care needs “would be well in excess of at least 10 to 15 million dollars” and that Luca’s non-economic damages would have a high value. Mr. Rosen noted that a jury would also take into account how “wonderful” Debra and Kenneth Weedo are to have devoted their lives to caring for Luca and other children in similar circumstances. Mr. Rosen believed that the $25 million valuation on Luca’s damages was “very conservative.” Mr. Rosen stated that the Tire Shop’s insurance counsel believed they had a strong argument that the owner of the Jeep must have done something to the tires after the Tire Shop put them on the car. However, despite the contested liability, the insurance company readily agreed during informal settlement discussions to pay the policy limits because the lawyers believed they were facing a verdict of up to $50 million. Mr. Rosen testified that the biggest cost factor in assessing Luca’s damages is the 24-hour attendant care that he will require for the rest of his life. Depending on how many caregivers are employed, the skill level required, and the location, attendant care may range from $25 to $40 per hour. Mr. Rosen estimated that a life care plan for Luca would be in the neighborhood of $10 million, including attendant care, nursing, and medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the $1 million settlement did not come close to fully compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Based on the conservative valuation of all Luca’s damages at $25 million, the $1 million settlement represented a recovery of four percent of the value of Luca’s damages. Mr. Rosen testified that because Luca only recovered four percent of the value of his damages in the settlement, he only recovered four percent of his $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53.3/ Mr. Rosen noted that the settling parties agreed in the Release that Luca’s damages had a value in excess of $25 million, as well as to the allocation of $12,767.53 to past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and more than fair because it was based on a conservative estimate of Luca’s damages. He stated, “Me, personally, I believe it should be less, but yes, that is fair just being conservative.” Mr. Rosen testified that because no claim was made to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care, no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. He noted that the parties agreed in the Release that no claim was made for reimbursement of past payments for future medical care, and no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Luca was a minor, court approval of his settlement was required. The court appointed another experienced attorney to act as Luca’s Guardian ad Litem to review the terms of the settlement and make a report to the court as to its appropriateness. The Guardian ad Litem recommended approval of the settlement, and the court adopted that recommendation. Also testifying on behalf of Petitioner as an expert in the valuation of damages was R. Vinson Barrett, a partner in the Tallahassee firm of Barrett, Fasig and Brooks, which Mr. Barrett described as a mid-sized firm that exclusively undertakes personal injury and products liability cases. Mr. Barrett stated that he has been a trial lawyer for 40 years and for the last 15 years has confined his practice to medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability cases. Mr. Barrett testified that he has done many jury trials. He discussed the importance of accurately estimating the value of the damages suffered by his clients because of the heavy investment that a trial firm must make in a complex case. Mr. Barrett stated that a firm can easily spend a quarter of a million dollars on experts and discovery, as well as life care plans, economic analyses, and vocational rehabilitation analyses, among other items required to establish damages. He stated that it is essential not to spend so much money in putting on the case that the client has nothing left after the verdict. Mr. Barrett stated that he has reviewed dozens of life care plans and economist reports, many for children with the same kind of injuries suffered by Luca Weedo. Mr. Barrett testified that he was familiar with Luca’s injuries and had reviewed the accident report, hospital birth records, records from a second hospitalization, medical records from Luca’s neurologist, the Guardian ad Litem report, the court order approving the settlement, Mr. Rosen’s demand letter to the insurance carrier, and each of Petitioner’s exhibits. He had also spoken to Debra Weedo by phone concerning Luca’s medical condition. Mr. Barrett gave a detailed explanation of Luca’s injuries and extent of his disability. He concluded that Luca’s injury “is as bad an injury as you can possibly receive and stay alive . . . . It could not be more catastrophic.” The medical records indicate that Luca will not get better and his prognosis is poor. Mr. Barrett opined that Luca’s life care plan alone would probably exceed $25 million. He conceded “that seems like a huge, huge, huge amount of money,” but explained that it really is not such a large sum when one considers that Luca is supposed to have 24-hour attendant care throughout his lifetime. Life care plans are not limited to the cost of services provided by Medicaid, which is a safety net that “takes care of things that are absolutely essential to keep on breathing.” However, Medicaid does not cover many things that medically needy children require for quality of life, such as wheelchair-equipped vans. The life care plan includes all of the child’s needs. Mr. Barrett testified that a life care planner accounts for every cost, “pill by pill, wheelchair replacement by wheelchair replacement,” then reduces it to present value. Mr. Barrett testified that based on his experience working with life care planners in trial preparation, and his extensive experience in evaluating damages in cases similar to that of Luca Weedo, he had no doubt that $25 million is a conservative estimate of Luca’s pure losses. Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement did not come close to compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Using $25 million as the conservative measure of all his damages, Luca had recovered only four percent of the value of his damages. Mr. Barrett testified that “by equity and basically, now by federal law, you look at the same ratio for the lien that you look at [for] the claimant.” Accordingly, Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement provided Luca with only four percent of Medicaid’s $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53. Mr. Barrett testified that the settling parties’ allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and conservative. Both Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett testified at some length about comparable jury verdicts and prior DOAH Medicaid lien cases involving children with catastrophic brain injuries. This discussion had some value in establishing that $25 million was by no means an unreasonable estimate of Luca Weedo’s damages, but was secondary and supplemental to the directly expressed expert opinions of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett. AHCA presented the testimony of attorney James Bruner, who was accepted as an expert for the limited purpose of comparing the jury verdicts in the cases cited by Petitioner to the facts of the instant case. Mr. Bruner correctly noted that it can be misleading to cite the numbers from a jury verdict without reference to later reductions made on appeal or via settlement pending appeal. Mr. Bruner also effectively demonstrated that there is never a precise correlation between the facts of one case and those of another, and therefore that there cannot be a precise comparison of damages from one case to another.4/ However, the undersigned did not look to the comparative verdicts for such a strict comparison, but simply for the purpose of establishing a range of reasonableness in broadly similar cases. AHCA called no witness to directly contest the valuation of damages made by Mr. Rosen or to offer an alternative methodology to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. No evidence was presented that the settlement agreement was not reasonable given all the circumstances of the case. It does not appear that the parties colluded to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to Medicaid’s payment of costs for Petitioner’s medical care. In fact, the evidence established that the settlement was conservative in its valuation of Petitioner’s claim and that the settling parties could have reasonably apportioned less to Medicaid than they actually did. AHCA was not a party to the settlement of Petitioner’s claim. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee, or $250,000, as well as $8,112.70 in taxable costs, from the $1 million recovery, leaves $741,887.30, half of which is $370,943.65. That figure exceeds the actual amount expended by Medicaid on Petitioner’s medical care. Application of the formula would provide sufficient funds to satisfy the Medicaid lien of $314,747.23. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $25 million total value of the claim was a reasonable, even somewhat conservative, amount. