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 in this matter concerns the amount of the money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Malk S. Sunwabeh, a Medicaid recipient, following a settlement recovered from a third party by the Personal Representative of the Mr. Sunwabeh’s estate.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding determines the amount the Agency should be paid to satisfy a Medicaid lien following Petitioner’s recovery of a $275,000 settlement from a third party. The Agency asserts that it is entitled to recover the full amount of its $85,279.65 lien. Malk S. Sunwabeh, the person who received the benefit of the Agency’s Medicaid payments, died as a result of a hit-and-run accident. Petitioner is the duly appointed Personal Representative of Mr. Sunwabeh’s estate and is authorized to bring this action on his behalf. The accident that gave rise to this matter occurred on October 29, 2013. Early that morning, in pre-dawn darkness, Mr. Sunwabeh left his residence to walk to his high school. The well-worn path he followed led him to a divided roadway that ran in front of his school. With no crosswalk or intersection nearby, Mr. Sunwabeh walked straight across the road. Just after Mr. Sunwabeh stepped into the road, he was struck from behind by a car driven by another student. As he lay sprawled on the pavement, a second vehicle (a gas truck) ran over his body. After the accident, Mr. Sunwabeh was transported by ambulance to Shands Hospital in Jacksonville. He immediately underwent surgery. Tragically, Mr. Sunwabeh died during surgery. He was 16 years old. The Agency, through the Medicaid program, paid Shands Hospital a total of $85,279.65 for Mr. Sunwabeh’s medical care, which was the full amount of his medical expenses following the accident.3/ All of the expenditures Medicaid spent on Mr. Sunwabeh’s behalf are attributed to past medical expenses. No portion of the $85,279.65 Medicaid lien represents future medical expenses. Mr. Sunwabeh’s aunt, Kapitola Morgan (Petitioner), was appointed Personal Representative of Mr. Sunwabeh’s estate. Petitioner brought a wrongful death action to recover both the damages of Mr. Sunwabeh’s estate, as well as the individual statutory damages of Mr. Sunwabeh’s mother, against both drivers who hit Mr. Sunwabeh. Johnny Pineyro, Esquire, represented Petitioner in the wrongful death lawsuit. On June 10, 2015, Mr. Pineyro negotiated a $275,000 settlement for Petitioner with the second driver. Under section 409.910, the Agency is to be repaid for its Medicaid expenditures out of any recovery from liable third parties. Accordingly, when the Agency was notified of the wrongful death settlement, it asserted a Medicaid lien against the amount Petitioner recovered. The Agency claims that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect the full amount of the medical costs it paid on Mr. Sunwabeh’s behalf ($85,279.65). The Agency maintains that it should receive the full amount of its lien regardless of the fact that Petitioner settled for less than what Petitioner represents is the full value of the damages. (As discussed below, the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) allows the Agency to collect the full Medicaid lien.) Petitioner, on the other hand, asserts that, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of the settlement than the amount it calculated using the section 409.910(11)(f) formula. Petitioner specifically argues that the Agency’s Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately, taking into account the “true” value of Petitioner’s damages. Otherwise, the application of the default statutory formula would permit the Agency to collect more than that portion of the settlement that fairly represents compensation for past medical expenses. Petitioner insists that such reimbursement violates the federal Medicaid law’s anti-lien provision (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1)) and Florida common law. Therefore, Petitioner requests that the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s recovery be reduced to the amount of $9,065.23. To establish the value of Petitioner’s damages, Petitioner presented the testimony of Mr. Pineyro. Mr. Pineyro heads the Florida Injury Law Firm in Celebration, Florida. He has practiced law for over 20 years and focuses on personal injury, wrongful death, and aviation law. Mr. Pineyro handles jury trials and cases involving catastrophic injury. In his practice, he regularly reviews accident reports, expert reports, and medical records. Mr. Pineyro stays abreast of jury verdicts. He also discusses jury results with members of his firm and other personal injury attorneys. Mr. Pineyro testified that as a routine part of his practice, he ascertains the value of damages suffered by injured parties, and he explained his process for making these determinations. Mr. Pineyro was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured (and deceased) parties. Mr. Pineyro opined that the conservative value of Mr. Sunwabeh’s damages, as well as his mother’s claim for pain, suffering, and loss of her son’s companionship under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, at between $2,500,000 and $5,000,000.4/ In deriving this figure, Mr. Pineyro considered the accident and homicide reports, the medical examiner’s report, and Petitioner’s medical records. Regarding Mr. Sunwabeh’s mother’s damages, Mr. Pineyro described comparable jury verdicts which involved the death of a child. Mr. Pineyro also testified regarding the significant obstacles Petitioner faced to recovering the full amount of damages in the wrongful death lawsuit based on the disputed facts and circumstances of the accident, as well as insurance policy limits. As part of his representation of Petitioner, Mr. Pineyro deposed several fact and expert witnesses and visited the accident scene. Mr. Pineyro conveyed that the first driver who hit Mr. Sunwabeh was not covered by bodily injury insurance, nor did she possess recoverable assets. Therefore, collecting a full damages award against her would prove challenging. Furthermore, Mr. Pineyro expressed that Petitioner did not have a strong liability case against the second driver based on causation and comparative negligence issues. (Mr. Sunwabeh was wearing all black clothes which concealed his fallen body on the road in the early morning gloom.) Mr. Pineyro was prepared to argue a negligence theory asserting that the second driver failed to use reasonable caution and react in time to avoid driving over Mr. Sunwabeh. However, during his testimony, Mr. Pineyro conceded that a defense verdict in favor of the second driver was a real possibility. Consequently, Mr. Pineyro believed that it was in Petitioner’s best interests to settle the lawsuit. Based on Mr. Pineyro’s