The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Joni M. Doheny, from a settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On July 7, 2014, Ms. Doheny, who was then 57 years old, was a passenger on a motorcycle whose drunk driver veered into oncoming traffic and was struck by a sports utility vehicle (SUV), ejecting her from the point of impact approximately 100 feet through the air and over pavement. As a result of the accident, Ms. Doheny suffered severe, catastrophic and horrible injuries with wounds to her head, wounds to her arms, wounds to her hands and her left leg almost ripped from her body at the knee. Ms. Doheny was intubated at the scene and airlifted to Tampa General Hospital. She was diagnosed with compound fractures of her left tibia and fibula, puncture wound of her right knee, severe injury to her left arm and hand resulting in amputation of her left ring finger, a laceration to her forehead, and a traumatic brain injury. Amputation of her leg was recommended, but Petitioner elected to save her leg. She underwent numerous surgeries associated with her leg and other extensive injuries and was in the hospital until September 12, 2014. Ms. Doheny was again admitted to the hospital for treatment of her injuries on December 2 through 9, 2014, and January 21 through February 5, 2015. Throughout the process, she was in extreme pain and remains in pain to date. Currently, Petitioner cannot walk and requires a wheelchair for mobility. She has no significant function of her left hand and no significant function in her left leg. She is dependent on others for activities of daily living. She also has severe impacts to her emotional well-being and suffers from depression, anxiety and pain. Her condition is permanent and she most likely will not be able to obtain employment sufficient to support herself or replace the income/earning capacity she had as a realtor prior to her injuries. She is no longer a Medicaid recipient. Petitioner’s past medical expenses related to her injuries were paid by both personal funds and Medicaid. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $257,640.53. Unpaid out-of-pocket expenses totaled $119,926.41. Thus, total past healthcare expenses incurred for Petitioner’s injuries was $377,566.94. Ms. Doheny brought a personal injury claim to recover all her damages against the driver of the SUV (Driver) who struck the motorcycle Ms. Doheny was riding, her Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Policy (UM Policy), and the restaurant which had served alcohol to the driver of the motorcycle (Restaurant). Towards that end, Petitioner retained James D. Gordon, III, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims for over 30 years, to represent Petitioner in her negligence action against the Defendants. The Driver maintained a $10,000 insurance policy. On November 10, 2014, prior to suit being filed, Ms. Doheny settled her claim against the Driver for an unallocated $10,000. Ms. Doheny’s UM Policy had a policy limit of $300,000. Likewise, on November 10, 2014, Ms. Doheny settled her claim against her UM Policy for an unallocated $300,000. The Restaurant maintained a $1,000,000 liquor liability insurance policy. On September 2, 2015, and again prior to suit being filed, Ms. Doheny settled her claim against the Restaurant for $1,000,000. The settlements totaled $1,310,000.00 and do not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of her damages. As indicated, $310,000.00 of the settlements was not apportioned to specific types of damages, such as economic or non-economic, past or future. One million dollars of the settlements was apportioned with 20 percent of those funds allocated to past medical expenses. No dollar amount was assigned to Ms. Doheny’s future medical care needs, and there remains uncertainty as to what those needs will be. Additionally, neither Petitioner nor others on her behalf made payments in the past or in advance for her future medical care, and no claim for reimbursement, restitution or indemnification was made for such damages or included in the settlement. However, given the loss of earning capacity and the past and present level of pain and suffering, the bulk of the settlement was clearly intended to provide future support for Ms. Doheny. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s negligence action, around September 3, 2015. Thereafter, Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $257,640.53 against the proceeds of any award or settlement arising out of that action. Respondent was not a party to the 2015 settlements and did not execute any of the applicable releases. Mr. Gordon’s expert very conservative valuation of the total damages suffered by Petitioner is at least $5 million. In arriving at this valuation, Mr. Gordon reviewed the facts of Petitioner’s personal injury claim, vetted the claim with experienced members in his law firm and examined jury verdicts in similar cases involving catastrophic injury. The reviewed cases had an average award of $6,779,214 for total damages and $4,725,000 for non-economic damages (past and future pain and suffering). Mr. Gordon’s valuation of total damages was supported by the testimony of one additional personal injury attorney, R. Vinson Barrett, who has practiced personal injury law for more than 30 years. In formulating his opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett reviewed the discharge summaries from Petitioner’s hospitalizations. Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury trial verdicts and awards relied upon by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Barrett agreed with the $5 million valuation of Petitioner’s total damages and thought it could likely have been higher. The settlement amount of $1,310,000 is 26.2 percent of the total value ($5 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, 26.2 percent of $377,566.54 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid in part by Medicaid) is $98,922.54. Both experts testified that $98,922.54 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses. Their testimony is accepted as persuasive. Further, the unrebutted evidence demonstrated that $98,922.54 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses since Petitioner recovered only 26.2 percent of her damages thereby reducing all of the categories of damages associated with her claim. Given these facts, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Therefore, the amount of the Medicaid lien should be $98,922.54.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner from a settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On October 18, 2013, Jose Fourcoy, who was then 39 years old, was on the premises of an air-conditioning shop that refurbished air-conditioners, waiting for them to discard their scrap metal. While there, an employee who was disassembling an air conditioner with a blowtorch ignited a gas tank and caused an explosion and fire. The fire spread across the floor engulfing Mr. Fourcoy in flames. The fire was extinguished and Mr. Fourcoy’s long-term girlfriend/common law wife and young child, who were waiting for Mr. Fourcoy and witnessed the event, immediately took Mr. Fourcoy to the hospital. As a result of the accident, Petitioner suffered severe, catastrophic and very painful injuries with 2nd, 3rd and 4th degree burns to about 17 percent of his body, including both his legs, his right arm and the right side of his face, mouth and throat. He was admitted to the hospital on two occasions. Amputation of both legs was recommended but rejected by Petitioner. Eventually, Mr. Fourcoy spent one and a half months undergoing numerous surgeries and skin grafts first with pig skin and then with his own skin from other parts of his body. Throughout the process he was in extreme pain. Currently and as a result of the burn injury, he has neurological problems with his legs and other areas of his body including constrictions and chronic pain syndrome in both legs. Additionally, he has post-traumatic stress disorder, moderate to severe anxiety with flashbacks, irritability, forgetfulness and reduced self-regulation. The pain Mr. Fourcoy suffers is chronic and will be with him the rest of his life. His injuries have resulted in a 50-percent impairment of his whole body. Further, his chronic pain, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders have caused him not to be able to do the things he used to do, including loss of consortium, inability to enjoy playing with his young son, inability to play sports, and general inability to enjoy life. Mr. Fourcoy’s legs are deformed and disfigured and he cannot straighten them without severe pain. He is unable to wear long pants due to the pain they cause. Petitioner cannot walk and requires a wheelchair/rolling chair for mobility. He is dependent on others for activities of daily living. His condition is permanent and he most likely will not be able to obtain employment sufficient to support himself or replace the income/earning capacity he had as a scrap metal recycler prior to his injuries, which income could have provided for him during the 35.1 years he is expected to live. Petitioner is no longer a Medicaid recipient. Petitioner’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by both personal funds and Medicaid. