The Issue The issues in this case are the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Petitioners pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2007);1 whether Petitioners are entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes; and, if so, what amount should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact Each of the 14 Petitioners filed separate rule challenges, challenging the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 and challenging eight statements of policy of the Board of Pharmacy, which statements had not been adopted as rules. Prior to the filing of his or her rule challenge, each Petitioner had graduated from a pharmacy school located outside the United States and had taken and passed the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination, the Test of Spoken English, and the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Petitioners had been issued Intern Registrations by the Board of Pharmacy. All but two of the Petitioners had submitted an application to be admitted to the professional licensure examination. Those applications had been denied. All Petitioners, including the two Petitioners who had not submitted an application, had applied to the Board of Pharmacy for a variance or waiver to allow them to sit for the professional licensure examination. The Board of Pharmacy denied each Petitioner’s application for a variance or waiver. Each Petitioner had been represented by The Health Law Firm in their applications for a variance or waiver and wanted The Health Law Firm to continue to represent them in the rule challenge. When asked why the Petitioners had contacted The Health Law Firm to represent them, an attorney for The Health Law Firm stated: I think they have a network where word just gets around. And they-–I believe they even had some sort of list serve or Web site where they had all noted that they were being treated unfairly, and so they knew each other. And maybe our name got out on that or something. But they-–they all seemed to know each other-–seemed to know each other. Additionally, The Health Law Firm had sent out letters soliciting the foreign pharmacy graduates to join the rule challenge. An attorney for The Health Law Firm was not sure whether the letter had been posted on the web site for the foreign pharmacy graduates. In several of the invoices submitted by The Health Law Firm, there was a charge of $20.00 for a “[t]elephone conference with client’s colleagues who are in the same situation and interested in filing petitions for waivers and joining the rule challenge.”2 Thus, the circumstances surrounding the representation of Petitioners by The Health Law Firm do not demonstrate that it was a coincidence that Petitioners just happened to pick The Health Law Firm to represent them in the rule challenges. The Health Law Firm decided to file 14 separate petitions instead of one petition with 14 petitioners. The reason for the filing of the separate petitions was to increase the amount of attorney’s fees which could be awarded. Given the inexperience of attorneys at The Health Law Firm with rule challenges and the difficulty in understanding the speech of Petitioners, who received their pharmacy training in countries other than the United States, The Health Law Firm felt that it was not economically feasible to pursue the rule challenge for $15,000.00. Petitioners had a common goal, i.e. to be allowed to sit for the professional licensure examination. The wording of each of the petitions was essentially the same except for the names of the individual Petitioners. Because the issues were the same for all the rule challenges, the rule challenges were consolidated for final hearing. No final hearing was held in the consolidated cases. The parties agreed that, based on the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, there were no disputed issues of material fact and agreed to file proposed final orders addressing each party’s position regarding the application of the law to the stipulated facts. The Board of Pharmacy conceded that Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and Petitioners were determined to prevail on the issue of the invalidity of the existing rule. On the challenge to the Board of Pharmacy’s policy statements, four statements were determined to meet the definition of a rule. The Board of Pharmacy conceded in the parties’ pre-hearing stipulation that the instructions in the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination, directing applicants not to apply prior to obtaining all the required internship hours, constituted a non-rule policy. On August 1, 2008, in response to its concession that some of the statements or policies at issue were invalid non-rule policies, the Board of Pharmacy had published, in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly, a Notice of Rule Development for Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. On August 21, 2008, the Board of Pharmacy approved changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16- 26.2031, eliminating the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Examination Committee (FPGEC) requirement, incorporating by reference the Foreign Graduate Examination Application, and stating the time frames for the application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. Pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(e), Florida Statutes, the portion of the petitions dealing with the statements on which the Board of Pharmacy did not prevail was abated pending the rulemaking process. Petitioners did not prevail on four of the policy statements they challenged. These were the policy statements which the Board of Pharmacy contested. Based on the invoices submitted, the parties attempted to settle the case. Essentially, the Board of Pharmacy had started rule development which eliminated the requirement in the existing rule which caused it to be invalid and which dealt with the unpromulgated rule issues that the Board of Pharmacy had conceded in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Petitioners wanted to be able to sit for the National Association of Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) and the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination (MPJE). All Petitioners who had a Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination pending on August 21, 2008, were approved by the Board of Pharmacy to sit for the NAPLEX and the Florida version of the MPJE. Thus, by August 21, 2008, those Petitioners had reached their goal. The impediment to settling the cases was the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded to Petitioners. There was no undue delay by the Board of Pharmacy or anything which could be attributed to the Board of Pharmacy as needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. The Board of Pharmacy correctly contended that the amount of fees requested by Petitioners was unreasonable. The Partial Final Order entered in the underlying rule challenges held that Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The Board of Pharmacy was not substantially justified in promulgating the challenged rule in the underlying case and did not demonstrate that special circumstances existed to warrant the promulgation of the challenged rule. The Board of Pharmacy did not demonstrate that the statements which constituted unpromulgated rules are required by the Federal Government to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. Each Petitioner entered into a contingency fee contract3 with The Health Law Firm to represent him or her in a rule challenge. The parties have agreed that the hourly rate of $350.00 per hour for the services of George F. Indest, III, Esquire, is reasonable and fair under the circumstances. The parties have agreed that some of the hourly rates being claimed for the other attorneys and employees of The Health Law Firm are reasonable and fair under the circumstances. Those fees are $200.00 and $150.00 per hour for the associate attorneys, $80.00 per hour for the paralegals, and $70.00 per hour for the legal assistants. There were a few entries in the invoices made by senior attorneys for whom the rate charged is $300.00 per hour. Based on the rates charged for the senior partner and the associate attorneys, an hourly rate of $300.00 for a senior attorney is reasonable. The names of the attorneys and staff and the respective hourly rate amount for each are listed below. In discussing the reasonableness of the fees claimed in the various invoices, the attorneys and staff will be referred to by their initials as listed in the invoices. Initials Name Hourly Rate GFI George F. Indest, III, Senior Partner $350.00 MLS Michael L. Smith, Senior Attorney $300.00 JK Joanne Kenna, Senior Attorney $300.00 TJJ Teresa J. James, Attorney $200.00 MRG Matthew R. Gross, Attorney $150.00 JP Justin Patrou, Law Clerk $100.00 GJ Gail Joshua, Senior Paralegal $80.00 PD Pamela Dumas, Litigation Clerk $80.00 SF Sandra Faiella, Paralegal $80.00 RS Rebecca Simmons, Paralegal $80.00 AE Alexa Eastwood, Legal Assistant $70.00 SE Shelly Estes, Legal Assistant $70.00 The amount of fees claimed by each Petitioner for representation by The Health Law Firm for the rule challenge is listed below. These amounts are based on the individual invoices and the first consolidated invoice:4 Name Amount Vipul Patel $15,212.36 Miriam Hernandez $15,683.36 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $11,469.36 Valliammai Natarajan $5,074.36 John H. Neamatalla $11,215.36 Samad Mridha $13,650.36 Se Young Yoon $12,292.36 Saurin Modi $10,093.36 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $11,764.36 Mijeong Chang $12,528.36 Nabil Khalil $10,272.36 Hadya Alameddine $5,313.36 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $4,585.36 Anand Narayanan $4,218.36 Total $143,372.04 Sandra Ambrose testified as an expert witness on behalf of Petitioners. Her opinion is that the amounts claimed are based on a reasonable number of hours expended in the litigation of the rule challenge. However, Ms. Ambrose has never represented a client in a rule challenge. It was Ms. Ambrose’s opinion that the difficulty in the cases was a result of the number of Petitioners not the issues to be litigated. Having reviewed all the invoices submitted in these cases, the undersigned cannot credit Ms. Ambrose’s