The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, from the proceeds of a 1 All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2019 version unless otherwise stated. third party settlement, in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Mary Bishop, is a person for whom Medicaid paid medical care expenses for injuries that she suffered in an accident. Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, is the state agency that administers the Medicaid program in Florida. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. Stipulated Facts On June 25, 2014, Petitioner suffered catastrophic injuries when she fell from a moving vehicle while being transported between two medical facilities. In the accident, Petitioner suffered permanent catastrophic injuries, including severe brain damage, a broken shoulder, a broken arm, and a punctured lung. As a result of her injuries, Petitioner's leg was amputated below the knee. Medicaid paid for Petitioner's medical care related to the injury. Through Respondent, Medicaid provided $293,149.98 in benefits for Petitioner's medical care. This amount constitutes Petitioner's entire claim for past medical expenses. Petitioner's daughter, Nicole Milstead, was appointed Petitioner's guardian. Milstead, as Petitioner's guardian, pursued a personal injury claim against the parties allegedly liable ("Tortfeasors") for Petitioner's injuries to recover all of Petitioner's damages. Petitioner's personal injury claim was settled through a series of confidential settlements in a lump-sum of $2,000,000 ($2 million).2 During the pendency of Petitioner's personal injury claim, Respondent was notified of the claim and asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $293,149.98 against Petitioner's cause of action and settlement of that action. Respondent did not institute a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, nor did it intervene or join in Petitioner's claim against the Tortfeasors. By letter, Respondent was notified of Petitioner's $2 million settlement with the Tortfeasors. 2 At the final hearing, testimony revealed that in addition to the $2 million settlement, there was a $100,000 settlement allocated to Petitioner's husband associated with his claims relative to Petitioner's injuries. The parties have agreed to address this $100,000 settlement separately, so this proceeding only concerns the $2 million settlement received by Petitioner. See Joint Stip., Aug. 17, 2020. Respondent has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Petitioner's settlement with the Tortfeasors. The Medicaid program, through Respondent, paid $293,149.98 on behalf of Petitioner, which represents the amount paid for her past medical expenses. If the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) is applied to Petitioner's $2 million settlement, then the full amount of the $293,149.98 Medicaid lien should be paid to Respondent. Petitioner deposited the $293,149.98 Medicaid lien amount into an interest-bearing account for the benefit of Respondent, pending the outcome of an administrative determination of Respondent's right regarding the Medicaid lien. Pursuant to section 409.910(17), such deposit constitutes "final agency action" under chapter 120. Facts Found Pursuant to Evidence Adduced at Final Hearing As stated above, on June 25, 2014, Petitioner, who had a long history of mental illness, leapt from a moving vehicle on I-95 while being transported between a mental health provider's office and the assisted living facility where she resided. As a result, Petitioner suffered severe injuries, including traumatic brain injury. She was in a coma; intubated; ventilated; suffered multiple fractures resulting in a right foot below-knee amputation; multiple upper right extremity injuries, including humeral and shoulder injuries; cervical and thoracic vertebrae fractures; fractured ribs; fractured fingers; and multiple-organ failure. She had open reduction and internal fixation surgery on her elbow and an exploratory laparotomy. In all, she was hospitalized for approximately eight months. As a result of the injuries she sustained, Petitioner is unable to bathe herself, dress herself, or cut her food without assistance. She has a prosthetic foot and uses a walker; has limited use of her arm, and is significantly scarred and disfigured. She suffers extreme pain in her upper right extremity, and as a result of her traumatic brain injury, experiences difficulty in problem-solving, which leads to her frustration. Petitioner requires attendant care 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Overbeck testified as a fact and expert witness on behalf of Petitioner. He is a Florida Bar Board-Certified attorney in civil trial practice, and has nearly 30 years of experience in a broad range of personal injury-related matters, including assessing the damages value of cases involving catastrophic injury, and the allocation of settlements in various contexts, including the Medicaid lien context. Overbeck represented Petitioner in her personal injury case against liable third parties, including the assisted living facility in which Petitioner resided; the mental health outpatient facility where she was receiving counseling at the time of her accident; the entity that was transporting Petitioner when she jumped from the moving vehicle; the driver of the vehicle from which Petitioner jumped; and the transport coordinator who arranged the vehicle transportation for Petitioner. Ultimately, Petitioner's claims against the liable third parties settled for a total of $2 million. Because Petitioner's case settled before trial, a life care plan and economist report was not prepared. However, based on Overbeck's experience regarding life care plans in similar cases, he opined that Petitioner's future medical needs would have a value of between $1 million and $3 million. Additionally, he testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner's non-economic damages (i.e., pain and suffering) would constitute the greatest part of any jury verdict, and that, based on cases involving catastrophic injuries and other circumstances similar to Petitioner's, her non-economic damages would be valued on the order of $15 million to $18.5 million. Overbeck opined that Petitioner's damages had a value in excess of $8 million, which he described as a "conservative" valuation. Thus, the $2 million settlement did not fully compensate Petitioner for the full value of her damages. According to Overbeck, Petitioner's $2 million third-party recovery represents only 25% of the value of her damages, using the conservative $8 million valuation of those damages. Overbeck testified that because Petitioner recovered only 25% of her total damages, conservatively valued at $8 million, it is fair and reasonable that 25% of the $2 million third-party recovery be allocated for Petitioner's past medical expenses. This would amount to $73,287.50 to be paid to Respondent in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. Barrett also testified as an expert witness on behalf of Petitioner. Barrett is a trial lawyer who has over 40 years of experience in personal injury law. His experience includes handling catastrophic injury cases, including those involving traumatic brain injury. As part of his practice, he stays abreast of jury verdict awards and routinely makes assessments regarding the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Barrett testified that based on his experience in cases involving parties who suffered catastrophic injuries similar to Petitioner's, he estimated the value of Petitioner's damages to be in the $8 million to $12 million range, with $8 million "being the basement." Based on his review of life care plans and economist reports for persons who suffered traumatic brain injury and needed "24/7" care, Barrett testified that Petitioner's claim for future medical expenses would be high. Additionally, he concurred with Overbeck that Petitioner's claim for non-economic damages would be very high and would comprise the greater part of any damages award. Based on cases he reviewed, Barrett valued Petitioner's non-economic damages alone at over $8 million. Barrett opined that the $2 million settlement amount did not fully compensate Petitioner for all of the damages she suffered, and represented 25% of the conservative $8 million valuation of her damages. He testified that because the $2 million third-party settlement amount that Petitioner recovered represented 25% of the total value of her damages, it was "very reasonable" for 25% of her third party recovery to be allocated to past medical expenses. Respondent did not call any witnesses or present any countervailing evidence regarding the value of Petitioner's damages. Thus, Petitioner's evidence in this proceeding is unrebutted.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount payable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to satisfy a Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact On November 2, 2012, the Petitioner, then 20 years old, was a restrained passenger in his girlfriend's Ford Mustang when it was t-boned on the passenger side by a Chevy pickup truck operated by Eddie Ellison. On November 2, 2012, immediately prior to the collision, Eddie Ellison, who was driving eastbound on Harney Road in Hillsborough County, Florida, failed to stop at the stop sign at Williams Road. Eddie Ellison was negligent in the operation of his Chevy Truck on November 2, 2012, and caused it to strike the Ford Mustang occupied by the Petitioner. Eddie Ellison's wife, Alberta Ellison, was the co-owner of the Chevy truck. The Petitioner was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the collision, and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner that was a proximate cause of any injury suffered by him as a result of the motor vehicle collision. There was no negligence on the part of any person other than Eddie Ellison that was a proximate cause of the motor vehicle collision on November 2, 2012. When the Hillsborough County Fire and Rescue team arrived at the accident scene at approximately 8:20 p.m., the Petitioner was unresponsive and exhibiting decorticate posturing. He was extricated from the vehicle, intubated at the scene and immediately transported via ambulance to Tampa General Hospital (TGH). The Petitioner arrived at TGH by approximately 8:39 p.m., presenting in critical condition. He was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where he remained for 11 days. The Petitioner suffered serious injuries as a result of the collision, including: injuries to the brain; multiple fractures to the skull, face, jaw, and other head injuries; multiple pelvic fractures; pulmonary contusions; acute respiratory failure; dysphagia; and splenic lacerations. On November 3, 2012, Stephen Reintjes, M.D., performed a ventriculostomy, wherein he drilled through the right parietal region of the Petitioner's skull and placed an external ventricular drain (EVD) into the right lateral ventricle to relieve the Petitioner's elevated intracranial pressure. The EVD was removed on November 12, 2012. On November 6, 2012, David Ciesla, M.D., and a TGH resident, performed a percutaneous tracheostomy, wherein he created an opening through the Petitioner's neck and placed a windpipe because of the Petitioner's prolonged respiratory failure. That same day, John Cha, M.D., performed a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), wherein a feeding tube was placed into the Petitioner's stomach due to the Petitioner's dysphagia. The Petitioner's PEG tube was removed on January 3, 2013. On November 9, 2012, Michael Harrington, M.D., performed an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the Petitioner's right zygomaticomaxillary fracture, and a closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) of the Petitioner's right zygomatic arch fracture. Essentially, screws and plates were implanted into the Petitioner's right cheekbone and then his jaw was wired shut to facilitate healing. The Petitioner's jaw remained wired shut