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $119,673.33. Unpaid out-of-pocket expenses totaled $36,423.04. Thus, total past healthcare expenses incurred for Petitioner’s injuries was $156,096.37. Petitioner brought a personal injury claim to recover all his damages against the owner of the air-conditioning shop and premises where the accident occurred (Defendants). Towards that end, Petitioner retained Stuart H. Share, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims for over 30 years, to represent Petitioner in his negligence action against the Defendants. Ultimately, Petitioner settled his personal injury action for $850,000, which did not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of his damages. The settlement was allocated and the settling parties agreed that: 1) Mr. Fourcoy’s damages had a value in excess of $3,400,000, of which $156,096.37 represented his claim for past medical expenses; and 2) allocation of $39,024.09 of the $850,000 settlement to Mr. Fourcoy’s claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate based on the same ratio the settlement bears to the total monetary value of all Mr. Fourcoy’s damages. The General Release stated, in pertinent part: JOSE FOURCOY, has claimed damages in excess of $3,400,000, of which $156,096.37 represents JOSE FOURCOY’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of JOSE FOURCOY’s injuries and this settlement $39,024.09 has been allocated to JOSE FOURCOY’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all JOSE FOURCOY’s damages. Further, JOSE FOURCOY may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses JOSE FOURCOY will incur in the future. However, JOSE FOURCOY, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for JOSE FOURCOY’s future medical care and JOSE FOURCOY 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. No dollar amount was assigned to Petitioner’s future medical care needs, and there remains uncertainty as to what those needs will be. Additionally, neither Petitioner nor others on his behalf made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care, and no claim for reimbursement, restitution or indemnification was made for such damages or included in the settlement. On the other hand, given the loss of earning capacity and the past and present level of pain and suffering, the bulk of the settlement was clearly intended to provide future support for Petitioner. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s negligence action around July 13, 2015. Thereafter, Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $119,673.33 against the proceeds of any award or settlement arising out of that action. No portion of the $119,673.33 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Fourcoy represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. Respondent was not a party to the 2015 settlement and did not execute any of the applicable releases. Mr. Share’s expert and conservative valuation of the total damages suffered by Petitioner is at least $3,400,000. In arriving at this valuation, Mr. Share reviewed the facts of Petitioner’s personal injury claim, vetted the claim with experienced members in his law firm, and examined jury verdicts in similar cases involving catastrophic injury. The reviewed cases had an average award of $3,639,577.62 for total damages and $2,418,390.31 for non- economic damages (past and future pain and suffering). Mr. Share’s valuation of total damages was supported by the testimony of one additional personal injury attorney, R. Vinson Barrett, who has practiced personal injury law for more than 30 years. In formulating his opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett reviewed the discharge summaries from Petitioner’s hospitalizations. Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury trial verdicts and awards relied upon by Mr. Share. Mr. Barrett agreed with the $3.4 million valuation of Petitioner’s total damages and thought it could likely have been higher. The settlement amount of $850,000 is 25 percent of the total value ($3.4 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, 25 percent of $156,096.37 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid in part by Medicaid) is $39,024.09. Both experts testified that $39,024.09 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses. Their testimony is accepted as persuasive. Further, the unrebutted evidence demonstrated that $39,024.09 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses since Petitioner recovered only 25 percent of his damages, thereby reducing all of the categories of damages associated with his claim. Given these facts, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Therefore, the amount of the Medicaid lien should be $39,024.09.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that the Agency for Health Care Administration is entitled to $39,024.09 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander R. Boler, Esquire Xerox Recovery Services Group 2073 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 (eServed) Floyd B. Faglie, Esquire Staunton and Faglie, P.L. 189 East Walnut Street Monticello, Florida 32344 (eServed) Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stuart Williams, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
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, Joseph Pinto Domingo, referred to herein as either “Petitioner” or “Domingo,” to reimburse Medicaid for expenditures made on his behalf.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are derived from the exhibits and oral testimony at final hearing, as well as from the stipulated facts between the parties. On July 13, 2012, Domingo’s parents took him to a hospital emergency room (“ER”) with complaints of a persistent fever, runny nose, congestion and a cough. He was 24 months old at the time and had been sick for a few days. After evaluation by hospital ER staff, Domingo was found to have a fever of 103 degrees Fahrenheit. He was treated with Tylenol, but minutes later began to have seizures. He experienced on-going seizure activity that compromised his ability to breathe, resulting in a catastrophic hypoxic ischemic brain injury. As a result of his brain injury, Domingo is permanently disabled and unable to stand, walk, ambulate, speak, eat, toilet or care for himself in any manner. As a result of Domingo’s injuries, he suffered both economic and non-economic damages, including but not limited to: pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of ability to enjoy life, disability, disfigurement, lost ability to earn money, and extensive medical expenses, past and future. Of course Domingo’s parents also suffered extensively because of Domingo’s injuries. The medical care Domingo received for treatment of his injuries was paid for by Medicaid. The amount paid by Medicaid for his treatment was $641,174.03 (the “Lien Amount”). Domingo’s parents brought medical malpractice claims against the ER physician, the ER nurse practitioner, a professional association to which the doctor belonged, and the hospital. During the course of litigation, it was determined that a conservative value of Domingo’s claim for damages would be thirty million dollars ($30,000,000.00), referred to herein as the “Claim Amount.” After years of litigation, a settlement was reached wherein Domingo was to be paid ten million dollars ($10,000,000), which will be called the “Settlement Amount.” An undisclosed portion of the Settlement Amount, presumably 25 percent or $2,500,000, was paid for attorneys’ fees. Domingo’s