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 to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Ashley Nunez pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ from settlement proceeds received by Petitioners from third parties.
Findings Of Fact Facts Pertaining to the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation and the Medicaid Lien On February 13, 2010, Ashley Nunez (“Ashley”), who was three years old at the time, presented to a hospital emergency room with a fever. A chest X-ray indicated that Ashley had left lobe pneumonia. The hospital ordered no blood work or blood cultures and did not investigate the cause of Ashley’s pneumonia. The hospital discharged Ashley with a prescription for Azithromycin. By February 14, 2010, Ashley’s fever was 102.9 degrees, and Ashley’s mother took her to a pediatrician. Rather than attempting to discover the cause of the fever, the pediatrician instructed Ashley’s mother that the prescription needed time to work and instructed her to bring Ashley back if the fever persisted. On February 16, 2010, Ashley’s aunt returned her to the pediatrician because Ashley’s fever was persisting and she had developed abdominal pain. Due to a concern that Ashley was suffering from appendicitis, the pediatrician referred her to an emergency room. Later that day, Ashley’s mother returned her to the emergency room that had treated Ashley on February 13, 2010. A second chest x-ray revealed that Ashley’s pneumonia had gotten much worse, and the hospital admitted her. Ashley’s respiratory condition continued to deteriorate, and blood cultures confirmed that she had streptococcus pneumonia. Two days after her admission, the hospital decided to transfer Ashley to a hospital that could provide a higher level of care. On February 18, 2010, an ambulance transferred Ashley to a second hospital. Even though Ashley’s respiratory condition continued to deteriorate, the paramedics and hospital transport team did not intubate her. Upon her arrival at the second hospital, Ashley had suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest and had to be resuscitated with CPR and medication. The lack of oxygen to Ashley’s brain and other organs resulted in catastrophic harm leading Ashley to be intubated, placed on a ventilator, fed through a gastric feeding tube, and placed on dialysis. The second hospital discharged Ashley two and a half months later. While she no longer required a ventilator or dialysis, the hypoxic brain injury and cardiopulmonary arrest left Ashley in a severely compromised medical condition. Ashley was unable to perform any activities of daily living and was unable to stand, speak, walk, eat, or see. Following her discharge from the second hospital, Ashley required continuous care. She was under a nurse’s care for 12 hours a day, and Ashley’s mother (Anna Patricia Delgado) cared for her during the remaining 12 hours each day. On February 23, 2011, Ashley died due to complications resulting from the hypoxic brain injury. Ashley was survived by her parents, Ms. Delgado and John Nunez. Medicaid (through AHCA) paid $357,407.05 for the medical care related to Ashley’s injury. Ashley’s parents paid $5,805.00 for her funeral. As the Personal Representative of Ashley’s Estate, Ms. Delgado brought a wrongful death action against the first emergency room doctor who treated Ashley, the pediatrician, a pediatric critical care intensivist who treated Ashley after her admission to the first hospital, the two hospitals that treated Ashley, and the ambulance company that transported Ashley to the second hospital. AHCA received notice of the wrongful death action and asserted a Medicaid lien against Ashley’s Estate in order to recover the $357,407.05 paid for Ashley’s past medical expenses. See § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[b]y applying for or accepting medical assistance, an applicant, recipient, or legal representative automatically assigns to [AHCA] any right, title, and interest such person has to any third party benefit ”). Ms. Delgado ultimately settled the wrongful death action through a series of confidential settlements totaling $2,250,000. No portion of that settlement represents reimbursements for future medical expenses. AHCA has not moved to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute those settlements. Section 409.910(11)(f) sets forth a formula for calculating the amount that AHCA shall recover in the event that a Medicaid recipient or his or her personal representative initiates a tort action against a third party that results in a judgment, award, or settlement from a third party. Applying the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) to the $2,250,000 settlement, results in AHCA being owed $791,814.84 in order to satisfy its lien.2/ Because Ashley’s medical expenses of $357,407.05 were less than the amount produced by the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking to recover $357,407.05 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. See § 409.910(11)(f)4., Fla. Stat. (providing that “[n]otwithstanding any provision in this section to the contrary, [AHCA] shall be entitled to all medical coverage benefits up to the total amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid.”). Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim Tomas Gamba represented Petitioners during their wrongful death action. Mr. Gamba has practiced law since 1976 and is a partner with Gamba, Lombana and Herrera-Mezzanine, P.A., in Coral Gables, Florida. Mr. Gamba has been Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Florida Bar since 1986. Since the mid-1990s, 90 percent of Mr. Gamba’s practice has been devoted to medical malpractice. Over the course of his career, Mr. Gamba has handled 60 to 70 jury trials as first chair, including catastrophic injury cases involving children. In 2015, the Florida Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates named Mr. Gamba its Trial Lawyer of the Year. Mr. Gamba is a member of several professional organizations, such as the American Board of Trial Advocates, the American Association for Justice, the Florida Board of Trial Advocates, the Florida Justice Association, and the Miami-Dade County Justice Association. Mr. Gamba was accepted in this proceeding as an expert regarding the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Gamba testified that Petitioners elected against proceeding to a jury trial (in part) because of the family’s need for closure and the stress associated with a trial that could last up to three weeks. Mr. Gamba also noted that the two hospitals that treated Ashley had sovereign immunity, and (at the time pertinent to the instant case) their damages were capped at $200,000 each. In order to collect any damages above the statutory cap, Petitioners would have had to file a claims bill with the Florida Legislature, and Mr. Gamba testified that “the legislature would be very difficult.” As for the three treating physicians who were defendants in the suit, Mr. Gamba testified that Petitioners achieved a favorable settlement by agreeing to accept $2 million when the physicians’ combined insurance coverage was only $3 million. The decision to settle was also influenced by the fact that Ashley had a pre-existing condition known as hemolytic uremic syndrome, a blood disorder. During discovery, Mr. Gamba learned that the defense was prepared to present expert testimony that the aforementioned condition made it impossible for the defendants to save Ashley. Finally, Mr. Gamba testified that 75 percent of medical malpractice cases heard by juries result in defense verdicts. As for whether the $2,250,000 settlement fully compensated Ashley’s estate and her parents for the full value of their damages, Mr. Gamba was adamant that the aforementioned sum was “a small percentage of what we call the full measure of damages in this particular case.” Mr. Gamba opined that $8,857,407.05 was the total value of the damages that Ashley’s parents and her Estate could have reasonably expected to recover if the wrongful death action had proceeded to a jury trial. Mr. Gamba explained that Florida’s Wrongful Death Act enabled Ashley’s parents to recover for the death of their child and for the pain and suffering they incurred from the date of Ashley’s injury. According to Mr. Gamba, $4,250,000 represented a “conservative” estimate of each parent’s individual claim, and the sum of their claims would be $8,500,000. Mr. Gamba further explained that Ashley’s Estate’s claim would consist of the $357,407.05 in medical expenses paid by Medicaid, resulting in an estimate for total damages of $8,857,407.05. Mr. Gamba’s opinion regarding the value of Petitioners’ damages was based on “roundtable” discussions with members of his firm and discussions with several attorneys outside his firm who practice in the personal injury field. Mr. Gamba’s opinion was also based on 10 reported cases contained in Petitioners’ Exhibit 9. According to Mr. Gamba, each of those reported cases involve fact patterns similar to that of the instant case. Therefore, Gamba testified that the jury verdicts in those cases are instructive for formulating an expectation as to what a jury would have awarded if Ashley’s case had proceeded to trial. In sum, Mr. Gamba testified that the $2,250,000 settlement represents a 25.4 percent recovery of the $8,857.407.05 of damages that Ashley’s parents and Ashley’s Estate actually incurred. Therefore, only 25.4 percent (i.e, $90,781.30) of the $357,407.05 in Medicaid payments for Ashley’s care was recovered. Mr. Gamba opined that allocating $90,781.39 of the total settlement to compensate Medicaid for past medical expenses would be reasonable and rational. In doing so, he stated that, “And I think both – if the parents are not getting their full measure of damages, I don’t think the health care provider, in this case Medicaid, that made the payment should get, you know, every cent that they paid out, when mother and father are getting but a small percentage of the value of their claim.” Petitioners also presented the testimony of Herman J. Russomanno. Mr. Russomanno has practiced law since 1976 and is a senior partner with the Miami law firm of Russomanno and Borrello, P.A. Mr. Russomanno has been Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Florida Bar since 1986, and he has served as the Chairman of the Florida Bar’s Civil Trial Certification Committee. Mr. Russomanno is also certified in Civil Trial Practice by the National Board of Trial Advocates and has taught trial advocacy and ethics for 33 years as an adjunct professor at the St. Thomas University School of Law. Mr. Russomanno is a past president of the Florida Bar and belongs to several professional organizations, such as the Florida Board of Trial Advocates, the American Board of Trial Advocates, the Dade County Bar Association, and the Miami-Dade County Trial Lawyers Association. Since 1980, Mr. Russomanno’s practice has been focused on medical malpractice, and he has represented hundreds of children who suffered catastrophic injuries. Mr. Russomanno was accepted in the instant case as an expert in the evaluation of damages suffered by injured parties. Prior to his testimony at the final hearing, Mr. Russomanno reviewed Ashley’s medical records, the hospital discharge summaries, and the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed in this proceeding. He also discussed Ashley’s case with Mr. Gamba and reviewed Mr. Gamba’s file from the wrongful death action. Mr. Russomanno also viewed videos of Ashley taken before and after her injury so he could gain an understanding of the severity of Ashley’s injury and the suffering experienced by her parents. Mr. Russomanno credibly testified that the damages incurred by Ashley’s parents were between $4,250,000 and $7,500,000 for each parent. Mr. Russomanno echoed Mr. Gamba’s testimony by stating that the $2,250,000 settlement did not fully compensate Ashley’s parents and her Estate for their damages. AHCA presented the testimony of James