until December 3, 2012, and the MMF hardware was surgically removed on December 20, 2012. On November 13, 2012, the Petitioner was transferred from the ICU to a surgical trauma unit. Once the Petitioner became medically stable on December 6, 2012, he was transferred to the Tampa General Rehabilitation Center (TGRC). There, the Petitioner received intensive physical and occupational therapy, speech and swallow therapy, psychological services, and 24/7 rehabilitation nursing care. The Petitioner remained at TGRC until January 16, 2013, 75 days after the crash, when he was discharged to his home. Medicaid paid a total of $147,019.61 for the Petitioner's past medical expenses. For nearly two years following his discharge, the Petitioner was unable to perform the tasks of daily living and was completely dependent on his parents and girlfriend for his care and supervision. The Petitioner was toileted, bathed, and dressed by his parents and his girlfriend. The Petitioner could not walk without assistance. All of the Petitioner's meals were prepared for him. The Petitioner would become obsessive over minor things, easily agitated, and frequently combative. The Petitioner had violent outbursts which required all three of his caretakers to physically restrain him. If left unattended at meals, the Petitioner would overeat until he would vomit. The Petitioner gained a life-threatening 100 pounds over this period. Beyond the most basic level, the Petitioner could not use a computer, play video games, or engage in an active social life, much less skateboard or participate in any of the other physical activities he once enjoyed. The Petitioner spent the majority of his time at home with his parents and girlfriend watching television, with occasional supervised trips outside the home. On June 12, 2013, the Petitioner filed suit against Eddie Ellison and Alberta Ellison in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No: 13-CA-008277 ("the underlying lawsuit"), seeking to recover damages in excess of $15,000. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the following: medical expenses incurred in the past; medical expenses to be incurred in the future; lost earnings incurred in the past; loss of earning capacity in the future; property damage incurred in the past; pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life sustained in the past; and pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life to be sustained in the future. The Petitioner also seeks to recover costs incurred by the Petitioner in the underlying lawsuit, pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate for actual, out-of-pocket pecuniary losses from the date of the loss, and attorney's fees to the extent allowed by law. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner sued his uninsured motorist carrier, 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company (21st Century), seeking to recover $10,000 in uninsured motorist benefits owed to the Petitioner under an automobile insurance policy paid for by the Petitioner's parents, Richard and Linda Willoughby. The insurer denied coverage and refused to pay the uninsured motorist benefits. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner also sued 21st Century for violation of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, seeking to recover the total amount of the Petitioner's damages from 21st Century as provided in section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner also sought to recover from 21st Century applicable pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees pursuant to sections 624.155, 627.727(10), and 627.428 and taxable costs. On February 13, 2015, the Petitioner agreed to settle his claims against 21st Century for $4,000,000. The Petitioner received the settlement proceeds from 21st Century on March 16, 2015. On March 20, 2015, the Petitioner and 21st Century filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the Petitioner’s claims against 21st Century with prejudice. As of March 20, 2015, the Petitioner had incurred a total of $50,375.32 in taxable costs, which the Petitioner repaid to the Petitioner's counsel out of the 21st Century settlement proceeds. On May 14, 2015, a total of $147,844.16 was transferred into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of the agency's right to benefits under section 409.910. The parties to this proceeding stipulated that, of the $4 million paid by 21st Century, $3.99 million was “bad faith damages,” paid to settle the Petitioner's claim for damages under section 627.727(10), on account of 21st Century's wrongful failure to pay the Petitioner's uninsured motorist claim and other violations of section 624.155. The settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century does not specifically attribute any of the $4 million settlement amount to “bad faith” and states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The settlement agreement further states as follows: The parties agree and acknowledge that this agreement is a settlement of claims which are contested and disputed. Any payments are not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of 21st Century, which expressly denies any liability for this action. The Petitioner also received a total of $20,000 from Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, reflecting the $10,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance and $10,000 limit of uninsured motorist coverage under the automobile insurance policy that insured the driver of the Ford Mustang, Kayliegh Lewis, at the time of the crash. The Petitioner's claims against Eddie Ellison and Alberta S. Ellison remain pending in the underlying lawsuit. As of the July 30, 2015, filing of the Pre-hearing Stipulation, the Ellisons' insurer has only offered the $100,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance to settle all of the Petitioner's claims against the Ellisons. The $4,020,000 paid to the Petitioner does not fully compensate him for the full monetary value of all of his damages. The full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages is at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages was at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner had suffered not less than $23,800 in lost wages. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's work life expectancy through age 67 was 45 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's loss of future earning capacity was within the range of $794,135.92 and $2,093,950.12. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future medical expenses were projected to exceed $5 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's past non-economic damages exceeded $1 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's life expectancy was 59.7 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future non-economic damages were within the range of $5 million to $10 million. Although the parties to this proceeding stipulated that the Petitioner has recovered less than $147,019.61 as payment for past medical expenses, the settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The Petitioner is no longer eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid has not paid or committed to pay any funds for the Petitioner's future medical care.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount payable to Respondent in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioner from a third party, pursuant to section 409.910(17), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 35-year-old female who currently resides in Homestead, Florida. Respondent is the state agency authorized to administer Florida's Medicaid program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. On or about February 15, 2012, Petitioner was struck by a motor vehicle and severely injured while attempting to rescue her young son, who had run into a busy street in front of her home in Hollywood, Florida. Petitioner suffered a fractured skull and broken leg. She was hospitalized and received medical care for her injuries. Subsequently, she was treated by an orthopedic physician and a neurologist. She estimated that she last received care or treatment from these physicians in August 2013. The Florida Medicaid program paid $35,952.47 in medical assistance benefits on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner filed a lawsuit against the owners of the vehicle that struck her. On January 11, 2013, Petitioner and the owners of the vehicle that struck Petitioner ("Releasees") entered into a "Release and Hold Harmless Agreement" ("Settlement") under which the Releasees agreed to pay Petitioner $150,000 to settle any and all claims Petitioner had against them. Attached to the Settlement was a document titled "Addendum to Release Signed 1/11/13" ("Addendum"), which allocated liability between Petitioner and the Releasees and provided a commensurate allocation of the Settlement proceeds for past and future medical expense claims. The Addendum stated in pertinent part: The parties agree that a fair assessment of liability is 90% on the Releasor, Mirta B. Agras, and 10% on the Releasees. Furthermore, the parties agree that based upon these injuries, and the serious nature of the injuries suffered by the Releasor, Mirta B. Agras, that $15,000.00 represents a fair allocation of the settlement proceeds for her claim for past and future medical expenses. Petitioner testified that she primarily was at fault in the accident. She acknowledged that the statement in the Addendum that she was 90% at fault for the accident and the Releasees were 10% at fault was an estimate that she formulated entirely on her own, without obtaining any legal or other informed opinion regarding the apportionment of respective fault. Petitioner is not a physician, registered nurse, or licensed practical nurse. There was no evidence presented establishing that she has any medical training or expertise. Thus, there is no professional basis for Petitioner's position that 10% of the Settlement proceeds represents a fair, accurate, or reasonable allocation for her medical expenses. Rather, her position appears to be based on the intent to maximize the Settlement proceeds that are allocated to non-medical expenses, so that she is able to retain a larger portion of the Settlement proceeds. Respondent did not participate in discussions regarding the Settlement or Addendum and was not a party to the Settlement. Petitioner acknowledged that she still receives medical bills related to the injuries she suffered as a result of the accident, and that she still owes money for ambulance transportation and physician treatment. She was unable to recall or estimate the amount she owes. No evidence was presented regarding the actual amount of Petitioner's medical expenses incurred due to her injury. Petitioner has not paid any of her own money for medical treatment, and no entities other than Medicaid have paid for her medical treatment. Since being injured, Petitioner continues to experience medical problems, including pain, dizziness, memory loss, difficulty in walking or standing for extended periods, inability to ride in vehicles for extended periods, balance problems, and difficulty watching television or staring at a computer screen for extended periods. Petitioner claims that, nonetheless, she has not been told that she would need additional medical care or treatment. On or about January 31, 2013, Respondent, through ACS, asserted a Medicaid claim pursuant to section 409.910(17), seeking reimbursement of the $35,952.47 in medical assistance benefits it paid on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner instead sought to reimburse Respondent $15,000, the amount that Petitioner and Releasees agreed in the Addendum represented a fair allocation of the Settlement proceeds for Petitioner's claim for past and future medical expenses. When Petitioner and Respondent were unable to agree on the amount Petitioner owed Respondent in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien, Petitioner paid ACS the $35,952.47 alleged to be owed Respondent and filed the Petition initiating this proceeding.