recovery was therefore less than $10,000,000. The Settlement Amount was paid by two separate entities: 1) the physician, nurse practitioner, and their professional associations (collectively the “Association”); and 2) the hospital where Domingo presented to the ER for treatment. The Association paid $2,000,000 of the Settlement Amount and the hospital paid $8,000,000. Both entities entered into settlement agreements with Domingo (through his parents). Domingo offered into evidence a Complete Liability Release from the Association and a General Release from the hospital which Domingo’s representatives had signed. In the releases, the Association and the hospital were released from further liability for and in consideration of payments made to Domingo in the amounts described above. The releases, by their terms, are considered “settlement agreements” between the parties thereto. The hospital’s settlement agreement indicated that $170,937 was being allocated for Domingo’s past medical expenses, recognizing that the Settlement Amount was less than the perceived value of Domingo’s claim. The Association’s settlement agreement did not allocate any of the $2,000,000 sum specifically to past medical expenses; it did acknowledge that the Settlement Amount was less than the value of the Claim Amount. Domingo’s parents and legal counsel signed the releases, wherein all future claims against the defendants were barred. Neither the defendants in the malpractice case nor AHCA were signatories to the releases. The copies of the documents entered into evidence at final hearing were not signed by the Association or the hospital. Oddly, the documents do not even provide a place for the defendants to sign. Nor was there testimony from any principal of the Association or the hospital to verify the terms of the releases-qua-settlement agreements. Nonetheless, the gross Settlement Amount received by Domingo was only one-third, i.e., 33.3 percent, of the Claim Amount. All the parties hereto acknowledge that Domingo did not receive the full potential value of his claim in the Settlement Amount. Domingo continues to reside with his parents, who, despite the difficulties associated with Domingo’s injury and the stress related thereto, have remained married. The parents will be responsible for Domingo’s care for the rest of his life. The parties do not dispute that Domingo’s life situation is grave and serious. But that is not the issue in this proceeding. The economic and non-economic damages for Domingo include several factors: future medical expenses, loss of income, and past medical expenses comprise the economic portion; pain and suffering, loss of consortium, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and disability, to name a few, make up the non-economic damages. Of all the postulated damages, only the past medical expenses (i.e., the Lien Amount) are finite and absolute. In fact, the parties have stipulated that “[Domingo’s] medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid and Medicaid provided $641,174.03 associated with [Domingo’s] injury.” All the other damages are estimates by experts, based on comparisons of other cases and/or their professional experience. Domingo asserts that inasmuch as he received only about 33.3 percent of his Claim Amount, he should only have to pay 33.3 percent of the Lien Amount. His assertion is essentially based on a mathematical calculation which seeks to make Domingo as whole as possible. The calculation is offered as an equitable way to provide Domingo with more of the Settlement Amount than he might otherwise retain. As discussed more fully below, the mathematical calculation runs afoul of statutory provisions. The amount allocated by the hospital for Domingo’s past medical expenses ($170,397), is 26.6 percent of the Lien Amount. This is because the hospital’s share of the $10,000,000 settlement ($8,000,000) represents 26.6 percent of the alleged value of the claim, according to Petitioner. (The undersigned could not mathematically reconcile this percentage, but based on the findings and conclusions herein, the calculation is not relevant.) The Association did not allocate a specific amount for past and medical expenses, but Domingo argues that a factor of 33.3 percent should be applied to their settlement payment, as the Settlement Amount is 33.3 percent of the Claim Amount. Other than the accuracy of that mathematical calculation, Petitioner does not provide any basis for applying the percentage to the Lien Amount. AHCA was made aware of the settlement discussions between Domingo and his healthcare providers, but chose not to be involved in the process. Rather, AHCA established the amount of the lien and asserts that the entire Lien Amount should be paid from the Settlement Amount.
The Issue The issue is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("Respondent" or "ACHA"), in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioner, Jonathan Velez ("Petitioner" or "Velez"), from a third party, pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015).
Findings Of Fact On September 3, 2008, Velez, then a 14-year-old adolescent child was injured while playing football in Clewiston, Florida. On the date of the accident, Petitioner had a helmet to helmet (face to face) collision with another football participant. The collision caused a hyper-extended injury and Velez immediately fell to the ground and lost consciousness. Velez suffered a C5 burst fracture, a spinal cord injury, anterior cord syndrome and subsequent injuries originating from this accident, initially rendering him paralyzed. As a result of the injuries, and subsequent ramifications from said injuries, Velez suffered extensive permanent injuries and required extensive medical treatment in Miami, Florida, from September 3, 2008, through October 28, 2013. Petitioner sued numerous defendants for his injuries, but because of waiver and release forms signed by his guardian, the parties settled the case to avoid the possibility of summary judgment against Petitioner. Petitioner recovered $430,000.00 from a settlement against defendants. The settlement's allocation included: attorney's fees (40 percent) in the amount of $172,000.00; costs in the amount of $4,789.72; past medicals in the amount of $60,000.00; and future medicals in the amount of $20,000.00.1/ ACHA, through the Medicaid program, paid $142,855.89 on behalf of Petitioner for medical benefits related to the injuries sustained by Petitioner. Xerox Recovery Services, Respondent's collection's contractor, notified Petitioner that he owed $142,855.89 to satisfy a Medicaid lien claim from the medical benefits paid to him from the proceeds received from the third-party settlement. Petitioner contested the lien amount. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented, without objection, the expert valuation of damages testimony of Donna Waters-Romero ("Waters-Romero"). Waters-Romero has 30 years' experience in both state and federal courts and has solely practiced in the area of personal injury defense, including cases with similar injuries specific to this type of case. Waters-Romero's experience also encompasses evaluation of personal injury cases based on the review of medical records, case law, and injuries. In preparation for her testimony, Waters-Romero reviewed the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, evaluations, medical records, and defendant's motion for summary judgment along with the attached documents. She also met with Petitioner's attorneys and reviewed the mediation summary, exhibits, case law on Medicaid liens, letter of discharge, and release and settlement agreement. Waters-Romero also specifically researched three circuit court orders that were entered regarding allocation regarding Medicaid liens. To determine how to value Petitioner's claim, Waters-Romero relied on Wos v. E.M.A., 133 S. Ct. 1391(2013), a United States Supreme Court case, and on the circuit court cases as guidance. She determined that every category of the settlement should be reduced based on the ultimate settlement. During her evaluation, Waters-Romero also acknowledged the litigation risk in Velez's case due to the issues with the liability and the waiver and release. Based on her review, Waters-Romero opined that the overall value of Petitioner's claim was valued conservatively at $2,000,000.00, which was unrebutted. Waters-Romero's testimony was credible, persuasive, and is accepted. The evidence was clear and convincing that the total value of the damages related to Petitioner's injury was $2,000,000.00 and that the settlement amount, $430,000.00 was 21.5 percent of the total value. The settlement does not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of his damages. ACHA's position is that it should be reimbursed for its Medicaid expenditures pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the statutory formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting 25 percent attorney's fee of $107,500.00 from the $430,000.00 recovery, which yields a sum of $322,500.00. In this matter, ACHA then deducted zero in taxable costs, which left a sum of $322,500.00, then divided that amount by two, which yields $161,250.00. 