The Issue The issue to be decided in this proceeding is the amount to be paid to Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or AHCA), from the proceeds of a personal injury settlement received by Sergio Museguez to reimburse Medicaid for expenditures made on his behalf.
Findings Of Fact Sergio Museguez was catastrophically injured as a result of being struck by lightning on June 15, 2012. Mr. Museguez has been diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and suffers from cognitive dysfunction, including, but not limited to, significant problems with memory, orientation, initiating and executive functions. Mr. Museguez is also incontinent as to bowel and bladder. The above-described conditions are permanent and will never resolve. Mr. Museguez’s employer, MG3 Developer Group (MG3), failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance or any other effective insurance coverage that would cover the injuries he sustained on June 2012, or that would cover his wife Leidi Hernandez’s loss of consortium suffered as a result of the accident. An action was filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 14-025861 CA 06, against MG3 for damages related to Mr. Museguez’s injuries and for Ms. Hernandez’s loss of consortium. MG3’s insurance carrier denied coverage and refused to defend the company because its insurance policy excluded coverage for employees. The Museguezes and MG3 entered into a settlement agreement in which they agreed to a judgment against MG3 in the amount of $5,000,000, but which included a payment schedule through which $1,000,000 would actually be paid to Petitioner by MG3. Only that $1,000,000 of the judgment has been or will be recovered by Mr. Museguez against MG3, because of MG3’s lack of available insurance coverage, and the lack of anticipated avenues of recovery pursuant to the terms of the settlement, dated June 16, 2016. The settlement agreement provided that the parties “acknowledge and agree that the One Million ($1,000,000) Dollar payment set forth above only represents twenty percent of the total injury/damage value of Museguez’s claim, and this fails to fully compensate Museguez for the injuries sustained in the incident at issue. Therefore, Museguez is specifically recovering only twenty percent (20%) of their damages for past medical expenses.” Ms. Hernandez waived her right to an apportionment of the recovery for her consortium claim in light of her husband’s condition and his need for extensive medical care and treatment for the rest of his life. She opted for any amount that would have been apportioned to her claim instead be apportioned directly to her husband. Mr. Museguez’s condition and need for continuing care is not in dispute. A life care plan identifying the goods and services necessary for Mr. Museguez was prepared by Lawrence S. Forman, an expert in rehabilitation life care planning. Mr. Forman has concluded that Mr. Museguez will require 24-hour attendant medical care for the rest of his life, in addition to a significant amount of future costs associated with his medical condition as a result of his injury. Mr. Forman’s opinions are outlined in his report dated April 8, 2016. Frederick A. Raffa, an economist, reviewed the life care plan for Mr. Museguez and determined that the present value of the anticipated medical expenses for Mr. Museguez is $7,943,963. He testified, unrebutted, that Mr. Museguez’s total losses were $8,424,028. In short, Mr. Museguez’s needs far outweigh the recovery received in this case. According to the United States Life Tables, 2012, Mr. Museguez is expected to live another 24.8 years. Todd Michaels is an attorney who was appointed as guardian ad litem for Mr. Museguez in the personal injury case. Mr. Michaels testified that he was appointed for the purpose of determining whether the settlement of Mr. Museguez’s claim was fair to him. Mr. Michaels concluded that the settlement was the product of an arm’s-length transaction and was a fair settlement of the claim. Mr. Michaels also was asked to provide an opinion regarding the value of Mr. Museguez’s claim. Mr. Michaels has practiced personal injury law for 15 years, and is generally familiar with the awards related to claims involving catastrophic injuries and, specifically, traumatic brain injuries. With respect to Mr. Museguez’s claim, Mr. Michaels described it as conservative but necessary given the lack of insurance coverage and significant possibility of insolvency should the case go to verdict. He noted that “without a settlement there was almost zero likelihood of recovery in that the issues of both the fact and law were hotly contested.” He acknowledged that the settlement was less than Mr. Museguez’s future medical needs, and ignored any claim for pain and suffering, as well as the consortium claim. He stated, “I understand what the situation was and they could have pushed forward and gotten a verdict of 30 million dollars and it would have been worth the paper it was printed on because of the circumstances.” Without the very real limitations provided in this case, where there was no insurance coverage, Mr. Michaels believed that the fair settlement value would be about $13 to $15 million. However, his explanation as to how he reached that range was conclusory at best. Mr. Michaels testified that he did not “physically parse it out.” He started with the number $8,424,000 and went from there. He did not consult other attorneys, or do specific jury verdict research, but simply relied on his knowledge from practicing in this area and reviewing jury verdicts on a regular basis. It seems that the “fair value” of a claim must by necessity consider not only the level of a plaintiff’s damages, but the likelihood of success and any issues of liability, comparative fault, collectability, and the like. Here, while Petitioner’s damages are unfortunately much higher than the settlement amount, Petitioner’s witness testified that under the circumstances of this case, the settlement was fair. The undersigned finds that the fair settlement value of this case, given all of the circumstances, is the amount reflected in the settlement, i.e., $5,000,000. The undersigned also finds, consistent with the language in the settlement agreement, that Petitioner recovered only 20 percent of his past medical expenses. The taxable costs associated with the action at law were $27,812.46. While the parties in this proceeding stipulated to the amount of these costs, they did not stipulate to the amount of the attorney’s fees related to the claim, and it does not appear that any evidence to substantiate the amount of attorney’s fees actually paid was included in this record. Mr. Museguez received medical services from Medicaid. On December 1, 2016, the Agency notified counsel for Mr. Museguez that Medicaid’s lien for medical expenses paid on his behalf was $116,032.84. There was no evidence presented to indicate that the Agency was a party to the settlement negotiations between Petitioner and MG3, or whether the Agency was notified of the litigation prior to the execution of the settlement. Petitioner deposited the amount of the Medicaid lien into an interest-bearing account for the benefit of the Agency in accordance with the requirements of section 409.910, and in compliance with the requirements of bringing an action to contest the amount of the lien before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Petitioner’s actions constitute “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b). Application of the formula contained in section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioner’s $1,000,000 settlement would require payment to the Agency in the amount of $116,032.84, the actual amount of the funds expended by Medicaid.