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount payable to Respondent in satisfaction of the Agency’s Medicaid lien from a settlement, judgment, or award received by Petitioner from a third-party under section 409.910(17), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On June 7, 2005, 14-year-old Michael Mobley attended a beach party. The party occurred on, near, or about the beach premises of a hotel. Michael became intoxicated through consumption of alcohol, and drowned in the Gulf of Mexico. He was revived but suffered brain damage, leaving him unable to communicate, ambulate, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Michael is now dependent on his father for all aspects of his daily life. As a result of this incident, Michael suffered both economic and noneconomic damages. These damages included, at least, physical and mental pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, disability, impairment in earning capacity, and loss of quality and enjoyment of life. Michael’s parents also suffered damages. Michael’s father’s employer maintained a self-funded Employee Benefit Plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA Plan). The Florida Statutes provide that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the Florida state agency authorized to administer Florida’s Medicaid program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat.1/ Michael’s past medical care related to his injury was provided through health benefits from the ERISA Plan administered through CIGNA HealthCare and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, and the Florida Medicaid program. The health benefits extended to Michael through his father’s employer totaled $515,860.29. The Florida Medicaid program provided $111,943.89 in benefits. The combined amount of medical benefits Michael received as a result of his injury is $627,804.18. The ERISA Plan provided the employer (through its administrators CIGNA and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield), with subrogation and reimbursement rights which provided entitlement to reimbursement from any settlement of 100 percent of what the plan had paid. ACS Recovery Services represented CIGNA and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, the administrators of the Employee Benefit Plan, and on behalf of these clients ACS Recovery Services asserted a $515,860.29 claim against any settlement Michael received. The Florida Statutes provide that Medicaid shall also be reimbursed for medical assistance that it has provided if resources of a liable third party become available. § 409.910(1), Fla. Stat. In 2006, Michael’s parents, David Mobley and Brenda Allerheiligen, brought a lawsuit in Okaloosa County Circuit Court to recover all of Michael’s damages. By letter dated May 24, 2011, Petitioner’s attorney sent AHCA a Letter of Representation requesting the amount of any Medicaid lien and the itemization of charges. The letter also invited AHCA to participate in litigation of the claim or in settlement negotiations. AHCA through ACS Recovery Services by letter of June 9, 2011, asserted a Medicaid lien against any settlement in the amount of $111,943.89. Testimony at hearing established that a conservative “pure value” of Michael’s economic damage claims in the case, before consideration of such factors as comparative fault, application of the alcohol statute, a defendant’s bankruptcy, and the novel theories of legal liability, was $15 million. A Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement was filed in the Circuit Court in and for Okaloosa County, Florida, on or about June 14, 2012. It stated that although the damages Michael received far exceeded the sum of $500,000, the parties had agreed to fully resolve the action for that amount in light of the parties’ respective assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. The Petition specifically alluded to pending bankruptcy proceedings, summary judgment dismissal of claims premised upon a duty to provide lifeguarding services, Plaintiff’s remaining theories of liability, available defenses, specifically including the statutory “alcohol defense” as interpreted by the Florida courts, and anticipated costs of trial and appeal. The Petition also stated: “Plaintiff’s claim for past medical expenses related to the incident total $627,804.18. This claim consists of $515,860.29 paid by a self-funded ERISA plan and $111,943.89 paid by Medicaid.” As an attached exhibit, the Petition incorporated a Distribution Sheet/Closing Statement which allocated the $500,000 total recovery among the categories of attorneys’ fees, costs, outside attorneys’ fees, lien/subrogation/medical expenses, and net proceeds to client. The Distribution Sheet allocated $140,717.54 to “lien/subrogation/medical expenses,” subdivided into $120,000.00 to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida/CIGNA and $20,717.54 to Medicaid Lien. The proposed settlement did not further describe the $331,365.65 amount identified as “net proceeds to client,” or allocate that amount among distinct claims or categories of damages, such as physical or mental pain and suffering, future medical costs discounted to present value, disability, impairment in earning capacity, or loss of quality and enjoyment of life. Under the Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement, most of the total recovery thus remains uncategorized as to the type of damages it represents. The Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement was submitted on behalf of the Defendants and Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including Michael Mobley, Petitioner here. Respondent did not participate in settlement negotiations or join in the Release, and no one represented its interests in the negotiations. The Agency has not otherwise executed a release of the lien. A Release was signed by the Plaintiffs contingent upon court approval of the Petition for Approval of Settlement. The court approved the settlement, with the exception of the Medicaid lien, pending an administrative determination of the amount of the lien to be paid. This $500,000 settlement is the only settlement received and is the subject of AHCA’s claim lien. In regard to the $500,000 settlement: Michael’s parents, Brenda Allerheiligen and David Mobley waived any claim to the settlement funds in compensation for their individual claims associated with their son’s injuries; The law firm of Levin, Papantonio, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A., agreed to waive its fees associated with its representation of Michael and his parents; The law firm of Levin, Papantonio, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A., agreed to reduce its reimbursement of the $60,541.22 in costs it advanced in the litigation of the case by 75% and accept $15,135.31 in full payment of its advanced costs; and ACS Recovery Services on behalf of CIGNA and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield agreed to reduce its $515,860.29 ERISA reimbursement claim asserted against the settlement and accept $120,000 in satisfaction of its $515,860.29 claim. AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $111,943.89 from the $500,000 settlement in satisfaction of its $111,943.89 Medicaid lien. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to statutory formula. Deducting 25 percent for attorney’s fees and $60,541.22 taxable costs from the $500,000.00 recovery leaves a sum of $314,458.78, half of which is $157,229.39. In this case, application of the formula therefore results in a statutory lien amount of $111.943.89, the amount actually paid. § 409.910(17), Fla. Stat. The settlement agreement allocated $120,000.00 to be paid to the ERISA plan in partial reimbursement of the $515,860.29 it had paid for medical expenses. This amount must be added to the amount of $20,717.54 allocated for other medical expenses paid by Medicaid, to reflect a total amount of $140,717.54 allocated for past medical expenses in the settlement. The $500,000 total recovery represents approximately 3.3 percent of the $15 million total economic damages. The $20,717.54 allocated to “Medicaid Lien” in the distribution sheet of the settlement represents approximately 3.3 percent of the $627,804.18 of total past medical expenses. The sum of $3,694.15 represents approximately 3.3 percent of the $111,943.89 in medical costs paid by Medicaid. The 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. The parties have stipulated that this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Petitioner filed his Petition on December 13, 2013, within 21 days after the Medicaid lien amount was deposited in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA. While the evidence presented as to the settlement agreement was not sufficient to show the full amount allocated to medical expenses, the evidence does show that the total recovery includes at least $140,717.54 allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses, which was to be divided unevenly between the ERISA plan and Medicaid. Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory lien amount of $111,943.89 exceeds the amount actually recovered in the settlement for medical expenses.
Findings Of Fact As a result of an audit report submitted December 13, 1976 for the Shore Acres Nursing and Convalescent Center for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1975, an adjustment in the Cost of Operations totaling $119,387 was made which resulted in an overpayment to Respondent of $6,109 (Exhibit 1). A similar audit for the period ending December 31, 1976 produced adjustments resulting in an overpayment of $3,419. Petitioner contends that the laws and regulations pertaining to Medicaid payments require an adjustment be made for certain costs paid by Medicare. It is this Medicare adjustment that is in dispute. Medicare will pay for certain costs which will not be paid by Medicaid, such as drugs and physical therapy. Medicare has a coinsurance requirement which can be paid by the individual, his insurance carrier, or Medicaid. Medicaid is a full coverage program but all services, e.g. drugs, physical therapy and speech therapy, are not covered by Medicaid. It is the Medicaid payments that are here involved and which Petitioner contends are computed after deductions in operating costs are made for those costs associated with Medicare. Some of these costs involve services that are not part of the covered services of the Medicaid program. Indirect costs associated with the direct costs for services associated with Medicare are also deducted. Using the figures supplied by Respondent, the auditor deducted indirect costs due to depreciation, operation and maintenance of plant of $1,432; other indirect various general services costs of $2,309; ancillary costs of $16,772 for physical therapy; drugs costs of $15,732; speech therapy of $2,983; outpatient costs of $4,515; the distinct part of room and board charge of $164,621 less $65,475 for non-Medicaid per diem costs; and less adjustment for return on equity for inpatient days and outpatient days. After these adjustments are made, the audit resulted in overpayments as noted above. Respondent contends, and Petitioner concurs, that when the first audits were made (and the 1975 audit here involved was the first), none of the nursing homes were deducting the Medicare adjustment in submitting their claim for payments to HRS. Respondent contends that making the adjustments here involved resulted in removing costs which affect the average cost per patient day. It is also contended that the majority of those deductions come from the full-care patients which have the highest per diem costs and this results in lower payments to the providers.
The Issue What amount from Petitioners’ settlement proceeds should be paid to satisfy Respondent’s Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018)?1/