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the strength and sympathy of his case and on the fact that it was limited only by the inability to collect the full amount of the likely judgment, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constituted a fair settlement, including the portion attributed to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount payable to Respondent in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioner from a third party, pursuant to section 409.910(17), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 35-year-old female who currently resides in Homestead, Florida. Respondent is the state agency authorized to administer Florida's Medicaid program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. On or about February 15, 2012, Petitioner was struck by a motor vehicle and severely injured while attempting to rescue her young son, who had run into a busy street in front of her home in Hollywood, Florida. Petitioner suffered a fractured skull and broken leg. She was hospitalized and received medical care for her injuries. Subsequently, she was treated by an orthopedic physician and a neurologist. She estimated that she last received care or treatment from these physicians in August 2013. The Florida Medicaid program paid $35,952.47 in medical assistance benefits on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner filed a lawsuit against the owners of the vehicle that struck her. On January 11, 2013, Petitioner and the owners of the vehicle that struck Petitioner ("Releasees") entered into a "Release and Hold Harmless Agreement" ("Settlement") under which the Releasees agreed to pay Petitioner $150,000 to settle any and all claims Petitioner had against them. Attached to the Settlement was a document titled "Addendum to Release Signed 1/11/13" ("Addendum"), which allocated liability between Petitioner and the Releasees and provided a commensurate allocation of the Settlement proceeds for past and future medical expense claims. The Addendum stated in pertinent part: The parties agree that a fair assessment of liability is 90% on the Releasor, Mirta B. Agras, and 10% on the Releasees. Furthermore, the parties agree that based upon these injuries, and the serious nature of the injuries suffered by the Releasor, Mirta B. Agras, that $15,000.00 represents a fair allocation of the settlement proceeds for her claim for past and future medical expenses. Petitioner testified that she primarily was at fault in the accident. She acknowledged that the statement in the Addendum that she was 90% at fault for the accident and the Releasees were 10% at fault was an estimate that she formulated entirely on her own, without obtaining any legal or other informed opinion regarding the apportionment of respective fault. Petitioner is not a physician, registered nurse, or licensed practical nurse. There was no evidence presented establishing that she has any medical training or expertise. Thus, there is no professional basis for Petitioner's position that 10% of the Settlement proceeds represents a fair, accurate, or reasonable allocation for her medical expenses. Rather, her position appears to be based on the intent to maximize the Settlement proceeds that are allocated to non-medical expenses, so that she is able to retain a larger portion of the Settlement proceeds. Respondent did not participate in discussions regarding the Settlement or Addendum and was not a party to the Settlement. Petitioner acknowledged that she still receives medical bills related to the injuries she suffered as a result of the accident, and that she still owes money for ambulance transportation and physician treatment. She was unable to recall or estimate the amount she owes. No evidence was presented regarding the actual amount of Petitioner's medical expenses incurred due to her injury. Petitioner has not paid any of her own money for medical treatment, and no entities other than Medicaid have paid for her medical treatment. Since being injured, Petitioner continues to experience medical problems, including pain, dizziness, memory loss, difficulty in walking or standing for extended periods, inability to ride in vehicles for extended periods, balance problems, and difficulty watching television or staring at a computer screen for extended periods. Petitioner claims that, nonetheless, she has not been told that she would need additional medical care or treatment. On or about January 31, 2013, Respondent, through ACS, asserted a Medicaid claim pursuant to section 409.910(17), seeking reimbursement of the $35,952.47 in medical assistance benefits it paid on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner instead sought to reimburse Respondent $15,000, the amount that Petitioner and Releasees agreed in the Addendum represented a fair allocation of the Settlement proceeds for Petitioner's claim for past and future medical expenses. When Petitioner and Respondent were unable to agree on the amount Petitioner owed Respondent in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien, Petitioner paid ACS the $35,952.47 alleged to be owed Respondent and filed the Petition initiating this proceeding.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Micaiah McCray, from a medical-malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on November 11, 2008. In the months following birth, Petitioner underwent several surgeries and procedures including a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement on January 26, 2009, a repair of incomplete atrioventricular canal defect on April 15, 2009, and Nissen Fundoplication and revision of gastrostomy tube on July 8, 2009. On July 23, 2009, Petitioner was admitted to St. Mary’s Medical Center with suspected bronchitis and exacerbation of reactive airway distress. During this hospitalization, on or about August 15, 2009, Petitioner suffered a stroke involving the right hand and part of the right leg. A CT scan of Petitioner’s brain revealed a left middle cerebral artery distribution infarction suggesting a large ischemic infarct. Petitioner’s condition stabilized and Petitioner was released from the hospital on August 27, 2009, with the following discharge summary: Exacerbation of reactive airway disease Bronchitis Mitral stenosis Mild pulmonary hypertension Hypersecretory upper airway Pansinusitis Clostridium difficile colitis Hypoxemia with oxygen dependency Gastroesophageal reflux disease, status post fundoplication Left cerebral infarction of unknown etiology Endocardial cushion defect status post atrioventricular canal repair Bilateral optic nerve colobomas Rule out CHARGE association/Goletz syndrome On September 21, 2009, Petitioner was admitted to Palms West Hospital with a diagnosis of respiratory distress. Petitioner’s condition improved and he was discharged home on September 25, 2009. Subsequent to that hospitalization, an MRI performed on October 19, 2009, revealed new acute strokes. In the years following Petitioner’s strokes, he underwent numerous surgeries, procedures, and therapies for a multitude of medical conditions. Petitioner’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by both private health insurance and Medicaid. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $217,545.58. United Healthcare and Aetna provided $37,090.17 and $3,231.72 in benefits, respectively. Total healthcare expense incurred for Petitioner’s injuries was $257,867.47. Petitioner is developmentally delayed and cannot walk or crawl. Petitioner requires a wheelchair or stroller for mobility and requires positioning and trunk support to maintain a seated position. His ability to independently explore his environment is severely restricted. Petitioner is completely dependent on others for activities of daily living. He cannot bathe, dress, or eat on his own. He requires a feeding tube, and receives professional in-home services to monitor his respiration and heartrate, manage his GJ tube, administer medication, and monitor bowel and bladder function. Petitioner does not vocalize words and has limited communication. He has no function of his right hand and has tightness in the right leg below the knee. Petitioner’s condition is permanent. Petitioner’s parents brought a medical malpractice action on his behalf in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County against Tenet St. Mary’s Inc., d/b/a St. Mary’s Medical Center; Palms West Hospital Limited Partnership, d/b/a Palms West Hospital; David Evan Mound Drucker, M.D.; South Florida Pediatric Surgeons, P.A.; Physicians Professional Liability Risk Retention Group; Alberto Antonio Marante, M.D.; Florida Pediatric Critical Care, P.A.; Diego Maurcio Diaz, M.D.; Gerard Minor, P.A.-C; Children’s Center Gastroenterology & Nutrition, P.A.; Chartis Claims, Inc.; Lexington Insurance Company; Eunice Cordoba, M.D; and Edwin Liu, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Pediatric Neurologist of Palm Beach (Defendants). Petitioner’s action alleged, among other theories, that the Defendants failed to recognize in Petitioner a sickle cell trait and properly treat Petitioner’s dehydration, a factor contributing to Petitioner’s strokes. Petitioner’s parents retained Scott Marlowe Newmark, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims for over 30 years, to represent Petitioner in the medical malpractice action against Defendants. In preparation for litigation, Stephanie P. Chalfin, M.S., prepared a life care plan for Petitioner. The plan sets out the need for future medical care, equipment, hospitalizations, surgeries, medications, and attendant care, through Petitioner’s expected life span. In this case, Petitioner’s life expectancy is an additional 66.9 years. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, J. Rody Borg, Ph.D., an economist, prepared a report assigning a present value between $24,373,828 and $29,065,995 for the future costs of Petitioner’s life care plan, lost benefits, and lost earning capacity. Mr. Newmark’s expert valuation of the total damages suffered by Petitioner is at least $30 million. Mr. Newmark considered the life care plan and Dr. Borg’s report in arriving at the value of total economic damages. Mr. Newmark then examined jury verdicts in similar cases involving catastrophic injury to value non-economic damages. Of the nine jury verdicts examined, Mr. Newmark highlighted three as particularly relevant because they involved young children with brain injuries similar to Petitioner’s injury and who required life-long care. The nine cases had an average award of $12 million for non-economic damages (past and future pain and suffering). Mr. Newmark arrived at his valuation of Petitioner’s damages at $30 million by considering the low-end of Dr. Borg’s economic damages estimate, $24 million, along with the average jury award for non-economic damages in similar cases. Mr. Newmark’s testimony was credible, reliable and persuasive. Mr. Newmark’s valuation of total damages was supported by the testimony of two additional personal injury attorneys, Mark Finklestein and R. Vinson Barrett, both of whom have practiced personal injury law for more than 30 years and were accepted as experts in valuation of damages (in personal injury cases). Mr. Finkelstein served as Petitioner’s guardian ad litem in the underlying medical malpractice action and agreed with the valuation of total damages at $30 million. In formulating his opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett reviewed the discharge summaries from Petitioner’s hospitalizations, the life care plan, Dr. Borg’s report, and a day-in-the-life video of Petitioner. Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury trial verdicts and awards relied upon by Mr. Newmark. Mr. Barrett likewise agreed with the $30 million valuation of Petitioner’s total damages. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s medical malpractice action during its pendency. Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $217,545.58 against the proceeds of any award or settlement arising out of that action. In 2012 and again in 2015, Petitioner received a series of settlements from the Defendants. The settlements totaled $2,450,000. The settlements do not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of his damages. The settlements are undifferentiated, meaning they are not apportioned to specific types of damages, such as economic or non-economic, past or future. In all of the releases signed by the parties thereto, the parties agreed that, “if an allocation of this settlement is necessary in the future, this allocation should be made by applying the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all [Petitioner’s] damages to the specific damage claim.” Respondent was not a party to the 2012 and 2015 settlements and did not execute any of the applicable releases. Respondent’s position is that it should be reimbursed for its Medicaid expenditures on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the statutory formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting a 25 percent attorney’s fee and taxable costs (in this case, $613,131) from the $2,450,000 recovery, which yields a sum of $1,836,869 then dividing that amount by two, which yields $918,434.50. Under the statute, Respondent is limited to recovery of the amount derived from the statutory formula or the amount of its lien, whichever is less. In the case at hand, Respondent may recover under the statute the full amount of its lien. Petitioner’s position is that reimbursement for past medical expenses should be limited to the same ratio as Petitioner’s recovery amount to the total value of damages. Petitioner urges Respondent should be reimbursed $21,067.77 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The settlement amount of $2,450,000 is 8.17 percent of the total value ($30 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, 8.17 percent of $257,867.47 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid by both Medicaid and private insurance) is $21,067.77. Both Mr. Finklestein and Mr. Barrett testified that $21,067.77 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses. Their testimony is accepted as persuasive. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue This matter concerns the amount of money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Gregory McElveen, a Medicaid recipient, following a settlement recovered from a third party.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding determines the amount the Agency should be paid to satisfy a Medicaid lien following Petitioner’s recovery of a $240,000.00 settlement from a third party. The Agency asserts that it is entitled to recover the full amount of its $72,907.93 lien. The incident that gave rise to this matter resulted from alleged medical malpractice. In 2016, Mr. McElveen saw his primary care physician complaining of pain and redness in his hand. The pain was ultimately traced to a metal shaving that had lodged in his finger. Despite repeated visits complaining of pain and swelling, however, Mr. McElveen’s physician failed to locate and remove the foreign object. In the meantime, his health worsened. On July 17, 2017, Mr. McElveen was admitted to the hospital, and was found to be critically ill with septic emboli. On August 15, 2017, Mr. McElveen died as a result of a systemic infection. He was survived by his wife and three daughters.3 2 By requesting a deadline for filing post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after receipt of the Transcript at DOAH, the 30-day time period for filing the Final Order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 3 Although Mr. McElveen’s three daughters survived his death, in his subsequent wrongful death lawsuit, only one of his daughters was considered a “minor child” under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, because the other two were over the age of 25. § 768.18, Fla. Stat. The Agency, through the Medicaid program, paid a total of $72,907.93 for Mr. McElveen’s medical care, which was the full amount of his past medical expenses. In 2019, Mr. McElveen’s estate brought a wrongful death action against his treating physician.4 Charles T. Moore, Esquire, represented Petitioner’s estate and was the primary attorney handling the litigation. Ultimately, Mr. Moore was able to settle the wrongful death action for $240,000. The Agency was not a party to, nor did it intervene in, Petitioner’s wrongful death lawsuit. Under section 409.910, the Agency is to be repaid for its Medicaid expenditures out of any recovery from liable third parties. Accordingly, when the Agency was notified of the settlement of Petitioner’s lawsuit, it asserted a Medicaid lien against the amount Petitioner recovered. The Agency asserts that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect $72,907.93 to satisfy the medical costs it paid on Petitioner’s behalf. The Agency maintains that it should receive the full amount of its lien regardless of the fact that Petitioner settled for less than what Petitioner believes is the full value of his damages. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of the settlement than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the section 409.910(11)(f) formula. Petitioner specifically asserts that the Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately, taking into account the full value of Petitioner’s damages. Otherwise, the application of the statutory formula would permit the Agency to collect more than that portion of the settlement that fairly represents Petitioner’s compensation for medical expenses. Petitioner insists that reimbursement of the full lien amount violates the federal Medicaid law’s anti-lien provision (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1)) and 4 Petitioner Daniel Hallup was appointed Personal Representative of Mr. McElveen’s estate. Florida common law. Petitioner requests that the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s recovery be reduced to $5,832.63. To establish the value of Mr. McElveen’s damages, Petitioner offered the testimony of Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore has practiced law for 24 years and is a partner with the law firm of Morgan & Morgan in Tampa, Florida. In his practice, Mr. Moore focuses exclusively on medical malpractice causes of action. Mr. Moore represented that he has taken a number of his cases to jury. As part of his practice, Mr. Moore routinely evaluates damages similar to those Petitioner suffered. This activity includes analyzing jury verdicts to keep current on case values, as well as discussing cases with other attorneys. In calculating the value of Mr. McElveen’s wrongful death claim, Mr. Moore reviewed Mr. McElveen’s medical records. Mr. Moore stated that, based on his professional assessment and experience, Mr. McElveen’s damages equaled between three to five million dollars which is the total monetary value of the survivors’ and estate’s wrongful death damages. Therefore, Mr. Moore