testimony that the fees are reasonable. The Board of Pharmacy argues that the amount of fees and costs should be limited to the amount expended in the petition brought by the first Petitioner, Vipul Patel. The expert who testified for the Board of Pharmacy did not give a definite amount that he considered to be a reasonable fee in these cases. Prior to the final consolidation of all 14 rule challenges, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its services and costs by individual Petitioner. After all 14 rule challenges were consolidated, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its time and costs via a consolidated invoice. The undersigned has painstakingly reviewed all the invoices that were submitted to support Petitioners’ claims for fees and costs in the rule challenges and finds the fees requested are not reasonable. On May 15, 2008, the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2733RX contained the following entry for MRG. “Review/analyze final order. Strategize regarding final order.” The final order appears to be related to a petition5 for a waiver or variance before the Board of Pharmacy, and the entry is deleted. This conclusion is supported by the entry in the invoice dated May 29, 2008, relating to a telephone conference with the client relating to a re-petition for waiver. In Case No. 08-2730RX, there is an entry on May 27, 2008, for .10 hours for MRG, but no service is listed. That entry is deleted. On June 6, 2008, MRG entered .50 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX. The entry stated: “Continue preparing rule challenge and waiver.” The Health Law Firm represented the Petitioners in four of these cases before the Board of Pharmacy on June 10, 2008, on their petitions for a wavier or variance. The invoice does not delineate the amount of time that was spent on the rule challenge and the amount of time that was spent on the waiver cases. Therefore, the time is divided equally and .25 hours in each case is charged toward the rule challenge. 23. On June 9, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .30 hours for each case, which stated: “Prepare letter to Division of Administrative Hearings forwarding Petition for Rule Challenge to be filed.” The letter which accompanied the petitions in these cases stated: Dear Clerk: Attached for filing, please find a separate Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Agency Rule and the Invalidity of Agency Policy and Statements defined as Rules, for each of the individuals listed below: Miriam L. Hernandez Mirley Aleman-Alejo Se Young Yoon John H. Neamatalla Valliammai Natarajan Md. A. Samad Mridha Thank you for your assistance in this matter. For this letter, Petitioners are claiming 1.8 hours or $630.00. This is not reasonable. On the same date, GFI prepared a similar transmittal letter in Case No. 08-2728RX and listed .3 hours, which is a reasonable amount for the preparation of such a letter. Thus, the preparation of the transmittal letter on June 9th for Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX is reduced to .3 hours, which is prorated to .05 hours for those cases. The senior partner in The Health Law Firm claims 23.6 hours during June 3 through 5, 2008, for the following service which was entered on the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2730RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2733RX, and 08-2824RX. Conduct legal research, review statutes, cases (approximately 28 cases reviewed and analyzed) and two (2) different Florida Administrative Law legal treatises regarding rule challenges and challenging agency statements not adopted as rules, in order to properly prepare Petition for Formal Rule Challenge in case. Research legal issues including administrative agency rules exceeding authority granted in statutes, retroactive applications of agency rules, adding requirements to licensure requirements through administrative rules when those requirements are not contained in the statute. Review Rules of Procedure and Chapter 120 to determine contents of Rule Challenge Petition. Begin reviewing and revising draft for Rule Challenge in case. (Note: Only pro-rata portion of this time charged to each case.) The total amount of fees claimed for this research is $8,260.00. GFI testified that he had never done a rule challenge prior to filing the petitions in the instant cases. His fees for research due to his lack of knowledge of the basics of a rule challenge should not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy. A reasonable amount of time for his research is four hours. Thus, the amount for this legal research prorated among the ten cases for which it was listed is .4 hours. On July 19, 2008, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .60 hours in ten of the rule challenges for reviewing the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings for February 8 and April 5, 2008, and preparing a notice of filing the Transcripts with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Six hours to review the Transcripts and prepare a notice of filing is not reasonable. Three hours is determined to be a reasonable amount of time for this task, and that amount is prorated among the ten cases in which the charge was made. On June 10, 2008, members of The Health Law Firm attended a Board of Pharmacy meeting at which they represented foreign pharmacy graduates who had petitioned the Board of Pharmacy for a waiver or variance. In Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-3298RX, and 08-2733RX, the senior partner listed .90 hours for each case for preparation for the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting. The preparation related to the petitions for variances or waivers and should not be assessed for the instant cases. For June 10, 2008, JP listed .70 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2823RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2821RX, and 08-2733RX for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. For June 10, 2008, GFI entered 1.4 hours for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. The entries for attending the Board of Pharmacy meeting related to the petitions for waivers and should not be assessed in the instant cases. For June 19, 2008, the senior partner made the following entry in the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX: Travel to Boca Raton to meet with other health care lawyers and discuss issues in common on these cases and others. Discuss legal strategies that worked in the past and legal strategies to be avoided. Return from Boca Raton. Each entry was for one hour, for a total of eight hours claimed for a trip to Boca Raton, which equates to $2,880.00. Based on the entry, it seems that the trip included discussions of other cases that The Health Law Firm was handling or that other attorneys were handling. Additionally, there was no rationale for having to travel to Boca Raton to discuss the issues, and fees for such travel should not be awarded. A reasonable amount of time for discussion of the case with other attorneys by telephone would be .80 hours. The prorated amount of time for each case listed is .10 hours. On May 27, 2008, SF made a .30-hour entry in Case No. 08-2824RX for reviewing the agenda of the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting as it related to the client in Case No. 08-2824RX. The entry related to the client’s petition for a waiver, which was heard at the June 10th meeting and should be deleted. On May 30, 2008, in Case No. 08-2824RX, SF made a .40-hour entry for drafting a letter to client with retainer agreement. The entry is clerical and should be deleted. On June 18, 2008, an entry was made in the invoice in Case No. 08-2731RX, which stated: “Telephone call from husband of our client indicating that they want us to close this matter and that they do not wish to pursue it any further; follow-up memorandum to Mr. Indest regarding this.” Charges continued to be made to the client through July 16, 2008. Based on the entry to the invoice on June 18, 2008, no further charges should have been made to the client except for the filing of a voluntary dismissal of the rule challenge for the client. However, no voluntary dismissal was filed. Based on the absence of any further charges to the client after July 18, 2008, it is concluded that the client did wish not to proceed with her rule challenge. Any charges by The Health Law Firm after June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2731RX will not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy as it relates to the rule challenge. On June 19, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in ten of the cases: “Review June 10, 2008, Board of Pharmacy Agenda. Telephone conference with Court Reporter, Ms. Green, ordering transcript of the June 10, 2008, meeting.” An hour for reviewing an agenda and ordering a transcript is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and such time is prorated to the ten cases in which it is charged. 33. On June 20, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2823RX and 08-2824RX, TJJ made a .80-hour entry which stated: “Prepare draft motion for consolidation.” No motion was ever filed and would not have been necessary since the parties had agreed at the pre-hearing conference that the rule challenges would be consolidated. The time for this service should be deleted. 34. On July 10, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in several of the cases: “Review prehearing instruction orders and amended orders to determine respondent’s deadline to serve discovery responses.” The entry is duplicative of services provided by MRG on July 8, 2008, and should be deleted. 