The Issue The issue to be determined is what amount of the $10,652.23 Medicaid lien held by Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("Respondent" or "Agency"), is recoverable by Respondent from the $65,000.00 settlement reached by Petitioner, Tya-Marie Savain ("Petitioner" or "Savain"), in her related personal injury action.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulation between the parties, the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact: On the afternoon of May 27, 2015, Petitioner, who was 19 years of age, was a pedestrian walking northbound across Forrest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida. As she was crossing the road in daylight, she was hit by a vehicle operated by Kenneth Knowles. (JPHS p. 5, ¶ 1). As a result of the collision, Petitioner suffered a fractured femur requiring open reduction internal fixation to repair her leg and a second surgery to remove the medical hardware. Petitioner suffered additional injuries (during the accident), including a left eye laceration, and road rash with scarring on her hands, elbows, chin, ears, forehead, mouth, and other body parts. (JPHS p. 5, ¶ 2). Respondent expended $10,652.23 in medical assistance through its Medicaid program for the benefit of Petitioner related to her fractured femur and the two resulting surgeries caused in the accident. (JPHS p. 5, ¶ 4). Petitioner’s extensive injuries necessitated surgery and resulted in significant medical treatment and related medical expenses (see, e.g., Pet. Exs. 2-12, 23). Petitioner brought a personal injury action for negligence against the liable third party and driver, Kenneth Knowles, in Palm Beach County, Florida. Kenneth Knowles had bodily injury coverage with Allstate Insurance Company in the amount of $15,000.00. Knowles paid an additional $50,000.00 out of his pocket resulting in a gross settlement of $65,000.00 for the personal injury claim brought by Savain.4/ (JPHS p. 5, ¶ 3). Following resolution of Petitioner’s personal injury action, her counsel advised the Agency of the settlement through correspondence dated April 10, 2017. Counsel explained to the Agency that Savain would not be recovering the full value of her damages and requested that Respondent accept a reduced amount in full satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. (JPHS p. 5, ¶ 6). Respondent replied to Petitioner’s counsel in writing on June 22, 2017, and stated that Medicaid would not accept any reduction from the full lien amount of $10,652.23. (JPHS p. 6, ¶ 8). There was no evidence that the Agency participated in, approved of, or was consulted concerning Petitioner’s settlement with Kenneth Knowles. In addition to the Medicaid lien, Petitioner had total medical bills of $182,660.42, and has outstanding bills and liens (excluding Respondent’s Medicaid lien) totaling $38,899.51. Accordingly, Petitioner’s total outstanding past medical expenses, including the Agency’s Medicaid lien is $49,551.74. (JPHS p. 6, ¶ 7). Both parties stipulated that the application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioner’s $65,000.00 settlement requires payment to the Agency in the amount of $10,652.23 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. (JPHS p. 5, ¶ 5). There was no evidence presented to prove or suggest that the Agency provided a lesser amount of medical assistance than the $10,652.23 it asserted it had expended. Further, there was no evidence presented to prove what portion of the $65,000.00 settlement was allocated by Petitioner and Kenneth Knowles to her past medical expenses.5/ The affidavit of Attorney Eric Morales, proffered by Petitioner, opined that the "value" of Petitioner’s claim was between $550,000.00 and $750,000.00. (Pet. Ex. 24). These figures supposedly represent the total sum of Petitioner’s range of damages. Morales was of the opinion that the settlement reached by Petitioner represented five percent, on the high end, and 3.6 percent, on the low end, of the actual value of her claim.6/ The undersigned finds and concludes that the affidavit is an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matters asserted in it. It does not supplement or explain other admissible evidence, and Petitioner has advanced no case authority or exception to the hearsay rule which would permit its use or consideration by the undersigned. Morales’s affidavit is classic hearsay. See Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); and B.C.S., S.R.L. v. Wise, 910 So. 2d 871, 874 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). As such, it cannot be considered or used by the undersigned to establish or support any findings of fact in this case and is stricken from consideration or use by the undersigned. Petitioner, therefore, did not present any admissible evidence to support a finding of the actual value of her personal injury claim or to support the "pro-rata" or "proportionality" formula she advanced through her counsel’s arguments.7/ To reiterate, there was no evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that (1) a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by the Agency, or (2) that Medicaid provided a lesser amount of medical assistance than the $10,652.23 asserted by the Agency.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or Agency), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Leigh Ann Holland (Petitioner), from a medical-malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third-party.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 19, 2010, Petitioner entered the North Florida Women’s Physicians, P.A. facility in Gainesville, Florida, for the birth of her second child. North Florida Women’s Physicians, P.A. (NFWP) operates in space leased from the North Florida Regional Medical Center (NFRMC). The two are separate entities. By all accounts, Petitioner was in good health at the time of her admission. The child, Colt, was delivered on November 19, 2010, by a nurse midwife employed by NFWP. After Colt was delivered, Petitioner was transferred to a room at the NFRMC, where she was attended to by staff of the NFRMC. However, decisions regarding her care remained the responsibility of the health care providers and staff of the NFWP. On November 21, 2010, Petitioner was slated for discharge. The NFRMC nurse attending was concerned that Petitioner was exhibiting low blood pressure, an elevated heart rate, and some shaking. Petitioner’s nurse midwife was off-work on November 21, 2010. The NFRMC nurse called the nurse midwife at her home. The substance of the call was disputed, with the NFRMC nurse asserting that she expressed her concern with Petitioner’s condition, and with the nurse midwife asserting that the NFRMC nurse failed to convey the potential seriousness of Petitioner’s condition.3/ Regardless, Petitioner was discharged on November 21, 2010. Over the course of the following two days, Petitioner’s health deteriorated. On November 23, 2010, Petitioner was taken to the hospital in Lake City. Her condition was such that she was sent by Life Flight to Shands Hospital (Shands) in Gainesville. While in route to Shands, Petitioner “coded,” meaning that, for practical purposes, she died. She was revived by the Life Flight medical crew. As a result of the efforts to revive her, drugs were administered that had the effect of drawing blood away from her extremities and toward her core organs. Petitioner’s fingers and toes were affected by blood loss. They mostly recovered, except for her right big toe, which later had to be partially amputated. Petitioner has since experienced some difficulty in balance and walking normally. Upon arrival at Shands, Petitioner was admitted with post-partum endometritis which had developed into a widespread sepsis infection. She spent the next three months in the hospital, and underwent five surgeries. She had 2/3 of her colon removed and underwent two ileostomies. She bears scars that extend from sternum to pelvis. While in the hospital, her body temporarily swelled to twice its normal size, leaving her with scars and stretch marks on her torso and legs. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $148,554.69. Because Petitioner’s ability to process food and absorb nutrients is so dramatically compromised, she must use the restroom 9 to 15 times per day, occasionally with no advance warning which can lead to accidents. Thus, both her social life and her ability to get and hold employment are severely limited. Petitioner has little stamina or endurance, limiting her ability to play and keep-up with her six-year-old son. Her sex life with her husband is strained, due both to issues of physical comfort and body image. Finally, Petitioner can have no more children, a fact rendered more tragic by Colt’s unexpected death at the age of three months, scarcely a week after Petitioner’s release from the hospital. As a result of the foregoing, Petitioner suffered economic and non-economic damages. Therefore, Petitioner filed a lawsuit in Alachua County seeking recovery of past and future economic and non-economic damages. Petitioner’s husband also suffered damages, and was named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Named as defendants to the lawsuit were NFWP and NFRMC. Medicaid is to be reimbursed for medical assistance provided if resources of a liable third party become available. Thus, Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $148,554.69 against any proceeds received from a third party. NFWP was under-insured, which compelled Petitioner to settle with NFWP for its policy limits of $100,000. As a result, NFWP was removed as a party to the ongoing lawsuit. Of the NFWP settlement proceeds, $18,750.00 was paid to Respondent in partial satisfaction of its Medicaid lien, leaving a remaining lien of $129,804.69. On July 10, 2013, and November 15, 2013, Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Smith, provided NFRMC’s counsel, Mr. Schwann, with his assessment of the damages that might reasonably be awarded by a jury. Mr. Smith testified convincingly that a jury would have returned a verdict for non-economic damages well in excess of $1.5 million. However, in calculating the total damages, he conservatively applied the statutory cap on non-economic damages of $1.5 million that would have been allowed by the judgment. With the application of the capped amount, the total damages -- i.e., the “value” of the case -- came to $3.1 million. That figure was calculated by the application of the following: Past lost wages - $61,000 Future loss of earning capacity - between $360,000 and $720,000 Past medical expenses - $148,982.904/ Future medical expenses - $682,331.99 Past and future non-economic damages - $1,500,000 (capped) The elements of damages are those that appear on a standard jury form. The numbers used in assessing Petitioner’s economic damages were developed and provided by Mr. Roberts. The evidence in this case was convincing that the calculation of economic damages reflected a fair, reasonable, and accurate assessment of those damages. Mr. Smith was confident that the damages could be proven to a jury, a belief that is well-founded and supported by clear and convincing evidence. However, the existence of a Fabre defendant5/ led to doubt