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. 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 has established that the settlement amount of $430,000.00 is 21.5 percent of the total value ($2,000,000.00) of Petitioner's damages. Using the same calculation, Petitioner advances that 21.5 percent of $60,000.00 (Petitioner's amount allocated in the settlement for past medical expenses), $12,900.00, should be the portion of the Medicaid lien paid. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent should be reimbursed for its Medicaid lien in a lesser amount than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue The issue is what is the correct amount of workers’ compensation reimbursement to Largo Medical Center for emergency services rendered to patient M.C. for a work-related injury?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Guarantee, is a carrier within the meaning of Subsections 440.02(4) and (38), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(w). Respondent, the Department, has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the reimbursement of health care providers by carriers for medical services rendered to injured workers. § 440.13(7) and (11)(c), Fla. Stat. Intervenor, Largo, is a health care provider within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Largo is an acute care hospital located in Largo, Pinellas County, Florida. On July 25, 2009, Largo provided emergency services to patient M.C., a 32-year-old female, who was injured at her place of work. M.C. was examined by Largo’s emergency department physician. She received two Computed Tomography (“CT”) scans without contrast dye, one of the brain and one of the cervical spine. She also received a pregnancy test and an X-ray of her lumbar spine. The results of these diagnostic tests were negative. M.C. was given a cervical collar to wear, and was discharged. Largo’s total charges for M.C.’s outpatient emergency services were $7,885.05. Largo submitted its claim for reimbursement using the standard “uniform billing” form, UB-04. The UB-04 sets out each service provided to M.C., the individual charge for each service, and the total charge. The individual services on the UB-04 submitted for patient M.C. are listed as follows: urine pregnancy test; X-ray; CT scan of the cervical spine; a three-dimensional rendering of the image and its interpretation; the CT of the brain; and the emergency department visit itself. Largo’s claim was received by MCMC, an organization described as a “third-party administrator,” and was referred in turn to Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix is a medical bill-review agent located in Portland, Oregon. Qmedtrix performs bill review by referral from carriers and third-party administrators, and performed a bill review for Guarantee of the bill submitted by Largo. For its compensation, Qmedtrix is paid a percentage of the difference, if any, between the amount billed by the facility and the amount paid by the carrier. Following Qmedtrix’ review, Largo received a check from Guarantee in the amount of $5,287.97, along with an “Explanation of Medical Benefits” review (EOBR), which is required to be sent along with the bill payment. For reasons that are not clear, there are two EOBRs in evidence for this claim. One (Petitioner’s Exhibit 4) has the logo “MCMC” in the upper left hand corner and is substantially more formal. The other (Largo’s Exhibit 3) does not have any identifying logo, but the following statement appears on page two: “For questions regarding this review, please call MCMC at 1-888-350-1150.” It is not clear why MCMC would have generated two different EOBRs for the same claim, but, in any event, the allowed amounts for the six components of Largo’s charges and the total payment amount, $5,287.97, is the same on both EOBRs. The EOBR that is Largo’s Exhibit 3 sets out the six individual components of Largo’s claim, and indicates that the first five were approved for reimbursement at 75 percent of the charge billed by Largo. The sixth component is the charge for the emergency department visit itself. For that charge, Largo billed $1,365.38, of which 75 per cent would be $1,024.04. The EOBR indicates the corresponding 25 percent discount from billed charges ($341.35) under a column entitled “MRA,” and indicates further that an additional reduction of $625.81 was applied, leaving an approved payment of $398.22 for the emergency room component of the claim. The additional reduction of $625.81 is under a column entitled “Ntwk Redc,” and the narrative explanation under the total payment states, ”The network discount shown above is based on your contract with the network.” Guarantee conceded at hearing that there was no contract applicable to the claim. The EOBR also has references to “convalescent care” and “PIP days,” neither of which apply to Largo’s claim. The EOBR that is Guarantee’s Exhibit 4 has one column entitled “Qualify Code.” In completing an EOBR, insurers must select a code from a list of approximately 50 codes found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(o)2., which identifies the reason for the disallowance or adjustment. For the emergency room visit, the EOBR shows a code of 82, which is explained as follows: “Payment adjusted: Payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” Both EOBRs indicate a “procedure code” of 99283. The UB-04 submitted by Largo used code 99284. These codes are among five codes that are used by hospitals to bill emergency department visits based on “level” of intensity rendered. These codes are taken from the American Medical Association’s Current Procedural Terminology (or CPT), a coding system developed for physician billing, not for hospitals. Over the years, these CPT codes have been adopted by hospitals for billing emergency department visits. Emergency department services are billed with CPT codes 99281 through 99285. After receiving the payment and EOBR, Largo timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute, with attachments, to the Department. Largo alleged in its Petition that the correct reimbursement amount owed was $5,913.79, leaving an underpayment of $625.82. Qmedtrix, acting as Guarantee’s representative, then filed Guarantee’s Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute and attachments with the Department. Attached to the Response was a letter from R.W. von Sydow dated November 5, 2009. The letter asserted that the correct payment to the hospital (Largo) should be determined on an average of usual and customary charges for all providers in a given geographic area, rather than the hospital’s usual and customary charges. As authority, Mr. von Sydow cites the case of One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 958 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The letter also requested that the Department “scrutinize the bill in question in order to determine, first, whether the hospital in fact charged its usual charge for the services provided and, second, whether the billed charges are in line with the customary charges of other facilities in the community.” The letter further alleges that the hospital “upcoded” the emergency room visit, billing using CPT code 99284, asserting that the proper billing code should have been 99283. The letter concludes that the amount paid, $398.22, for the emergency department visit is closer to the “usual and customary” charges that Qmedtrix asserts, on behalf of Guarantee, is applicable to the claim. On November 13, 2009, the Department issued its Determination. The Determination states in pertinent part: The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges,” maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, and references a manual not incorporated by rule. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition does not conform to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Largo Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on July 25, 2009. Based upon the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $5,913.79 ($7,885.05 x 75% [Hospital Manual] = $5,913.79). The determination letter also informed Guarantee of its right to an administrative hearing. Guarantee timely filed a Request for Administrative Hearing, which gave rise to this proceeding. CODING FOR M.C.’S EMERGENCY SERVICES As mentioned above, Largo reported the emergency department visit using CPT Code 99284. No one from the hospital testified, but Largo’s expert, Allan W. March, M.D., reviewed Largo’s hospital record for M.C. Dr. March is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Johns Hopkins University Medical School. He has extensive experience in, among other things, hospital physician practice and utilization review. Dr. March describes utilization as the oversight of medical care to affirm that it is appropriate, cost-effective, and medically necessary. Dr. March has worked as an emergency department physician and has personally treated upwards of 5,000 workers’ compensation patients. Dr. March testified on behalf of Largo and the Department. Dr. March described M.C. and her injuries from the hospital record as follows: This is a 32-year-old female who had just slipped at her place of work prior to arrival at the emergency department and presented in moderate distress, with moderate pain in the head, neck, and lower back. And the patient displayed tenderness in the posterior neck area as well as in the right lower back. Dr. March reviewed Largo’s hospital record for M.C. to analyze whether Largo appropriately used CPT code 99284, or whether it should have used a lower CPT code. Largo’s coding for the emergency department visit is based on the American College of Emergency Physicians’ “ED Facility Level Coding Guidelines” (ACEP Guidelines). By using the ACEP Guidelines, Largo used a nationally recognized methodology in determining the level of service to which the hospital should bill. He noted that the hospital’s charge sheet indicated that the level of services was marked at a Level 4. Dr. March compared the hospital’s charge list with the ACEP Guidelines and found them to be essentially the same, and that the Level 4 marked on the charge sheet corresponded with CPT code 99284. Dr. March found that Largo used a nationally recognized methodology in determining the level of service to which the hospital should bill. In Dr. March’s opinion, Largo correctly assigned 99284 to M.C.’s emergency department visit, and that the assignment of 99284 is substantiated by the medical record. Under the ACEP guidelines, the CPT code level assigned is always the highest level at which a minimum of one “possible intervention” is found. In this case, Dr. March determined that two CT scans were ordered by the physician and performed by the hospital, which substantiates the use of a 99284 code under the ACEP Guidelines. Dr. March further explained that the coding level of a hospital does not correspond directly to the coding level assigned by the physician. The physician’s services are coded under the CPT-4 coding book. According to Dr. March, the CPT coding manual is applicable to facility coding only if the hospital chooses to use this manual as a basis in their methodology for coding. Further, Dr. March explained that the separate billing of the emergency department visit captures separate and distinct costs incurred by hospitals that are not included in line-items for procedures. The claim submitted by Largo was sent to Qmedtrix for a bill review. Its data elements were first entered into Qmedtrix’ proprietary bill-review software known as “BillChek.” The software placed Largo’s claim on hold for manual review. The claim was then manually reviewed by Mr. von Sydow, Director of National Dispute Resolution for Qmedtrix. Although his educational background is in law, Mr. von Sydow is a certified coder certified by the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). Mr. von Sydow determined in his bill review that Largo should have used code 99283 instead of 99284. Mr. von Sydow described what he considers to be inconsistencies between certain diagnosis codes under the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) and the CPT codes used to classify the emergency department visit. He considers the ICD-9 codes on Largo’s claim (specifically 959.01 used to indicate “head injury, unspecified”) to be inconsistent with CPT code 99284. In his view, ICD-9 corresponds more closely with CPT code 99283. Moreover, Mr. von Sydow referenced a study by the American Hospital Association (AHA) and AHIMA, which suggests that hospitals should count the number and kind of interventions to approximate the CPT factors, but that a hospital should not include in this count interventions or procedures, such as CTs or X-rays, which the hospital bills separately. He further acknowledged that the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) allow hospitals to use their own methodology in applying the CPT codes. David Perlman, M.D., received his undergraduate degree from Brown University and his medical degree from the University of Oregon. He has considerable experience as an emergency room physician. For the past six years, he has worked for Qmedtrix initially doing utilization review and as its Medical Director since 2005. Dr. Perlman testified on behalf of Guarantee. Dr. Perlman is familiar with the ACEP guidelines relied upon by Dr. March and the AHA/AHIMA study relied upon by Mr. von Sydow. He is also familiar with the CPT code handbook. Dr. Perlman suggested that the use of the ACEP guidelines could result in reimbursement essentially already provided in a separate line-item. He agrees with the methodology recommended by the AMA/AHIMA study. That is, counting the number and kind of interventions or procedures to approximate the CPT book’s factors to consider in selecting the code billed for emergency department services, but not including in this count interventions or procedures, such as CTs or X-rays, which the hospital bills separately. In Dr. Perlman’s opinion, M.C.’s injuries supported assignment of CPT code 99283 rather than 99284. The fact that M.C. underwent CT scans did not alter this conclusion. According to Dr. Perlman, use of a CT scan in a patient’s emergency department treatment determines that the facility may assign a 99284 code under the ACEP guidelines. In his opinion, this does not necessarily reflect the severity of the illness or injury. Dr. Perlman acknowledged, however, that hospitals are free to use the ACEP guidelines and that many hospitals do so. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that there is no national, standardized methodology for the manner in which hospitals are to apply CPT codes 99281-99285 for facility billing. The preponderance of the evidence also establishes that, while there is a difference of opinion as to whether ACEP guidelines are the best method, it is a nationally recognized method used by many hospitals. Largo’s use of this methodology is supported by the weight of the evidence as appropriate. M.C.’s hospital record amply documents the interventions required for the assignment of CPT code 99284 under the ACEP guidelines. Dr. March’s opinion that the separate billing of the emergency department visit captures separate and distinct costs incurred by hospitals that are not included in line-items for procedures is accepted. It is concluded that the coding of M.C.’s emergency department visit as 99284 by Largo was appropriate. There is no dispute that Largo’s charges as represented on the UB-04 form conform to its internal charge master, or that the services represented were in fact provided, or that they were medically necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a Final Order requiring Petitioner to remit payment to Largo consistent with the Determination Letter dated November 13, 2009, and Section 440.13(7)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's ("AHCA" or "the agency") Medicaid lien of $267,072.91 should be reimbursed in full from the $1 million settlement recovered by Petitioner or whether