35. On July 15, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2729RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, TJJ had .40 hours for a total of 4.00 hours for the following entry: Prepare Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Discovery and assemble and copy documents to be attached to Motion. Prepare facsimile coversheets and transmit the Motion to the attorney for the Board of Pharmacy, Ms. Loucks, and to the clerk for the Division of Administrative Hearings. The copying, preparing facsimile coversheets, and transmitting the motion are clerical tasks. The entries are reduced to .20 hours due to the clerical nature of the tasks, which leaves a total of two hours for preparing a simple motion to compel. The time for the preparation of the motion to compel is not reasonable and is reduced to .10-hour for each entry. On July 22, 2008, the last Order consolidating all the cases was filed. The Order consisted of four paragraphs. On July 29, 2008, TJJ entered .10 hours in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08- 2730RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2824RX, 08-3510RX, 08-3488RX, 08-3347RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, and 08- 2821RX, and each entry stated: “Review order of consolidation filed on July 22, 2008, for common information needed for all cases.” Thus, Petitioners are claiming a total of 1.3 hours or $260.00 to review a four-paragraph Order of Consolidation. This claim is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time to review the Order was .10 hours, and the time shall be prorated among the cases for which it was claimed at .08 hours each. On July 24, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in ten of the cases which stated: Telephone conference with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal, First District to find out the start time of oral arguments on Custom Mobility (rule challenge case). Request information from clerk regarding how to listen to oral arguments online. Observing this oral argument will allow us to better prepare our case for possible appeal. First, a one-hour telephone conversation with the Clerk of District Court of Appeal to ascertain the time for an oral argument and to learn how to listen to oral arguments online is not reasonable. Second, it is not reasonable to charge the Board of Pharmacy with a call to the District Court of Appeal in the instant cases, even if the amount of time for the call had been reasonable. The one-hour charge for $200.00 for a telephone call is deleted. On July 30, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in 13 of the rule challenges. The entry stated: “Listen to oral arguments presented before District Court of Appeals, First District, in Custom Mobility case (rule challenge case).” The oral argument was not related to the instant rule challenges and should not be charged to the Board of Pharmacy. The 1.3 hours or $260.00 claim for listening to an oral argument is deleted. On August 4, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Joint Motion for Abeyance and Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Cases in Abeyance. Calendar deadlines regarding same.” The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the simple motion and Order is not reasonable. Calendaring is a clerical task. The time for this service is reduced to .01 hours for each entry. On August 5, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Respondent’s Objections and Responses to Petitioners’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Respondent’s Objections to Petitioners’ Second Set of Requests for Admissions.” The objections were that the interrogatories and requests for admissions exceeded 30. The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the pleadings is not reasonable. The time for this service is reduced to .04 for each entry. Petitioners had scheduled the depositions of Rebecca Poston and Daisy King for July 18, 2008. On July 17, 2008, Petitioners filed notices canceling the depositions. On July 17, 2008, PD entered .10 hours in ten of the rule challenges for the following entry: Telephone conference with Accurate Stenotype Reporters regarding cancellation of depositions of Daisy King and Rebecca Poston on July 18, 2008 and delay transcription of depositions of Erika Lilja and Elizabeth Ranne due to potential settlement. It is not reasonable to charge an hour to cancel depositions with the court reporter. A reasonable amount of time would be .10 hours, which is prorated to the ten cases to which it is charged. PD prepared the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. Poston and the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. King. Entries were made in ten of the cases for time for preparing the notices. The total time for preparing the two notices by PD was 1.45 hours. The time is not reasonable. A reasonable time to prepare two notices of canceling depositions would be .40 hours, which is prorated among the ten cases in which it was charged. One of the issues on which Petitioners did not prevail in the rule challenges was the issue of retroactive application of the rule. There are entries totaling 3.4 hours for JP for preparation of a memorandum dealing with the retroactive application of a rule issue. GFI entered .30 hours for the same issue. The time relating to the retroactive application issue is deleted. On April 19, 2008, MRG entered .20 hours each in several cases, which related to the rule challenge and retroactive application issue. That time is reduced by half. On May 6, 2008, MRG made .60-hour entries in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, which showed the preparation of three sections of the petition. One of the sections dealt with the retroactive application issue, and the entries are reduced by .20 hours for that issue. The invoices demonstrated that a considerable amount of time was charged for legal assistants and paralegals. Much of this time was for clerical tasks. SE is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a legal assistant. The majority of the entries by SE dealt with the photocopying, labeling, organizing, indexing, and filing documents. These services performed by SE are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. RS is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant. The majority of the entries in the invoices for RS deal with receiving, reviewing, labeling, indexing, scanning, summarizing, and calendaring pleadings and orders that were received in the cases. These services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. Petitioners in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2732RX, and 08-2733RX each claimed .30 hours for RS for the following service on April 30, 2008: Received and reviewed letter from Department of Health regarding our Public Records Request dated April 28, 2008 relating to client’s case. Index document for filing and scanning for use of attorneys at hearing. However, .90 hours for reviewing and indexing a letter is not reasonable and is clerical in nature. On June 17, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX, RS entered .60 hours for preparing, copying, and sending a letter to the client forwarding a copy of the Order of Assignment. That entry is reduced to .30 hours, since at least half of the time appeared to be for clerical tasks. AE, who is identified as a legal assistant in Petitioners’ exhibits, has numerous entries in the invoices for receiving, indexing, filing, calendaring, and providing pleadings and orders to clients. Those services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-2728RX, PD, identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal, made entries on June 16 and June 25, 2008, for .30 hours each. These entries were to update the litigation schedule with the hearing date. The entry is clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. SF, who is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant, made an entry for .30 hours in Case No. 08-2728RX on June 26, 2008, and in Case No. 08-2732RX on June 11, 2008, for forwarding orders to the client. An entry was made on July 10, 2008, in Case No. 08-2728RX and on June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX for .30 hours for processing the retainer package. Additionally, SF had entries for organizing and filing transcripts and orders. Such services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-3488RX, SF made a .30-hour entry on June 30, 2008, for updating the parties list and document file and a .50-hour entry on June 26, 2008, for completing opening procedures. In the same case, SF made two entries on July 7, 2008, for a total of 1.5 hours for preparing a retainer package and sending it to the client. These tasks are clerical. On June 24, 2008, SF made the following .30-hour entry in 11 of the cases: “Finalize and forward Joint Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing to client in this matter.” These entries are deleted; as they represent clerical tasks and an unreasonable amount of time to finalize a motion for continuance for which GFI had charged 1.1 hours for preparing the motion. In several cases JP, identified as a law clerk, made entries on July 15, 2008, for .30-hour for creating, numbering, and copying exhibits. Such service is clerical. On July 30, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy regarding filing and Service of Petitioners’ Fourth Set of Request to Produce and Second Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.6 hours is not a reasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time to prepare such documents is .50 hours, and the time is prorated among the 13 cases. On July 28, 2008, PD made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Notice of Filing Videotaped Depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. Prepare draft of Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript of Elizabeth Ranne. However, 1.3 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare two notices of filing depositions. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and that amount is prorated among the 13 cases. On June 17, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in each of the 11 cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy, regarding filing and service of Petitioners’ First Set of Request to Produce, Petitioners’ First Set of Request for Admissions and Petitioners’ First Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.2 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time is .50, which is prorated among the 11 cases. 