on the part of Petitioner as to the amount of proven damages that would be awarded in a final judgment. Counsel for NFRMC, Mr. Schwann, performed his own evaluation of damages prior to the mediation between the parties. Mr. Schwann agreed that a jury verdict could have exceeded $3 million. Although he believed the strengths of the NFRMC’s case to be significant, he had concerns as to “what the worst day would have looked like,” especially given the wild unpredictability of juries. In Mr. Schwann’s opinion, the NFRMC nurse, Ms. Summers, was a credible, competent and believable witness. However, the nurse midwife presented with a reasonably nice appearance as well. Thus, there was little to tip the balance of believability far in either direction, leaving it to the jury to sort out. Mr. Schwann understood Petitioner’s personal appeal, and the significant personal and intangible damages suffered by Petitioner, that could lead a jury to award a large verdict. He also credibly testified that juries were consistent in awarding economic damages “to the penny.” The case was submitted to mediation, at which the parties established a framework for a settlement. Given the uncertainty of obtaining a verdict for the full amount of the damages due to the Fabre defendant, NFWP, the parties agreed that the most likely scenarios would warrant a settlement with NFRMC for some fraction of the total damages. After mediation, Petitioner ultimately accepted a settlement offer of $700,000 from NFRMC, which reflected, after rounding, 22.5% percent of the total value of the case as estimated by Mr. Smith. Given the facts of this case, the figure agreed upon was supported by the competent professional judgment of the trial attorneys in the interests of their clients. There is no evidence that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement, taking into account all of the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. There was no evidence of any manipulation or collusion by the parties to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to the payment of costs expended for Petitioner’s medical care. On December 6, 2013, Petitioner and NFRMC executed a Release of Claims which differentiated and allocated the $700,000 total recovery in accordance with the categories identified in Mr. Smith’s earlier letters. As a differentiated settlement, the settlement proceeds were specifically identified and allocated, with each element of the total recovery being assigned an equal and equitable percentage of the recovery. The parties knew of the Medicaid lien, and of the formula for recovery set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). They understood that if the damages were undifferentiated, the rote formula might apply. However, since the Medicaid lien applied only to medical expenses, the parties took pains to ensure a fair allocation as to each element of the damages, including that element reflecting the funds spent by Medicaid. The differentiated settlement proceeds, after rounding, were allocated as follows: Past lost wages - $15,000 Future loss of earning capacity - $160,000 Past medical expenses - $35,000 Future medical expenses - $150,000 Past and future non-economic damages - $340,000 The evidence was clear and convincing that all elements of the damages were subject to the same calculation and percentage of allocation, were fact-based and fair, and were subject to no manipulation to increase or decrease any element. The full amount of the Medicaid lien (prior to the partial payment from the NFWP described herein) was accounted for and allocated as “past medical expenses” in the stipulated Release of All Claims that was binding on all parties. Respondent was not a party to the lawsuit or the settlement. Petitioner did not invite Respondent to participate in litigation of the claim or in settlement negotiations, and no one represented Respondent’s interests in the negotiations. Except for the amount recovered from the settlement with NFWP, Respondent has not otherwise executed a release of the lien. Respondent correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee from the $700,000.00 recovery leaves a sum of $525,000.00, half of which is $262,500.00. That figure establishes the maximum amount that could be reimbursed from the third-party recovery in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. Thus, application of the formula allows for sufficient funds to satisfy the unsatisfied Medicaid lien amount of $129,804.69. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $3.1 million total value of the claim was a reasonable and realistic value. Furthermore, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case, and on a competent and professional assessment of the likelihood that Petitioner would have prevailed on the claims at trial and the amount she reasonably could have expected to receive on her claim if successful, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constitutes a fair, just, and reasoned differentiated settlement for each of the listed elements, including that attributable to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
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 Robin McBride, pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2020),1 from settlement proceeds the estate received from third parties.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. 1 All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification, unless otherwise indicated. 2 At the final hearing, the parties stipulated that the total amount recoverable under the lien pursuant to the statutory formula found in section 409.910(11)(f) should be reduced to $39,265.00, to give Petitioner credit for additional taxable costs. On July 12, 2019, Robin McBride was catastrophically injured and died as a result of being struck by a vehicle (a Hummer 2) while riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. The vehicle struck Mrs. McBride after the driver failed to stop at a stop sign. Mrs. McBride was knocked off the bicycle and struck her head on the pavement. Following the accident, Mrs. McBride was initially conscious but incoherent, and was transported by fire rescue to the hospital. After she was admitted to the hospital, Mrs. McBride was placed in a medically-induced coma. Unfortunately, Mrs. McBride did not recover and died at the hospital on August 3, 2019, following a 22-day hospital stay. Mrs. McBride was survived by her husband, adult children, and grandchildren. She had been married to her husband for 35 years. At the time of her death, Mrs. McBride was a homemaker, but she was not employed elsewhere and earned no income. The McBride estate brought a personal injury action to recover for her wrongful death against the tortfeasor and his insurer. In 2020, the McBride estate settled the tort action for a total recovery of $110,000, representing the insurer’s policy limits of $100,000, and $10,000 contributed directly by the tortfeasor from his own funds. The tortfeasor had additional insurance under a commercial policy issued by another insurer. The commercial policy limits were $1 million, but coverage was denied because the vehicle that struck Mrs. McBride was not registered in the name of the tortfeasor’s business. AHCA was properly notified of the lawsuit and indicated it had paid benefits related to the injuries from the accident in the amount of $87,828.24. AHCA has asserted a lien, pursuant to the statutory formula reduction, of $39,265.00, against the settlement proceeds of $110,000. AHCA stipulated that Mrs. McBride’s estate suffered significant economic and non-economic damages due to Mrs. McBride’s injury and death, but did not stipulate as to the value of these damages. Petitioner presented claim valuation testimony from Louis Blanco, Esquire, the attorney who represented the McBride estate in the claim asserted against the tortfeasor and his insurer. Mr. Blanco has practiced personal injury law in Florida since 1994. Mr. Blanco placed a “conservative” value on the McBride claim of $1.1 million. Mr. Blanco estimated that economic damages for loss of support and services to the surviving spouse would range between $150,000 and $200,000 based on Mrs. McBride’s economic value as a homemaker. Economic damages also include past medical care, which was $87,828.24, the amount of the Medicaid lien. Mr. Blanco testified that the non-economic damages due to the estate— including the loss of companionship and pain and suffering—would exceed $800,000. Mr. Blanco also noted that liability was not an issue in the case given that the vehicle struck Mrs. McBride after the driver ran a stop sign. Mr. Blanco conducted an asset search of the tortfeasor and determined that an excess judgment against the tortfeasor would be uncollectible. Mr. Blanco testified that the tortfeasor contributed $10,000 of personal funds to settle the claim because he was very remorseful that he had caused the accident. Mr. Blanco emphasized the fact that the insurer paid its policy limits of $100,000 immediately after the death certificate was provided, an indication that the insurer valued the claim above its policy limits. The commercial insurer also requested the death certificate, but refused to pay after it was determined that there was no coverage due to the vehicle registration. Mr. Blanco testified that he believes the commercial insurer would have quickly tendered its policy limits of $1 million—had the claim been covered—because there was no liability defense and Mrs. McBride was survived by her husband of 35 years. Using the pro rata allocation methodology, Mr. Blanco testified that $8,782.82 of the $110,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses because the personal injury claim was settled for ten percent of its conservative value. Mr. Blanco’s testimony was credible and persuasive and is accepted. Petitioner also presented valuation testimony from Malcolm Purow, Esquire, an attorney who has practiced personal injury law in Florida for 30 years. Mr. Purow is board certified in Civil Trial Law by the Florida Bar. As to economic damages, Mr. Purow valued the damages for loss of support and services to the surviving spouse at $180,000, and damages for past medical care at $87,828.24, the amount of the Medicaid lien. Mr. Purow testified that adding non-economic damages to the economic damages raises the total value of the claim to $2 million. Mr. Purow conceded, however, that $1.1 million is an acceptable conservative value for the claim. Mr. Purow used the pro rata allocation methodology and found that that $8,782.82 of the $110,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses because the personal injury claim was settled for ten percent of its conservative value of $1.1 million. AHCA did not present any expert valuation testimony and did not propose a valuation that was less than $1.1 million. There is no reasonable basis to reject the testimony of Mr. Blanco or Mr. Purow, and their testimony that $1.1 million is a reasonable and conservative value for the McBride estate’s claim is accepted. The undersigned finds that the value of the McBride estate’s claim is $1.1 million, and that $8,782.82 of the $110,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses.