testimony that the $275,000 settlement did not fully compensate Ms. Sunwabeh’s estate or his mother for their damages, Petitioner argues that a lesser portion of the settlement should be allocated to reimburse Medicaid instead of the full amount of the lien. Petitioner proposes that a ratio should be applied based on the “true” value of Petitioner’s damage claim ($2,585,279) compared to the amount that was actually recovered ($275,000). Using these numbers, the settlement represents a 10.63 percent recovery of the total value of Petitioner’s damages. In like manner, the amount of the Medicaid lien should also be reduced to 10.63 percent or approximately $9,065.23. Therefore, Petitioner asserts that $9,065.23 is the portion of the third-party settlement that represents the fair and reasonable reimbursement of the amount Medicaid paid for Mr. Sunwabeh’s medical care. The Agency was not a party to the wrongful death lawsuit or Petitioner’s settlement. Petitioner was aware of the Medicaid lien and past medical expense damages at the time she settled the lawsuit. No portion of the $275,000 settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The undersigned finds that Petitioner did not meet her burden of proving that the “true” value of Petitioner’s damages from this accident equaled $2,585,279.65. Further, based on the evidence in the record, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Accordingly, the Agency is entitled to recover $85,279.65 from Petitioner’s recovery of $275,000 from a third party to satisfy its Medicaid lien.
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 to be decided is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), out of her settlement proceeds, as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Alia Juarez ("Alia") was born on September 12, 2016. A few hours after birth, Alia was found, in the arms of a relative in her mother's hospital room, to be unresponsive and not breathing. She was resuscitated, but suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of lack of oxygen. Due to the catastrophic and permanent brain damage, Alia is unable to ambulate, communicate, toilet, eat or care for herself in any manner. She is completely dependent on others for every aspect of her daily life. Alia's medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid and Medicaid provided $168,054.34 in benefits. Accordingly, Alia's entire claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $168,054.34. Alia's parents and natural guardians, Sandra Perez Luna and Jose Luis Juarez, brought a medical malpractice claim against the medical providers responsible for Alia's care ("Defendants") to recover all of Alia's damages associated with her injuries, as well as their own damages associated with their daughter's injuries. The medical malpractice claim against the Defendants was settled for a lump sum unallocated settlement of $925,000. Due to Alia being a minor, court approval of the settlement was required and the court approved the settlement by Order of November 26, 2018. As a condition of Alia's eligibility for Medicaid, Alia 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 Alia's medical malpractice claim, AHCA was notified of the claim. AHCA did not "institute, intervene in, or join in" the medical malpractice action to enforce its rights as provided in section 409.910(11), or participate in any aspect of Alia's medical malpractice claim against the Defendants. Instead, AHCA asserted a $168,054.34 Medicaid lien against Alia's cause of action and settlement of that action. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Alia's $925,000 settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $168,054.34 Medicaid lien. Petitioner presented the testimony of Alfred R. Bell, Jr., Esquire, a Florida attorney with 22 years' experience in personal injury law, including medical malpractice. Mr. Bell is board-certified in Civil Trial by the Florida Bar. He represented Alia and her family in the medical malpractice action. As a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured clients. He also stays abreast of jury verdicts in his area by reviewing jury verdict reporters and discussing cases with other trial attorneys. He was accepted as an expert in valuation of damages without objection. Mr. Bell explained the seriousness of Alia's injuries, stating that within a few hours of being born, Alia went from a healthy baby to a child who will never have a normal life. Mr. Bell testified that Alia is unable to swallow and requires suction every five to 15 minutes and will be dependent on others for her care for the remainder of her life. "I can't think of much worse to have happened to a child than the damages that she suffered," said Mr. Bell. The damages of Alia's parents are similarly catastrophic. Mr. Bell testified that he had reviewed life care plans and economist reports in cases involving similar injuries to children and the present value of Alia's future needs would approach $20 million. Further, her lost ability to earn money in the future would have a present value of $1.7 million. Mr. Bell testified that to these economic damages, the value of Alia's noneconomic damages would be added. Mr. Bell outlined that the "worst damage in my opinion that she sustained isn't an economic damage, it's the damage to the person because that's something that you can't give them back what's been taken away." Mr. Bell testified that Alia's noneconomic damages would have a similar significant value. Based on his training and experience, including the review of jury verdicts in comparable cases, Mr. Bell opined that the damages recoverable in Alia's case had a conservative value of $20 million. Petitioner also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire, a Tallahassee trial attorney with more than 40 years' experience. His practice is dedicated to plaintiff's personal injury, as well as medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. He has handled cases involving catastrophic brain injury to children and handles jury trials. He routinely makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. He was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages without objection. Based on his training and experience, Mr. Barrett opined that Alia's damages are conservatively valued in excess of $20 million. He testified that Alia's economic damages alone would have a value of $20 million and then, her noneconomic damages would also have a value of $20 million alone. In regard to the noneconomic damages, Mr. Barrett testified that the jury verdicts in cases comparable to that of Alia's case support his valuation of Alia's damages--noting that the average noneconomic award alone in those comparable verdicts was $19.4 million. Both experts testified that using $20 million as the value of all damages, Alia only recovered 4.63 percent of the value of her damages. Accordingly, they opined that it would be reasonable, rational, and conservative to allocate 4.63 percent of the settlement, or $7,780.92, to past medical expenses paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of damages, propose a different valuation of the damages, or contest the methodology used to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. In short, Petitioner's evidence was unrebutted. The testimony from Mr. Bell and Mr. Barrett is compelling and persuasive. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that $7,780.92 of the settlement represents reimbursement for past medical expenses.