58. On June 21, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX, there is a .30-hour entry for SF for finalizing and forwarding a petition for formal hearing to the Department of Health for filing. This entry does not appear to be related to the rule challenges and is deleted. In Case No. 08-3298RX, MRG made an entry of .50 hours for a telephone conference regarding the date of rule challenge and petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing dealt with the client’s petition for waiver and should not be included. Thus, the entry is reduced to .25 hours. After all the cases were consolidated The Health Law Firm began to make entries for all cases in the first consolidated invoice. On July 28, 2008, GFI made an entry of 2.8 hours, which related exclusively to the issue of retroactive application of the rule. This entry is deleted. RS made entries in the first consolidated invoice for August 12, 14, 28, and 29, 2008, and September 2, 5, 10, and 18, 2008, relating to filing, indexing, copying, and forwarding documents. There are similar entries for SF on August 26, 2008, and September 4 and 9, 2008, and for AE on September 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. PD had entries for reviewing, organizing, and indexing documents on September 4, 8, 11, and 17, 2008, and October 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. There were numerous entries in August 2008 relating to a Board of Pharmacy meeting on August 21, 2008, in which the Board of Pharmacy heard motions for reconsideration of orders denying Petitioners’ petitions for waivers. Those entries are related to the petitions for waiver and not to the rule challenges. Although, The Health Law Firm makes reference to a settlement agreement in which the Board of Pharmacy agreed to grant the waivers, there was no settlement agreement of the rule challenges because the parties proceeded to litigate the issues by summary disposition. Thus, the references to attending and preparing for the August 21, 2008, Board of Pharmacy meeting as well as advising the clients of the outcome of the meeting on August 20 and 21, 2008, are deleted. Additionally, an entry by MRG on August 20, 2008, which included reviewing the August 21st agenda is reduced to .75 hours. On August 25, 2008, MRG made an entry which included a telephone conference with Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Ms. Ranne regarding Mr. Bui. Mr. Bui is not a Petitioner, and the entry is reduced to .55 hours. Based on the invoices, it appears that Mr. Bui and Ms. Ranne were also foreign pharmacy graduates seeking waivers from the Board of Pharmacy. On August 29, 2008, MRG made another entry which included the preparation of an e-mail to Mr. Bui. The entry is reduced to two hours. On August 6, 2008, MRG made a 1.80-hour entry which included preparing e-mail to Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Mr. Sokkan regarding the rule challenge and settlement negotiations. Neither of these persons is a Petitioner; thus, the entry is reduced to .60 hours. On August 28, 2008, TJJ made a 3.60-hour entry for researching and preparing Petitioners’ second motion to compel discovery. No such motion was filed. Thus, the entry is deleted. Another entry was made on September 2, 2008, which included, among other things, the revision of the motion to compel. That entry is reduced to .80 hours. On August 8, 2008, MRG made a 1.00-hour entry which included a telephone conference with Ms. Alameddine regarding her passing the MPJE and being licensed in Michigan. Those issues relate to the petition for reconsideration of the waiver. The entry is reduced to .50 hours. On September 4, 2008, TJJ made a .80-hour entry for preparing a letter to Mr. Modi regarding his approval to take the examination, a 1.00-hour entry dealing with Mr. Lakshminarary’s application, a .90-hour entry dealing with Petitioner Narayanan’s application, a .70-hour entry dealing with Mr. Shah’s application, and a .60-hour entry dealing with Ms. Hernandez’s application. The entries deal with the petitions for a waiver and are deleted. On September 4, 2008, MRG made an entry which included, among other tasks, time for determining if the Board of Pharmacy had sufficient funds to pay Petitioners’ attorney’s fees. This entry is reduced to two hours. On October 10, 2008, MRG made a 1.20-hour entry which included, among other things, analyzing pleadings to determine if persons who were not Petitioners should file petitions for attorney’s fees. The entry is reduced to .60 hours. On July 16, 2008, MRG and JP made entries in ten of the cases for traveling to Tallahassee and attending the depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. The total hours for MRG was 16.9 hours and for JP the total was 17 hours. These total hours are reduced by ten hours each for travel time. On August 12 and 13, 2008, MRG made entries which included travel time to attend Board of Pharmacy meetings.6 Those entries are reduced each by one hour to account for travel time. The following is a listing of the amount of hours and dollar amount for fees, which are considered to be reasonable for the rule challenges. Individual and First Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 146.10 $350.00 $51,135.00 MLS 3.70 $300.00 $1,110.00 JK 1.40 $300.00 $420.00 TJJ 80.13 $200.00 $16,026.00 MRG 210.16 $150.00 $31,824.00 JP 37.80 $100.00 $3,780.00 PD 39.053 $80.00 $3,124.24 SF 16.80 $80.00 $1,344.00 GJ .40 $80.00 $32.00 RS 1.3 $80.00 $104.00 $108,899.24 The Partial Final Order found that Petitioners were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Thus, the issue of entitlement to fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was not an issue that was litigated in the instant fee cases. The issue of whether Petitioners were entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes, were entitlement issues which were litigated in the instant fee cases.7 Most of the charges dealing with the petitions for fees and costs are related to the amount of fees that are to be awarded and not to the entitlement to fees. In Petitioners’ second consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 4), there is a two-hour entry by MLS on November 3, 2008, for research of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. This entry is deleted since the issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, had already been determined. The following entries in the second consolidated invoice relate to the litigation of the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 11-5-08 GFI 6.90 hours 11-6-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-6-08 GFI 7.40 hours 11-7-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-7-08 MLS 1.00 hour 11-7-08 JCP 7.00 hours 11-8-08 JCP 1.00 hours 11-8-08 GFI 7.10 hours 1-26-09 GFI 1.00 hour 2-9-09 GFI .60 hours 2-10-09 GFI .30 hours 2-12-09 GFI .60 hours 2-17-09 GFI .30 hours 2-17-09 GFI .60 hours 2-19-09 GFI .60 hours The following entries were made in the second consolidated invoice for clerical tasks performed by paralegals and legal assistants: 11-3-08 RAS .30 hours 2-9-09 RAS .30 hours 2-10-09 RAS .30 hours 2-12-09 ACE .40 hours The issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was a small portion of the litigation relating to attorney’s fees and costs. The major areas of litigation dealt with the amount of fees and costs that should be awarded. The invoices do not specifically set forth the amount of time that was spent on the issue of entitlement to fees on statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Based on a review of the pleadings in these fee cases and a review of the invoices submitted for litigation of attorney’s fees and costs, it is concluded that ten percent of the time should be allocated to the issue of entitlement to fees. The percentage is applied to the fees after the fees listed in paragraphs 76, 77, and 78, above, have been deleted. Thus, the following entries in the second consolidated invoice are reduced to the following amount of hours: 11-1-08 JCP .26 hours 11-3-08 MLS .10 hours 11-4-08 MLS .40 hours 11-8-08 JCP .32 hours 12-22-08 GFI .04 hours 12-30-08 MLS .03 hours 1-7-09 GFI .02 hours 1-14-09 GFI .04 hours 1-15-09 GFI .07 hours In the third consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 5), the following entries relate to the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 3-4-09 SME 4.80 hours 3-4-09 GFI 1.20 hours 4-3-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-7-09 GFI .50 hours 4-7-09 GFI .60 hours 4-7-09 GFI .30 hours 4-8-09 GFI 4.20 hours 4-8-09 GFI 1.00 hour 4-9-09 MRG 1.50 hours 4-9-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-11-09 GFI .60 hours 4-15-09 GFI 4.40 hours On April 14, 2009, GFI made an entry which included time for travel to the expert witness’ office. The entry is reduced by .75 hours for travel time. Ten percent of the time not excluded or reduced above related to the issue of entitlement of fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The following entries are reduced to that percentage: 3-31-09 GFI .05 hours 4-1-09 GFI .20 hours 4-6-09 GFI .19 hours 4-6-09 GFI .03 hours 4-7-09 MRG .05 hours 4-7-09 GFI .07 hours 4-7-09 GFI .19 hours 4-7-09 GFI .27 hours 4-9-09 GFI .10 hours 4-13-09 GFI .50 hours 4-14-09 GFI .48 hours 4-14-09 GFI .275 hours The following is a list of the fees in the second and third consolidated invoices which are related to entitlement of fees pursuant to Florida Statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Second and Third Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 2.525 $350.00 $883.75 MLS .43 $300.00 $129.00 MRG .05 $150.00 $7.50 JCP .32 $100.00 $32.00 $1,052.25 With the exception of the costs related to the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings of April 8 and 9, 2008, and June 10, 2008, Respondent, as stipulated in the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, does not dispute that the amounts of costs set forth in the invoices submitted by Petitioners are fair and reasonable.8 The cost of the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings on April 8 and 9, 2008, was $1,476.00. The cost of the Transcript of the Board of Pharmacy meeting on June 10, 2008, was $524.00. At the final hearing, the Board of Pharmacy’s objection appeared to be based on the timing of the payment of the court reporter’s fees related to the transcribing of those meetings. The Transcripts were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings prior to the issuance of the Partial Final Order. Thus, the costs of the transcribing of the Board of Pharmacy meetings are properly included in the amount of costs to be awarded to Petitioners. The amounts of the costs claimed for the rule challenges in the individual and first consolidated invoice are reasonable. The costs incurred by Petitioners for the rule challenges as set forth in the individual and first consolidated invoices are listed below: Name Amount Vipul Patel $1,773.62 Miriam Hernandez $1,801.41 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $1,213.80 Valliammai Natarajan $321.17[9] John H. Neamatalla $1,118.72 Samad Mridha $975.12 Se Young Yoon $1,097.07 Saurin Modi $1,168.75 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $1,119.24 Mijeong Chang $1,213.16 Nabil Khalil $961.32 Hadya Alameddine $464.60 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $509.71 Anand Narayanan $461.87 The total amount of costs to be awarded for the challenge to the existing rule and to the policy statements is $14,199.56. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the second consolidated invoice. The second consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $2,096.12. Therefore, the costs for the second consolidated invoice are reduced to $209.61,10 which represents the amount attributable to litigation of entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the third consolidated invoice. The third consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $580.62. Therefore, the costs for the third consolidated invoice are reduced to $58.06,11 which represents the amount attributable to litigating the entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. Petitioners incurred costs in the litigation of the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Petitioners retained an expert witness, Sandra Ambrose, Esquire. Ms. Ambrose’s fee relating to the issue of attorney’s fees is $5,200.00. Her fee is reasonable; however, Ms. Ambrose’s testimony was related to the amount of the fees not to the entitlement to fees and are, therefore, not awarded as part of the costs. The total costs to be awarded for the litigation of the fees is $267.67.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner he reimbursed for vehicle costs and utilization review costs for fiscal years 1980 and 1981 in accordance with the conclusions of law portion of this order. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida, DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1983.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of administrative appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides or as otherwise provided by law.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Greynolds Park Manor, Inc. (Greynolds), operates a skilled nursing home facility at 17400 West Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. The facility was constructed in 1968 and has been certified in the Medicaid Program since 1971. It is licensed by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to operate 324 beds. However, its average patient census in 1979 through 1981 was between 220 and 225 patients. It is the largest nursing home in Dade and Broward Counties. HRS is the state agency designated to administer Florida's Medical Assistance (Medicaid) Program pursuant to Section 409.266, et seq., Fla. Stat. HRS and Greynolds have entered into a written agreement, "Agreement for Participation in Florida's Medical Assistance Program," for each fiscal year that Greynolds has participated in the program. Greynolds' fiscal year runs from June 1 through May 31. Effective October 1, 1977, HRS adopted the "Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan" (Plan). The Plan is a prospective reimbursement plan, designed to aid the State in containing health care costs for Medicaid recipients. The prospective reimbursement rate for a provider is based on the actual allowable costs of a provider for the previous fiscal year, to which an inflationary factor is added. The mechanics utilized to establish the prospective reimbursement rate under the Plan are clear. The provider is required to submit a uniform cost report within 90 days after the conclusion of its fiscal year. HRS audits the uniform cost report, determines allowable costs, adds an inflationary factor, and thereby sets the provider's prospective reimbursement rate. This rate is effective the first day of the month following receipt of the uniform cost report by HRS, and remains in effect until a new cost report is filed by the provider. Under the provisions of the Plan, all cost reports are desk reviewed within six months after their submission to HRS. HRS, under the terms of the Plan, may perform an audit on the cost report. An on-site audit is a more extensive review of the cost report than desk review. During an on-site audit the financial and statistical records of the provider are examined to ensure that only allowable costs were included in the cost report. The audit findings prevail over those made at desk review. Greynolds submitted its cost report for fiscal year 1979 on September 27, 1979. Previously, by letter dated September 10, 1979, Greynolds had been advised by HRS that an on-site audit was to be done of its ficsal year 1979 cost report, and that Greynolds' Medicare cost report would be a subject of inquiry. The cost report Greynolds submitted to HRS on September 27, 1979, did not make a Medicare cost adjustment, and none was made at desk review. 1/ A rather anomalous situation existed in 1979 through 1980 which lent itself to potential abuse. The Medicare cost adjustment was never made at desk review. It was only made if there was an audit. Yet only one in three providers were designated for audit each year, and even if designated the audit could be terminated at any time. Consequently, if no audit were made, or if terminated prematurely, the provider would not be required to make a Medicare adjustment and would reap a substantial windfall. Greynolds was fully aware of HRS' practice. In 1981 HRS altered its practice and began to make the Medicare adjustment at desk review. The audit of Greynolds' cost report for fiscal year 1979 was actually begun in October 1979 by the Fort Lauderdale Office of HRS. At the same time, the desk review of the cost report was undertaken by HRS' Jacksonville Office and was ultimately finalized on February 29, 1980. The desk review findings contained adjustments to expenditures totaling $46,592, but made no Medicare adjustment, consistent with HRS policy at that time. Based upon these adjustments, HRS' desk review established prospective reimbursement rates effective October 1, 1979. However, HRS advised Greynolds that these rates were "subject to change by any on-site audit." Greynolds used these rates for the period October 1, 1979 through August 31, 1980. In June 1980, HRS' Supervisor of Audit Services requested additional information before the field audit of the 1979 cost report could be completed. Greynolds presumably furnished this information because the field work was completed in September 1980. On June 24, 1981, Greynolds was notified by letter that the audit had been completed and was pending final review. The letter further advised Greynolds that "since this audit will supersede the desk review, the adjustments we made in our desk review letter of February 29, 1980, must stand until the on- site audit results are released." On June 9, 1982, HRS' Fort Lauderdale Office advised Greynolds that its on-site audit of the 1979 cost report had been completed. The audit adjustments to the cost report had been increased from $46,592 to $803,592. Most of this was due to a Medicare adjustment in the amount of $654,282. An exit conference was held by HRS' field representatives and Greynolds on June 21, 1982. None of the adjustments were changed as a result of this meeting. At that time, Greynolds first requested that it be allowed to file an interim rate change. Greynolds was advised, however, that the Office of Audit Services had no authority to approve such a request. On September 23, 1982, the final audit report of Greynolds' 1979 cost report was issued. The audit concluded that the reported allowable expenses of Greynolds would be reduced by $725,953, resulting in an overpayment of $288,024. Most of this was, again, the result of the Medicare adjustment of $654,282. The report further advised Greynolds of the right to request that any audit adjustment in dispute be addressed in a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Fla. Stat. Greynolds duly petitioned for a Section 120.57 hearing on the audit adjustments of September 23, 1982. This matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and docketed as Case No. 82-3208. At the outset of the hearing in that case, Greynolds withdrew its challenge to the Medicare adjustment of $654,282. Following receipt of the final audit report of September 23, 1982, Greynolds requested, by letter dated November 2, 1982, an interim rate change for its fiscal year 1980, "in accordance with the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan IVA-10." The reasons assigned by Greynolds for making the request were: A substantial decrease in Medicare patient days in the fiscal year ended May 31, 1980 and the corresponding decrease in the Medicare adjustment; and A change in the percentage of skilled and intermediate Medicaid patients. The request was denied by HRS on January 12, 1983, on the ground that "interim rates will not be granted for a closed cost reporting period." HRS' denial failed, however, to inform Greynolds of its right to request a hearing. On June 7, 1983, Greynolds renewed its request for an interim rate change for its fiscal year ended May 31, 1980. This request was denied October 12, 1983, on the ground that: To grant an interim rate for a closed cost reporting period would be the same as making a retroactive payment to a nursing home whose costs exceed annual payment. Retroactive payments such as this are specifically prohibited by Section 10C-7.48(6)(1), Florida Administrative Code, which was in effect during the cost reporting period in question. Greynolds filed a timely request for a Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., hearing. The circumstances relied on by Greynolds to justify an interim rate request were primarily the result of a substantial decline in its Medicare patient census resulting from a staphytococcus bacterial infection among its patients. The bacterial infection arose in February 1979 and continued through May 31, 1980 (the end of Greynolds' 1980 fiscal year). Greynolds is a dual provider facility, treating both Medicare