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts (near-verbatim) On February 13, 2017, Grace Provvedi (Mrs. Provvedi) underwent an outpatient surgical procedure. Post-surgery, a Fentanyl patch was applied to Mrs. Provvedi’s body for the management of pain. Additionally, she was discharged home with a prescription for the oral pain medicines, Lorazepam and Robaxin. Mrs. Provvedi returned for a follow-up doctor’s visit on February 15, 2017. That same day, February 15, 2017, Mrs. Provvedi went into cardiopulmonary arrest at home. She was transported to the hospital where she was ultimately diagnosed with anoxic brain injury due to pain medicine overdose. Mrs. Provvedi remained in a vegetative state until her death on March 24, 2017. Mrs. Provvedi was survived by her husband Timothy Provvedi, their four-year-old child, B.P. and an adult child, Kyle Lima. Mrs. Provvedi’s medical care related to her injury was paid by Medicaid, and AHCA through the Medicaid program provided $54,071.79 in benefits associated with Mrs. Provvedi’s injury. This $54,071.79 represented the entire claim for past medical expenses. Mrs. Provvedi’s funeral bill totaled $11,422.97 and was paid by her surviving husband. Timothy Provvedi was appointed the personal representative of the Estate of Grace Provvedi. Timothy Provvedi, as the personal representative of the Estate of Grace Provvedi, brought a wrongful death claim to recover both the individual statutory damages of Mrs. Provvedi’s surviving spouse and two surviving children, as well as the individual statutory damages of the Estate of Grace Provvedi against the doctor and physician’s group (Defendants) who prescribed the deadly combination of the Fentanyl patch and oral pain medication. Timothy Provvedi, as the personal representative of the Estate of Grace Provvedi, on behalf of Mrs. Provvedi’s surviving husband and two children, as well as on behalf of the Estate of Grace Provvedi, compromised and settled the wrongful death claim with the Defendants for the unallocated lump sum amount of $225,000. During the pendency of the wrongful death claim, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $54,071.79 Medicaid lien against the Estate of Grace Provvedi’s cause of action and settlement of that action. By letter, the attorney handling the wrongful death claim notified AHCA of the settlement. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $54,071.79 Medicaid lien. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the wrongful death settlement. AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $54,071.79 on behalf of Mrs. Provvedi, all of which represents expenditures paid for Mrs. Provvedi’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $225,000 settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The formula at section 409.910(11)(f), as applied to the entire $225,000 settlement, requires payment of the full $54,071.79 Medicaid lien and AHCA is demanding payment of $54,071.79 from the $225,000 settlement. The Petitioners have 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 Statutues, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Additional Findings of Fact Mr. Provvedi, as surviving husband, and the two children of Mrs. Provvedi, suffered economic and non-economic damages. The Estate of Mrs. Provvedi suffered economic damages in the form of medical expenses resulting from the Defendant’s alleged negligence. Mrs. Provvedi’s funeral bill was paid by Mr. Provvedi. Pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act, burial expenses are generally charged to the estate, unless, as in the present case, such expenses are paid by a surviving spouse and reimbursement of the same is not sought from the estate. Mrs. Provvedi, as a condition of eligibility for Medicaid, assigned to AHCA her right to recover medical expenses paid by Medicaid from liable third parties. Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. John W. Pate, a trial attorney with the law firm of Haygood, Orr & Pearson in Irving, Texas. Mr. Pate has been a trial attorney for 14 years and he specializes in representing individuals in personal injury, medical malpractice, and wrongful death cases. Mr. Pate testified that during the last several years, his practice has focused extensively on litigating medical malpractice cases involving the wrongful administration of prescription medications, including opioids like Fentanyl, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, and other drugs which impact an individual’s central nervous system (CNS). Such drugs are often referred to as CNS depressant drugs. Mr. Pate routinely conducts civil jury trials, and as a consequence thereof, he stays abreast of jury verdicts by reviewing jury verdict reporters and discussing cases with other trial attorneys. Although Mr. Pate is not a member of the Florida Bar, he represents injured parties in Florida which necessitates that he stays up-to-date with civil jury verdicts from the State of Florida. Mr. Pate testified that as a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties and credibly explained his process for making such assessments. Without objection, Mr. Pate was recognized as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Pate served as lead attorney in the litigation against the medical providers who treated Mrs. Provvedi. In his capacity as lead attorney, Mr. Pate reviewed Mrs. Provvedi’s medical records, consulted with an anesthesiology and pain management expert in North Carolina, consulted with a plastic surgery expert in Miami, met personally with Mr. Provvedi, and spoke with Mrs. Provvedi’s children. Mr. Pate, in explaining the circumstances that allegedly led to the death of Mrs. Provvedi, testified that on February 13, 2017, Mrs. Provvedi underwent an outpatient surgical procedure at a plastic surgery center. Soon after the surgery, a Fentanyl patch was applied to Mrs. Provvedi’s body for the treatment of pain. Ms. Provvedi was then discharged home with a prescription for Lorazepam and Robaxin, each of which is an oral pain medication. Mr. Pate testified that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns against the use of Fentanyl patches post-surgery, and also warns against the combination of a Fentanyl patch with other CNS depressant drugs, such as Lorazepam and Robaxin. Mr. Pate explained, as to his theory of legal liability against Mrs. Provvedi’s medical providers, that over time the prescribed CNS depressants accumulated in Mrs. Provvedi’s body which resulted in her being found unresponsive two days after surgery. Mrs. Provvedi was transported by EMS to the hospital, where, upon arrival, the Fentanyl patch was removed. Mrs. Provvedi was diagnosed as having suffered from an acute anoxic brain injury and respiratory failure due to a pain medication overdose. Mrs. Provvedi never regained consciousness, and one month later was discharged from the hospital to hospice care where she died on March 24, 2017. Mr. Pate’s undisputed testimony was that his investigation revealed that Mr. and Mrs. Provvedi had a loving and devoted marriage, and that it was emotionally devastating to Mr. Provvedi to watch his wife die over the course of five weeks. Mr. Pate also testified that his investigation revealed that the Provvedi’s minor son, B.P., who was five at the time of Mrs. Provvedi’s death, was profoundly affected by the loss of his mother and that Ms. Provvedi’s adult son, who lived with the Provvedis prior to and at the time of his mother’s passing, was similarly devastated by the death of his mother. Mr. Pate credibly testified that based on his training and experience, the wrongful death damages recoverable in Mrs. Provvedi’s case had a conservative value of between $3,054,071.79 to $5,054,071.79. According to Mr. Pate’s undisputed testimony, Mrs. Provvedi’s estate had a claim for damages in the amount of $54,071.79, which is the amount of medical expenses that were paid, and resulted from Mrs. Provvedi’s injury and death. Mr. Pate excluded the funeral bill from the estate’s damages because the same bill was paid by Mr. Provvedi, as surviving husband. Mr. Pate also testified that the estate likely did not have a viable claim for net accumulations because Mrs. Provvedi did not work outside of the marital home. Mr. Pate testified that a wrongful death claim was brought against the plastic surgeon that operated on Mrs. Provvedi and the surgical facility where the procedure was performed. The basis of the claim was that the doctor violated the standard of care by prescribing the Fentanyl patch to Mrs. Provvedi in clear contravention of the FDA warnings, and it was error to prescribe the other oral pain medicines in conjunction with the Fentanyl patch. Mr. Pate testified that he expected the at-fault parties to dispute causation, but ultimately the main issue was that the alleged at-fault parties had only $250,000 in insurance coverage. Mr. Pate credibly testified that expenses associated with litigating the wrongful death case would be considerable and would significantly erode any likely net recovery. Given these concerns, the decision was made to settle the case pre-suit for $225,000. Utilizing the conservative value of $3,054,071.79, the $225,000 settlement represents a recovery of only 7.367214 percent of the value of all damages. Thus, only 7.367214 percent of the $54,071.79 claim for past medical expenses was recovered in the settlement, or $3,983.58. Based on the methodology of applying the same ratio the settlement bore to the total monetary value of all the damages to the estate, $3,983.58 of the settlement represents the estate’s compensation for past medical expenses. The allocation of $3,983.58 of the settlement to the estate’s claim for past medical expenses is reasonable and rational. Petitioners have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that $3,983.58 represents the portion of the $225,000 settlement recovered to compensate the estate for medical expenses necessitated by the alleged negligence of the tortfeasors.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, United Health, Inc. (United), is the owner and operator of approximately one hundred and twenty-three nursing homes in thirteen states. In the State of Florida, it owns and operates sixteen nursing homes and one intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded that are licensed by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). At issue in this proceeding are the cost reports and supplemental schedules filed by thirteen nursing home facilities.1 In accordance with Medicaid guidelines, petitioner was required to annually submit cost reports to HRS reflecting its allowable costs in providing Medicaid services to its patients. HRS is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In order to be reimbursed for said costs, the facility was required to show that the costs were in conformity with Federal and State Medicaid reimbursement principles. Those principles are embodied in the Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Plan) adopted by the State.2 This document contains the reimbursement methodology to be used for nursing homes who provide Medicaid services. In addition, providers must comply with Health Insurance Manual 15 (HIM-15), a compendium of federal cost reimbursement guidelines utilized by HRS, and generally accepted accounting principles. By letter dated September 9, 1985 petitioner requested that HRS adjust its July 1, 1985 reimbursement rates for the thirteen facilities to reflect certain annualized costs incurred during the preceding fiscal year ending December 31, 1984. According to the letter, the adjustment was appropriate under Section V.B.I.b. of the September 1, 1984 Plan. On October 21, 1985, an HRS Medicaid cost reimbursement analyst issued a letter denying the request on the following grounds: Our review of the information submitted with the fiscal year end 12/31/84 cost reports revealed that the annualized operating and patient care costs were not documented to be new and expanded services or related to licensure and certification requirements. The annualized property cost appeared to be 1 2 various purchases, repairs and maintenance and was not documented to be