The Issue The issue to be decided in this proceeding is the amount to be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA” or the “Agency”), from the proceeds of a personal injury settlement received by Petitioner, Amanda Soto (referred to herein as either “Petitioner” or “Soto”), to reimburse Medicaid for expenditures made on her behalf.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are derived from the exhibits and oral testimony at final hearing, as well as the stipulated facts between the parties. When Soto was 11-years old, she suffered extensive physical harm as a result of negligent medical care. She has bi-lateral, no-light blindness, a severe seizure disorder, hemiparesis/right-side weakness, and significant loss of cognitive abilities. Now 19-years old, Soto requires daily one- on-one care at home and school. She will never regain her sight and suffers from depression because of her physical condition. This tragedy commenced when Soto, a normally developing adolescent, suffered a blow to her eye while swimming. She was taken to a hospital emergency room where she was diagnosed with sinusitis and prescribed oral antibiotics. Despite complying with her doctors’ orders, Soto continued to experience ever- progressing problems. About nine weeks after her first visit, Soto was again taken to the emergency room for treatment. Her condition was so severe at that time that she was transported to a specialty hospital for further evaluation and treatment. It was ultimately determined that two large abscesses had formed in Soto’s brain, which caused her to experience a stroke-like episode. Actions were then taken by her physicians in an attempt to drain the abscesses. The additional medical treatment failed to alleviate Soto’s problems, and her condition today is as described above. Soto sued several healthcare providers for her injuries. Her mother also joined in the lawsuit, seeking loss of consortium. Ultimately, negotiations between Soto’s attorneys and the defendants resulted in two settlements. One occurred while Soto was still a minor and had to be approved by the Court; the second occurred after Soto reached the age of majority. The value of Soto’s economic damages was established at $12,738,125, exclusive of pain and suffering. Her damages for pain and suffering was estimated at more than $20 million. After extensive litigation, Soto eventually settled with the defendants for $2,650,000. After deduction of attorneys’ fees in the sum of $1,060,000 and costs of litigation totaling $215,864.37, Soto received a lump sum settlement in the amount of $1,374,135.63 (the “Net Settlement Amount”). There was no allocation of the Net Settlement Amount between Soto’s injuries and her mother’s loss of consortium claim. The Net Settlement Amount constituted approximately 11.5 percent of the estimated value of Soto’s claims. Meanwhile, AHCA’s Medicaid program expended $231,666.01 towards Soto’s medical treatments. ACHA asserted a Medicaid lien for the amount it had expended for Soto’s care and treatment. The lien was in the amount of $231,666.01 (the “Lien Amount”). By law, Medicaid is allowed to recover the full amount it expends for care that could be paid by another source, whether the source is insurance coverage, litigation settlements, or other funds. Persons against whom AHCA asserts a Medicaid lien have the right to challenge the amount of the lien. Soto took advantage of that right, resulting in the instant proceeding. In accordance with prescribed laws and rules, Soto placed an amount equal to the Lien Amount into an interest-bearing account before she filed her challenge. Soto asserts that as she received only 11.5 percent of the value of her claim, she only needs to pay AHCA 11.5 percent of the Lien Amount, i.e., $26,641.59 ($231,666.01 times 11.5 percent). By the terms of her settlement agreement with the various defendants, Soto is not able to recover any additional money for her injuries. The statute of limitations has passed even if Soto wished to pursue other potential defendants. Thus, the Net Settlement Amount is all that she can ever expect to receive for her injuries. There is no dispute as to the severity or permanent nature of Soto’s injuries. A life care plan was created to identify and help deal with the various services that would be necessary to sustain Soto for the rest of her life.
The Issue The issue in this case is the amount of money to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Larry J. Griffis, from a personal injury claim settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Griffis was severely injured in an accident occurring on April 29, 2012. The accident occurred generally as follows: Griffis owned and operated a large truck with a long aluminum dump trailer attached. He hauled hazardous waste and other materials for a living. At the end of each job, Griffis would raise the dump trailer for the purpose of cleaning out any residual material. On the date of the accident, Griffis did not clean his trailer in the usual because of some obstruction on that date. Instead, he drove out into a field next to his house to clean the trailer. When Griffis raised the trailer to clean it, he failed to notice electrical lines just above his trailer. He raised the trailer into the lines, resulting in an extremely high voltage of electricity running through his body. As a result of the accident, Griffis was transported to the burn unit at Shands hospital in Gainesville for treatment of his extensive injuries. He had over 50 medical procedures while at Shands, including debridement, skin grafts, tracheostomies, multiple chest tubes, etc. He had 19 different complications while in the hospital, including infections and kidney failure. Over 30 percent of his body surface area was burned; 23 percent of those burns were third degree. While undergoing treatment, Shands gave him only a 22 percent chance of surviving. Griffis remained in the hospital for three and one half months. The medical bills for Griffis’ treatment totaled Griffis cost $1,363,285.65. Medicaid paid $48,640.57 of that total amount. The Veterans Administration (VA) paid $275,911.87. Shands was eventually paid $324,552.44 of its charges and wrote off over $1 million. Griffis filed a lawsuit against Suwannee Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“Suwannee”), seeking payment of economic and non-economic damages related to Suwannee’s alleged liability for the accident. After negotiations and mediation, a settlement was reached whereby Griffis was to receive the sum of $500,000 from Suwannee in full settlement of all his claims. After the settlement was reached between Griffis and Suwannee, the Agency attempted to enforce its lien, seeking repayment of the entire amount it had paid. Griffis, believing that less than the lien amount was actually owed, filed a Motion for Order Apportioning Damages as part of his pending lawsuit against Suwannee. The purpose of the motion was not to have the circuit court judge determine the amount of the Agency’s lien. The motion was filed to obtain an Order that would apportion the settlement among the lawful elements of damages to which Griffis was entitled. A hearing on the motion was set for April 14, 2015, before Circuit Court Judge Andrew J. Decker, III. The Agency was served a copy of the motion and the notice of hearing. The Agency filed an objection to the motion, seeking to relieve the circuit court of jurisdiction in favor of the Division of Administrative Hearings. See § 409.910 (17)(b), Fla. Stat. Griffis replied to the Agency’s objection, stating that “the purpose of the Motion is to differentiate or allocate the settlement among Mr. Griffis’ different elements of damages [rather than] asking this Court to resolve a Medicaid lien dispute.” At the Circuit Court hearing on Griffis’ motion, the Agency made an appearance and, in fact, cross-examined the expert witness who testified. The only testimony provided at that hearing was from retired District Court of Appeal Judge Edwin B. Browning, Jr. Judge Browning provided expert testimony as to the value of Griffis’ claim, which he set at $6 million. Mr. Smith also provided some argument in support of Griffis’ claim, but as an attorney, rather than a sworn witness. Judge Decker took the $6 million figure, plus economic damages in the sum of $211,518, plus past medical expenses of $324,552.44 for a total of $6,536,070.44. That was then divided into the $500,000 settlement figure amount. That resulted in a factor of 7.649 percent, which, applied to the “value of the case” amount, resulted in a figure of $458,919.49. Applying the factor to economic damages resulted in an amount of $16,179.01. The past medical expenses amount, once factored, resulted in a figure of $24,825.01.1/ After hearing the evidence presented at his motion hearing, Judge Decker entered an Order dated April 21, 2015, establishing the past medical expenses amount, i.e., the Agency’s lien, at $24,901.50. The Order did not address future medical expenses because they were not sought by Petitioner. Inasmuch as his future medical costs would be paid by VA, his attorneys did not add potential medical expenses to the claim.2/ A copy of Judge Decker’s Order was received into evidence in the instant proceeding (although, pursuant to section 90.202, Florida Statutes, it could have been officially recognized by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge). The Order, along with Griffis’ other exhibits and Mr. Smith’s testimony, constituted the evidence in this matter.