H.K. Bruner. Mr. Bruner has practiced law since 1983 and is licensed to practice law in Florida, New York, Maine, and Massachusetts. Mr. Bruner is a member of professional organizations such as the American Health Lawyers Association and the Trial Lawyers Sections of the Florida Bar. Between 2003 and 2005, Mr. Bruner served as the Department of Children and Families’ risk attorney. That position required him to evaluate personal injury actions filed against the Department and assess the Department’s exposure to liability. Based on his experience in evaluating approximately 200 cases for the Department, Mr. Bruner authored the Department’s manual on risk management and provided training to Department employees on risk management issues. Mr. Bruner has served as the Director of AHCA’s Bureau of Strategy and Compliance. In that position, he dealt specifically with third-party liability collections and Medicaid liens. Beginning in 2008, Mr. Bruner worked for ACS (now known as Xerox Recovery Services) and was engaged in attempting to recover Medicaid liens from personal injury settlements. Over the last several years, Mr. Bruner has spoken at seminars about Medicaid lien resolution and authored publications on that topic. Since April of 2013, Mr. Bruner has been in private legal practice as a solo practitioner. He describes himself as a “jack of all trades” who engages in a “general practice.” Over the last 20 years, Mr. Bruner has not handled a jury trial involving personal injury; and, over the last four years, he has not negotiated a personal injury settlement. The undersigned accepted Mr. Bruner as an expert witness for evaluating the cases contained in Petitioners’ Exhibit 9 and pointing out distinctions between those cases and the instant case. Mr. Bruner did not offer testimony regarding the specific value of the damages suffered by Petitioners. Findings Regarding the Testimony Presented at the Final Hearing Regardless of whether the reported cases in Petitioners’ Exhibit 9 are analogous to or distinguishable from the instant case, the undersigned finds that the testimony from Mr. Gamba and Mr. Russomanno was compelling and persuasive. While attaching a value to the damages that a plaintiff could reasonably expect to receive from a jury is not an exact science, Mr. Gamba and Russomanno’s substantial credentials and their decades of experience with litigating personal injury lawsuits make them very compelling witnesses regarding the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties such as Petitioners. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Petitioners proved by clear and convincing evidence that $90,781.39 constitutes a fair and reasonable recovery for past medical expenses actually paid by Medicaid. However, and as discussed below, AHCA (as a matter of law) is entitled to recover $357,407.05 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien.3/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner GLADES HEALTH PLAN, INC., (GLADES) is a for-profit corporation with offices in Belle Glade, Florida. GLADES was formed for the purpose of applying for and obtaining a contract with the State of Florida for a Medicaid Prepaid Health Plan. Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, (AHCA), is the agency of the State of Florida statutorily responsible for the administration of the Florida Medicaid prepaid health plan program. On October 5, 1994, GLADES filed a Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application with AHCA. In December of 1994, a series of newspaper articles were published which raised concerns regarding the quality of health care and service provided by Medicaid prepaid health plans in Florida. In response to these concerns, AHCA, beginning in the latter part of December of 1994, implemented a number of administrative changes, and also undertook a comprehensive review to assess the quality of health care and service provided by existing Medicaid prepaid health plans. In order to accomplish this comprehensive review, AHCA redirected all of the agency's managed care staff to conduct a survey of the assessment of the quality of health care and services provided by the existing Medicaid prepaid health plans. Because AHCA's managed care staff was redirected to conduct this comprehensive review of the existing Medicaid prepaid health plans, there were insufficient staff available to review Medicaid prepaid health plan contract applications. AHCA was also concerned with contracting with additional health plans until the assessment of the existing plans was completed. AHCA accordingly placed a temporary moratorium on the consideration of applications for Medicaid prepaid health plan contracts until the completion of the comprehensive review. The purpose of the agency's comprehensive review of existing health plans and imposition of a temporary moratorium on pending contract applications for new health plans was to assess the quality of care and service of the existing Florida Medicaid prepaid health plan program, and to develop in-house agency policies to address problems identified by agency staff conducting the comprehensive review. On December 30, 1994, James M. Barclay, vice-president of GLADES, received a letter from AHCA relating to another organization with which he is affiliated, Heartland Healthcare, Inc., which like GLADES, had filed a Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application that was pending with AHCA. The December 30, 1994 letter from AHCA to Barclay recited AHCA's concern with the quality of health care and service provided by existing Medicaid prepaid health plans. The letter further stated that due to the implementation of administrative changes, and the need for agency staff to be committed to the comprehensive review of existing Medicaid prepaid health plans, AHCA had imposed a moratorium on the consideration of Medicaid Prepaid Health Plan contract applications to last approximately sixty to ninety days. GLADES did not receive a letter, or other communication from AHCA notifying