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), out of her settlement proceeds as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018).
Findings Of Fact On April 21, 2011, Ms. Puzanskas gave birth to her son. After birth, Ms. Puzanskas began experiencing symptoms of nervousness, panic attacks, and being overwhelmed. On June 21, 2011, she called her doctor's office and described her symptoms to her midwife. Her midwife concluded that Ms. Puzanskas was depressed or experiencing "baby blues." Based on this telephonic diagnosis, the midwife arranged for a prescription of the anti-depressant psychotropic drug, Zoloft, to be called into Ms. Puzanskas' pharmacy. The next day after taking the Zoloft, Ms. Puzanskas again called her doctor's office with complaints that the Zoloft was causing her to feel strange and jittery. Ms. Puzanskas was instructed to continue taking the medication. On June 24, 2011, Ms. Puzanskas began suffering from severe depression and hallucinations. That same day, she went into her back yard and doused herself with gasoline and set herself on fire. She suffered third-degree full thickness burns over 30 percent of her body requiring multiple skin grafts, with scarring over 60 percent of her body from all burns and grafts. Ms. Puzanskas' medical care for the injuries was paid by Medicaid, which provided $54,171.70 in benefits associated with her injuries. This amount constituted her entire claim for past medical expenses. As a condition of her eligibility for Medicaid, Ms. Puzanskas assigned to the Agency her right to recover from liable third-party medical expenses paid by Medicaid. Ms. Puzanskas brought a medical malpractice action against the medical staff responsible for her care to recover all of her damages associated with her injuries. During the pendency of the lawsuit, the Agency was notified of the action. Although it did not dispute the ultimate settlement received by Petitioner or otherwise participate in any aspect of the litigation, the Agency asserted a $54,171.70 Medicaid lien against Ms. Puzanskas' cause of action and settlement of the action. In preparation for the trial, Petitioner's counsel used mock jury panels to evaluate their trial strategies, value of damages, and the likelihood of a defense verdict. Mock jurors split. Some would have returned a verdict for the defense, finding no liability, while others would have returned a verdict for Ms. Puzanskas and given her some limited damages. Still others would have given her a very high amount of damages. See Pet'r Ex. 9. Eleven mock jurors provided verdicts from approximately $16,554,000 down to approximately $554,000. The remaining six jurors would have returned zero-dollar verdicts. The average award in the 17 verdicts was $3,741,000. Nine of the 11 jurors who produced a verdict for Petitioner included approximately $54,000 in their verdict, and then added amounts ranging from $500,000 to $16,500,000. The $54,000 is representative of Petitioner's rounded hospital bills. The insurance policy covering the incident had limits of $250,000 and the medical providers had no collectable assets. After the first day of trial, the medical providers offered $500,000 to settle the case, and this was accepted. However, this amount did not fully compensate Petitioner for her injuries. Mr. Moore, an experienced trial attorney who represented Petitioner, testified that based on his training and experience, Petitioner's damages had a value in excess of $3,700,000. However, using a conservative number for purposes of this case, he valued her damages at $3,000,000. Thus, the $500,000 settlement represented a recovery of 16.6 percent of the value of her damages, and a similar percentage for past medical expenses. Therefore, he testified that an allocation of $8,992.50, or 16.6 percent of $54,171.70, would be a reasonable and conservative portion of the settlement for past medical expenses. Based on his training and experience and review of the medical records and file, Mr. Barrett, a trial attorney, valued Petitioner's damages between three and five million dollars. He also opined that $3,000,000 would be a very conservative figure. Using the same allocation method advocated by trial counsel, Mr. Barrett applied a 16.6 percent ratio to the Medicaid expenses, and concluded that an allocation of $8,992.50 of the settlement to past medical expenses is reasonable, rational, and appropriate. This testimony was not rebutted by the Agency, and the Agency did not present any evidence proposing a differing valuation of damages or contest the methodology used to calculate the $8,992.50 allocation to past medical expenses. The testimony from Mr. Moore and Mr. Barrett is compelling and persuasive. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that $8,992.50 of the settlement represents reimbursement for past medical expenses.
The Issue The matter concerns the amount of the money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Mark Crain, a Medicaid recipient, following a settlement recovered from a third party.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding determines the amount the Agency should be paid to satisfy a Medicaid lien following Petitioner’s recovery of a $100,000 settlement from a third party. The Agency asserts that it is entitled to recover $35,700, which is the amount it calculated using the formula set forth in section 409.410(11)(f). The facts that gave rise to this matter are found pursuant to a stipulation of the parties.3/ On June 23, 2016, Petitioner was working for a tree pruning company. Petitioner’s employer assigned him to remove several branches from a tree. As directed, Petitioner climbed to the top of the tree and secured himself with one rope lanyard. Unfortunately, after he began pruning, Petitioner cut through the rope lanyard, lost his balance, and plummeted 30 feet to the ground. As a result of the fall, Petitioner suffered significant physical and neurological injuries. Petitioner underwent multiple surgeries. His medical procedures included an open reduction with internal fixation on his right wrist, lumbar fusion surgery, and