Petitioner proved that a lesser amount should be paid under section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulation between the parties (paragraphs 1 through 13 below), the evidence presented, and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: On January 13, 2016, Mr. Jay Hosek was operating his 1999 Chevy Trailblazer northbound on U.S. Highway 1, near mile marker 56, in Monroe County. At that same time and place, his vehicle was struck by a southbound tractor trailer. Hosek suffered catastrophic physical injuries, including permanent brain damage. Hosek is now unable to walk, stand, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Hosek's medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid, Medicare, and United Healthcare ("UHC"). Medicaid provided $267,072.91 in benefits, Medicare provided $93,952.97 in benefits and UHC provided $65,778.54 in benefits. Accordingly, Hosek's entire claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $426,804.42. Jirina Hosek was appointed Hosek's legal guardian. As legal guardian, Jirina Hosek brought a personal injury lawsuit against the driver and owner of the tractor trailer that struck Hosek ("defendants") to recover all of Hosek's damages associated with his injuries. The defendants maintained only a $1 million insurance policy and had no other collectable assets. Hosek's personal injury action against the defendants was settled for the available insurance policy limits, resulting in a lump sum unallocated settlement of $1 million. Due to Hosek's incompetence, court approval of the settlement was required and the court approved the settlement by Order of October 5, 2018. During the pendency of Hosek's personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $267,072.91 Medicaid lien against Hosek's cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene or join in Hosek's action against the defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of Hosek's settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Hosek's settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $267,072.91 on behalf of Hosek, all of which represents expenditures paid for Hosek's past medical expenses. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Hosek's $1 million settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $267,072.91 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited AHCA's 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). While driving his vehicle northbound, Hosek drifted into oncoming traffic, crossed over the center line, and struck a southbound vehicle in its lane head on. Petitioner had an indisputable and extremely high degree of comparative negligence in causing this tragic vehicle accident. Petitioner presented the testimony of Brett Rosen ("Rosen"), Esquire, a Florida attorney with 12 years' experience in personal injury law. His practice includes catastrophic and wrongful death cases. Rosen is board-certified in civil trial by the Florida Bar. He is a member of several trial attorney associations. Rosen represented Hosek and his family in the personal injury case. As a routine part of his practice, Rosen makes assessments regarding the value of damages his injured client(s) suffered. He stays abreast of personal injury jury verdicts by reviewing jury verdict reports and searching verdicts on Westlaw. Rosen regularly reads the Daily Business Review containing local verdicts and subscribes to the "Law 360," which allows him to review verdicts throughout the country. Rosen was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency. Rosen testified that Hosek's case was a difficult case for his client from a liability perspective, since all the witnesses blamed Hosek for the crash and the police report was not favorable to him. In his professional opinion, had Hosek gone to trial, the jury could have attributed a substantial amount of comparative negligence to him based upon the facts of the case. There was also a high possibility that Hosek might not receive any money at all, since Hosek's comparative negligence in the accident was very high. Rosen explained the seriousness of Hosek's injuries, stating that Hosek may have fallen asleep while driving and his car veered over and crossed the centerline. It hit an oncoming commercial truck, which caused his vehicle to flip resulting in severe injuries to him. Rosen testified that Hosek is unable to communicate since he received catastrophic brain injury from the accident and is unable to care for himself. Rosen provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. He testified that the case was worth $10 million, and that this amount is a very conservative valuation of Hosek's personal injuries. He also generalized that based on his training and experience, Hosek's damages could range anywhere from $10 to $30 million at trial. He testified that Hosek would need future medical care for the rest of his life. This future medical care has a significant value ranging from $15 to $25 million.1/ Rosen testified that he reviewed other cases and talked to experts in similar cases involving catastrophic injuries. After addressing various ranges of damages, Rosen clarified that the present value of Hosek's damages in this case was more than $10 million dollars. Although he did not state specific amounts, he felt that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have a significant value in addition to his economic damages.2/ Rosen believed that a jury would have returned or assigned a value to the damages of over $10 million. He testified that his valuation of the case only included the potential damages. He did not take into account Hosek's "substantial amount" of comparative negligence and liability.3/ Despite doing so in other personal injury cases, Rosen did not conduct a mock trial in an effort to better assess or determine the damages in Hosek's case. Rosen testified that Hosek sued the truck driver, Alonzo, and Alonzo's employer. He further testified that Hosek was compensated for his damages under the insurance policy carried by the truck driver and his company and settled for the policy limits of $1 million dollars representing 10 percent of the potential total value of his claim. Rosen did not obtain or use a life care plan for Hosek, nor did he consider one in determining his valuation of damages for Hosek's case. Rosen did not provide any specific numbers or valuation concerning Hosek's noneconomic damages. Instead, he provided a broad damage range that he said he "would give the jury" or "be giving them a range of $50 Million for past and future."4/ Rosen testified that he relied on several specific factors in making the valuation of Hosek's case. The most important factor for him was to determine what his client was "going through" and experience his client's "living conditions."5/ Secondly, he considers the client's medical treatment and analyzes the client's medical records. Based on these main factors, he can determine or figure out what the client's future medical care will "look like."6/ Petitioner also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett ("Barrett"), Esquire, a Tallahassee trial attorney. Barrett has more than 40 years' experience in civil litigation. His practice is dedicated to plaintiff's personal injury, as well as medical malpractice and medical products liability. Barrett was previously qualified as an expert in federal court concerning the value of the wrongful death of an elderly person. This testimony was used primarily for tax purposes at that trial. Barrett has been accepted as an expert at DOAH in Medicaid lien cases in excess of 15 times and has provided testimony regarding the value of damages and the allocation of past medical expenses. Barrett has handled cases involving catastrophic brain injuries. He stays abreast of local and state jury verdicts. Barrett has also reviewed several life care plans and economic reports in catastrophic personal injury cases. He routinely makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by parties who have received personal injuries. Barrett determines the value of these damages based primarily on his experience and frequent review of jury verdicts. Barrett was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency.7/ Barrett testified that Hosek had a catastrophic brain injury with broken facial bones and pneumothoraxes, all sustained during an extremely violent head-on collision with a