The Issue The issue is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), in satisfaction of Respondent’s Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioner, James T. Stirk, from a third party pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015).
Findings Of Fact On January 24, 2014, Petitioner, then 25 years old, was involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Petitioner struck the rear of a truck with a trailer near mile marker 129 on I-75 in Lee County, Florida. Petitioner was taken to Lee Memorial Hospital where he remained in a coma for a couple of months. He sustained a broken back at T-4 level, two broken arms, a fractured neck and internal injuries. As a result of his injuries, Petitioner is now a paraplegic from the chest down and confined to a wheelchair. Respondent is the state agency authorized to administer Florida’s Medicaid program. See § 409.902, Fla. Stat. Prior to the accident, Petitioner worked as an appliance and air conditioning repairman, earning $16 an hour. After the accident and his recovery, Petitioner has been unable to work and his only source of income is through a Social Security disability check of approximately $1,083 monthly. He believes he is now eligible for Medicare, which should start “next month” (August 2016). He rents a home ($750 monthly) and lives there with his four-year-old son. Petitioner brought a negligence claim against the truck driver to recover his damages sustained in the crash. Petitioner settled his negligence claim for $95,000.00. During the pendency of Petitioner’s claim, AHCA was notified of the third-party negligence claim. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside or otherwise object to Petitioner’s $95,000.00 settlement. Petitioner’s past medical care related to his motorcycle accident totaled approximately $929,589.46. Petitioner was insured under a Florida Blue ERISA Health Insurance Plan (Florida Blue) for a portion of the time he received medical treatment. He subsequently became eligible for Medicaid after being unable to work after the accident. Florida Blue paid approximately $501,487.30 towards Petitioner’s medical care. Medicaid paid $47,008.81 towards Petitioner’s medical care. No portion of this amount was paid for future medical expenses and no payments were made in advance for medical care. By letter dated January 20, 2016, AHCA, through its contractor Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a lien of $47,008.81 against Petitioner’s third-party negligence claim and settlement thereof. By letter dated January 21, 2016, Petitioner’s counsel provided Xerox Recovery Services the settlement information and requested the Medicaid lien be proportionally reduced to $714.05, 1.9 percent of the total value of Petitioner’s claim. By letter dated February 18, 2016, AHCA, through its contractor, applied the statutory formula to Petitioner’s gross settlement and requested a check in the amount of $32,062.25 for full satisfaction of its lien. Petitioner’s attorney forwarded payment of $32,062.25 from Petitioner’s settlement proceeds. The payment of these funds to AHCA constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Section 409.910(11)(f), provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (f) [I]n the event of an action in tort against a third party in which the recipient or his or her legal representative is a party which results in a judgment, award, or settlement from a third party, the amount recovered shall be distributed as follows: After attorney’s fees and taxable costs . . . one-half of the remaining recovery shall be paid to the agency up to the total amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid. The remaining amount of the recovery shall be paid to the recipient. For purposes of calculating the agency’s recovery of medical assistance benefits paid, the fee for services of an attorney retained by the recipient . . . shall be calculated at 25 percent of the judgement, award, or settlement. Pursuant to the formula set forth in 409.910(11)(f), Respondent should be reimbursed $32,062.25, the amount set forth in the February 18, 2016, letter. However, the statute provides a method by which a recipient may contest the amount designated as recovered medical expense damages payable to the agency pursuant to the formula set forth in subsection (11)(f). “In order to successfully challenge the amount payable to the agency, the recipient must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past and future medical expenses than the amount calculated by the agency” pursuant to the formula. § 409.910(17)(b), Fla. Stat. The testimony spoke in generalities and global assessments. The testimony did not explicitly disclose that a lesser amount of the total recovery should be allocated for past and future medical expenses in this instance. Ty Roland is an attorney with over 20 years’ experience representing plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death claims. The majority of Mr. Roland’s cases have been in the Fort Myers area. Mr. Roland was accepted as an expert in the valuation of the damages (in personal injury cases), and testified as to his opinion of the total value of damages in Petitioner’s underlying action. In formulating his opinion of the total value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Roland considered cases he has previously tried. Petitioner’s suit demanded $5 million; however, Mr. Roland estimated the value of Petitioner’s suit at $10 million. There were no specifics as to the elements of damages. Total recovery for Petitioner’s damages through settlement was $95,000, roughly 1.9 percent of the estimated total value of his damages. The parties stipulated the amount due under section 409.910(11)(f) is $32,062.25.