a lumbar laminectomy. At the final hearing, Petitioner’s counsel represented that Petitioner’s medical prognosis is not fully known at this time. However, what is known is that Petitioner will continue to experience serious neurologic deficits. Petitioner’s injuries have left him with overall mobility issues and have affected his ability to walk normally. He suffers from a right foot drop and has limited feeling below his waist. The parties also stipulated that Petitioner has completed all medical treatment and therapy related to his accident. However, Petitioner is uncertain whether or not he will be able to return to normal activities in the future. Petitioner incurred sizable medical expenses due to his injuries. The charges for Petitioner’s medical procedures totaled approximately $375,000. However, only $62,067.28 has actually been paid for his medical care. Of this amount, the Florida Medicaid program paid $41,992.33. (In addition to the $41,992.22 paid by Medicaid, other health insurance covered $20,075.06.) Petitioner did not present evidence of monetary damages other than his past medical expenses. Petitioner subsequently initiated a civil cause of action for negligence against his (former) employer. Petitioner alleged that he was not properly trained how to safely secure himself to the tree. According to Petitioner’s counsel, Petitioner’s employer should have instructed him to use two lanyards instead of one. After two years of litigation, Petitioner settled his negligence action for $100,000. The settlement did not allocate Petitioner’s award between past medical expenses and other damage categories. The Agency, through the Florida Medicaid program, paid a total of $41,992.33 for Petitioner’s medical treatment resulting from the accident.4/ All of the expenditures that Florida Medicaid spent on Petitioner’s behalf are attributed to past medical expenses. Under section 409.910, the Agency is to be repaid for its Medicaid expenditures out of any recovery from liable third parties. Accordingly, when the Agency was notified of the settlement of Petitioner’s lawsuit, it asserted a Medicaid lien against the amount Petitioner recovered. The Agency claims that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect $37,500 to satisfy the medical costs it paid on Petitioner’s behalf. (As discussed in endnote 7, the “default” formula in section 409.910(11)(f) allows the Agency to collect $37,500 to satisfy its Medicaid lien.) The Agency maintains that it should receive the full amount of its lien regardless of whether Petitioner settled for less than what Petitioner believes is the full value of his damages. Petitioner, on the other hand, asserts that the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of the settlement than the amount calculated using the section 409.910(11)(f) formula. Exercising its right to challenge the Medicaid lien pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Petitioner specifically argues that, taking into account the full value of Petitioner’s damages, the Agency’s Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately. Otherwise, the application of the statutory formula would permit the Agency to collect more than that portion of the settlement that fairly represents Petitioner’s compensation for past medical expenses. Petitioner requests the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s third-party recovery be reduced to $4,199.23. To establish the value of his damages, Petitioner submitted the medical bills from his accident, as well as relied upon the stipulated facts. Petitioner’s medical bills show that he sustained the injuries identified above, as well as underwent surgery on his spine and wrist. To place a monetary value on Petitioner’s injuries, Petitioner’s counsel represented that his law firm appraised Petitioner’s injuries at no less than $1 to 2 million. However, Petitioner did not introduce any evidence or testimony corroborating this injury valuation or substantiating an amount Petitioner might have recovered at trial in his personal injury cause of action.5/ Neither did Petitioner offer evidence of additional damages Petitioner might be facing from his accident, such as future medical expenses, loss of quality of life, loss of employment or wages, or pain and suffering. Based on his estimate, Petitioner’s counsel asserted that the $100,000 settlement is far less than the actual value of Petitioner’s injuries and does not adequately compensate Petitioner for his damages. Therefore, a lesser portion of the settlement should be allocated to reimburse Medicaid, instead of the full amount of the lien. Petitioner proposes that a ratio should be applied based on the full value of Petitioner’s damages (conservatively estimated at $1,000,000) compared to the amount that Petitioner actually recovered ($100,000). Using these numbers, Petitioner’s settlement represents a 10 percent recovery of Petitioner’s damages. In like manner, the Medicaid lien should be reduced to 10 percent or $4,199.23 ($41,992.33 times .10). Therefore, Petitioner asserts that $4,199.23 is the portion of his third- party settlement that represents the equitable and fair amount the Florida Medicaid program should recoup for its payments for Petitioner’s medical care. The Agency was not a party to Petitioner’s negligence action or Petitioner’s $100,000 settlement. No portion of the $100,000 settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The undersigned finds that, based on the evidence in the record, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s settlement should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Accordingly, the Agency is entitled to recover $37,500 from Petitioner’s recovery of $100,000 from a third party to satisfy its Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is the amount to be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“Respondent” or “AHCA”), to reimburse Medicaid for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner from proceeds of a personal injury settlement received by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on exhibits admitted into evidence, testimony offered by witnesses, and admitted facts set forth in the prehearing stipulation. Petitioner, William O’Malley, is the recipient of Medicaid for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. Respondent is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. On September 9, 2009, Petitioner, William O’Malley, lost control of his vehicle when it hydroplaned across three lanes of traffic. Mr. O’Malley’s vehicle left the roadway and struck a tree. While he was restrained with a seat belt, Mr. O’Malley suffered a severe brain injury, fractured skull, injury to his neck at the C6-C7 level, numerous fractured ribs, shattered spleen, lacerated liver, abdominal bleeding, a