and Medicaid eligible patients. The bacterial infection, which was contained within the Medicare section of the facility, resulted in a 45 percent decline in Medicare admissions during the period. Under the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement systems, a provider is required to first request payment from Medicare if the patient is Medicare eligible. Medicare reimburses at a higher rate than does Medicaid. Consequently, a substantial decrease in the number of Medicare patient days would result in a substantial decrease in the revenue received by the provider. Greynolds was fully aware of the change in the patient mix, as it occurred, during fiscal year 1980. Greynolds opined that it did not apply for an interim rate request at that time because the prospective reimbursement rate which had been set October 1, 1980, based on its cost report for fiscal year 1979, was "adequate" until the Medicare adjustment was finally made. The facts, however, reveal a different motivation. Under the Plan, whether on desk review or on audit, a Medicare adjustment is made to a provider's uniform cost report when developing a prospective reimbursement rate. The Medicare adjustment is made by excluding the Medicare patient days and Medicare costs from the provider's cost report, since these items are reimbursed by Medicare. The reimbursement rate is then established by adding an inflationary factor to the remaining patient days and costs. This reimbursement rate remains in effect until the provider files its next cost report. If the provider maintains its costs under the reimbursement rate, it may retain the difference; if the provider's costs exceed the reimbursement rate, it will not be reimbursed for its inefficiency. The Plan is predicated on a cost containment methodology. It is designed to encourage efficient administration by nursing home providers when providing services to Medicaid recipients. The Plan does, however, permit an adjustment to a provider's prospective reimbursement rate ("an interim rate") when unforeseen events during that fiscal year occur which were not contemplated in setting the provider's prospective reimbursement rate predicated on the previous year's costs. Greynolds was aware of the change, as it occurred, in its 1980 patient mix. Therefore, it could have applied for an interim rate adjustment at that time. To have done so, however, would have required it to make the Medicare cost adjustment to its 1979 cost report since its justification for an increase was the substantial decrease in Medicare patients and the corresponding decrease in the Medicare adjustment it was currently experiencing. To raise the Medicare adjustment issue was not, however, to its financial advantage. If it "escaped" the Medicare adjustment to its 1979 cost report, it would profit by the amount of that adjustment ($288,024). Greynolds' request for an increase in its reimbursement rate for 1980, after the 1980 cost reporting period was closed, also raises the disquieting specter that Greynolds will be reimbursed for the same costs twice. Since each year's reimbursement rate is based on the previous year's cost report, to retrospectively pick one reimbursement period from the series of years is disruptive of all the rates which were subsequently established. Under the Plan, if a provider experiences a substantial decrease in Medicare patient days and costs for a cost reporting period, the Medicaid reimbursement rate for the next period, based on that cost report, would substantially increase. Accordingly, Greynolds' 1981 reimbursement rate would be reflective of the loss of Medicare patient days in 1980. To now ignore the effect 1980 costs had in establishing 1981 reimbursement rates, and to reimburse Greynolds for 1980 without regard to the reimbursement rate for the subsequent year, ignores reality. Greynolds has on one other occasion availed itself of an interim rate request. On June 17, 1981, Greynolds applied for an interim rate for its fiscal year 1981. Greynolds' request was based on the fact that it had negotiated a union contract effective April 1, 1981, which resulted in a substantial increase in salaries for its employees. Since this factor was not reflected in its cost report for fiscal year 1980, upon which its current reimbursement rate was predicated, HRS, by letter dated July 29, 1981, granted Greynolds' request. Greynolds asserts that the granting of its 1981 interim rate request occurred after the close of its 1981 cost reporting period and is, therefore, evidence that the denial by HRS of its interim rate request in this case is inconsistent and improper. HRS asserts that the granting of Greynolds' interim rate request in 1981 was proper, and that it was not granted outside a closed cost reporting period. HRS interprets "cost reporting period" to be that period within which the provider must file its cost report for the previous fiscal year ("the cost report period"). Rule 10C-7.48(5)(c), F.A.C., in effect at the time, provided A cost report will be submitted as prescribed by the Department to cover the facility's fiscal year, along with the facility's usual and customary charges to private patients receiving comparable medicaid service, within 90 days after the end of the cost report period. According to HRS, the "cost reporting period" would be closed when the provider submits its cost report, which could be as much as 90 days after the "cost report period" had ended. HRS' interpretation is certainly reasonable, within the range of possible interpretations, and is therefore adopted. The interim rate request, granted Greynolds in 1981, was not granted after a closed cost reporting period. The reimbursement rate in effect on June 17, 1981, had commenced September 1, 1980. This rate remained in effect until the interim rate was granted, which interim rate remained in effect until Greynolds submitted its cost report for fiscal year 1981. Greynolds' 1981 cost report was submitted August 31, 1981, and its new reimbursement rate was therefore effective September 1, 1981. Accordingly, the grant of Greynolds' 1981 interim rate request was not inconsistent with the position it has adopted in this case. Had Greynolds "timely filed" its interim rate request in this case, HRS concedes the circumstances which gave rise to the request would have entitled the request to consideration under the provisions of Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan, paragraph IVA-10. However, since HRS rejected Greynolds' interim rate request as untimely, it never addressed, by review or audit, the accuracy or prospective impact of Greynolds' request.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner was provided notice of the examination adjustments as set forth in the examination report letter. 2. The examination report letter disclosed the Petitioner’s administrative and due process rights. 3. Petitioner agrees to all audit readjustments as set forth in the settlement agreement. Filed September 19, 2014 1:43 PM Division of Administrative Hearings CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 4. The Agency incorporates and adopts the statements and conclusions of law as set forth in the examination report letter. 5. The admitted facts support the conclusion that the cost report adjustments are true and accurate and form the basis for any corresponding rate adjustments. 6. Petitioner is advised that the rate adjustments will be assessed immediately and any overpayments which resulted are due and owing to the Agency. Notice of the rate adjustment and any overpayments which resulted from the retroactive rate adjustment have been conveyed to Petitioner. At that time, Petitioner is obligated to repay the overpayments or make satisfactory arrangements with the Agency. 7. Petitioner is also advised that pursuant to Section 409.913(15)(k), Florida Statutes, the Agency is required to apply an administrative sanction where a subsequent cost report includes a cost that is not allowable under a Florida Title XIX reimbursement plan, after having been advised that the costs were not allowable; therefore, Petitioner is advised that any costs that were disallowed by way of the examination report letter on the basis that the cost is not allowable under a Florida Title XIX reimbursement plan are prohibited in any future cost report.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE is before me for issuance of a Final Order. In a letter dated April 4, 2008, Petitioner was informed that the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) had completed an examination of Petitioner’s Medicaid cost reports for the reporting period specified in the letter. The letter consisted of an examination report that notified Petitioner of adjustments to its cost report for the reporting period specified in the letter. Adjustments to the cost report impact the rate of Medicaid payments to Petitioner. A retroactive rate adjustment can result in an overpayment determination for which Petitioner is obligated to repay. The examination report letter was sent Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to Petitioner at the address last shown on the provider enrollment file. The letter contained full disclosure and notice regarding Petitioner’s administrative hearing and due process rights. Petitioner requested a hearing to dispute the facts contained in the letter.