The Issue The issue is the amount of Petitioner’s $800,000 personal injury settlement payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA’s $187,950.01 Medicaid lien.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background On July 13, 2008, Carissa Gaudio (Carissa), then 26 years old, suffered severe physical injury and catastrophic brain damage when her car was struck by a train. Carissa received extensive medical intervention to save her life and address her injuries. Eventually, her medical condition stabilized and she was discharged to her parent’s home. While Carissa demonstrated consciousness and awareness, due to her catastrophic brain damage, she was unable to speak, ambulate, eat, toilet or care for herself in any manner. She was totally dependent on others for every aspect of her daily care. Carissa’s past medical expenses related to her injuries suffered on July 13, 2008, were paid by private health insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Medicare, and Medicaid. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida provided $494,868.51 in benefits, Medicare provided $6,364.89 in benefits, and Medicaid provided $187,950.01 in benefits. The combined amount of these benefits is $689,183.41, and this $689,183.41 represented Carissa’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Carissa, or others on her behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for Carissa’s future medical care, and 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. Due to Carissa’s incapacity, Carissa’s mother, Roseann Gaudio, was appointed her legal guardian. Roseann Gaudio, as Carissa’s mother and guardian, brought a personal injury action in Broward County, Florida to recover all of Carissa’s damages against the railway company and train engineer (“Tortfeasor”). On January 10, 2015, Roseanne Gaudio, as Carissa’s mother and guardian, settled Carissa’s personal injury lawsuit for $800,000. In making this settlement, the settling parties agreed that: 1) the settlement did not fully compensate Carissa for all her damages; 2) Carissa’s damages had a value in excess of $16,000,000, of which $689,183.41 represents her claim for past medical expenses; and 3) allocation of $34,459.17 of the settlement to Carissa’s claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate. Because Carissa was incapacitated, her settlement required Court approval. Accordingly, by Order Approving Settlement dated February 11, 2015, the Circuit Court Judge, Honorable Jack Tuter, approved Carissa’s settlement. As a condition of Carissa’s eligibility for Medicaid, Carissa assigned to AHCA her right to recover from liable third- parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of Carissa’s lawsuit, AHCA was notified of the lawsuit and AHCA, through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services Group, asserted a $187,950.01 Medicaid lien against Carissa’s cause of action and future settlement of that action. By letter of February 17, 2015, Carissa’s personal injury attorney notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed Final Release and a copy of the Order Approving Settlement. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. AHCA did not respond to Carissa’s attorney’s letter of February 17, 2015. AHCA did not file an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Carissa’s settlement with the Tortfeasor. The Florida Medicaid program spent $187,950.01 on behalf of Carissa, all of which represents expenditures paid for Carissa’s past medical expenses. Carissa died on August 12, 2015 (Death Certificate filed by Petitioner on September 11, 2015). No portion of the $187,950.01 paid by the Medicaid program represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. AHCA has determined that of Carissa’s $226,478.73 in litigation costs, $210,463.10 are taxable costs for purposes of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula calculation. Based on $210,463.10 in taxable costs, the section 409.910(11)(f) formula applied to Carissa’s $800,000 settlement, requires payment of $194,768.45 to AHCA in satisfaction of its $187,950.01 Medicaid lien. Since $187,950.01 is less than the $194,768.45 amount required to be paid to AHCA under the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $187,950.01 from Carissa’s $800,000 settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The full Medicaid lien amount has been deposited into an interest-bearing account pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b). At hearing, Petitioner called Joseph J. Slama, a board-certified civil trial lawyer. Mr. Slama handles aviation crash, products liability, roadway defect, and automobile accident cases, including handling catastrophic brain injury cases through jury trial. He stays abreast of jury verdicts through review of publications and participation in trial attorney organizations. He testified that he routinely evaluates his client’s injuries and makes assessments concerning the value of their damages, and he explained his process for making these determinations based on his experience and training. Mr. Slama was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Slama testified that he represented Carissa in relation to her personal injury action. He explained that he first met with Carissa and her mother after she was discharged home from the hospital. Mr. Slama testified that he had reviewed the accident report, Carissa’s medical records, taken depositions of witnesses and experts, and reviewed the Life Care Plan prepared by Craig H. Lichtblau, M.D. Mr. Slama explained in great detail the facts and circumstances of Carissa’s accident. He explained that Carissa’s car became stuck on the railroad tracks. Unfortunately, a train approached and shortly before impact, Carissa exited her vehicle. Her vehicle was struck by the train and she was propelled 167 feet from the point of impact. Mr. Slama testified that as a result of the accident, Carissa suffered catastrophic physical injury and brain damage. He testified that due to this catastrophic brain injury, Carissa was left in a semi-vegetative state and was unable to ambulate. While she was conscious and aware of her condition, she was unable to communicate other than with limited facial expressions. She lived in her parents’ living room where she received around the clock care, provided by her family, until her recent death. Mr. Slama testified that through his representation of Carissa, interactions with her, review of her medical records and reports, and based on his training and experience in similar cases, it was his opinion that the “minimum reasonable value” of Carissa’s damages was $16,000,000. He testified that this $16,000,000 would be the amount a jury would award in damages if the question of damages alone was presented to the jury, and he would be disappointed in this result because he would ask for much more in damages. Mr. Slama explained that the basis of his opinion was her past expenses, her need for future life care needs, and her non-economic damages, including pain and suffering, which would have been awarded from the date of her injury by a jury and would be a huge amount. Mr. Slama explained that Carissa’s lawsuit to recover all her damages had issues related to comparative negligence and disputed facts that called into question the responsibility of the defendants to pay for Carissa’s damages. He testified that based on these issues, Carissa’s lawsuit was settled for $800,000. Mr. Slama testified that this $800,000 settlement did not fully compensate Carissa for the full value of her damages and that based on the $16,000,000 valuation of all Carissa’s damages, the $800,000 settlement represented a five percent recovery of Carissa’s damages. He testified that because she only recovered five percent of her damages in the settlement, she “only recovered 5 percent of each and every element of her damages, including only 5 percent of her $689,183.41” claim for past medical expenses, or $34,459.17. R. Vincent Barrett has been a trial attorney since 1977 and is a partner with the Tallahassee law firm of Barrett, Fasig & Brooks. He practices in the area of medical malpractice and medical and pharmaceutical product liability. He has handled catastrophic injury cases and handled numerous jury trials. Mr. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts by reviewing Jury Verdict Reports, talking with other lawyers, and attending seminars. He testified that as a routine part of his practice, he ascertains the value of damages suffered by injured parties and has served as an expert in the valuation of damages in civil cases. Mr. Barrett was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Barrett testified that he was very familiar with Carissa’s injuries and had reviewed a substantial amount of Carissa’s medical records, the Life Care Plan, accident report, before and after pictures of Carissa, Day in the Life Video, the Second Amended Complaint, the Release, and the Order Approving Settlement. Mr. Barrett explained that he was familiar with the type of injury suffered by Carissa because he had handled a number of traumatic brain and orthopedic injury cases with injuries similar to Carissa’s. He testified that with respect to virtually every injury that Carissa suffered, he had handled a case that involved one or more of those injuries. Mr. Barrett stated that Carissa’s case is “one of the worst cases I’ve ever seen,” and he described Carissa’s accident and extensive injuries. Mr. Barrett explained that Carissa’s injuries were “horrible” and “dramatic” and that “tractor trailer versus car, train versus car, those kinds of cases are worth in a jury trial generally twice as much as in a regular car accident just because of the dramatic traumatic nature of the impact it has on jurors.” Mr. Barrett testified that Carissa’s damages had a value of at least up in the $30,000,000 range and that the valuation of her damages at $16,000,000 was extremely conservative. He explained that he had reviewed jury verdicts in developing his opinion as to the value of Carissa’s damages, and he compared a number of the verdicts he had reviewed with Carissa’s case, including the Mosley 2014 Broward verdict for $75,543,527, noting that the Mosley plaintiff, unlike Carissa, was left with limited verbal language and the ability to walk short distances with assistance. Mr. Barrett stated in relation to the $16,000,000 valuation of Carissa’s damages that, “in Broward County for a pretty, young, 26-year old, gainfully employed, Hispanic lady, who was engaged, it’s got to be the limit. I mean, some of those verdicts were $75 million and some of those people weren’t hurt as bad as Carissa. So, yes, it’s very conservative.” The testimony of Mr. Slama and Mr. Barrett that the minimum reasonable value of Carissa’s damages was $16,000,000 was unrebutted, and is credible. 