fractured ankle and other serious injuries. He remained in a coma for a number of weeks undergoing extensive surgical procedures to save his life. As a result of his severe and permanent injuries, Mr. O’Malley now suffers from cognitive deficits, is disfigured, and is unable to work. He receives disability payments due to his injuries. A portion of Mr. O’Malley’s past medical expenses related to his injuries was paid by Medicaid, in the amount of $196,125.72. Mr. O’Malley initiated a personal injury civil action to recover all his damages associated with his injuries against the construction companies who allegedly designed and constructed the roadway in a defective manner (“Defendants”). During the pendency of Mr. O’Malley’s personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action, and asserted a $196,125.72 Medicaid lien against any damages received by Mr. O’Malley. AHCA was not otherwise involved in the personal injury action or settlement. In October 2016, Mr. O’Malley’s personal injury action settled for the gross amount of $1,750,000. The General Release memorializing the settlement agreement provides as follows: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate William O’Malley for all of the damages he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Releasees without regard to this settlement only compensating William O’Malley for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. The parties agree that William O’Malley’s alleged damages have a value in excess of $20,000,000.00, of which $379,874.27 represents William O’Malley’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of William O’Malley’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $33,239.00 of this settlement to William O’Malley’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all William O’Malley’s damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that William O’Malley may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses William O’Malley will incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that William O’Malley, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for the First Party’s future medical care and William O’Malley 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 future medical expenses. By letter of October 13, 2016, Mr. O’Malley’s attorney notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed Release and itemization of $123,699.86 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Mr. O’Malley’s damages had a value in excess of $20 million and the settlement represented only 8.75 percent of the recovery of Mr. O’Malley’s $379,874.27 claim for past medical expenses. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $196,125.72 Medicaid lien. AHCA responded to Mr. O’Malley’s attorney’s letter and demanded full payment of the entire $196,125.72 Medicaid lien from the settlement. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $196,125.72 on behalf of Mr. O’Malley, all of which represents expenditures paid for Mr. O’Malley’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $196,125.72 paid by AHCA represented expenditures for future medical expenses. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Mr. O’Malley’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of $196,125.72, the actual amount of the medical expenses paid by Medicaid. Petitioner disputes that $196,125.72 is the amount of recovered medical expenses payable to Respondent, and instead asserts that $33,239.00 in medical expenses are payable to Respondent. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s dispute, 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). In support of his position, Mr. O’Malley presented the testimony of two experts, Steven Browning, Esquire, and Vinson Barrett, Esquire. Mr. Browning represented Mr. O’Malley in the personal injury action. He testified as an expert regarding the valuation of Mr. O’Malley’s personal injury claim. Mr. Browning has practiced law for 31 years, primarily representing plaintiffs. He is a partner of his law firm and handles serious personal injury, wrongful death, and catastrophic injury cases. Mr. Browning handles cases that result in jury trials and, thus, he routinely researches jury verdicts to determine potential value of cases. In the litigation of civil actions, he also prepares mediation statements regarding the value of cases. He reviews life care plans, economic reports, and past jury verdicts to determine the value of a case. Mr. Browning opined that $20 million constituted a very conservative valuation of damages suffered by Mr. O’Malley. He based this opinion on having represented Mr. O’Malley in the underlying personal injury action and on his knowledge of jury verdicts and settlements in recent Florida cases involving awards of damages to individuals with similar injuries as Mr. O’Malley. He emphasized that his valuation was far more conservative than many comparable cases that resulted in substantially higher verdicts or settlements. Mr. Browning concluded that the $1,750,000 settlement amount represented 8.75 percent of the damages suffered by Mr. O’Malley. He also opined that only 8.75 percent of the $196,125.72, the past medical expenses paid by Respondent, was recovered. Mr. Browning was accepted as an expert in this matter and his testimony was found to be persuasive. Mr. O’Malley also presented the testimony of Mr. Barrett regarding the valuation of Petitioner’s claim. Mr. Barrett has practiced law for approximately 35 years. He primarily practices in the areas of medical malpractice, pharmaceutical liability, and catastrophic injuries resulting from automobile accidents. Mr. Barrett routinely handles jury trials. Thus, he routinely monitors jury verdicts and determines the value of damages suffered in personal injury actions. He reviewed recent jury verdicts and the life care plan for Mr. O’Malley to formulate his opinion regarding the valuation of Mr. O’Malley’s claim. Mr. Barrett testified that $20 million to $25 million was the estimated value of Mr. O’Malley’s claim. He testified that the amount was a very conservative estimate of damages suffered by Mr. O’Malley. Similar to Mr. Browning, Mr. Barrett opined that allocating 8.75 percent to past medical expenses in the amount of $196,125.72 was a reasonable allocation of past medical expenses and reflected the amount recovered by Mr. O’Malley for past medical expenses. Respondent also presented an expert regarding the valuation of Mr. O’ Malley’s claim, Steven Carter. Mr. Carter has been licensed to practice law for 23 years. He is the managing shareholder of his law firm. He has handled catastrophic injury cases in which he determined the value of the claim. He has conducted 35 to 40 jury or bench trials. Mr. Carter was accepted as an expert regarding valuation of Mr. O’Malley’s claim. Mr. Carter testified that the value of Mr. O’Malley’s damages was the actual settlement amount of $1,757,000. Ultimate Finding of Fact The undersigned finds that the testimony of Mr. Browning and Mr. Barrett was more persuasive regarding valuation of Mr. O’Malley’s claim than the testimony of Respondent’s expert witness. Mr. Browning and Mr. Barrett’s number of years of experience with handling catastrophic personal injury cases, and the fact that they had the benefit of the life care plan when evaluating the case, make their testimony more persuasive regarding the valuation of damages suffered by Mr. O’Malley in this case.