commercial truck. This assessment was based on the case exhibits and the "fairly limited medical records" he reviewed. He believed that Hosek would need extensive and expensive medical care for the rest of his life. However, no details were offered by Barrett.8/ Barrett provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. This was based on his training and experience. Barrett did not provide a firm number for Hosek's damages. Instead, he offered a nonspecific and broad range of damages. Barrett testified that Hosek's damages "probably" have a value in the range of $25 to $50 million, and the range of Hosek's future medical care would be $10 to $20 million. However, he felt that $10 million was a "very, very, very conservative" estimate of damages, primarily because he felt that future medical expenses would be so high. Barrett stated that Hosek's economic damages would have a significant value exceeding $10 million and that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have an additional value exceeding $10 million. Barrett acknowledged that he did not consider or take into account Hosek's "huge comparative negligence" in estimating the total value of the case. Instead, he only considered the amount(s) that would be awarded for damages. He testified that Petitioner's degree of comparative negligence would reduce each element of damages he was awarded. As a result of Hosek's very significant comparative negligence, Barrett testified that a trial would have likely resulted in a "complete defense verdict" against Hosek or with only minor negligence attributed to the truck driver or his company. Barrett felt that a jury in Hosek's case would not have awarded Hosek "more than one million dollars or so." Barrett explained that in a trial for personal injuries that each element of damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff on the verdict form is reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff's comparative negligence. Barrett also explained that when the jury verdict assigns ten percent of the negligence to the defendant and 90 percent of the negligence to the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable for paying only ten percent of each element of the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Barrett testified that he does not believe that the $1 million settlement fully compensated Hosek for his injuries and that a potential award of $10 million would be a conservative value of Hosek's claim. While both experts provided broad and nonspecific ranges for the value of Hosek's claims, they both summed up their testimony by concluding that $10 million was a very conservative estimate of Hosek's total claim. AHCA did not call any witnesses. The agency presented Exhibit 1, entitled "Provider Processing System Report." This report outlined all the hospital and medical payments that AHCA made on Hosek's behalf, totaling $267,072.91. On the issue of damages, the experts did not provide any details concerning several of Petitioner's claims, including the amount of past medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, or damages for pain and suffering. The burden was on Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence to prove that the "proportionality test" it relied on to present its challenge to the agency's lien under section 409.910(17)(b) was a reliable and competent method to establish what amount of his tort settlement recovery was fairly allocable to past medical expenses. In this case, the undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to carry this burden.9/ There was no credible evidence presented by Petitioner to prove or persuasively explain a logical correlation between the proposed total value of Petitioner's personal injury claim and the amount of the settlement agreement fairly allocable to past medical expenses. Without this proof the proportionality test was not proven to be credible or accurate in this case, and Petitioner did not carry his burden. There was a reasonable basis in the record to reject or question the evidence presented by Petitioner's experts. Their testimony was sufficiently contradicted and impeached during cross-examination and other questioning. Even if the experts' testimony had not been contradicted, the "proportionality test" proposed by Petitioner was not proven to be a reliable or accurate method to carry Petitioner's burden under section 409.910(17)(b). To reiterate, there was no persuasive 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 that asserted by the agency.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount payable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Respondent) in satisfaction of its $157,983.63 Medicaid lien asserted against medical malpractice settlement proceeds received by Hunter Lamendola (Hunter), a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Ashley Lamendola (Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact On June 26, 2012, Petitioner presented to the hospital with a history of contractions for six hours prior to her arrival at the hospital. She had been placed on bed rest for gestational hypertension five days prior to arriving at the hospital. When she arrived, she had hypertension. Petitioner was admitted to the labor and delivery unit at 8:33 p.m. Petitioner was placed on a fetal monitor and progressed through her course of labor. Her initial fetal monitoring showed the baby was healthy and well-oxygenated, however, throughout the course of labor, the fetal monitor exhibited signs that the baby was in significant distress. At 4:01 a.m. on June 27, 2012, Petitioner was given an epidural, and after a course of labor, Hunter was delivered at 3:47 p.m. through an operative vaginal delivery. Hunter suffered permanent and catastrophic brain damage during his birth. As a result, Hunter is unable to eat, speak, toilet, ambulate, or care for himself in any manner. Hunter’s medical care related to the delivery was paid by Medicaid. The Medicaid program through AHCA provided $157,983.63 in benefits. The Medicaid program through the Department of Health Children’s Medical Services Title XIX MMA – Pedicare (DOH), provided $26,189.66 in benefits; the Medicaid program through a Medicaid-managed care organization, known as Amerigroup Community Care (Amerigroup), provided $51,696.99 in benefits; and the Medicaid program through a Medicaid-managed care organization, known as WellCare of Florida (WellCare), provided $13,239.19 in benefits. Accordingly, the sum of these Medicaid benefits, $249,109.47, constituted Hunter’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Petitioner brought a medical malpractice action against the medical providers and staff responsible for Hunter’s care (Defendant medical providers) to recover all of Hunter’s damages, as well as her own individual damages associated with Hunter’s injuries. The medical malpractice lawsuit was settled through a series of confidential settlements totaling $10,000,000 and this settlement was approved by the Court. During the pendency of Hunter’s medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action, and AHCA asserted a $157,983.63 Medicaid lien against Hunter’s cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $157,983.63 on behalf of Hunter, all of which represents expenditures paid for Hunter’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $157,983.63 paid through the Medicaid program on behalf of Hunter represent expenditures for future medical expenses, and Medicaid did not make payments in advance for medical care. Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), Florida Statutes, to Hunter’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $157,983.63 Medicaid lien. 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). At the final hearing, Mr. Harwin, who represented Hunter and his family in the underlying medical malpractice action, testified, and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Harwin is a member of several trial attorney associations, stays abreast of jury verdicts relative to birth injuries, and ascertains the value of damages suffered by injured parties as a routine part of his practice. Mr. Harwin was familiar with and explained Hunter’s catastrophic brain injury giving rise to Petitioner’s claim. He also explained that, as a result of Hunter’s injury, Hunter is blind, fed through a feeding tube, unable to control his arms, legs or head, and suffers between six to eight seizures per day. Mr. Harwin testified that Hunter’s injury has also had a devastating impact on Hunter’s mother, Ashley Lamendola. According Mr. Harwin, considering Hunter’s past medical expenses, a life care plan for Hunter’s care prepared by an economist, and the extent of non-economic damages, and in light of determinations of mock juries and a jury consultant in this case, as well as Mr. Harwin’s familiarity with jury verdicts reached in similar cases, Hunter and his mother’s damages have a value in excess of $35,000,000. Mr. Harwin’s testimony as to the value of Petitioner’s claim was credible and is accepted. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Mr. Barrett, who was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett has been accepted as an expert in valuation of damages in a number of other Medicaid lien cases before DOAH. Mr. Barrett has been a trial attorney for 41 years, with a primary focus on plaintiff personal injury cases, including medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. Mr. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts and often makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. After familiarizing himself with Hunter’s injuries through review of pertinent medical records and Petitioner’s exhibits, Mr. Barrett offered his opinion, based upon his professional training and experience, as well as review of comparable jury verdicts, that a conservative value of the damages suffered would be “$35,000,000 to $50,000,000.” Mr. Barrett’s testimony as to the value of Petitioner’s claim was credible and is accepted. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of Petitioner’s claim, or propose a differing valuation of the damages. Based upon the unrebutted evidence presented by Petitioner’s experts, it is found that a conservative value of Petitioner’s claim is $35,000,000. Attorney’s fees for the underlying medical malpractice case leading to Petitioner’s $10,000,000.00 settlement totaled $4,500,000.00, with costs of $490,486.33. While the formula under section 409.910(11)(f) determines amounts distributable to Medicaid after attorney’s fees and taxable costs, there is no language in section 409.910(17)(b) suggesting that attorney’s fees or costs should be subtracted from settlement proceeds in determining whether a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated to reimburse Medicaid. Costs and attorney’s fees are not an element of Petitioner’s damages and were not subtracted from the settlement proceeds in determining whether a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated to AHCA’s Medicaid lien. Considering the valuation of Petitioner’s claim at $35,000,000.00, Petitioner’s $10,000,000.00 settlement represents only a 10/35ths recovery of Petitioner’s damages. Multiplying that same 10/35 fraction to the $157,983.63 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program for past medical expenses results in the proportional sum of $45,138.18 from the settlement proceeds available to satisfy AHCA’s Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Patrick Osmond (Petitioner), from settlement proceeds received by Petitioner from third parties.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was injured in a single-vehicle collision after he and several underage friends were served alcoholic beverages at an Applebee’s restaurant, owned by Neighborhood Restaurant Partners, LLC (Applebee’s). As a result of his injuries, Petitioner brought suit against Applebee’s, for dram shop liability, and against Joseph Raub, the driver of the vehicle in which Petitioner was a passenger, for negligence. The Complaint also included a claim against the bartender from Applebee’s, however, she was eventually dropped from the lawsuit. After a two-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Petitioner, awarding a total of $41,956,473.73 in damages, allocated as follows: Past Medical Expenses: $436,473.73 Future Medical Expenses: $15,000,000.00 Past Lost Wages: $20,000.00 Future Loss of Earning Capacity: $1,500,000.00 Past Non-Economic Damages: $5,000,000.00 Future Non-Economic Damages: $20,000,000.00 The past medical expenses included $303,757.77 for payments made by Medicaid through AHCA, $13,985.96 for payments administered through the Rawlings Company, and $118,730.00 which represented an outstanding bill from Petitioner’s neurosurgeon. After the verdict, Petitioner reached a settlement agreement with Applebee’s, whereby Applebee’s agreed to pay the sum of $4,300,000.00 to Petitioner. As a condition of the settlement with Applebee’s, the parties executed a Release that included the following language: 1.6 The parties agree that Patrick Osmond’s damages have a total value of $41,956,473.73 (Forty-One Million, Nine Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand, Four Hundred Seventy-Three Dollars and Seventy-Three Cents), of which $317,743.73 (Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand, Seven Hundred Forty-Three Dollars and Seventy-Three Cents)[1/] represents the past medical expenses paid for by Medicaid. Given the facts, circumstances and nature of Patrick Osmond’s injuries and this settlement, $35,568.73 (Thirty-Five Thousand, Five Hundred Sixty-Eight Dollars and Seventy-Three Cents) of this settlement has been allocated to Patrick Osmond’s claim for past medical expenses paid by Medicaid and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses paid by Medicaid. After the jury verdict was rendered, Petitioner recovered $25,000.00 in settlement from Joseph Raub and his insurers. As a condition of the settlement with Mr. Raub, the parties executed a Release that included the following language: The parties agree that Patrick Osmond’s damages have a total value of $41,956,473.73 (Forty-One million, Nine Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand, Four Hundred Seventy-Three Dollars and Seventy-Three Cents), of which $317,743.73 (Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand, Seven Hundred Forty-Three Dollars and Seventy-Three Cents) represents the past medical expenses paid for by Medicaid. Given the facts, circumstances and nature of Patrick Osmond’s injuries and this settlement, $190.43 (One Hundred ninety Dollars and Forty-Three Cents) of this settlement has been allocated to Patrick Osmond’s claim for past medical expenses paid by Medicaid and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses paid by Medicaid. After the verdict, Petitioner’s insurer, Geico General Insurance Company (“Geico”), paid its policy limits of $10,000.00 to Petitioner under his Uninsured and/or Underinsured Motorist Coverage. The documentary evidence did not reflect that payment, but its existence was acknowledged by both parties during the argument, and is accepted as a stipulation. The purpose for the payment was not disclosed. The burden in this case is on Petitioner to prove “that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past and future medical expenses.” There is no proof that the Geico settlement should be excluded from the amount available to satisfy the Medicaid lien. The $303,757.77 in Medicaid funds paid by AHCA is the maximum amount that may be recovered by AHCA. There was no evidence to suggest that statutory conditions precedent to AHCA asserting its claim or Petitioner bringing this action were not met. The Pre-hearing Stipulation, Respondent’s statement, the stipulation of facts, and the statement of issues of fact that remained to be litigated, indicate clearly that the issue of allocation of the settlement proceeds under sections 409.910(11)(f) and 409.910(17)(b) were the only issues in dispute remaining for disposition. There was no evidence that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement. There was no evidence of any manipulation or collusion by the parties to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to past medical expenses for Petitioner’s medical care. However, an issue remains as to the correct amount of “past medical expenses” to be used in establishing the proportional amount of those expenses vís-a-vís the total settlement. No portion of the $303,757.77 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Petitioner represented expenditures for future medical expenses, with all amounts reflected in its Provider Processing System Report being for past medical expenses incurred.
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.