opined that a conservative value of Mr. McElveen’s damages is $3,000,000. Based on his evaluation, Mr. Moore asserted that the $240,000 settlement was far less than the value of the actual damages Mr. McElveen suffered. Mr. Moore explained that Petitioner settled for a much lower amount because his potential recovery was limited due to the fact that the one potential defendant (Mr. McElveen’s physician) was retiring and carried minimal insurance coverage ($250,000). Mr. Moore also felt that the other possible liable parties (including the hospital) had met the appropriate standard of medical care when treating Mr. McElveen. Therefore, Mr. Moore believed that he had settled for the best deal he could under the circumstances, and Mr. McElveen’s estate was not likely to recover more. Finally, to support the Petition to reduce the amount of the Medicaid lien, Mr. Moore explained that Petitioner’s estate received only eight percent of the true value of Mr. McElveen’s damages ($3,000,000 divided by $240,000). Because only eight percent of the damages were recovered, in like manner, the $72,907.93 Medicaid lien should be reduced to eight percent, or $5,832.63, as a fair and reasonable allocation of the amount of Petitioner’s past medical expenses recovered the $240,000 settlement. The Agency did not present evidence or testimony disputing Mr. Moore’s valuation of the “true” value of Petitioner’s damages or his calculation of the amount of the settlement that should be allocated as Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Petitioner also offered the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire, to established the value of Mr. McElveen’s damages. Mr. Barrett is a trial attorney with over 40 years’ experience. Mr. Barrett works exclusively in the area of plaintiff’s personal injury, medical malpractice, and medical products liability cases. He has also handled wrongful death cases. Mr. Barrett expressed that, as a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. In addition, not only does he have personal experience with jury trials, but he stays current in recent jury verdicts and regularly discusses jury results with other attorneys. Mr. Barrett was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured persons. Prior to testifying, Mr. Barrett familiarized himself with the facts and circumstances of Mr. McElveen’s injuries and death. He reviewed Petitioner’s exhibits, including Petitioner’s medical records. He also reviewed the sample jury verdicts Petitioner introduced as Petitioner’s Exhibit 8. Based on his valuation of Petitioner’s injuries, as well as his professional training and experience, Mr. Barrett placed a “very conservative value” on Petitioner’s injuries at $3,000,000. Mr. Barrett explained that injuries similar to Petitioner’s would result in jury awards averaging approximately $3.5 million dollars. Mr. Barrett supported Mr. Moore’s pro rata methodology of calculating a reduced portion of Petitioner’s $240,000 settlement to equitably and fairly represent past medical expenses. With injuries valued at $3,000,000, the $240,000 settlement only compensated Petitioner for eight percent of the total value of his damages. Therefore, the most “fair” and “reasonable” manner to apportion the $240,000 settlement is to apply that same percentage to determine Petitioner’s recovery of medical expenses. Petitioner asserts that applying the same ratio to the total amount of medical costs produces the definitive value of that portion of Petitioner’s $240,000 settlement that represents compensation for past medical expenses, i.e., $5,823.63 ($72,907.93 times eight percent). Similar to Mr. Moore’s testimony, Mr. Barrett’s expert testimony was unrebutted. Further, the Agency did not offer evidence or testimony proposing a more appropriate or different valuation of Mr. McElveen’s total damages, or contesting the methodology Petitioner used to calculate the portion of the $240,000 settlement fairly allocable to Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Based on the testimony from Mr. Moore and Mr. Barrett that the $240,000 settlement does not fully compensate Petitioner for Mr. McElveen’s damages, Petitioner argues that a lesser portion of the medical costs should be calculated to reimburse Medicaid, instead of the full amount of the lien. Petitioner proposes that a ratio be applied based on the true value of Petitioner’s damages ($3,000,000) compared to the amount that Petitioner actually recovered ($240,000). Using these numbers, Petitioner’s settlement represents approximately an eight percent recovery of the full value of Petitioner’s damages. In similar fashion, the Medicaid lien should be reduced to eight percent or approximately $5,832.63 ($72,907.93 times .08). Therefore, Petitioner asserts that $5,832.63 is the portion of his third-party settlement that represents the equitable, fair, and reasonable amount the Florida Medicaid program should recoup for its payments for Petitioner’s medical care. All of the expenditures Medicaid spent on Petitioner’s behalf are attributed to past medical expenses. No portion of the $72,907.93 Medicaid lien represents future medical expenses. The undersigned finds that the unrebutted testimony at the final hearing demonstrates that the full value of Petitioner’s damages from this incident equals $3,000,000. Further, based on the evidence in the record, Petitioner met his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s settlement should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated using the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).5 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the competent substantial evidence adduced at the final hearing establishes that the Agency should be reimbursed in the amount of $5,832.63 from Petitioner’s recovery of $240,000 from a third party to satisfy the Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact In mid-October 2012, Petitioner, a trial lawyer, woke up on a Friday morning with a pain in the big toe of his left foot. He called his family practice physician2/ and was able to obtain an appointment for the following Tuesday. At the appointment, Petitioner saw a nurse practitioner who examined him and pronounced that he had gout. The nurse practitioner prescribed a gout medication. Over the course of the next week, Petitioner’s condition worsened, with pain radiating all the way to his hip. On the following Tuesday, he saw the physician. Despite blood testing that showed an elevated white blood cell count, the physician concurred with the nurse practitioner that Petitioner was suffering from an extreme case of gout. The physician prescribed a regimen of steroids for the gout. By the next Saturday, November 3, 2012, Petitioner was so sick that a neighbor drove him to Tampa General Hospital. His blood pressure was extremely low and his kidneys had ceased functioning. Petitioner was on the verge of death. At the hospital, he learned that the physician and his nurse practitioner had misdiagnosed Petitioner’s condition. He in fact had a raging staphylococcus aureus infection. Over the course of the next several days, Petitioner underwent several surgeries to save his life. First, the toes on his left foot were amputated. Then, his left foot was amputated. Next, his left leg was amputated below the knee. Finally, the left leg was amputated above the knee. Still, the infection was not controlled. Petitioner was in and out of a coma for a month. He testified that his infectious disease doctor told him that the infection was so bad that the treatment team was at a loss on how to proceed. However, the infection ultimately was brought under control. Once he was stabilized, Petitioner was transferred to Tampa General’s rehabilitation facility and finally released to return to his home. Petitioner was sixty-one years old at the time his leg was amputated. He testified that he practiced as a trial lawyer in Florida from 1977 until his illness. Petitioner stated that he does not find it possible to be a trial lawyer with a prosthetic leg and a walker, but that he does some mediation work. His basic income is $1,653 per month in Social Security benefits. Petitioner testified that this amount is never enough to cover his expenses and that he is required to dip into the proceeds of his settlement with the medical providers in order to make ends meet. He stated that it is “terrifying” to watch the money going out and to wonder what he will do when it is gone. Petitioner lost his Tampa home to foreclosure and was forced to move 40 miles away to find a house that he could afford. Moving away from his longtime home further isolated Petitioner and necessitated paying money for things that he could previously rely on friends and neighbors to help with, such as grocery shopping. Petitioner testified that prior to the amputation he had led an active lifestyle. He ran, rode a bike, and played golf twice a week. He was an instructor pilot. Petitioner is now incapable of engaging in any of those activities. Petitioner testified that if he falls and is not near a piece of furniture or other object that allows him to use his upper body strength to lift himself, he is helpless until someone comes along to assist him. Merely going to the bathroom involves a complicated transfer from his wheelchair using specially installed bars. Petitioner testified that prior to his settlement he had not, and to his knowledge others