capital improvements. The denial prompted the instant proceeding. B. Reimbursement Principles In General Under the Medicaid reimbursement plan adopted for use in Florida, nursing homes are reimbursed by HRS on a prospective basis for their allowable costs incurred in providing Medicaid services. This method is commonly referred to as the prospective plan, and has been in use since 1977. Under this concept, a nursing home files with HRS, within ninety days after the close of its fiscal year, a cost report reflecting its actual costs for the immediate preceding fiscal year. Within the next ninety days, the nursing home is given a per diem reimbursement rate (or ceiling) to be used during the following twelve months.3 For example, if a provider's fiscal year ended December 31, 1984, its cost report would be due by March 31, 1985. HRS would then provide estimated reimbursement rates to be used during the period from July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986. As can be seen, there is a time lag between the end of a cost reporting year and the provider's receiving the new rate. The new reimbursement rate is based upon the provider's actual costs in the preceding fiscal year (reporting period) adjusted upward by an inflation factor that is intended to compensate the provider for cost increases caused by inflation. The prospective plan enables a provider to know in advance what rates it will be paid for Medicaid services during that year rather than being repaid on a retroactive basis. If a provider operates efficiently at a level below the ceiling, it is "rewarded" being allowed to keep a portion of the difference. Conversely, if it exceeds the caps, it is penalized to the extent that it receives only the rates previously authorized by HRS, and must absorb the shortfall. At the same time, it should be noted that the reimbursement rate is not intended to cover all costs incurred by a provider, but only those that are reasonable and necessary in an efficiently operated facility. These unreimbursed costs are covered through other provider resources, or by a future cut in services. When the events herein occurred, there were two types of adjustments allowed under the prospective plan. The first adjustment is the inflation factor, and as noted above, it 3 authorizes the provider to adjust certain reported costs by the projected rate of inflation to offset anticipated cost increases due to inflation. However, because the prospective plan (and the inflation factor) ignores other cost increases that occur during the given year, HRS devised a second type of adjustment for providers to use. This adjustment is known as the gross-up provision, and allows the annualization of certain costs incurred by a provider during a portion of the reporting period. The concept itself .s embodied in subparagraph B.1.b. of Part V of the September 1, 1984 Plan. Its use may be illustrated with the following example. A provider constructs an addition to its facility with an in-service date at the end of the sixth month of the reporting period. By reflecting only the depreciation associated with the addition during the last six months of the reporting period, the facility understates its actual costs, and is reimbursed for only one-half of the facility's depreciation during the following year. Under the gross-up provision the provider grosses up, or annualizes, the reported cost to give it a full year's effect, thereby ensuring that the next year's rates will be more realistic. Although the provision has application to this proceeding, over objection by the nursing home industry it was eliminated from the Plan on October 1, 1985 and is no longer available to providers. At hearing HRS contended the provision should have been eliminated in 1984, but through oversight remained in effect until 1985. However this contention is rejected as not being credible, and is contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Finally, neither party could recall if a request under this provision had ever been filed. They do acknowledge that HRS has never approved such a request during the more than two years when the provision was operative. In addition to the gross-up and inflation provisions, there exists an alternative means for additional rate reimbursement through what is known as the interim rate provision. Under this provision, a provider can request an interim rate increase from HRS during the period when its prospective rates are in effect to cover major unexpected costs. Assuming a request is valid and substantiated, a provider is eligible for immediate cash relief dating back to the date of the actual expense. However, because of HRS' concern that this provision was being "abused", only those costs which exceed $5,000 and cause a change of 1% or more in the total prospective per diem rate are now eligible for reimbursement. These monetary thresholds on interim rate requests became effective September 1, 1984. When these higher thresholds were imposed, HRS made representations to the nursing home industry that a provider could still utilize the gross-up provision to cover other unexpected costs. Finally, it is noted that unlike the prospective rate, an interim rate is cost settled. This means the provider's cost reports are later audited, and excess reimbursements must be repaid to HRS. This differs from the prospective plan where any "overpayments" are not subject to recoupment by HRS. Even so, a provider is limited by the reasonableness and prudent buyer concepts which serve as a check on potential abuse by a provider. The Gross-Up Feature In its relevant form, the gross-up provision was first adopted for use by HRS in its April 1, 1983 Plan.4 It required HRS to: Review and adjust each provider's cost report referred to in A. (1.) as follows: * * * b. to compensate for new and expanded or discontinued services, licensure and certification requirements, and capital improvements which occurred during the reporting year but were not included or totally accounted for in the cost report. This language was incorporated with only minor changes into the September 1, 1984 Plan and is applicable to the cost reports in issue. In its 1984 form, the provision required HRS to review and adjust each provider's cost report as follows: b. To compensate for new and expanded or discontinued services, licensure and certification requirements, and capital improvements not included or totally accounted for in the reporting year. For additional costs to be provided, the provider must furnish adequate supporting documentation. 4 Accordingly, if a cost fits within one of the three categories, HRS is required to adjust a provider's report to compensate it for the expenditure. The April 1, 1983 Plan was negotiated by the nursing home industry and HRS representatives at a meeting in Gainesville, Florida. For this reason, it is commonly referred to as the Gainesville Plan. Through testimony of negotiators who participated at the meeting, it was established that the Plan had three objectives: to give proper payment to nursing homes; to meet state and federal regulations; and to help upgrade care in the nursing homes. At the same time, the negotiators recognized that a prospective plan based on inFla.ion alone overlooked other cost increases that occurred during a given year. Therefore, the gross-up provision was added to the Plan to ensure that providers could estimate (and recoup) their future costs in as accurate a manner as possible, and to bring the plan into compliance with federal guidelines. It was also designed to ensure that a provider did not have to wait an extraordinarily long time for expenses to be recognized. In addition, HRS was hopeful that the gross-up provision would minimize the providers' reliance upon the interim rate feature (which was intended to cover only major items) thereby reducing the agency's overall workload. Indeed, the interim and gross-up features were intended to complement each other, in that one provided immediate relief on major unexpected items while the other provided a means to adjust partial year costs incurred during the reporting period. The implementation of thresholds on the interim rate provision in September, 1984 increased the importance of the gross-up provision to handle smaller items. Therefore, HRS' contention that the interim and gross-up provisions are in conflict is hereby rejected. In order for a cost to be eligible for annualization, it must fall within one of three categories: new or expanded service, a capital improvement, or a cost to meet HRS' licensure and certification requirements. The parties have stipulated that HRS' denial of United's request was based solely upon HRS' perception that the costs did not fall within any of the three categories. The three types of costs within the feature are not defined in the Plan. Testimony from the Plan's negotiators established that the language in the gross-up feature was meant to be construed broadly and to encompass many costs. For this reason, no limitations were written into the Plan. Even so, the provision was not intended to give carte blanche authority to the providers to annualize every partial cost. There is conflicting testimony regarding the meaning of the term "capital improvement" and what expenditures are included within this category. However, Sections 108.1 and 108.2 of HIM-15, of which the undersigned has taken official notice, define a capital item as follows: If a depreciable asset has, at the time of its acquisition, an estimated useful life of at least 2 years and a historical cost of at least $500, its cost must be capitalized, and written off ratably over the estimated useful life of the asset. . . * * * Betterments and improvements extend the life or increase the productivity of an asset as opposed to repairs and maintenance which either restore the asset to, or maintain it at, its normal or expected service life. Repairs and maintenance costs are always allowed in the current accounting period. With respect to the costs of betterments and improvements, the guidelines established in Section 108.1 must be followed, i.e., if the cost of a betterment or improvement to an asset is $500 or more and the estimated useful life of the asset is extended beyond its original estimated life by at least 2 years, or if the productivity of the asset is increased significantly over its original productivity, then the cost must be capitalized. The above guidelines are more credible and persuasive than the limited definition of capital item enunciated at final hearing by HRS personnel. Therefore, it is found that the HIM-15 definition is applicable to the gross-up feature and will be used to determine the validity of petitioner's claim to gross up certain expenditures. There is also conflicting testimony as to what the term "new and expanded or discontinued services" includes. Petitioner construes this item to include any costs that increase the volume of services to a resident. Therefore, petitioner posits that an increase in staffing which likewise increases services to residents is subject to annualization. Conversely, HRS construes the term to cover any costs for new or expanded services that enable a facility to provide patients with services not previously provided or to expand an existing service to more patients in the facility. The latter definition is more credible and persuasive and will be used by the undersigned in evaluating petitioner's request. Finally, petitioner interprets the term "licensure and certification requirements" to cover any costs incurred to meet staffing requirements that are required by HRS rules. According to petitioner, the category would include expenditures that are made for so-called preventive maintenance purposes and to avoid HRS sanctions. On the other hand, HRS construes the language to cover costs incurred by a provider to either meet a new licensure and certification requirement, or to correct a cited deficiency. It also points out that salary increases were intended to be covered by the inflation factor rather than through this feature of the