The Issue The issue for the undersigned to determine is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), as reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner Kanesha Harley (Ms. Harley), pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2019), from settlement proceeds Petitioner received from third parties.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. In October 2013, Ms. Harley, then 19 years old, was struck by a bullet while on the property of liable third parties (the Underlying Defendants). Ms. Harley testified that the shooting occurred when she was at a restaurant, which was connected to another business, with friends. While outside the restaurant to retrieve her wallet, two persons unknown to Ms. Harley began shooting at each other in the parking lot area. Ms. Harley initially avoided these shots, but after an employee of the restaurant announced that it was ok to go back outside, she was struck by a bullet. Ms. Harley received medical care as a result of her injuries, which included a diagnosis of being an incomplete paraplegic (meaning, among other things, that Ms. Harley is unable to walk and cannot feel the bottom of her legs). Ms. Harley underwent a prolonged hospitalization, is currently unable to work, and expects a lifetime of partial paralysis. Prior to her injury, Ms. Harley had completed the tenth grade, and had a part-time job earning minimum wage. Since her injury, Ms. Harley has been unable to work. She is partially paralyzed from the waist down, and relies on friends and family members for assistance. Ms. Harley’s medical care related to her injury was paid by Medicaid, and AHCA through the Medicaid program provided $123,931.54. Another Medicaid entity, Equian, paid Ms. Harley $15,648.50 on her behalf as well. The undersigned finds that Ms. Harley’s past medical expenses total $139,580.04 (and notes that this figure is more than the lien amount claimed in the Petition). Petitioner filed a lawsuit against the Underlying Defendants, alleging negligent security and premises liability. During the pendency of Petitioner’s lawsuit, AHCA’s authorized agent, in a letter dated January 26, 2020, stated that “our office calculated Medicaid’s current and final lien in the amount of $123,931.54. Accordingly, payment of $123,931.54 will satisfy our lien.” More than seven years after Ms. Harley’s injury, Petitioner and the Underlying Defendants settled the lawsuit for a total of $370,000.00.1 A “Letter of Understanding” authored by Petitioner’s counsel, that he provided to the Underlying Defendants, states, in pertinent part: A[s] you know, we represent KANESHA HARLEY, in regards to the above referenced accident and this letter of understanding is to outline that the Plaintiff has allocated 5% of the total settlement of $370,000 or $18,500 of the total settlement amount for Kanesha Harley’s past medical bills, for any and all purposes, including Florida Medicaid liens and other liens. The basis for this reduction is simple equity. Ms. Harley, then 19, was diagnosed as an incomplete paraplegic after the subject incident in October of 2013. The Plaintiff filed suit against [the Underlying Defendants] and was able to obtain a total settlement of $370,000.00, which took into account the serious liability issues under Florida premises liability, negligent security standards. These facts, along with difficulty in prosecuting the case under COVID-19, other technical difficulties, the fact that the case is almost 8 years old, and the unknown affect [sic] COVID-19 may have on a jury is potentially fatal to Plaintiff’s cause of action, made this a fair and reasonable settlement, and makes this allocation necessary. In addition to the “Letter of Understanding,” Petitioner introduced two documents entitled draft closing statements, that reflect the total amount of the settlement, the amount of attorney’s fees ($148,000) and costs 1 Petitioner’s settlement with the Underlying Defendants requires that the identities of the Underlying Defendants remain confidential. Accordingly, the undersigned has not revealed their identities in this Final Order, and notes that Exhibits P1, P5, P6a, P6b, and P7—all of which reference the identities of the Underlying Defendants—shall remain confidential. ($21,434.33) incurred by Petitioner, the amount of a litigation loan incurred by Petitioner, and the amount of the Medicaid lien (in one copy, it contains the reduced amount requested by Petitioner, in the other, it contains no reduction of the lien). Other than these documents, Petitioner introduced no evidence as to how the parties allocated the settlement of the litigation with the Underlying Defendants. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene in Petitioner’s lawsuit against the Underlying Defendants. Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioner’s $370,000.00 settlement authorizes payment to AHCA of $128,032.84. The undersigned arrives at this calculation as follows: Settlement Amount $370,000.00 Attorneys’ Fees (capped at 25% pursuant to section 409.910(11)(f)3. $92,500.00 Taxable Costs $21,434.44 Remaining Recovery $256,065.67 Amount Recoverable (pursuant to section 409.910(11)(f)1., “one-half of the remaining recovery shall be paid to [AHCA] up to the total amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid.”) $128.032.84 (this amount is one-half of the remaining recovery, which is lower than the Medicaid lien or total past medical expenses) Expert Witness Testimony of Mr. Holland Petitioner presented the testimony of Mr. Holland, a trial attorney who has handled in excess of 1,000 personal injury cases in the county, circuit, and federal courts of Florida. Mr. Holland has conducted numerous jury trials and has also resolved cases in mediation and arbitration. Petitioner moved, and the undersigned accepted, Mr. Holland as an expert in personal injury litigation. AHCA did not oppose Mr. Holland’s designation as an expert. Mr. Holland testified that he is familiar with the type of injury that Ms. Harley suffered. He is also familiar with the legal standards for premises liability and negligent security, and stated that he was familiar with judgments that include monetary awards “due to the actions of others.” Mr. Holland stated that there were various liability issues in Petitioner’s lawsuit. He testified that it is difficult to prove that a landowner knew of a dangerous condition, or that a landowner could anticipate a shooting, which is an intentional act. Mr. Holland opined that Petitioner had numerous challenges in holding either of the Underlying Defendants liable because it would be difficult to convince a jury that the cause of her injury was foreseeable. Mr. Holland opined, based on his experience, that an estimate of the overall value of the damages to Petitioner was in the $15 to $20 million range. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Holland offered any evidence of similar jury verdicts or settlements to substantiate this opinion; rather, Mr. Holland’s opinion was based on his experience to arrive at this estimate. Mr. Holland further opined that allocating 5% of the settlement— which is $18,500.00—to Petitioner’s past medical expenses was a “reasonable allocation.” Mr. Holland’s opinion on the allocation of 5% of the settlement of Petitioner’s lawsuit to her past medical expenses was not based on the typical calculation of comparing the value of the damages in the lawsuit (which are often based on comparison to actual, similar verdicts or settlements) to the actual recovery in the settlement, and deriving a ratio or percentage from that calculation that could be used to reduce the amount of the Medicaid lien (the pro rata allocation methodology).2 In fact, Petitioner’s request to reduce the Medicaid lien, which Mr. Holland supported, is not based on the pro rata allocation methodology, but rather, based on Petitioner’s “Letter of Understanding,” which designated 2 See, e.g., Eady v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 279 So. 3d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (explaining the pro rata allocation methodology). 5% of the entire settlement proceeds as an appropriate amount to satisfy the Medicaid lien, based on “simple equity.” On cross-examination, Mr. Holland stated that his opinion of $15 to $20 million in damages was not broken down by any specific category, but stated that Petitioner’s loss of wages over the course of her life, given her relatively long-life expectancy, as well as pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and possible loss of consortium claims, led him to his opinion. He further stated that based on his experience with this type of lawsuit, but where liability is clear, he would not recommend that a client accept less than $10 million in settlement. When asked on cross-examination specifically concerning the allocation of 5% of the settlement of Petitioner’s lawsuit to her past medical expenses, Mr. Holland stated that he had no personal knowledge of the parties’ decision to designate this percentage, but relied on the “Letter of Understanding” authored by Petitioner’s counsel, which he admitted relied on “equity.” However, Mr. Holland additionally opined that he was comfortable allocating 95% of the settlement to Petitioner’s noneconomic damages, as well as her work life expectancy earning minimum wage, although he admitted that he had not computed any of these figures. Ultimate Findings of Fact The undersigned finds that the opinion of Mr. Holland concerning the value of Petitioner’s lawsuit, which, after cross-examination, he admitted was $10 million, was not based upon sufficient facts or data, such as a comparison to actual similar verdicts or settlements of these types of lawsuit, but rather his personal estimate based on his experience. See § 90.702(1), Fla. Stat. (requiring that an expert, inter alia, base his or her opinion “upon sufficient facts or data.”). Further, Mr. Holland did not break down the basis for his valuation of the lawsuit into specific categories of damages and expenses (i.e., future medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost earning capacity, etc.), but opined that he considered many of these categories in arriving at his valuation of Petitioner’s lawsuit. Although Mr. Holland credibly testified concerning his considerable experience as a personal injury attorney, the undersigned cannot credit his opinion concerning the valuation of Petitioner’s damages. However, Mr. Holland’s opinion concerning the value of Petitioner’s lawsuit appears irrelevant to Petitioner’s theory of recovery. The undersigned finds that Petitioner did not, in any way, attempt to establish that the undersigned should reduce her Medicaid lien pursuant to the pro rata allocation methodology, which has been approved in numerous proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), as well as Florida’s appellate courts, as a reasonable, fair, and accurate methodology that is consistent with Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006), for allocating the settlement proceeds when the underlying third-party action is settled for less than the full value of the case. Rather, Petitioner asks the undersigned to approve a 5% allocation of her entire settlement proceeds to satisfy her Medicaid lien, based on a “Letter of Understanding” between Petitioner and the Underlying Defendants, that states “[t]he basis for this reduction is simple equity[,]” and Mr. Holland’s testimony that relied on this “Letter of Understanding,” as well as his unsupported calculation that he would allocate 95% of the settlement proceeds to Petitioner’s noneconomic damages and lost earning capacity. Section 409.910(1) explicitly abrogates the application of principles of equity in this proceeding; further, DOAH is not a “court of equity.” The undersigned finds no basis, in fact or law, for such a reduction. The undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to establish, by either clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of the evidence, support for Petitioner’s allocation of 5% of the settlement proceeds ($18,500.00) to Petitioner’s past medical expenses as a basis for reducing the Medicaid lien. Accordingly, AHCA is entitled to payment of $128.032.84, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), is to be reimbursed for medical expenses paid on behalf of Derek Matson (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Matson”) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ from settlement proceeds received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on testimony, exhibits accepted into evidence, admitted facts set forth in the Pre- hearing Stipulation, and matters subject to official recognition. Facts Pertaining to the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation and the Medicaid Lien Mr. Matson was 25 years old in November of 2017, and employed as an executive chef responsible for managing a restaurant’s cooking operations. His annual salary was