had not, made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care. Civil trial attorney William E. Hahn testified on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Hahn has practiced since 1972, is a board certified civil trial lawyer, and is a past president of the Florida chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, a group that named Mr. Hahn “trial lawyer of the year” in 2012. Mr. Hahn testified that he generally represents plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases and has tried over 100 complex jury trials. He has won verdicts as high as $22.5 million, as low as zero, and “all in between.” Mr. Hahn takes cases involving “devastating, catastrophic” injuries such as that suffered by Petitioner. A routine part of his practice is to make a determination of the value of a client’s damages. Mr. Hahn was accepted without objection as an expert in assessing the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Hahn testified that his evaluation process begins with acquainting himself with the nature of the injury. He then calculates the expenses that have been incurred in the past for the client’s treatment and predicts the costs of future treatment. He looks at the medical records and performs his own medical research. He speaks with the treating physicians as well as the client. Mr. Hahn bases his assessments on his experience and training and the experience of other lawyers in handling similar cases throughout Florida and the United States. Mr. Hahn testified that he has known Petitioner since they were both young lawyers practicing in Tampa. When Petitioner called him and explained his situation, Mr. Hahn agreed to represent Petitioner in his medical malpractice action. Mr. Hahn noted that with proper medical treatment Petitioner would have been spared multiple surgeries and the amputation of his leg. He would likely have recovered and returned to law practice. Mr. Hahn opined that the value of Petitioner’s case was “well in excess of $2 million,” based on Petitioner’s background, his training and experience, and the devastating injury and its long term effects. Given Petitioner’s status in Tampa and the legal community, and the outrageousness of what happened, Mr. Hahn believed the verdict would have “exceeded two, four or many more millions of dollars.” Mr. Hahn explained that in order to proceed with a medical malpractice claim in Florida, the plaintiff must go through a number of administrative steps called the “notice of intent” process. Mr. Hahn secured the services of a board certified internal medicine physician as his expert. The surgeon confirmed what Mr. Hahn had surmised from the medical records, that this was a case of gross malpractice. Mr. Hahn obtained an affidavit from the surgeon and notified the potential defendants that he was about to make a claim on Petitioner’s behalf. Mr. Hahn was aware that Petitioner had received services from Medicaid and initiated a correspondence with AHCA.3/ The correspondence indicated that Medicaid had paid $135,047.86 in medical expenses for Petitioner. Mr. Hahn stated that this amount would have been part of Petitioner’s claim had the matter been fully litigated. Mr. Hahn testified that, despite the clear liability, the recoverable assets complicated any potential award of damages from the medical providers. The total insurance available was $500,000. The insurance company was acting in good faith in trying to settle the case, which ruled out a bad faith case against the insurer. The only other potential sources of funds were the personal assets of the nurse practitioner and the physician. The defense attorney informed Mr. Hahn that any assets possessed by these individuals were protected from judgment. The defendants recognized that this was a “terrible” case and wanted to settle. Mr. Hahn stated that it became apparent to him that the best business decision for Petitioner was to get the case resolved within the limits of the insurance coverage. He was able to reduce his fee, keep the litigation costs down, and get the matter resolved quickly. Mr. Hahn secured a settlement of $492,500. Mr. Hahn testified that no amount of money could ever make Petitioner whole, but that the amount of the settlement did not come close to fully compensating him for his damages and would not come close to taking care of him for the rest of his life. Mr. Hahn pointed out that in the document memorializing the settlement agreement, the defendants acknowledged that the settlement would not come close to making Petitioner whole. The portion of the settlement agreement referenced by Mr. Hahn was the “Allocation of Settlement” language, which read as follows: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate the Releasor for the damages he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete release as to all claims against the Releasees, without regard to this settlement only compensating the Releasor for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. These damages have a value in excess of $2,000,000, of which $135,047.86 represents Releasor’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of the Releasor’s alleged injuries and this settlement, $33,255.54 of this settlement has been allocated to the Releasor’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all of the Releasor’s alleged damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that the Releasor may need future medical care related to his alleged injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for these future medical expenses that the Releasor may incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that the Releasor, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for the Releasor’s future medical care and the Releasor has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for payments made to secure future medical care. Mr. Hahn testified that the allocation of settlement paragraphs were the product of a negotiation with the defendants’ lawyer. The language was acknowledged and agreed to by all parties. The defendants agreed with the valuation of damages “in excess of $2 million.” The allocation of $33,255.54 to past medical expenses was “simple math,” its relation to the $492,500 settlement amount being proportional to the relation of $135,047.86 to the $2 million value of the claim. Petitioner was settling for 24.625% of his claim’s value, and therefore the Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately. Mr. Hahn testified that all the parties believed this settlement to be reasonable. Mr. Hahn stated that in his professional judgment, the allocation of $33,255.54 was not only reasonable, it was overly generous. The real value of the case was well in excess of $2 million. Mr. Hahn believed that it would have been reasonable to value the claim at $4 million, in which case the Medicaid allocation would have been cut in half. Mr. Hahn testified that the parties were trying to recognize that Medicaid did “wonderfully” by Petitioner. They valued the case conservatively at $2 million. Many lawyers would have valued it much higher, and could have supported their valuation with documentation. Mr. Hahn stated that the parties’ concern was to be appropriate, conservative, and provide a fair recovery to Medicaid. AHCA called no witness to contest the valuation of damages made by Mr. Hahn or to offer an alternative methodology to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. No evidence was presented indicating the settlement agreement was not reasonable given all the circumstances of the case. It does not appear that the parties colluded to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to Medicaid’s payment of costs for Petitioner’s medical care. In fact, the evidence established that the settlement was extremely conservative in its valuation of Petitioner’s claim and that the settling parties could have reasonably apportioned far less to Medicaid than they actually did. AHCA was not a party to the settlement of Petitioner’s claim. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee, or $123,125, from the $492,500 recovery leaves $371,375, half of which is $185,687.50. That figure exceeds the actual amount expended by Medicaid on Petitioner’s medical care. Application of the formula would provide sufficient funds to satisfy the Medicaid lien of $135,047.86. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $2 million total value of the claim was a reasonable, if not unduly conservative, amount. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the clear strength of his case and on the fact that it was limited only by the inability to collect the full amount of the likely judgment, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constituted a fair settlement, including the portion attributed to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