plan. This construction of the term is more reasonable, and is hereby accepted as being the more credible and persuasive. Petitioner's Request Petitioner's fiscal year ends on December 31. According to HRS requirements its cost reports must be filed by the following March 31. In accordance with that requirement petitioner timely filed its December 31, 1984 cost reports for the thirteen facilities on or before March 31, 1985. The reports have been received into evidence as petitioner's composite exhibit 3. Attached to the reports were schedules supporting a request for gross-up of certain capital items, additions and deletions of various personnel, and union salary increases that exceeded the inflation rate. The parties have not identified the actual dollar value of the items since only the concepts are in issue. In preparing the supporting schedules, United's assistant director of research reviewed all so-called capital items purchased by the thirteen facilities during the fiscal year, and determined which were purchased after the beginning of the year.5 He then calculated the depreciation on those 5 expenditures made after the beginning of the year and has included those amounts on the supporting schedules to be annualized. Consistent with the definition contained in Sections 108.1 and 108.2 of HIM-15, those items that are in excess of $500 (after annualization), that extend the useful life of the asset for two years or more, or that increase or extend the productivity of the asset are subject to annualization. It should be noted that repairs and maintenance items, as defined in Sections 108.1 and 108.2, are excluded from this category. Petitioner next seeks to adjust its rates by grossing up the net increase in costs associated with additions and deletions of various staff during the reporting period. Any net staffing additions that provide patients with services not previously provided or that expand an existing service to more patients in a given facility are properly subject to the gross- up provision. All others should be denied. Petitioner also contends that these costs should be considered as a licensure and certification requirement since they satisfy staffing requirements under HRS rules. To the extent the filling of old positions occurred, such expenditures are appropriately covered by the gross-up provision. The remainder do not fall within the purview of the provision. Finally, petitioner seeks to adjust its rates to cover all salary increases over and above the inflation factor that were awarded to union employees pursuant to its union contract. Under petitioner's theory, if such costs were not paid, United stood to lose staff through a strike which in turn could result in licensure and certification problems. But these concerns are speculative in nature, and such an interpretation would result in automatic approval of any salary increase called for by a union contract, no matter how unreasonable it might be. Since the expenditures do not meet the previously cited criteria, they must be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's request to have its July 1, 1985 reimbursement rates adjusted for thirteen facilities to reflect annualized costs as submitted on supplemental schedules with its 1984 cost reports be approved in part, as set forth in the conclusions of law portion of this order. The remaining part of its request should be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1986.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's ("AHCA" or "the agency") Medicaid lien of $267,072.91 should be reimbursed in full from the $1 million settlement recovered by Petitioner or whether Petitioner proved that a lesser amount should be paid under section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulation between the parties (paragraphs 1 through 13 below), the evidence presented, and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: On January 13, 2016, Mr. Jay Hosek was operating his 1999 Chevy Trailblazer northbound on U.S. Highway 1, near mile marker 56, in Monroe County. At that same time and place, his vehicle was struck by a southbound tractor trailer. Hosek suffered catastrophic physical injuries, including permanent brain damage. Hosek is now unable to walk, stand, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Hosek's medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid, Medicare, and United Healthcare ("UHC"). Medicaid provided $267,072.91 in benefits, Medicare provided $93,952.97 in benefits and UHC provided $65,778.54 in benefits. Accordingly, Hosek's entire claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $426,804.42. Jirina Hosek was appointed Hosek's legal guardian. As legal guardian, Jirina Hosek brought a personal injury lawsuit against the driver and owner of the tractor trailer that struck Hosek ("defendants") to recover all of Hosek's damages associated with his injuries. The defendants maintained only a $1 million insurance policy and had no other collectable assets. Hosek's personal injury action against the defendants was settled for the available insurance policy limits, resulting in a lump sum unallocated settlement of $1 million. Due to Hosek's incompetence, court approval of the settlement was required and the court approved the settlement by Order of October 5, 2018. During the pendency of Hosek's personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $267,072.91 Medicaid lien against Hosek's cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene or join in Hosek's action against the defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of Hosek's settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Hosek's settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $267,072.91 on behalf of Hosek, all of which represents expenditures paid for Hosek's past medical expenses. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Hosek's $1 million settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $267,072.91 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited AHCA's full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights, and this constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). While driving his vehicle northbound, Hosek drifted into oncoming traffic, crossed over the center line, and struck a southbound vehicle in its lane head on. Petitioner had an indisputable and extremely high degree of comparative negligence in causing this tragic vehicle accident. Petitioner presented the testimony of Brett Rosen ("Rosen"), Esquire, a Florida attorney with 12 years' experience in personal injury law. His practice includes catastrophic and wrongful death cases. Rosen is board-certified in civil trial by the Florida Bar. He is a member of several trial attorney associations. Rosen represented Hosek and his family in the personal injury case. As a routine part of his practice, Rosen makes assessments regarding the value of damages his injured client(s) suffered. He stays abreast of personal injury jury verdicts by reviewing jury verdict reports and searching verdicts on Westlaw. Rosen regularly reads the Daily Business Review containing local verdicts and subscribes to the "Law 360," which allows him to review verdicts throughout the country. Rosen was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency. Rosen testified that Hosek's case was a difficult case for his client from a liability perspective, since all the witnesses blamed Hosek for the crash and the police report was not favorable to him. In his professional opinion, had Hosek gone to trial, the jury could have attributed a substantial amount of comparative negligence to him based upon the facts of the case. There was also a high possibility that Hosek might not receive any money at all, since Hosek's comparative negligence in the accident was very high. Rosen explained the seriousness of Hosek's injuries, stating that Hosek may have fallen asleep while driving and his car veered over and crossed the centerline. It hit an oncoming commercial truck, which caused his vehicle to flip resulting in severe injuries to him. Rosen testified that Hosek is unable to communicate since he received catastrophic brain injury from the accident and is unable to care for himself. Rosen provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. He testified that the case was worth $10 million, and that this amount is a very conservative valuation of Hosek's personal injuries. He also generalized that based on his training and experience, Hosek's damages could range anywhere from $10 to $30 million at trial. He testified that Hosek would need future medical care for the rest of his life. This future medical care has a significant value ranging from $15 to $25 million.1/ Rosen testified that he reviewed other cases and talked to experts in similar cases involving catastrophic injuries. After addressing various ranges of damages, Rosen clarified that the present value of Hosek's damages in this case was more than $10 million dollars. Although he did not state specific amounts, he felt that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have a significant value in addition to his economic damages.2/ Rosen believed that a jury would have returned or assigned a value to the damages of over $10 million. He testified that his valuation of the case only included the potential damages. He did not take into account Hosek's "substantial amount" of comparative negligence and liability.3/ Despite doing so in other personal injury cases, Rosen did not conduct a mock trial in an effort to better assess or determine the damages in Hosek's case. Rosen testified that Hosek sued the truck driver, Alonzo, and Alonzo's employer. He further testified that Hosek was compensated for his damages under the insurance policy carried by the truck driver and his company and settled for the policy limits of $1 million dollars representing 10 percent of the potential total value of his claim. Rosen did not obtain or use a life care plan for Hosek, nor did he consider one in determining his valuation of damages for Hosek's case. Rosen did not provide any specific numbers or valuation concerning Hosek's noneconomic damages. Instead, he provided a broad damage range that he said he "would give the jury" or "be giving them a range of $50 Million for past and future."4/ Rosen testified that he relied on several specific factors in making the valuation of Hosek's case. The most important factor for him was to determine what his client was "going through" and experience his client's "living conditions."5/ Secondly, he considers the client's medical treatment and analyzes the client's medical records. Based on these main factors, he can determine or figure out what the client's future medical care will "look like."6/ Petitioner also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett ("Barrett"), Esquire, a Tallahassee trial attorney. Barrett has more than 40 years' experience in civil litigation. His practice is dedicated to plaintiff's personal injury, as well as medical malpractice and medical products liability. Barrett was previously qualified as an expert in federal court concerning the value of the wrongful death of an elderly person. This testimony was used primarily for tax purposes at that trial. Barrett has been accepted as an expert at DOAH in Medicaid lien cases in excess of 15 times and has provided testimony regarding the value of damages and the allocation of past medical expenses. Barrett has handled cases involving catastrophic brain injuries. He stays abreast of local and state jury verdicts. Barrett has also reviewed several life care plans and economic reports in catastrophic personal injury cases. He routinely makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by parties who have received personal injuries. Barrett determines the value of these damages based primarily on his experience and frequent review of jury verdicts. Barrett was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency.7/ Barrett testified that Hosek had a catastrophic brain injury with broken facial bones and pneumothoraxes, all