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 ($200,000) and taxable costs ($210,463.10) from the $800,000 recovery, which yields a sum of $389,536.90, then dividing that amount by two, which yields a result of $194,768.45. 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. Since the Medicaid lien amount is $187,950.01, which is less than the $194,768.45 amount required to be paid to AHCA under the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $187,950.01 from Carissa’s $800,000 settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid 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 $34,459.17 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The settlement amount of $800,000 is five percent of the reasonable total value ($16 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, five percent of $689,183.41 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid by both Medicaid and private insurance) is $34,459.17. 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 The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Yesica Cardenas, from a personal injury settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On December 31, 2010, Yesica Cardenas (“Ms. Cardenas”) was a passenger on a motor scooter that was involved in an accident on State Road 112 in Miami, Florida. As a result of this accident, Ms. Cardenas suffered serious physical injury, including amputation of her left leg below the knee. (JPHS p. 8) Ms. Cardenas’ past medical expenses related to her injuries were paid in part by Medicaid, and Medicaid provided $89,518.80 in benefits. This $89,518.80 in benefits paid by Medicaid, combined with $12,449.80 in medical bills not paid by Medicaid, constituted Ms. Cardenas’ entire claim for past medical expenses. Accordingly, Ms. Cardenas’ claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $101,968.60. (JPHS p. 8) Ms. Cardenas, or others on her behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for Ms. Cardenas’ future medical care, and 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. Ms. Cardenas brought a personal injury lawsuit in Miami-Dade County to recover all of her damages against those responsible for her injuries (“Defendants”). (JPHS p. 8) On September 9, 2015, Ms. Cardenas compromised and settled her lawsuit with the Defendants for the amount of $240,000. (JPHS p. 8) In making this settlement, the settling parties agreed that: 1) the settlement did not fully compensate Ms. Cardenas for all her damages; 2) Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $2,400,000, of which $101,968.60 represented her claim for past medical expenses; and 3) allocation of $10,196.86 of the settlement to Ms. Cardenas’ claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate. In this regard, the General Release and Settlement Agreement (“Release”) memorializing the settlement stated: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate RELEASOR for the damages she has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to all claims against [Defendants] without regard to this settlement only compensating the RELEASOR for a fraction of the total monetary value of her alleged damages. The damages have a value in excess of $2,400,000, of which $101,968.60 represents RELEASOR’S claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of the RELEASOR’S alleged injuries and this settlement, the parties settled this matter for 10% of the value of the damages ($240,000.00) and as such, have allocated $10,196.86 of this settlement the RELEASOR’S claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of her other claims. 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 her 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 her 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. (JPHS p. 8-9) As a condition of Ms. Cardenas’ eligibility for Medicaid, Ms. Cardenas assigned to AHCA her right to recover from liable third parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of Ms. Cardenas’ personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA, through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $89,518.80 Medicaid lien against Ms. Cardenas’ cause of action and settlement of that action. (JPHS p. 9) By letter of September 11, 2015, AHCA was notified by Ms. Cardenas’ personal injury attorney of the settlement and provided a copy of the executed Release and itemization of $2,711.70 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $2,400,000, and the $240,000 settlement represented only a 10-percent recovery of Ms. Cardenas’ damages. Accordingly, she had recovered only 10 percent of her $101,968.60 claim for past medical expenses, or $10,196.86. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. (JPHS p. 9) AHCA did not respond to Ms. Cardenas’ attorney’s letter of September 11, 2015. (JPHS p. 9) AHCA did not file an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Ms. Cardenas’ settlement with the Defendants. (JPHS p. 9) AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. (JPHS p. 9) The Medicaid program spent $89,518.80 on behalf of Ms. Cardenas, all of which represents expenditures paid for Ms. Cardenas’ past medical expenses. (JPHS p. 9) No portion of the $89,518.80 paid by the Medicaid program on behalf of Ms. Cardenas represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. (JPHS p. 10) Ms. Cardenas is no longer a Medicaid recipient. (JPHS p. 10) AHCA has determined that $2,711.70 of Ms. Cardenas’ litigation costs are taxable costs for purposes of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula calculation. (JPHS p. 10) Subtracting the $2,711.70 in taxable costs and allowable attorney’s fees, the section 409.910(11)(f) formula applied to Ms. Cardenas’ $240,000 settlement requires payment of $88,644.15 to AHCA in satisfaction of its $89,518.80 Medicaid lien. Since the $89,518.80 Medicaid lien amount is more than the $88,644.15 amount required to be paid to AHCA under the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $88,644.15 from Ms. Cardenas’ $240,000 settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. (JPHS p. 10) Petitioner has 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). (JPHS p. 10) Testimony of Michael Weisberg Mr. Weisberg has been an attorney since 1967 and is a partner with Weisberg and Weisberg, P.A. Mr. Weisberg explained that he is a civil trial attorney who has spent 30 years handling insurance defense, and in the last 20 years has focused his practice on plaintiff personal injury. Mr. Weisberg testified that over his career, he has handled approximately 550 jury trials to verdict and he often handles cases involving catastrophic injuries. Mr. Weisberg testified that as a routine and daily part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Petitioner proffered Mr. Weisberg as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties, and AHCA did not object to the proffer. Mr. Weisberg was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Weisberg represented Ms. Cardenas relative to her personal injury action. He explained that as part of his representation, he reviewed Ms. Cardenas’ medical records, met with her doctors, reviewed the accident report, took the deposition of persons involved in the accident, took the deposition of witnesses to the accident, and met with Ms. Cardenas many times. Mr. Weisberg gave a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to Ms. Cardenas’ injury. He explained that Ms. Cardenas was a hostess at a restaurant in a Miami Beach hotel. After her shift ended, she was asked to stay and continue working. After the restaurant closed, she was unable to take the Metro Mover home because it ceased running at midnight. Instead, she was given a ride home by a co-worker who had a motor scooter. The co-worker’s motor scooter was too slow for the highway he chose to travel upon, and it was struck from behind by a motorcycle. Ms. Cardenas was thrown off the motor scooter. She was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital where her leg was amputated a few inches below the knee. Due to her lack of financial resources, Ms. Cardenas was provided limited rehabilitation and she was provided only a rigid prosthetic leg that did not have a flexible ankle/foot. Mr. Weisberg explained that this injury has had a negative impact on Ms. Cardenas’ life. Because of the limitations presented by having an amputated leg, she has had difficulty maintaining her relationship with her friends and has become isolated. She is unable to enjoy her previous pastime of shopping due to the injury and is unable to play with her son in the same manner as before. Mr. Weisberg testified that Ms. Cardenas’ injury has caused Ms. Cardenas to suffer from depression and “she is not a happy girl.” Mr. Weisberg testified that Ms. Cardenas’ claim for past medical expenses related to her injury was $101,968.60, which consisted of $89,518.80 in Medicaid benefits and $12,449.80 in medical bills not paid by Medicaid. Mr. Weisberg testified that Ms. Cardenas, or others on her 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. Weisberg testified that through his representation of Ms. Cardenas, review of Ms. Cardenas’ file, and based on his training and experience, he had developed the opinion that the value of Ms. Cardenas damages was “a minimum of five million dollars.” In support of his valuation, he compared Ms. Cardenas’ case to a case he had tried to jury verdict involving a man with a preexisting leg amputation who was struck by a bus and suffered a degloving injury to his other leg. This client regained use of the injured leg and the jury still awarded him $1.3 million. Mr. Weisberg explained that if that client’s less severe injury where he regained use of his injured leg, warranted a $1.3 million verdict, then “a person with no leg, a reasonable verdict, in my opinion . . . would be in excess of five million dollars.” Mr. Weisberg also testified that he “round tabled” Ms. Cardenas’ case with five other experienced attorneys, and they believed Mr. Weisberg’s valuation of Ms. Cardenas’ damages at $5 million was low. Further, Mr. Weisberg testified that he had reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 11 and he believed those cases were comparable to Ms. Cardenas’ case and supported his valuation of Ms. Cardenas’ damages as being in excess of $5 million. Mr. Weisberg explained that the driver/owner of the motor scooter Ms. Cardenas was riding, as well as the driver/owner of the motorcycle that struck the motor scooter, did not have liability