approximately $61,000.00. On November 5, 2017, Mr. Matson was drinking and having brunch with his girlfriend. He met a friend, and they decided to take the friend’s boat out that afternoon. Mr. Matson was already very intoxicated by the time he arrived at the dock and continued to drink after the boat left the dock. While the boat was anchored in very shallow water, Mr. Matson dove from the boat, struck his head on the seafloor, and suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury. Mr. Matson is now unable to walk, ambulate, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. He has no use of his legs and extremely limited use of his upper extremities. Mr. Matson spends his waking hours in a wheelchair, requires continuous care, and must be repositioned every two hours in order to prevent pressure sores. Mr. Matson frequently suffers from depression. Medicaid, through AHCA, paid $85,896.60 for Mr. Matson’s care. Via a Medicaid managed care plan known as Optum, Medicaid paid an additional $32,167.31 in benefits. The sum of these benefits, $118,063.91, constituted Mr. Matson’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Matson pursued a personal injury claim against the boat’s owner and operator. The boat owner’s insurance policy was limited to $305,000.00, and the boat owner had no other recoverable assets. Ultimately, Mr. Matson’s personal injury claim settled for an unallocated lump sum2/ of $305,000.00. During the pendency of Mr. Matson’s personal injury claim, AHCA was notified of the action and asserted an $85,896.00 lien against Mr. Matson’s recovery from the personal injury claim. AHCA did not move to intervene or join in Mr. Matson’s personal injury case. AHCA received notice of Mr. Matson’s settlement and has not moved to set-aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlement. As noted above, Medicaid spent $85,896.60 on Mr. Matson’s behalf. Application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) requires that all of AHCA’s $85,896.60 lien be satisfied.3/ Mr. Matson has deposited $85,896.60 in an interest bearing account pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights. Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim Jack Hill represented Mr. Matson during the personal injury action. Mr. Hill has practiced law since 2002 and been employed with the law firm of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart, and Shipley in West Palm Beach, Florida, since August of 2004. Mr. Hill is board certified in civil trial law by the Florida Bar and has handled personal injury cases for approximately 15 years. Mr. Hill is a member of several trial attorney associations such as the American Justice Association, the Florida Justice Association, the Palm Beach Justice Association, and AIG, a products liability plaintiffs’ organization. Mr. Hill routinely evaluates the monetary value of damages suffered by his clients. That process involves discussing individual cases with the 28 other members of his law firm and then forming a consensus regarding a case’s settlement value and the damages a jury would likely award in the event of a trial. Without objection from AHCA, Mr. Hill was accepted as an expert regarding the evaluation of damages. If Mr. Matson’s personal injury action had gone to trial, Mr. Hill is confident that a jury would have returned a verdict of at least $20 million. As for the discreet aspects of Mr. Matson’s total damages, Mr. Hill testified that Mr. Matson’s economic damages exceed $20 million and that his noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, are $20 million. Mr. Hill testified that “$305,000 was a grossly inadequate recovery for Derek, considering his injuries.” If one assumes that a jury would have returned a $20 million verdict, then the $305,000.00 settlement represents a 1.52 percent recovery of Mr. Matson’s total damages. If one applies that same percentage to the individual components of the personal injury claim, then it would be determined that Mr. Matson only recovered 1.52 percent or $1,794.57 of the $118,063.91 in past medical expenses. This computational method shall be referred to herein as “the pro rata formula.” Mr. Hill testified that the pro rata formula was a reasonable methodology to ascertain how much of Mr. Matson’s past medical expenses were recovered via the $305,000.00 settlement: Q: Mr. Hill, based on a $20 million value of all damages, the $305,000 settlement represents a recovery of 1.25% of the value of the damages. Would you agree with that? A: 1.52%. Q: All right. And accordingly, in this settlement, Mr. Matson recovered 1.52% of his claim for past medical expenses? A: Yes. He would have recovered 1.52% of all aspects of his damages, including those for past medicals that were paid on his behalf. So, yes. Q: And this is similar to how a jury verdict would work, is that correct? So the jury would assign a value to each category of damages. But if it was determined that the defendant, the jury determined that the defendant was only 1.52% liable for those damages – the jury, the judge, in entering the judgment, would reduce each element of damages to that 1.52% amount. Is that correct? A: That’s the way it works, yes. Q: All right. So 1.52% of the $118,063.91 claim for past medical expenses, that comes out to $1,794.57. Is that your math? A: It is – that there was $32,167.31 paid by private health insurance, and the Medicaid paid $85,896.60. And so you take 1.52% of $118,063.91, you get a total past recovery for medical expenses of $1,794.57. Q: All right. And that’s the amount you believe should be allocated to past medical expenses? A: It is. Yes, Sir. Findings Regarding the Testimony Presented at the Final Hearing The undersigned finds that the testimony from Mr. Hill was compelling and persuasive as to: (a) the total damages incurred by Mr. Matson; (b) that Mr. Matson only recovered 1.52 percent of his total damages; and (c) that Mr. Matson only recovered 1.52 percent of his past medical expenses. Using the pro rata formula, the ratio that results from dividing the settlement amount by total damages, is a reasonable method to determine how much of a party’s past medical expenses were recovered through the settlement. AHCA offered no evidence to counter Mr. Hill’s opinions regarding Mr. Matson’s total damages or the past medical expenses he recovered. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the total value of Mr. Matson’s personal injury claim is no less than $20 million and that the $305,000.00 settlement resulted in him recovering no more than 1.52 percent of his past medical expenses. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that $1,794.57 amounts to a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Mr. Matson and payable to AHCA.
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).