The Issue At issue are the actual expenses, if any, for medically necessary and reasonable medical and hospital, habilitative and training, residential, and custodial care and service, for medically necessary drugs, special equipment, and facilities and for related travel currently required for the infant, and the reasonable expenses, if any, incurred in connection with the filing of the claim for compensation, including reasonable attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact Background Michael Lebrun (Michael) is the natural son of Barnabas Lebrun and Rolande Lebrun, and was born October 9, 1990, at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Dade County, Florida. At birth, Michael suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," as that term is defined by Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, and he was accepted by respondent, Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA) for coverage under the Florida-Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the Plan). Section 766.301, et seq., Florida Statutes. Consistent with Section 766.305(6), Florida Statutes, NICA's acceptance of the claim was approved by final order of March 30, 1994, and NICA was directed to pay "past medical expenses, a reasonable attorney's fee, and . . . future expenses as incurred" in accordance with Section 766.31, Florida Statutes. The order further reserved jurisdiction to resolve "any disputes, should they arise, regarding petitioners' entitlement to past medical expenses, a reasonable attorney's fee, and subsequently incurred expenses." At petitioners' request, a hearing was held to address, pertinent to this order, medically necessary and reasonable expenses alleged to be currently required by the infant, and the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the filing of the claim for compensation, including reasonable attorney's fees. Petitioners did not, however, at any time prior to hearing, present any requests for compensation to NICA which identified any specific needs of the infant which they felt should be covered by the Plan, but were currently unmet. 2/ Notably, the parties' stipulation, which resolved that Michael was covered under the Plan, approved by order of March 30, 1994, provided: 8. The Claimants and the Association hereby agree as follows: * * * The Association will pay all benefits, past and future, as authorized by Section 766.31, Florida Statutes. The Association and Alan Goldfarb, Esquire, the attorney for the Claimants, agree that a reasonable sum for attorneys fees and services and certain expenses incurred in the representation of the Claimant in this case will be determined at a future date. In absence of an agreement for a specific amount, either party may request a hearing for determination. * * * 11. The Parties agree that the issues of the actual expenses for medically necessary and reasonable medical and hospital, habilitative and training, residential and custodial care and service, for medically necessary drugs, special equipment and facilities, and for related travel as per Florida Statute 766.31 and for a reasonable attorney's fee and expenses, may be determined by the Hearing Officer if a dispute arises regarding the same. The association is not aware of any specific disputes regarding the services being provided to Michael Lebrun but acknowledges that petitioners have requested a hearing regarding the same. . . . * * * 16. In order for the Association to carry out its responsibility as provided in this stipulation, the Claimants shall provide within thirty (30) days of the date of approval of this stipulation, the following: A complete list (with copies, invoices, addresses, etc.) of all known past expenses for which the Claimants seek reimbursement in accordance with the terms and provisions of this stipulation document for medical and related expenses previously incurred; and A fully executed authorization of release of any and all medical records, insurance program records, and such other authorization as may, from time to time, reasonably be required by the Associa- tion to complete its duties hereunder; and Such other reasonable information as may be required by the Association, which relates to the provision of Michael [sic] [medical] or habilitative care or the payment of Michael's bills. Petitioners' failure to file a claim with NICA for benefits they were of the opinion that Michael currently required, but had not received, or supply NICA with the requested information to evaluate any request for benefits, was contrary to their obligation, as evidenced by the forgoing stipulation. Such failing was not, however, raised by NICA prior to hearing, nor did it object to such failing during the course of hearing. Accordingly, while, if timely raised, petitioners' failure to first provide NICA an opportunity to address the specifics of a claim for benefits prior to hearing could have been appropriately addressed, such failure is not a bar to the resolution of the issues presented. 3/ Michael's past and current history Following six months of life, Michael was referred to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS), Children's Medical Services, Early Intervention program. Through his Early Intervention coordinator, Michael was initially provided services, at public expense, through what is known as the "Birth through Two" ("B-2") services program. That program is a public service program for handicapped children through 36 months of age, or until their transition to the Dade County Public Schools Special Education Pre-K Program, and is jointly funded by DHRS and the Dade County Public Schools. As of the date of hearing, Michael had been receiving, and was scheduled to continue to receive until his transition into the Pre-K Program, physical therapy three times a week at forty-five minutes a session and occupational therapy four times a week at forty-five minutes a session, including oral stimulation, through United Cerebral Palsy. Such other services or items of special equipment that Michael needed were also ordered or provided, at public expense, through the auspice of his Early Intervention coordinator. As of July 5, 1994, some two weeks following the hearing in this case, Michael was scheduled to transition from the B-2 Program into the Pre-Kindergarten Exceptional Education Program (Pre-K program), where he would receive a different level of rehabilitative services. According to the proof, once he transitions into the Pre-K program, Michael will receive sixty minutes per week of physical therapy and thirty to forty-five minutes of occupational therapy, during the course of the school day. Such therapies are not quantified by frequency or duration of a therapy session predicated on the well founded belief that a child's responsiveness to therapy will vary from day to day and, accordingly, the frequency of delivery is left to the discretion of the individual therapist. As provided by the School Board, physical therapy primarily deals with the functional mobility, positioning and musculoskeletal "status" of the lower extremity of the student, and occupational therapy primarily addresses the functioning of the upper extremities, classroom positioning and improvement of visual and perceptual motor skills to function in an educational program. Although available, the School Board does not propose to offer speech therapy to Michael since it has concluded, based upon evaluations and observations, that his speech development is commensurate with his present level of cognitive functioning and that no developmental deficiency exists. As noted, the physical therapy and occupational therapy provided by the School Board during the school year is predicated on what it perceives is necessary for the student to profit from the educational program. Under the circumstances, the services provided are not necessarily an objective evaluation of the medically necessary and reasonable habilitative services the infant may need for treatment; 4/ however, in some cases they may be. Whether the services to be provided the infant in this case will meet such standard can not, based on the record in this case, be resolved; however, if not, such services should be available, subject to available appropriations, through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Section 409.905, Florida Statutes. In addition to his apparent need for physical and occupational therapy, Michael also exhibits various self-abusive behaviors which require therapeutic correction. Such treatment was requested by Michael's Early Intervention coordinator, through Developmental Services, on February 18, 1994. As of the date of hearing, it was not shown whether Michael had or had not begun to receive such services. The subject claim At hearing, petitioners offered no proof of any expenses previously incurred for which they sought reimbursement, 5/ and their claim, relative to the current needs of Michael, was limited to certain equipment, therapy and attendant care which Paul M. Deutsch, Ph.D. ("Mr. Deutsch"), perceived was required for Michael. 