insurance or assets, so no recovery was possible against them. Instead, a lawsuit was brought against the restaurant under the theory that by requesting Ms. Cardenas to work after her shift was finished, they caused her to be unable to use public transit and rely upon transport home by way of the motor scooter. Mr. Weisberg explained that the theory of liability was difficult and there were numerous disputed facts associated with the case. Based on these issues, Ms. Cardenas settled her case for $240,000. Mr. Weisberg testified that the settlement did not fully compensate Ms. Cardenas for the full value of her damages. Mr. Weisberg testified that based on the conservative valuation of all Ms. Cardenas’ damages of $2,400,000, the settlement represented a recovery of 10 percent of the value of Ms. Cardenas’ damages. Mr. Weisberg testified that because Ms. Cardenas only recovered 10 percent of the value of her damages in the settlement, she only recovered 10 percent of her $101,968.60 claim for past medical expenses, or $10,196.86. Mr. Weisberg testified that the settling Defendant was represented by experienced trial attorneys and that the settling parties agreed in the Release that Ms. Cardenas’s damages had a value in excess of $2.4 million, as well as the allocation of $10,196.86 of the settlement to past medical expenses. Mr. Weisberg further testified that the allocation of $10,196.86 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable and rational, as well as conservative, because it was based on a very low-end valuation of her damages of $2.4 million. If a higher valuation of her damages was used, the amount allocated to past medical expenses would have been much less. Mr. Weisberg 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 also testified 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. Testimony of Thomas Backmeyer Thomas Backmeyer has been an attorney since 1970, and since 1996, he has worked as a mediator. Prior to becoming a mediator in 1996, he was board-certified in civil trial law by the Florida Bar and the National Board of Trial Advocates. Mr. Backmeyer testified that he has handled 100 to 125 jury trials, 90 percent of which were personal injury cases. He further testified that in his practice he regularly made assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Petitioner proffered Mr. Backmeyer as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. AHCA did not object to the proffer, and Mr. Backmeyer was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Backmeyer testified that he was familiar with Ms. Cardenas’ injuries and had reviewed the hospital records from Jackson Memorial, pictures of Ms. Cardenas, the Complaint, and Petitioner’s exhibits. Mr. Backmeyer testified that in his opinion, Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $5 million to $10 million. He explained that his valuation was “based on my experience in handling jury trials. It’s based on my experience of dealing with cases over the last twenty years as a mediator, some of which involve amputations of, I can think of one that involved the amputation of a leg of a young lady.” Mr. Backmeyer also testified that he had reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 11 and he found those verdicts comparable with Ms. Cardenas’ case and supportive of his valuation of her damages. He discussed two of the verdicts in relation to Ms. Cardenas’ case. Mr. Backmeyer testified that he was aware of the Cardenas settlement, and that the parties had allocated $10,196.86 to past medical expenses based on a valuation of all damages of $2,400,000. He further testified that he believes allocation of $10,196.86 to past medical expenses was “a generous number” because he believed the value of the damages was much higher than the $2,400,000 valuation used by the parties in calculating the allocation to past medical expenses. AHCA did not propose a differing valuation of Ms. Cardenas’ damages or contest the methodology used by the parties to calculate the $10,196.86 allocation to past medical expenses. The testimony and evidence presented concerning the value of Petitioner’s damages, and the allocation to past medical expenses, was unrebutted. The evidence presented is not in conflict or ambiguous. The parties to the settlement agreed that: 1) Ms. Cardenas was not being fully compensated for all her damages in the settlement; 2) Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $2,400,000, of which $101,968.60 represented her claim for past medical expenses; 3) the parties allocated $10,196.86 of the settlement to past medical expenses based on the same ratio the settlement bore to the total monetary value of all damages; and 4) because there was no claim made for reimbursement, restitution, repayment, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past for future medical care, no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. AHCA was not a party or participant in the settlement. However, the unrebutted evidence and testimony is of sufficient quality and quantity to establish that the value of Ms. Cardenas’ damages was in excess of $2,400,000; the allocation of $10,196.86 to past medical expenses under the method of calculation used was reasonable, fair, and accurate; and no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that $10,196.86 of the settlement represents reimbursement for past and future medical expenses. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the $88,644.15 amount calculated by the Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue The issue in this case is the amount of the Petitioners' personal injury settlement required to be paid to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to satisfy its Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are the grandparents and legal guardians of Taya Rose Savasuk-Maldonado, who is 11 years old. On October 2, 2010, Taya and six family members were involved in a horrific car crash. The driver of another car (the tortfeasor) failed to stop at an intersection and slammed into the family van, which rolled over, ejecting three passengers, including Taya and her great-grandparents. The great- grandparents died on the pavement next to Taya, and Taya suffered severe injuries, including a skull fracture, pancreatitis, bleeding in her abdomen, and severe road rash that required multiple skin graft surgeries and dressing changes so painful that anesthesia was required. Taya has significant, permanent scarring, which has left her self-conscious and unwilling to wear any clothing that exposes her scars, including bathing suits and some shorts. Taya's emotional injuries include nightmares and grief over the loss of both great-grandparents. Other family members also suffered injuries. Taya required emergency and subsequent medical care that has totaled $257,567 to date. It is not clear from the evidence how much, if any, of that total was reduced when providers accepted Medicaid. Future medical expenses are anticipated, but there was no evidence as to the amount of future medical expenses. The tortfeasor had a $100,000/$300,000 Hartford insurance liability policy on the car he was driving at the time of the accident. Hartford agreed to pay the policy limits. The injured family members agreed that $200,000 of the policy limits should be paid to Taya. On October 14, 2013, Hartford and the Petitioners agreed that the Petitioners would release Hartford, the tortfeasor and his wife (the other owner of the car) in return for payment of $200,000 to be held in trust by the Petitioners' attorneys for distribution as follows: $60,000 to be paid to the Prudential Assigned Settlement Services Corporation to fund future payments to Taya beginning in year 2020; up to $84,095 to lienholders in amounts to be determined; and the balance to the Petitioners' attorneys. The parties to that agreement, which did not include AHCA, agreed that $51,513 of the $200,000 should be allocated to payment of Taya's medical bills, with the rest allocated to claims other than medical expenses. There was no evidence that anything has been paid to AHCA towards its Medicaid lien, or that anything has been paid into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA pending the determination of the amount of its Medicaid lien, which at the time was claimed to be $55,944. The owner of the family van involved in the accident had a $10,000/$20,000 GEICO underinsured motorist policy, which also paid the policy limits. Although the evidence was not clear, the Petitioners appear to concede that all $20,000 was recovered by them for Taya's benefit. There was no evidence as to when the family's claim against the GEICO policy settled, or as to any agreement how the $20,000 should be allocated between medical expenses and other kinds of damages. There was no evidence that any of the $20,000 was paid to AHCA towards its Medicaid lien, or into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA pending the determination of the amount of its Medicaid lien. In addition to the insurance policy settlements, the owners of the other car paid the family approximately $250,000 from their own assets, which the family members agreed to apportion among themselves in a manner that was not disclosed by the evidence. There was no evidence as to when those funds were paid to the family, or when any of those funds was paid to Taya's benefit, if any. The evidence was not clear whether any of those funds was paid towards Taya's medical expenses that were not paid by Medicaid. The evidence suggested that some of the $250,000 was paid towards Taya's medical expenses to date, but it is possible that some of those expenses were reduced when providers accepted Medicaid. There was no evidence that any of those funds was paid to AHCA towards its Medicaid lien claim, or into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA, pending a determination of the amount of its Medicaid lien. A personal injury lawyer, who also was Taya's guardian ad litem, testified that the value Taya's claims against the owners of the other car was approximately $1.4 to $1.8 million. He did not testify as to the amount future medical expenses would contribute to the total value he estimated. AHCA has paid $55,710.98 in Medicaid benefits to treat Taya for her accident injuries. (The Petitioners stipulated to this amount.) Lee Memorial Hospital provided medical services for Taya and claims that it is owed $38,317.05, for which it appears to claim a statutory lien. The evidence was that Lee Memorial refused to accept Medicaid in payment for those services. If Medicaid were accepted, the amount of AHCA's lien would be more than $55,710.98, but probably not $38,317.05 more.