GLADES of AHCA's imposition of a temporary moratorium on the consideration of its Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application, and no action was taken by AHCA with regard to the GLADES' contract application during this period. Upon completion of the agency's comprehensive review of existing Medicaid prepaid health plans, AHCA, in the spring of 1995, discontinued the moratorium on consideration of Medicaid prepaid health plan contract applications. In processing Medicaid prepaid health plan contract applications subsequent to the discontinuation of the moratorium, AHCA determined not to contract with any prepaid health plan unless the plan was a public entity, or commercially #licensed under the provisions of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. The basis for AHCA's decision in this regard was that the agency's comprehensive review of Medicaid prepaid health plans indicated that the existing commercially licensed Medicaid prepaid health plans provided a better quality of care to Medicaid recipients than the health plans that were not commerically licensed. On September 13, 1995, AHCA filed with the Department of State, Bureau of Administrative Code, proposed rules amending Rule 59G-8.100, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed rule amendments set out criteria for AHCA's consideration of Medicaid prepaid health plan contract applications. The criteria include commercial licensure under Chapter 641, Florida Statutes, managed care accreditation, prior health care experience, and need for managed care services. Under the proposed rule amendments, failure to meet such criteria, including commercial licensure, is grounds for denial of a Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application. AHCA has not promulgated or instituted proceedings to promulgate rules regarding the temporary moratorum imposed in this case. GLADES is not commercially licensed under the provisions of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Subsequent to the discontinuation of the moratorium, AHCA has taken no action with regard to GLADES' Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application. Because GLADES is not commercially licensed, AHCA presently considers the GLADES' Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application inactive. AHCA has not written, published or otherwise made a formal statement of agency policy to the effect that Medicaid prepaid health plan contracts are not licenses as that term is defined in Section 120.52(9), Florida Statutes. AHCA has not promulgated or instituted proceedings to promulgate rules to the effect that Medicaid prepaid health plan contracts are not licenses.
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 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 determined is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), as reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of David Brown (“Mr. Brown”) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ from settlement proceeds he received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits accepted into evidence, testimony offered at the hearing, and admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation. Facts Pertaining to the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation and the Medicaid Lien Mr. Brown is the recipient of Medicaid for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. AHCA is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. On February 25, 2015, Mr. Brown, then 46 years old, was involved in a T-bone automobile accident. In the accident, Mr. Brown suffered a fractured wrist, torn shoulder, skin abrasions, a grade 4 bilateral pulmonary contusion, and a right middle cerebral artery infarct (commonly referred to as a stroke) with hemorrhagic contusion. Due to complications related to placement of a trachea, he underwent reconstructive surgery of his throat. Mr. Brown suffered permanent severe brain damage causing him to suffer left hemiparesis and difficulty swallowing or speaking. As a result of the accident, Mr. Brown is now disabled and has difficulty ambulating, eating, and caring for himself without assistance. Mr. Brown’s medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid. AHCA provided $181,975.75 in benefits. A Medicaid Manage Care Plan, known as WellCare, provided an additional $110,559.15 in benefits. The sum of these benefits, $292,534.90, constituted Mr. Brown’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Petitioners pursued a personal injury action against the owner and operator of the car that caused the accident (“Defendant”) to recover all their damages. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene in Petitioners’ action against the Defendant. During the pendency of Mr. Brown’s personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a Medicaid lien of $181,975.75 against Petitioners’ cause of action and settlement of that action. There were liability issues with the case including the degree of comparative negligence that could be attributed to each driver. Specifically, there was a question of which driver had the green light. The personal injury claim ultimately settled for a lump-sum unallocated amount of $2,500,000. By letter, AHCA was notified of settlement of Petitioners’ claim. AHCA has not filed a motion to set-aside, void, or otherwise dispute Petitioners’ settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $181,975.75 for Mr. Brown’s past medical expenses. Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioners’ $2,500,000 settlement authorizes payment to AHCA of the full $181,975.75 Medicaid lien. Petitioners have 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. As a condition of eligibility for Medicaid, Mr. Brown assigned AHCA his right to recover medical expenses paid by Medicaid from liable third parties Expert Witness Testimony Testimony of Brett Rosen Petitioners presented the testimony of Brett Rosen, the lead trial attorney who litigated the underlying personal injury claim. Mr. Rosen is a shareholder with the law firm of Goldberg and Rosen in Miami, Florida. Mr. Rosen has been a trial attorney for approximately 12 years and he specializes in representing parties in catastrophic injury, personal injury, and wrongful death cases. Mr. Rosen’s firm takes approximately eight to ten cases to trial each year. Since the firm routinely conducts civil jury trials, Mr. Rosen continuously educates himself on jury verdicts by reviewing the Florida Jury Verdict Reporter (a publication of jury verdict reports) and conducting roundtable discussions with other attorneys. Using information found in jury verdict reports, the Daily Business Review, and his experience, Mr. Rosen makes assessments concerning the value of damages sustained by individuals. Without objection, Mr. Rosen was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by Petitioners. In addition to presenting testimony as an expert, Mr. Rosen also presented factual testimony regarding the underlying personal injury claim. As the lead attorney, Mr. Rosen met with Mr. Brown monthly on average during the two years that he represented him. Mr. Rosen also consulted with a neurologist and ENT physician who both treated Mr. Brown. Mr. Rosen testified that Mr. Brown’s vehicle was struck on the right side (commonly referred to as T-bone accident) by a vehicle, causing the vehicle he was driving to flip over onto its side. While Mr. Brown was able to get out of his vehicle, he suffered multiple injuries as further described in paragraph three herein. In addition to the brain injury, he had a tracheostomy that ultimately resulted in a bad outcome. As a result, he could not eat, speak, or drink for approximately two years. Mr. Rosen testified that Mr. Brown’s injuries had significant negative impact on Mr. Brown and his wife, Ms. Jenkins. Mr. Rosen testified that Ms. Jenkins resigned from her job to take care of her husband and assist with his recovery. Ms. Jenkins also suffered loss of consortium damages resulting from Mr. Brown’s injuries. The couple was forced to live with relatives when they could not afford rent. Overall, Mr. Rosen testified that the injuries negatively impacted Mr. Brown’s ability to lead a normal life. Mr. Rosen testified that the litigation of the case involved factual, causation, and legal disputes. There were no eyewitnesses, and the question remained regarding which driver had the green light. In addition, the insurance policy was limited to $50,000. Mr. Rosen later brought a bad faith claim against the insurance company due to their failure to timely tender the policy limits. After fully evaluating the risks, the parties settled the case for $2,500,000. Mr. Rosen testified that the full value of the claim is $10,500,000. However, Petitioners settled the claim for $2,500,000, which represents 23.8 percent of the value of their damages. Mr. Rosen testified that since Mr. Brown only recovered 23.8 percent of his total damages, he recovered in the settlement only 23.8 percent of his $292,534.90 claim for past medical expenses, which amounts to $69,623.38. Mr. Rosen testified that it would be reasonable to allocate $69,623.38 of the settlement to past medical expenses. Testimony of Vinson Barrett Vinson Barrett was also identified as Petitioners’ expert witness. Mr. Barrett, a trial attorney with 40 years of experience, is a partner with the law firm of Barrett, Nonni and Homola. His firm represents clients in medical malpractice, automobile, premise liability, and pharmaceutical products liability cases. Mr. Barrett has conducted numerous jury trials and has handled cases involving catastrophic injuries. Mr. Barrett routinely reviews jury verdict reports, discusses cases with other lawyers, and makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured persons. Mr. Barrett has also served as an expert in a number of cases regarding evaluation of damages. Mr. Barrett was recognized as an expert in the area of evaluation of damages. To evaluate the medical damages suffered by Mr. Brown, Mr. Barrett reviewed the police report, medical records, and the amended life care plan for Mr. Brown. Mr. Barrett also considered the overall level of pain and suffering Mr. Brown would suffer throughout the remainder of his life. Mr. Barrett testified that when compared to other traumatic brain cases, Mr. Brown is a little better off than other traumatic cases he has reviewed because he is able to ambulate using assistive devices and his mental abilities have not been compromised significantly. Mr. Barrett opined that the overall value of the damages would be more than $10,500,000. Mr. Barrett testified that his estimate was a conservative valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett concluded that, accepting Mr. Rosen’s even more conservative valuation, the $2,500,000 settlement constituted 23.8 percent of the full value of Petitioners’ damages. Mr. Barrett testified that allocation of $69,623.38 of the settlement would be a reasonable allocation of damages to the past medical expenses. Ultimate Findings of Fact The undersigned finds that the testimony of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett was credible and persuasive as to the total damages incurred by Petitioners. While assigning a value to the damages that plaintiffs could reasonably expect to receive from a jury is not an exact science, Mr. Rosen’s extensive experience with litigating personal injury lawsuits makes him a very compelling witness regarding the valuation of damages suffered by Petitioners. As a trial lawyer who has testified in nearly 20 cases regarding valuation and allocation of damages, and 40 years of experience handling personal injury matters involving catastrophic injuries, Mr. Barrett is also a credible witness regarding the valuation and allocation of damages in a case such as Mr. Brown’s. The undersigned also finds that Mr. Barrett was qualified to present expert testimony as to how a damages award should be allocated among its components, such as past medical expenses, economic damages, and noneconomic damages. AHCA offered no evidence to counter the expert opinions regarding Petitioners’ total damages or the past medical expenses they recovered. Accordingly, it is found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the total value of Petitioners’ personal injury claim is $10,500,000 and that the $2,500,000 settlement resulted in Petitioners recovering 23.8 percent of Mr. Brown’s past medical expenses. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that $69,623.38 amounts to a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Petitioners and payable to AHCA.