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has made unauthorized payments to Superior Insurance Group, its corporate parent, and whether Respondent has properly disclosed these payments on its financial reports filed with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a domestic stock insurance company operating under a certificate of authority to transact in Florida the business of property and casualty insurance. As a nonstandard automobile insurer, Respondent primarily deals with policyholders whose driving records and accident histories preclude their coverage by standard automobile insurers. Superior Insurance Group, Inc. (formerly GGS Management, Inc. (GGS)) owns Respondent; Symons International Group, Inc. (Symons) owns Superior Insurance Group, Inc. (Superior Group); and Goran Capital, Inc. (Goran) owns 73 percent of Symons. Although publicly traded, Goran was founded, and probably is still controlled, by the Symons family. Superior Group serves as Respondent’s managing general agent. GGS changed its name to Superior Group in early 2000; where appropriate, this Recommended Order refers to this entity as GGS/Superior Group. Respondent owns Superior American Insurance Company (Superior American) and Superior Guaranty Insurance Company (Superior Guaranty), which are both domestic stock insurance companies authorized to conduct in Florida the business of property and casualty insurance. Also engaged in the nonstandard automobile insurance business, Superior American and Superior Guaranty transfer all of their premiums and losses to Respondent under a reinsurance agreement. All financial information concerning Superior American and Superior Guaranty, which, for the purpose of this case, are mere conduits to Respondent, are included in the financial information of Respondent. On or about April 30, 1996, GGS acquired the stock of Respondent, as well as other assets, from an unrelated corporation, Fortis, Inc. or one of its subsidiaries. From the regulatory perspective, the acquisition started when, as required by law, on or about February 5, 1996, GGS filed with Petitioner a Form A application for Petitioner’s approval of the acquisition of Respondent. This was an extensive document, consisting of more than 1000 pages. One of the purposes of the application process, as described in Section 628.461, Florida Statutes, is to assure the adequacy of the funds used by the entity acquiring the insurer. The proposed acquisition is described by the Statement Regarding the Acquisition of More Than Five Percent of the Outstanding Voting Securities of Superior Insurance Company . . . by GGS Management, Inc., dated February 5, 1996 (Acquisition Statement). The Acquisition Statement states that GGS Management Holdings, Inc. owned GGS. (The distinction between GGS and GGS Management Holdings, Inc. is irrelevant to this case, so “GGS,” as used in this Recommended Order, shall also refer to GGS Management Holdings, Inc.) According to the Acquisition Statement, Symons owned 52 percent of GGS; GS Capital Partners II, L.P., owned 30 percent of GGS; GS Capital Partners II Offshore, L.P., owned 12 percent of GGS; and three mutual funds (probably all affiliates of Goldman Sachs) owned the remaining 6 percent of GGS. GS Capital Partners II, L.P., was owned by 100 investors, including The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P. (16.54 percent), “wealthy individuals and trusts, corporate pension funds, foundations and endowments, family trusts/corporations and one state pension fund.” The ownership of GS Capital Partners II Offshore, L.P., resembled the ownership of GS Capital Partners II, L.P. The Acquisition Statement states that GGS “will be the manager of all insurance operations for [Respondent] and will act as the holding company for [Respondent] and [an Indiana nonstandard automobile insurer known as Pafco whose stock Symons was contributing to GGS].” The Acquisition Statement projects the stock-purchase price, which was expressed as a formula, to be about $60 million. Citing the $2 billion in capital of the two Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and the $50 million in capital of Goran, the Acquisition Statement assures that “GGS has tremendous wherewithal to fund the growth needs of [Respondent] . . ..” Alluding to Goran’s 20 years’ experience in managing nonstandard automobile insurance companies, the Acquisition Statement represents that the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and Goran “possess the capital and leadership resources to support the proposed activities of [Respondent].” According to the Acquisition Statement, the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and Goran “anticipate that the acquisition of [Respondent] is but the first step in an effort to build a significant non-standard auto insurance company.” The Acquisition Statement describes the respective contributions of the two owners of GGS: Symons will contribute Pafco, which then had a current GAAP book value of $14 million, and the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships will contribute $20 million in cash. With the backing of Symons and the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and secured by all of the stock of Respondent and GGS, GGS will execute a six-year promissory note with The Chase Manhattan Bank (Chase) for $44 million. Drawing $40 million from this credit extension and using the $20 million cash contribution of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships, GGS will fund the anticipated cash purchase price of $60 million. The Acquisition Statement represents that GGS will be able to service the debt. Due to the cash contribution of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships, the Chase debt represents only two-thirds of the purchase price. Due to the cash contribution of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and the stock contribution by Symons, the Chase debt represents only about one-half of the initial capital of GGS. The Acquisition Statement states that GGS will service the Chase debt in part by “the combination of the management activities of both Pafco and [Respondent] within GGS, billing fees, other non-insurance company activities and anticipated insurance company operating economies which will result from the combination of these two operations [Pafco and Respondent].” The equity contributions of cash and stock “contribute significantly to the financial stability of GGS, allowing GGS to service the debt using operating cash flows only, including, if necessary, normal dividends from earned surplus as a secondary source of debt service funds. GGS does not anticipate using dividends from either Pafco or [Respondent] as a primary source of debt service funds.” The Chase Credit Agreement, which is dated April 30, 1996, requires GGS to use its best efforts to cause Respondent to pay "cash dividends or other distributions or payments in cash including . . . the payment of Billing Fees and Management Fees" in sufficient amounts to pay all principal and interest due under the financing instrument. The Chase Credit Agreement defines "Billing Fees" as: "fees with respect to the payment of premiums on an installment basis that are received by an Insurance Subsidiary from policyholders and in turn paid to [GGS] or received directly by [GGS] . . .." The Chase Credit Agreement defines "Management Fees" as: "all fees paid by an Insurance Subsidiary to [GGS] that are calculated on the basis of gross written premiums." With respect to the "Management Fees" described in the Chase Credit Agreement, the Acquisition Statement describes a five-year management agreement to be entered into by GGS with Pafco and Respondent (Management Agreement). The Management Agreement, which GGS and Respondent executed on April 30, 1996, provides that GGS “will provide management services to both Pafco and [Respondent] and will receive from [Respondent] as compensation 17% of [Respondent’s] gross written premium” and a slightly lower percentage of premiums from Pafco (Management Fee). Under the Management Agreement, Respondent “will continue to pay premium taxes, boards and bureaus costs, legal and audit fees and certain computer costs.” The Acquisition Statement states that Respondent’s “operating costs" were about 21%, so the 17% cap “will allow [Respondent] to see a significant and immediate improvement in its overall financial performance”-- over $1 million in 1994, which was the last year for which financial information was then available. The Management Agreement gives GGS the exclusive right and nondelegable and nonassignable obligation to perform a broad range of business actions on Respondent’s behalf. These actions include accepting contracts, issuing policies, appointing adjustors, and adjusting claims. The Management Agreement requires GGS to "pay [Respondent’s] office rent and occupancy operating expenses from the amounts that it receives pursuant to this Agreement.” In return, the Management Agreement requires Respondent to pay GGS “fees for the business placed with [Respondent as follows:] Agents commission plus 17% not to exceed 32% in total.” The scope of the services undertaken by GGS in the Management Agreement is similarly described in the Plan of Operation, which GGS filed with Petitioner as part of the application. The Plan of Operation provides that, in exchange for the 17 percent “management commission,” GGS assumes the responsibility for all aspects of the operating expenses of the book including underwriting, claims handling and administration. The only expenses which remain the responsibility of [Respondent] directly are those expenses directly related to the insurance book, such as premium taxes, boards and bureaus, license fees, guaranty fund assessments and miscellaneous expenses such as legal and audit expenses and certain computer costs associated directly with [Respondent]. In response to a request for additional information, Goran’s general counsel, by letter dated March 13, 1996, to Petitioner’s application coordinator, added another document, Document 26. The new document was a pro forma financial projection for 1996-2002 (Proforma) showing the sources of funds for GGS to service the Chase debt. The seven-year Proforma contains only two significant sources of income for GGS: “management fee income” and “finance & service fee income" (Finance and Service Fees). By year, starting with 1996, these respective figures are $28.6 million and $7.0 million, $34.2 million and $8.6 million, $38.1 million and $9.9 million, $42.6 million and $11.0 million, $47.5 million and $12.3 million, $53.0 million and $13.7 million, and $59.3 million and $15.3 million. Accounting for the principal and interest payments over the six-year repayment term of the Chase Credit Agreement, the Proforma shows ending cash balances, during each of the covered years, culminating in a final cash balance, in 2002, of $43.9 million. By letter dated March 29, 1996, Goran’s general counsel informed Petitioner that an increase in Respondent’s book value had triggered an increase in the purchase price from $60 million to $66 million. Also, the book value of Pafco had increased from $14 million to $15.3 million, and the cash required of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships had increased from $20 million to $21.2 million. Additionally, the letter