sustained during an extremely violent head-on collision with a commercial truck. This assessment was based on the case exhibits and the "fairly limited medical records" he reviewed. He believed that Hosek would need extensive and expensive medical care for the rest of his life. However, no details were offered by Barrett.8/ Barrett provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. This was based on his training and experience. Barrett did not provide a firm number for Hosek's damages. Instead, he offered a nonspecific and broad range of damages. Barrett testified that Hosek's damages "probably" have a value in the range of $25 to $50 million, and the range of Hosek's future medical care would be $10 to $20 million. However, he felt that $10 million was a "very, very, very conservative" estimate of damages, primarily because he felt that future medical expenses would be so high. Barrett stated that Hosek's economic damages would have a significant value exceeding $10 million and that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have an additional value exceeding $10 million. Barrett acknowledged that he did not consider or take into account Hosek's "huge comparative negligence" in estimating the total value of the case. Instead, he only considered the amount(s) that would be awarded for damages. He testified that Petitioner's degree of comparative negligence would reduce each element of damages he was awarded. As a result of Hosek's very significant comparative negligence, Barrett testified that a trial would have likely resulted in a "complete defense verdict" against Hosek or with only minor negligence attributed to the truck driver or his company. Barrett felt that a jury in Hosek's case would not have awarded Hosek "more than one million dollars or so." Barrett explained that in a trial for personal injuries that each element of damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff on the verdict form is reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff's comparative negligence. Barrett also explained that when the jury verdict assigns ten percent of the negligence to the defendant and 90 percent of the negligence to the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable for paying only ten percent of each element of the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Barrett testified that he does not believe that the $1 million settlement fully compensated Hosek for his injuries and that a potential award of $10 million would be a conservative value of Hosek's claim. While both experts provided broad and nonspecific ranges for the value of Hosek's claims, they both summed up their testimony by concluding that $10 million was a very conservative estimate of Hosek's total claim. AHCA did not call any witnesses. The agency presented Exhibit 1, entitled "Provider Processing System Report." This report outlined all the hospital and medical payments that AHCA made on Hosek's behalf, totaling $267,072.91. On the issue of damages, the experts did not provide any details concerning several of Petitioner's claims, including the amount of past medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, or damages for pain and suffering. The burden was on Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence to prove that the "proportionality test" it relied on to present its challenge to the agency's lien under section 409.910(17)(b) was a reliable and competent method to establish what amount of his tort settlement recovery was fairly allocable to past medical expenses. In this case, the undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to carry this burden.9/ There was no credible evidence presented by Petitioner to prove or persuasively explain a logical correlation between the proposed total value of Petitioner's personal injury claim and the amount of the settlement agreement fairly allocable to past medical expenses. Without this proof the proportionality test was not proven to be credible or accurate in this case, and Petitioner did not carry his burden. There was a reasonable basis in the record to reject or question the evidence presented by Petitioner's experts. Their testimony was sufficiently contradicted and impeached during cross-examination and other questioning. Even if the experts' testimony had not been contradicted, the "proportionality test" proposed by Petitioner was not proven to be a reliable or accurate method to carry Petitioner's burden under section 409.910(17)(b). To reiterate, there was no persuasive evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that (1) a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by the agency, or (2) that Medicaid provided a lesser amount of medical assistance than that asserted by the agency.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 2012, Luca Weedo’s natural mother, who was 30 weeks pregnant with Luca, was walking on the sidewalk on the east shoulder of Airport Pulling Road in Naples, Florida. At the same time, a Jeep Wrangler was traveling on Airport Pulling Road. As the Jeep Wrangler approached Luca’s natural mother, the left front tire and wheel separated from the Jeep Wrangler. The separated wheel bounced along the roadway at a high rate of speed, crossing the median and northbound lane of Airport Pulling Road. The wheel approached Luca’s natural mother at such a high rate of speed that she was unable to avoid it. She was struck by the wheel and knocked to the ground, which caused her to lose consciousness and suffer a ruptured placenta. Luca’s natural mother was transported to Lee Memorial Hospital. Upon admission, she underwent emergency surgery due to abdominal trauma. Luca was delivered via emergency C-section. Luca was born with extreme fetal immaturity and catastrophic brain damage. Luca remained in the hospital for three months, undergoing numerous medical procedures associated with his serious medical needs and brain damage. Luca now suffers from catastrophic brain damage and a seizure disorder that causes him to have multiple seizures every day. He is unable to ambulate, speak, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Prior to Luca’s birth, his natural mother had decided to place Luca up for adoption. Accordingly, when Luca was discharged from the hospital, the Florida Department of Children and Families asked Debra and Kenneth Weedo to take Luca into their home as a foster child. Kenneth Weedo is a retired truck driver and his wife Debra is a foster parent for medically needy children. Debra and Kenneth Weedo took Luca into their home and adopted him on May 2, 2013. Luca’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by Medicaid, which provided $319,188.20 in benefits. This $319,188.20 paid by Medicaid constituted Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Luca, through his parents and guardians, Debra and Kenneth Weedo, brought a personal injury action to recover all his damages. The lawsuit was initially brought against the owner/driver of the Jeep Wrangler. However, through discovery, it was determined that the party responsible for the wheel separating from the Jeep Wrangler was the tire and rim shop that installed the wheel on the Jeep Wrangler approximately a year prior to the accident (“Tire Shop”). The Tire Shop maintained insurance with a policy limit of $1 million. The Tire Shop’s insurance company tendered the $1 million insurance policy limit, which was accepted by Debra and Kenneth Weedo in settlement of Luca’s claim for damages against the Tire Shop. The General Release and Hold Harmless Agreement (“Release”), executed on December 21, 2015, memorialized the settlement with the Tire Shop as follows, in relevant part: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for all of the damages that he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Second Parties without regard to this settlement only, compensating LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO has alleged his damages have a value in excess of $25,000,000, of which $319,188.20 represents LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s injuries and allegations, $12,767.53 of this settlement has been allocated to LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that this allocation is reasonable and proportionate based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s damages. Further, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO acknowledges that he may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses that LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO will incur in the future. However, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that his family and/or others on his behalf have not made payments in the past or in advance for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s future medical care and LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, it is LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s contention that no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Luca was a minor, Court approval of the settlement was required. Accordingly, on February 17, 2016, Collier County Circuit Court Judge James Shenko approved the settlement by entering an Agreed Order on Petitioner’s Unopposed Petition to Approve Minor’s Settlement. As a condition of his eligibility to receive Medicaid benefits, Luca assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third-parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. AHCA was notified of Luca’s personal injury action during its pendency. Through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, AHCA has asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $314,747.23 against Luca’s cause of action and settlement of the personal injury action. This is the amount that the Medicaid program spent on behalf of Luca for his past medical expenses.2/ Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) requires that AHCA be reimbursed for the full $314,747.23 Medicaid lien. Neither Luca nor others on his behalf made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care. No claim for damages was made for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Debra Ann Weedo attended the final hearing along with Luca. Ms. Weedo is a foster parent for medically needy children. She testified that she currently has four children in her home: three-year-old Luca; a six-year-old in more or less the same condition as Luca; a five-year-old who is “basically normal”; and an autistic eight-year-old. Ms. Weedo first met Luca in the hospital during his post-birth hospitalization. She was asked to take him as a foster child and visited him several times in the hospital before taking him home at age three months. Ms. Weedo stated that when she brought Luca home, the whole family fell in love with him and “he became our family.” As soon as it was possible, Ms. Weedo and her husband adopted Luca. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca’s siblings interact with him and that Luca knows the voices of his caregivers and “will kind of try to talk to us.” At the hearing, the undersigned observed that Luca is somewhat aware of his surroundings and responsive to voices. Ms. Weedo testified that her family does everything together. Luca travels, goes on vacations, and goes out to eat as part of the family. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca requires 24-hour supervision and that his condition will become progressively worse as he ages. Luca has been on oxygen since December 2014. He must use a BiPAP (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) machine when he sleeps because the oxygen saturation level in his blood tends to be perilously low. He receives his nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. Civil trial attorney Todd Rosen testified on behalf of Petitioner as a fact witness and an expert on the valuation of damages. Mr. Rosen has been an attorney for 15 years and is the principal of the Todd Rosen Law Group in Coral Gables. Mr. Rosen stated that his practice is exclusively devoted to representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases. Mr. Rosen is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Florida Justice Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, and the Dade County Bar Association. Mr. Rosen has handled many jury trials and has represented plaintiffs who have suffered catastrophic brain injuries. A daily part of his practice is to assess the value of damages to injured persons. He stays abreast of jury verdicts in his area and routinely “round-tables” legal issues and damage valuations with other attorneys. Mr. Rosen testified that he was hired by Luca Weedo’s parents to investigate the potential claims they might have on behalf of their son. Mr. Rosen reviewed thousands of pages of Luca’s medical records, the accident report, and insurance policies for the defendants. The records indicated that Luca suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of placental abruption and that this injury had a permanent and devastating impact on the child’s life. Mr. Rosen explained that he could not file a lawsuit until the adoption process was complete, about eight months after the accident. He initially brought the suit against the driver of the Jeep, who had only PIP and property damage insurance and no collectable assets. Mr. Rosen interviewed the Jeep owner and learned the name of the Tire Shop. He made a demand for payment of the Tire Shop’s $1 million insurance policy. The full policy amount was tendered very soon after Mr. Rosen’s demand. Mr. Rosen testified that no life care plan or economist’s report was prepared in this case because the case settled so quickly. He believed that it would have been imprudent to spend money out of the $1 million settlement on a life care plan when the Weedos were not facing the prospect of a jury trial. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca’s past medical care related to the accident was paid by Medicaid. He testified that Medicaid provided $319,188.20 in benefits, representing Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca, or others on his behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for future medical care and no claim was brought to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. Mr. Rosen opined that Luca’s damages had a value “well in excess of” $25 million. Mr. Rosen explained that based on his experience in other cases, he believed the value of Luca’s future life care needs “would be well in excess of at least 10 to 15 million dollars” and that Luca’s non-economic damages would have a high value. Mr. Rosen noted that a jury would also take into account how “wonderful” Debra and Kenneth Weedo are to have devoted their lives to caring for Luca and other children in similar circumstances. Mr. Rosen believed that the $25 million valuation on Luca’s damages was “very conservative.” Mr. Rosen stated that the Tire Shop’s insurance counsel believed they had a strong argument that the owner of the Jeep must have done something to the tires after the Tire Shop put them on the car. However, despite the contested liability, the insurance company readily agreed during informal settlement discussions to pay the policy limits because the lawyers believed they were facing a verdict of up to $50 million. Mr. Rosen testified that the biggest cost factor in assessing Luca’s damages is the 24-hour attendant care that he will require for the rest of his life. Depending on how many caregivers are employed, the skill level required, and the location, attendant care may range from $25 to $40 per hour. Mr. Rosen estimated that a life care plan for Luca would be in the neighborhood of $10 million, including attendant care, nursing, and medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the $1 million settlement did not come close to fully compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Based on the conservative valuation of all Luca’s damages at $25 million, the $1 million settlement represented a recovery of four percent of the value of Luca’s damages. Mr. Rosen testified that because Luca only recovered four percent of the value of his damages in the settlement, he only recovered four percent of his $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53.3/ Mr. Rosen noted that the settling parties agreed in the Release that Luca’s damages had a value in excess of $25 million, as well as to the allocation of $12,767.53 to past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and more than fair because it was based on a conservative estimate of Luca’s damages. He stated, “Me, personally, I believe it should be less, but yes, that is fair just being conservative.” Mr. Rosen testified that because no claim was made to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care, no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. He noted that the parties agreed in the Release that no claim was made for reimbursement of past payments for future medical care, and no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Luca was a minor, court approval of his settlement was required. The court appointed another experienced attorney to act as Luca’s Guardian ad Litem to review the terms of the settlement and make a report to the court as to its appropriateness. The Guardian ad Litem recommended approval of the settlement, and the court adopted that recommendation. Also testifying on behalf of Petitioner as an expert in the valuation of damages was R. Vinson Barrett, a partner in the Tallahassee firm of Barrett, Fasig and Brooks, which Mr. Barrett described as a mid-sized firm that exclusively undertakes personal injury and products liability cases. Mr. Barrett stated that he has been a trial lawyer for 40 years and for the last 15 years has confined his practice to medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability cases. Mr. Barrett testified that he has done many jury trials. He discussed the importance of accurately estimating the value of the damages suffered by his clients because of the heavy investment that a trial firm must make in a complex case. Mr. Barrett stated that a firm can easily spend a quarter of a million dollars on experts and discovery, as well as life care plans, economic analyses, and vocational rehabilitation analyses, among other items required to establish damages. He stated that it is essential not to spend so much money in putting on the case that the client has nothing left after the verdict. Mr. Barrett stated that he has reviewed dozens of life care plans and economist reports, many for children with the same kind of injuries suffered by Luca Weedo. Mr. Barrett testified that he was familiar with Luca’s injuries and had reviewed the accident report, hospital birth records, records from a second hospitalization, medical records from Luca’s neurologist, the Guardian ad Litem report, the court order approving the settlement, Mr. Rosen’s demand letter to the insurance carrier, and each of Petitioner’s exhibits. He had also spoken to Debra Weedo by phone concerning Luca’s medical condition. Mr. Barrett gave a detailed explanation of Luca’s injuries and extent of his disability. He concluded that Luca’s injury “is as bad an injury as you can possibly receive and stay alive . . . . It could not be more catastrophic.” The medical records indicate that Luca will not get better and his prognosis is poor. Mr. Barrett opined that Luca’s life care plan alone would probably exceed $25 million. He conceded “that seems like a huge, huge, huge amount of money,” but explained that it really is not such a large sum when one considers that Luca is supposed to have 24-hour attendant care throughout his lifetime. Life care plans are not limited to the cost of services provided by Medicaid, which is a safety net that “takes care of things that are absolutely essential to keep on breathing.” However, Medicaid does not cover many things that medically needy children require for quality of life, such as wheelchair-equipped vans. The life care plan includes all of the child’s needs. Mr. Barrett testified that a life care planner accounts for every cost, “pill by pill, wheelchair replacement by wheelchair replacement,” then reduces it to present value. Mr. Barrett testified that based on his experience working with life care planners in trial preparation, and his extensive experience in evaluating damages in cases similar to that of Luca Weedo, he had no doubt that $25 million is a conservative estimate of Luca’s pure losses. Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement did not come close to compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Using $25 million as the conservative measure of all his damages, Luca had recovered only four percent of the value of his damages. Mr. Barrett testified that “by equity and basically, now by federal law, you look at the same ratio for the lien that you look at [for] the claimant.” Accordingly, Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement provided Luca with only four percent of Medicaid’s $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53. Mr. Barrett testified that the settling parties’ allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and conservative. Both Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett testified at some length about comparable jury verdicts and prior DOAH Medicaid lien cases involving children with catastrophic brain injuries. This discussion had some value in establishing that $25 million was by no means an unreasonable estimate of Luca Weedo’s damages, but was secondary and supplemental to the directly expressed expert opinions of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett. AHCA presented the testimony of attorney James Bruner, who was accepted as an expert for the limited purpose of comparing the jury verdicts in the cases cited by Petitioner to the facts of the instant case. Mr. Bruner correctly noted that it can be misleading to cite the numbers from a jury verdict without reference to later reductions made on appeal or via settlement pending appeal. Mr. Bruner also effectively demonstrated that there is never a precise correlation between the facts of one case and those of another, and therefore that there cannot be a precise comparison of damages from one case to another.4/ However, the undersigned did not look to the comparative verdicts for such a strict comparison, but simply for the purpose of establishing a range of reasonableness in broadly similar cases. AHCA called no witness to directly contest the valuation of damages made by Mr. Rosen or to offer an alternative methodology to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. No evidence was presented that the settlement agreement was not reasonable given all the circumstances of the case. It does not appear that the parties colluded to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to Medicaid’s payment of costs for Petitioner’s medical care. In fact, the evidence established that the settlement was conservative in its valuation of Petitioner’s claim and that the settling parties could have reasonably apportioned less to Medicaid than they actually did. AHCA was not a party to the settlement of Petitioner’s claim. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee, or $250,000, as well as $8,112.70 in taxable costs, from the $1 million recovery, leaves $741,887.30, half of which is $370,943.65. That figure exceeds the actual amount expended by Medicaid on Petitioner’s medical care. Application of the formula would provide sufficient funds to satisfy the Medicaid lien of $314,747.23. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $25 million total value of the claim was a reasonable, even somewhat conservative, amount. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the strength and sympathy of his case and on the fact that it was limited only by the inability to collect the full amount of the likely judgment, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constituted a fair settlement, including the portion attributed to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
The Issue The issue 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.