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 of Petitioner’s personal injury settlement proceeds that should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), to satisfy its Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency authorized to administer Florida’s Medicaid program. See § 409.902, Fla Stat. On July 6, 2011, Petitioner suffered a catastrophic injury to his spinal cord as a passenger in a car involved in a single-car accident. Petitioner was permanently rendered an incomplete quadriplegic unable to walk (for more than 10 to 15 steps), stand, ambulate, eat or toilet without assistance. Prior to the accident, Petitioner was a senior at the University of South Florida, who intended to become a physical therapist. Additionally, he was heavily involved in mixed martial arts and won amateur of the year in 2010. Petitioner’s medical care related to the car accident was paid by Medicaid. Medicaid provided $177,747.91 in benefits associated with Petitioner’s car accident. This amount, $177,747.91, represents the past medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, and for which AHCA seeks reimbursement. There is no dispute that Medicaid paid $177,747.91 for Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Petitioner brought a PI action against the driver of the car, the owner of the car and the insurance carrier providing uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance covering the accident. This PI action sought to recover all of Petitioner’s damages associated with his injuries. During the pendency of Petitioner’s PI action, AHCA was notified of the action. On April 25, 2014, AHCA notified Petitioner’s then counsel (Gene Odom, Esquire) that a preliminary lien of $177,747.91 was in place, and that an itemized accounting would be provided. It was unknown if the defendants, in the PI case, knew of the Medicaid lien during the negotiations. There was no evidence presented that AHCA participated in the PI action, any settlement negotiations, agreed to any settlement(s), or executed the actual settlements. The PI lawsuit was settled in 2017 through a series of confidential settlement(s) totaling $1,000,000.3/ The total settlement was comprised of $100,000 in uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, $100,000 in bodily injury coverage, $500,000 in coverage from the leased vehicle, and $300,000 in settlement of a bad faith claim. Petitioner’s condition and his need for continuing care are not in dispute. A life-care plan (Petitioner’s Exhibit 2) identifying the “medical basis for life-care planning” for Petitioner was prepared by John L. Merritt, M.D. Dr. Merritt did not testify at hearing. Application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioner’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $177,747.91 Medicaid lien. Petitioner deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constituted “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). The Medicaid program spent $177,747.91 towards Petitioner’s past medical expenses. There was no testimony that any portion of this amount was paid for Mr. Eady’s future medical expenses. No testimony was received as to any taxable costs associated with the action at law. The parties did not stipulate to the amount of any attorneys’ fees related to the settlement(s). The parties did not divulge an amount (if any) designated in the settlement(s) to pay for Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Mr. Guito is a PI attorney and Petitioner’s step- father. Mr. Guito is employed by McIntyre, Thanasides, Bringgold, Elliott, Grimaldi and Guito. He has practiced law for 29 years and, in addition to the PI work, handles cases involving civil litigation, medical malpractice, and catastrophic injury. Mr. Guito has tried numerous jury trials and represented individuals who have suffered spinal cord injuries. Mr. Guito stays abreast of jury verdicts as it is important to understand what types of damages juries are awarding, whether they are more conservative or liberal in damages, and how the juries view evidence. As a routine part of his practice, Mr. Guito evaluates the damages suffered by injured people. He has experience in dealing with life-care planners, vocational rehabilitative experts, economists, and other lawyers involved with claims for significant injuries and damages. Mr. Guito assisted attorneys in prosecuting Mr. Eady’s case in order to maximize his recovery.4/ Mr. Guito reviewed the accident report, various engineering expert reports, Mr. Eady’s medical records and his life-care plan. Mr. Guito opined that Mr. Eady’s damages are in excess of $15,000,000. Mr. Barrett is a PI attorney with experience in medical malpractice, medical products and pharmaceutical products liability, and catastrophic injury cases. Mr. Barrett is a seasoned trial attorney. However, “as of a couple of months ago,” he is “in-between law firms” deciding whether to form a new firm or “quit it [the practice of law] all together.” In response to a question about reviewing medical records and life-care plans, Mr. Barrett testified that because these types of cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, he has to evaluate each case to determine whether the contingent fee is enough to “pay a staff of -- in my case, 20 or so employees. Pay a lease, pay for a building, pay for all the things, all the overhead, [and] pay a salary.” Mr. Barrett did