6/ As to the items of equipment recommended by Mr. Deutsch, many were age specific and no longer required or had otherwise been provided through a public assistance program. Currently, according to Mr. Deutsch, Michael is in need of the following equipment: (1) TLC bath seat; (2) prone stander; (3) exercise mat; (4) hand-held shower; (5) wheelchair backpack; and, (6) Rifton pottychair. At the time of final hearing, the prone stander had been ordered through Children's Medical Services, but a TLC bath seat and hand-held shower had not. There was, however, no showing that the Lebruns desired such items or that the TLC bath seat and held-held shower were needed for Michael's care. Indeed, Michael can sit in the bathtub where he is regularly bathed by his parents without a TLC bath seat or hand-held shower. Should the Lebruns decide in the future that such items would be beneficial to them in the care of Michael, they are certainly able to ask NICA for such items; however, currently, they have demonstrated no desire or need for them. As to the wheelchair backpack, the proof fails to demonstrate that Michael needs such item because he does not suffer from any medical condition that requires the transport of special medical equipment. Likewise, Michael does not currently require a Rifton pottychair since he is not currently being "potty trained" nor is there any expressed expectation to begin such training in the known future. Michael also does not currently require an exercise mat since he is not receiving any home therapy. As for rehabilitative services, Mr. Deutsch recommends that in addition to the services that Michael is to receive through the Dade County Public School system that he receive two physical therapy sessions, two occupational therapy sessions, and two speech therapy sessions each week. Given that Mr. Deutsch was not specifically aware of the therapies Michael was receiving and was to soon receive, that he had never participated or observed any therapy sessions with Michael, and offered no specific reasons as to why these additional therapies were necessary to treat Michael's condition, Mr. Deutsch's opinion is rejected. Indeed, Mr. Deutsch's recommendations appear to be little more than a generic model, without specific reference to the needs of Michael and the benefits that might reasonably be expected from additional therapies, if any. Notably, Mr. Deutsch's life care plan recommends an annual evaluation by health care specialists to address Michael's specific needs for physical, occupational and speech therapy. That recommendation is a tacit recognition of the fact that each disabled child does not require the same services, and recognizes that the need for services is appropriately left to health care professionals involved with Michael's care. Significantly, the record is devoid of any proof, apart from public services, that petitioners or their counsel ever acted on Mr. Deutsch's recommendation, made May 27, 1993, that Michael receive an annual evaluation by health care specialists to address his need for such services. While the nature and frequency of services requested were not shown to be medically necessary or reasonable at the time of hearing, the record does demonstrate that Michael requires rehabilitative services and special equipment, which, although ordered through public service programs, may not have been provided or may not be adequate. Given the circumstances, it would be appropriate for NICA to continue its coordination with public service agencies, as discussed infra, to assure that Michael receives the services and special equipment he requires in a timely manner. 7/ Moreoever, since the proof fails to demonstrate whether a medical assessment has been made, it would be appropriate and in the best interests of the child for NICA to coordinate with the public service agencies to assure a comprehensive medical assessment is made of Michael's current need for speech therapy and to determine whether additional physical and occupational therapy may be warranted. Should there currently exist no obligation or ability, because of lack of funding or otherwise, for the public service agencies to provide a medical evaluation, therapy as needed, or special equipment, or should the agencies fail to timely provide a medical evaluation, therapy or special equipment, though required by law to do so, it would be appropriate for NICA, with the parents' consent, to provide those services or equipment until the appropriate pulbic service agency accepts responsibility for the provision of those services and equipment. Finally, Mr. Deutsch has recommended that "attendant care" be provided to the Lebrun family at the rate of two to four hours a day to provide consistency in the care of Michael while allowing the parents a respite. Notably, the Lebruns, who speak regularly with NICA, have never made such a request, and there was no showing that such services are necessary at this time. 8/ Attendant care is generally provided in the home to assist with an individual's daily living skills, such as bathing, moving the individual in and out of a wheelchair or repositioning. Attendant care is not necessary at this time as Michael is still quite small and he is mobile. Indeed, there was no proof at hearing that the Lebruns were incapable, by virtue of any circumstance, to care for Michael, or that he required inordinate care. NICA's activities NICA, consistent with its obligations under law, has maintained communication with Michael's Early Intervention coordinator at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Children's Medical Services, as well as Michael's staffing specialist with the Dade County Public Schools, to monitor Medicaid services to Michael and, if necessary, provide any services those agencies are unable to provide. NICA, through its Executive Director, Lynn Dickinson, has met personally with the Lebruns on numerous occasions, and has routinely spoken with them by telephone, regarding Michael's care and any perceived needs they may have had for his care. At no time, during the course of any of those conversations, did the Lebruns ever request any attendant care or any other service or equipment recommended by Mr. Deutsch. 9/ Attorney's fees and costs Although duly noticed at petitioners' request, as an issue to be heard, petitioners offered no proof, as required by Section 766.31(1)(c), Florida Statutes, to support their claim for an award of reasonable attorney's fees. As for costs, the only proof offered concerned an agreed fee arrangement with Mr. Deutsch. According to Mr. Deutsch, he agreed to a cap of $3,000 just to cover expenses. What those expenses were, are or will be, was not, however, explained of record, and it cannot be concluded, based on the proof, that such $3,000 cap is reasonable or recoverable.
The Issue The issue for the undersigned to determine is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Respondent), as reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2020),1 from settlement proceeds he received from third parties.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. On September 6, 2019, Mr. St. Surin was severely injured when his motorcycle struck a car. In this accident, Mr. St. Surin suffered severe and permanent injury to his back, neck, scapula, ribs, and knee. 1 All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification, unless otherwise indicated. Mr. St. Surin’s medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid. Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $28,482.15 in benefits. In addition, Medicaid, through a Medicaid managed care organization known as WellCare of Florida, paid $7,278.25 in benefits. The combined total amount of these benefits, $35,760.40, constitutes Mr. St. Surin’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. St. Surin pursued a personal injury claim against the owner and driver of the car who caused the accident (collectively the “Tortfeasors”) to recover all of his damages. The Tortfeasors’ insurance policy limits were $100,000, and the Tortfeasors had no other collectable assets. Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim was settled for the insurance policy limits of $100,000. During the pendency of Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim, AHCA was notified of the claim and AHCA asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $28,482.15 against Mr. St. Surin’s cause of action and the settlement proceeds. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, or intervene or join in Mr. St. Surin’s action against the Tortfeasors. AHCA was notified of Mr. St. Surin’s settlement by letter. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Mr. St. Surin’s settlement. Application of the formula found in section 409.910(11)(f) would require payment to AHCA of the full $28,482.15 Medicaid lien given the $100,000 settlement. Petitioner has deposited the Medicaid lien amount in an interest- bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending a final administrative determination of AHCA’s rights. Petitioner presented testimony from Scott Kimmel, Esquire. Mr. Kimmel represented Mr. St. Surin in his personal injury claim against the Tortfeasors. Mr. Kimmel is a personal injury attorney and has practiced law for 30 years. Mr. Kimmel testified that he placed a conservative value of $1 million on Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim, but that the personal injury claim was settled for policy limits of $100,000 because the Tortfeasors had no other collectable assets. Using the pro rata allocation methodology, Mr. Kimmel testified that $3,576 of the $100,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses because the personal injury claim was settled for ten percent of its conservative value. Mr. Kimmel’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontradicted. AHCA did not challenge Mr. Kimmel’s valuation of the personal injury claim, or his use of the pro rata allocation methodology to determine the amount of settlement proceeds that should be allocated to past medical expenses, nor did AHCA offer any evidence from which the undersigned could arrive at a different valuation or allocation. There is no reasonable basis to reject Mr. Kimmel’s testimony, and it is accepted here in its entirety. The undersigned finds that the value of Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim is $1 million, and that $3,576.04 of the $100,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), is to be reimbursed for medical expenses paid on behalf of Markus Smith (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Smith”) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ from settlement proceeds he received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits accepted into evidence, admitted facts set forth in the pre- hearing stipulation, and matters subject to official recognition. Facts Pertaining to the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation and the Medicaid Lien On February 12, 2018, Mr. Smith was 26 years old and working for $11.00 an hour as a custodian for E&A Cleaning at All Saints Academy, in Winter Haven, Florida. While leaving the school just before 9:00 a.m., Mr. Smith came to a traffic light at the school’s entrance. When the light turned green and Mr. Smith moved into the intersection, another car ran the red light and slammed into the driver’s side of Mr. Smith’s vehicle. Mr. Smith was severely injured and transported to Lakeland Regional Medical Center where he stayed until approximately April 13, 2019. Mr. Smith’s injuries included, but were not limited to, a collapsed lung, altered mental state, intracerebral hemorrhage, traumatic subdural hematoma, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, traumatic intraventricular hemorrhage, lumbar transverse process fracture, and a left ankle fracture. Mr. Smith required surgery to repair his left ankle, and he now walks with a severe limp. He experiences a constant, dull ache in his left ankle and is unable to walk any significant distance without experiencing severe pain. It is very difficult for Mr. Smith to stand, and he has a constant fear of falling because his balance is “terrible.” Mr. Smith is left-handed, and the accident left him with very limited use of his left hand. Since the accident, Mr. Smith’s vision has been blurry, and he suffers from double vision. He believes that his impaired vision would prevent him from obtaining a driver’s license. As described above in paragraph 3, Mr. Smith suffered a brain injury during the accident, and there was some bleeding inside his skull. He now has difficulty forming long-term memories and often records conversations so that he has a record of what was said. Since the accident, Mr. Smith has been struggling with anger and depression. He has difficulty controlling his anger and is prone to random outbursts of rage. He has experienced suicidal thoughts and asked his current caretaker if she would kill him, if he gave her a knife. Since being released from the hospital, Mr. Smith has not received any physical or occupational therapy. He was receiving some mental health treatment and taking medicine to treat his depression and memory issues. However, he cites a lack of transportation as to why he is no longer receiving any care. Mr. Smith has not worked since the accident, and the Social Security Administration has determined that he is disabled. After leaving the hospital, Mr. Smith stayed with his girlfriend. After they separated, Mr. Smith lived with his father. Since November of 2018, he has been living with his father’s ex-wife in Georgia. Mr. Smith, through counsel, filed a lawsuit against the driver and owner of the car that slammed into him. They settled Mr. Smith’s claims for the available policy limits of $100,000.00. There was no other liable person or other insurance available to Mr. Smith to compensate him for his injuries. AHCA provided $74,312.38 in Medicaid benefits to Mr. Smith and determined through the formula in section 409.910(11)(f), that $36,596.54 of Ms. Smith’s settlement proceeds was subject to the Medicaid lien. Mr. Smith, through counsel, deposited the entire settlement proceeds of $100,000.00 into an interest bearing account pending resolution of AHCA’s interest. Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim David Dismuke was identified as Mr. Smith’s expert witness. Since 2012, Mr. Dismuke has been a board-certified trial lawyer, and approximately one percent of attorneys in Florida possess that credential. That designation essentially means that an attorney can represent that he or she is an expert in civil trial practice. Mr. Dismuke has his own law practice and has handled at least 34 civil jury trials. Over the course of his 18-year legal career, he has assessed the value of at least 2,000 personal injury cases, including ones involving brain injuries. Mr. Dismuke also has extensive experience in valuing the individual components of a damages award: Q: Before we get to this final opinion, Mr. Dismuke, in your practice, have you had to allocate portions of settlements between past medical expenses, usual medical expenses, and the other elements of damages? A: Many times. Q: And for what purpose would you do that sort of allocation? A: We do it, we do it frequently. We do it often times in situations just like this, where we’re trying to determine what an appropriate amount would be for either a Medicare or Medicaid lien, health insurance liens, we deal with it in situations, and we have lien issues on almost every case. Q: And do you also do it when you are trying to help clients figure out how, and in what manner, to structure their settlements, so they can have enough money for their future medical expenses and pay their old medical expenses? A: Yes, we do. And in fact to make another point, every single case I have to allocate [] the value [of past medical expenses], that’s one element of damages, what the value of future [medical expenses] is, that’s another element of damages, past lost wages, another element of damages, future lost wages, another element of damages, pain and suffering, inconvenience, you know, the noneconomic stuff. Every case we make these, we make these determinations. That’s how we come to total value on every case that we settle or get a verdict on. Q: And even on the ones that you settle for less than full value, are you still performing that same evaluation of the allocation of the various elements of damages? A: Yes sir. Mr. Dismuke has similar experience with Medicare set asides: Q: Now, another area where you allocate between elements of damages is where you require a Medicare set aside, isn’t that true? A: That’s correct. Q: Now, tell the court what a Medicare set aside is? A: A Medicare set aside is something that we put in place to protect the future interest of Medicare for when there’s a settlement. So we receive a large settlement that the person is still going to require future medical care, so we have to evaluate what is a reasonable amount of that settlement to set aside to protect Medicare’s future interests, so the client doesn’t just get a windfall from the settlement. Q: And have you done that? A: Multiple times. Q: And that requires you to evaluate the total settlement and allocate between past medical expenses, future medical expenses, pain and suffering and other elements of damages? A: That’s correct. In Mr. Dismuke’s opinion, Mr. Smith’s total damages easily amount to $1 million and could be as high as $2 to $3 million. Mr. Dismuke values Mr. Smith’s lost wages at no less than $750,000.00. While Mr. Smith is not currently receiving medical treatment, Mr. Dismuke believes those expenses would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions of dollars. However, the damages resulting from Mr. Smith’s pain and suffering would be the largest component of his total damages. Mr. Dismuke believes that Mr. Smith’s past medical expenses would be the smallest component of his total damages given Mr. Smith’s age, future needs, and lost wages. With regard to allocating $10,000.00 of Mr. Smith’s total recovery to past medical expenses, Mr. Dismuke testified that a “$10,000 allocation of the $100,000 settlement is perfectly reasonable if not, more than generous, given the past [medical expenses] in this case of around $70,000. So setting forth ten percent of that is a generous allocation for past medical expenses.” Findings Regarding the Testimony Presented at the Final Hearing The undersigned finds that the testimony from Mr. Dismuke was compelling and persuasive as to the total damages incurred by Mr. Smith. While attaching a value to the damages that a plaintiff could reasonably expect to receive from a jury is not an exact science, Mr. Dismuke’s considerable experience with litigating personal injury lawsuits makes him a very compelling witness regarding the valuation of damages suffered by an injured party such as Mr. Smith. The undersigned also finds that Mr. Dismuke was qualified to present expert testimony as to how a damages award should be allocated among its components, such as past medical expenses, economic damages, and noneconomic damages.2/ AHCA offered no evidence to counter Mr. Dismuke’s opinions regarding Mr. Smith’s total damages or the past medical expenses he recovered. Accordingly, it is found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the total value of Mr. Smith’s personal injury claim is no less than $1 million and that the $100,000.00 settlement resulted in him recovering no more than 10 percent of his past medical expenses. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that $10,000.00 amounts to a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Mr. Smith and payable to AHCA.