not “honestly . . . remember how the tender was stated” when asked if he was tendered specifically as an expert in the allocation of settlements in a Division hearing. When asked if it mattered how damages are allocated in a settlement, Mr. Barrett provided there might be tax consequences because in punitive damages “you don’t get the same percentages,” which “could have an affect [sic] on lien recoveries.” He further qualified his answer by stating “you’ve already . . . won the case because you’ve got an allocation in the jury verdict.” This case is based on confidential settlements, not a jury verdict. Mr. Barrett explained Mr. Eady’s damages: [Mr. Eady] was a passenger in a Jaguar, which, I took from the complaint, was a new car or a car that belonged to an agency. And it was driven by an employee, or Bailee, or something of that agency. Who took too tight a turn and rolled the car. And, apparently, there was some intrusion from the top of the car, from the ceiling of the car. And from the nature of the damage, it’s almost certain that he hit his head on the top of the car and broke, or dislocated several vertebrae in his neck. Such that his fourth cervical vertebrae was – well, I would call it a crush or a burst fracture, down to where it intruded on the fifth cervical vertebrae. And there was extreme, not total, damage to his spinal cord, in the area of the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae, such that he became what’s called a partial quadriplegic. By “partial,” we can firmly define and say that he had, initially, no feeling or use at all in his lower extremities, with a lot of pain and some partial movement of his upper extremities. *** [H]e was very motivated to recover. . . . [H]e was still striving to get better. And he had made some progress, he was able to -- some use of his arms. Mr. Barrett “paid most attention to . . . [Mr. Eady’s] life care plan,” which Mr. Barrett thought was a “preliminary” plan. Mr. Barrett acknowledged the $1,000,000 settlement, but opined that the settlement did “not in any way” fully compensate Mr. Eady for the full amount of his damages. Mr. Barrett suggested that Petitioner’s damages were in the range of $25,000,000 to $35,000,000. There was no suggestion that the settlement was forced upon Petitioner. Mr. Guito and Mr. Barrett spoke in generalities, speculations, and reasonableness as to the settlement in relation to the Medicaid lien. Each suggested what they thought a jury would do, if presented with the facts in this case. Their testimony suggested that a lesser amount of the total recovery should be allocated for Mr. Eady’s past medical expenses in this instance. Mr. Barrett accepted Mr. Guito’s suggestion that $15,000,000 was a conservative damage estimate. They postulated that because Petitioner only received $1,000,000 in settlement of what should have been at least a $15,000,000 award (or 6.66 percent of the $1,000,000 settlement), then Medicaid should only recover 6.66 percent from the settlement. The witnesses asserted that AHCA’s reimbursement for Petitioner’s past medical expenses should only be $11,838.01, or 6.66 percent of the $1,000,000 settlement amount. This is often referred to as the “proportionality test” or “pro-rata test.” For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned does not agree with Petitioner’s position. Application of the formula contained in section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioner’s $1,000,000 settlements would require payment to ACHA in the amount of $177,747.91, the actual amount of the funds expended by Medicaid.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent’s application of a fair rental value system of property cost reimbursement to Petitioner under the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Medicaid Reimbursement Plan is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, CONSULTING MANAGEMENT AND EDUCATION, INC., d/b/a GULF COAST NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER (CME), is the licensed operator of a 103-bed nursing home in Clearwater, Florida, which is presently known as GULF COAST NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER (GULF COAST). CME participates in the Florida Medicaid Program as an enrolled provider. Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA), is the agency of the State of Florida authorized to implement and administer the Florida Medicaid Program, and is the successor agency to the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pursuant to Chapter 93-129, Laws of Florida. Stipulated Facts Prior to 1993, the GULF COAST nursing home facility was known as COUNTRY PLACE OF CLEARWATER (COUNTRY PLACE), and was owned and operated by the Clearwater Limited Partnership, a limited partnership which is not related to CME. In 1993 CME agreed to purchase, and did in fact purchase, COUNTRY PLACE from the Clearwater Limited Partnership. Simultaneous with the purchase of COUNTRY PLACE, CME entered into a Sale/Leaseback Agreement with LTC Properties, Inc., a Maryland real estate investment trust which engages in the financing of nursing homes. The Purchase and Sale Agreement between Clearwater Limited Partnership and CME was contingent upon the Sale/Leaseback Agreement and the proposed Lease between CME and LTC Properties, Inc. On September 1, 1993, CME simultaneously as a part of the same transaction purchased COUNTRY PLACE, conveyed the facility to LTC Properties, Inc., and leased the facility back from LTC Properties, Inc. As required, CME had notified AHCA of the proposed transaction. AHCA determined that the transaction included a change of ownership and, by lease, a change of provider. CME complied with AHCA's requirements and became the licensed operator and Medicaid provider for COUNTRY PLACE. Thereafter, CME changed the name of the facility to GULF COAST. After CME acquired the facility and became the licensed operator and Medicaid provider, AHCA continued to reimburse CME the same per diem reimbursement which had been paid to the previous provider (plus certain inflation factors) until CME filed its initial cost report, as required for new rate setting. In the normal course of business, CME in 1995 filed its initial Medicaid cost report after an initial period of actual operation by CME. Upon review of the cost report, AHCA contended that the cost report was inaccurate and engaged in certain "cost settlement" adjustments. During this review, AHCA took the position that CME's property reimbursement should be based on FRVS methodologies rather than "cost" due to the lease. In November of 1995, CME received from AHCA various documents which recalculated all components of Petitioner's Medicaid reimbursement rates for all periods subsequent to CME's acquisition of the facility. In effect, AHCA placed CME on FRVS property reimbursement. The practical effect of AHCA's action was to reduce CME's property reimbursement both retroactively and prospectively. The retroactive application would result in a liability of CME to AHCA, due to a claimed overpayment by AHCA. The prospective application would (and has) resulted in a reduction of revenues. CME is substantially affected by AHCA's proposed action and by Sections I.B., III.G.2.d.(1), V.E.1.h., and V.E.4. of the Florida Medicaid Plan. Additional Findings of Fact The Florida Medicaid Plan establishes methodologies for reimbursement of a nursing home's operating costs and patient care costs, as well as property costs. The dispute in this matter relates only to reimbursement of property costs. CME as the operator of the GULF COAST nursing home facility is entitled to reimbursement of property costs in accordance with the Florida Medicaid Plan. CME as the operator of the GULF COAST facility entered into a Florida Medicaid Program Provider Agreement, agreeing to abide by the provisions of the Florida Medicaid Plan. The Sale/Leaseback Agreement entered into by CME and LTC Properties Inc. (LTC) specifically provides for a distinct sale of the nursing home facility to LTC. LTC holds record fee title to GULF COAST. LTC, a Maryland corporation, is not related to CME, a Colorado corporation. The Florida Medicaid Plan is intended to provide reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred by economically and efficiently operated facilities. The Florida Medicaid Plan pays a single per diem rate for all levels of nursing care. After a nursing home facility's first year of operation, a cost settling process is conducted with AHCA which results in a final cost report. The final cost report serves as a baseline for reimbursement over the following years. Subsequent to the first year of operation, a facility files its cost report annually. AHCA normally adjusts a facility's reimbursement rate twice a year based upon the factors provided for in the Florida Medicaid Plan. The rate-setting process takes a provider through Section II of the Plan relating to cost finding and audits resulting in cost adjustments. CME submitted the appropriate cost reports after its first year of operation of the GULF COAST facility. Section III of the Florida Medicaid Plan specifies the areas of allowable costs. Under the Allowable Costs Section III.G.2.d.(1) in the Florida Title XIX Plan, a facility with a lease executed on or after October 1, 1985, shall be reimbursed for lease costs and other property costs under the Fair Rental Value System (FRVS). AHCA has treated all leases the same under FRVS since that time. AHCA does not distinguish between types of leases under the FRVS method. The method for the FRVS calculation is provided in Section V.E.1.a-g of the Florida Medicaid Plan. A “hold harmless” exception to application of the FRVS method is provided for at Section V.E.1.h of the Florida Medicaid Plan, and Section V.E.4 of the Plan provides that new owners shall receive the prior owner’s cost-based method when the prior owner was not on FRVS under the hold harmless provision. As a lessee and not the holder of record fee title to the facility, neither of those provisions apply to CME. At the time CME acquired the facility, there was an indication that the Sale/Leaseback transaction with LTC was between related parties, so that until the 1995 cost settlement, CME was receiving the prior owner’s cost-based property method of reimbursement. When AHCA determined that the Sale/Leaseback transaction between CME and LTC was not between related parties, AHCA set CME’s property reimbursement component under FRVS as a lessee. Property reimbursement based on the FRVS methodology does not depend on actual period property costs. Under the FRVS methodology, all leases after October 1985 are treated the same. For purposes of reimbursement, AHCA does not recognize any distinction between various types of leases. For accounting reporting purposes, the Sale/Leaseback transaction between CME and LTD is treated as a capital lease, or “virtual purchase” of the facility. This accounting treatment, however, is limited to a reporting function, with the underlying theory being merely that of providing a financing mechanism. Record fee ownership remains with LTC. CME, as the lease holder, may not encumber title. The Florida Medicaid Plan does not distinguish between a sale/leaseback transaction and other types of lease arrangements. Sections IV.D., V.E.1.h., and V.E.4., the “hold harmless” and “change of ownership” provisions which allow a new owner to receive the prior owner’s method of reimbursement if FRVS would produce a loss for the new owner, are limited within the Plan’s organizational context, and within the context of the Plan, to owner/operators of facilities, and grandfathered lessee/operators. These provisions do not apply to leases executed after October 1, 1985. Capital leases are an accounting construct for reporting purposes, which is inapplicable when the Florida Medicaid Plan specifically addresses this issue. The Florida Medicaid Plan specifically addresses the treatment of leases entered into after October 1985 and provides that reimbursement will be made pursuant to the FRVS method.