states that Chase had increased its commitment from $44 million to $48 million. A revised Document 26 accompanied the March 29 letter and showed the same income projections. Reflecting increased debt-service projections, the revised Proforma projected lower cash balances, culminating with $39.8 million in 2002. During a meeting in March 1996, Mr. Alan Symons, president and chief executive officer of Goran and a director of Superior Group and Respondent, met with three of Petitioner's representatives, including Mary Mostoller, Petitioner's employee primarily responsible for the substantive examination of the GGS application. During that meeting, Mr. Symons informed Petitioner that GGS would receive Finance and Service Fees from Respondent's policyholders who paid their premiums by installments. Ms. Mostoller did not testify, and the sole representative of Petitioner who attended the meeting and testified candidly admitted that he could not recall whether they discussed this matter. In response to another request for additional information, Respondent’s present counsel, by letter dated April 12, 1996, informed Petitioner that the “finance and service fee income” line of the Proforma “is composed primarily of billing fees assessed to policyholders that choose to make payments on a monthly basis,” using the same rate that Respondent had long used. The letter explains that the projected increase in these fees is attributable solely to a projected increase in business and not to a projected increase in the rate historically charged policyholders for this service. In an internal memorandum dated April 18, 1996, Ms. Mostoller noted that GGS would pay the Chase Credit Agreement through a “combination of the management fees and other billing fees of both Pafco and [Respondent].” Later in the April 18 memorandum, though, Ms. Mostoller suggested, among other things, that Petitioner condition its approval of the acquisition on the right of Petitioner to reevaluate annually the reasonableness of the “management fee and agent’s commission”--omitting any mention of the "other billing fees." On April 30, 1996, Petitioner entered a Consent Order Approving Acquisition of Stock Pursuant to Section 628.461, Florida Statutes (Consent Order). Incorporating all of Ms. Mostoller's recommendations, the Consent Order is signed by Respondent and GGS, which "agree to and consent to all of the above cited terms and conditions . . .." The Consent Order does not incorporate by reference the application and related documents, nor does the Consent Order contain an integration clause, which, if present, would merge all prior written and unwritten agreements into the Consent Order so as to preclude the implementation of such agreements in conjunction with the Consent Order. Among other things, the Consent Order mandates the following: [Respondent] shall give advance notice to [Petitioner] of any proposed changes in the [Management Agreement] and shall receive written approval from [Petitioner] prior to implementing those changes. In addition, for a period of three (3) years, [Petitioner] shall reevaluate at the end of each calendar year the reasonableness of the fees as reflected on Addendum A of the [Management] Agreement[.] Furthermore, [Petitioner] may at its sole discretion, and after consideration of the performance and operating percentages of [Respondent] and any other pertinent data, require [Respondent] to make adjustments in the [M]anagement [F]ee and agent's commission. GGS . . . shall file each year an audited financial statement with [Petitioner] . . .. In addition to the above, for a period of 4 years from the date of execution of this Consent Order . . .: [Respondent] shall not pay or authorize any stockholder dividends to shareholders without prior written approval of [Petitioner]. Any direct or indirect contracts, agreements or transactions of any type or nature including but not limited to the sale or exchange of assets among or between [Respondent] and any member of the Goran . . . holding company system shall receive prior written approval of [Petitioner]. That failure to adhere to one or more of the above terms and conditions shall result WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS in the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner DENYING the above acquisition, or the REVOCATION of the insurers' certification of authority if such failure to adhere occurs after the issuance of the Consent Order approving the above acquisition. The Consent Order addresses the Management Fees and the commissions payable to the independent agents who sell Respondent's insurance policies. However, the Consent Order omits any explicit mention of the Finance and Service Fees, even though GGS and Respondent had clearly and unambiguously disclosed these fees to Petitioner on several occasions prior to the issuance of the Consent Order. On its face, the Consent Order requires prior approval for the payment of Finance and Service Fees, which arise due to a contract or agreement between Respondent and GGS/Superior Group. The Consent Order prohibits "direct or indirect contracts, agreements or transactions of any type or nature including . . . the sale or exchange of assets among or between [Respondent] and any member of the Goran . . . holding company system," without Petitioner's prior written approval. The exact nature of these Finance and Service Fees facilitates the determination of their proper treatment under the Consent Order and the facts of this case. Ostensibly, the Finance and Service Fees pertain to items not covered by the Management Fees, which cover a wide range of items. In fact, the Finance and Service Fees arise only when a policyholder elects to pay his premium in installments; if no policyholder were to pay his premium by installments, no Finance and Service Fees would be due. The testimony in the record suggests that the Finance and Service Fees pertain to services that necessarily must be performed when policyholders pay their premiums by installments. This suggestion is true, as far as it goes. Installment payments require an insurer to incur administrative and information-management costs in billing and collecting installment payments. Other costs arise if late installment payments necessitate the cancellations and if reinstatements follow cancellations. Installment-payment transactions are undeniably more expensive to the insurer than single-payment transactions. The record as to these installment-payment costs, which are more in the nature of a service charge, is well- developed. However, the Finance and Service Fees also pertain to the cost of the loss of the use of money when policyholders pay their premiums by installments. Installment-payment transactions cause the insurer to lose the use of the deferred portion of the premium for the period of the deferral. The record as to these costs, which are more in the nature of a finance charge or interest, is relatively undeveloped. At the hearing, Mr. Symons testified that an insurer does not lose the use of the deferred portion of the premium for an established book of business. Mr. Symons illustrated his point by analyzing over a twelve-month period the development of a hypothetical book of business consisting of twelve insureds. If an insurer added its first insured in the first month, added a second in the third, and so forth, until it added its twelfth insured in the twelfth month, and each insured chose to pay a hypothetical $120 annual premium in twelve installments of $10 each, the cash flow in the twelfth and each succeeding month (assuming no changes in the number of insureds) would be $120-- the same that it would have been if each of the insureds chose to pay his premium in full, rather than by installment. Thus, Mr. Symons' point was that, after the first eleven months, installment payments do not result in the loss of the use of money by the insurer. Mr. Symons' illustration assumes a constant book of business after the twelfth month. However, while the insurer is adding installment-paying insureds, the insurer loses the use of the portion of the first-year premium that is deferred, as is evident in the first eleven months of Mr. Symons' illustration. Also, if the constant book of business is due to a constant replacement of nonrenewing insureds with new insureds--a distinct possibility in the nonstandard automobile market--then the insurer will again suffer the loss of the use of money over the first eleven months. Either way, Mr. Symons' illustration does not eliminate the insurer's loss of the use of money when its insureds pay by installments; the illustration only demonstrates that the extent of the loss of the use of the money may not be as great as one would casually assume. The Finance and Service Fee is sufficiently broad to encompass all of the terms used in this record to describe it: "installment fee," "billing fee," "service charge," "premium fee," and even "premium finance fee." However, only "installment fee" is sufficiently broad as to capture both types of costs covered by the Finance and Service Fee. The dual components of the Finance and Service Fee are suggested by the statute authorizing its imposition. Section 627.902, Florida Statutes, authorizes an insurer or affiliate of the insurer to "finance" premiums at the "service charge or rate of interest" specified in Section 627.901, Florida Statutes, without qualifying as a premium finance company under Chapter 627, Part XV, Florida Statutes. If the insurer or affiliate exceeds these maximum impositions, then it must qualify as a premium finance company. The "service charge or rate of interest" authorized in Section 627.901, Florida Statutes, is either $1 per installment (subject to limitations irrelevant to this case) or 18 percent simple interest on the unpaid balance. The charge per installment, which is imposed without regard to the amount deferred, suggests a service charge, and the interest charge, which is imposed without regard to the number of installments, suggests a finance charge. The determination of the proper treatment of the Finance and Service Fees under the Consent Order is also facilitated by consideration of the process by which these fees were transferred to GGS/Superior Group. As anticipated by the parties, after the acquisition of Respondent by GGS, Respondent retained no employees, and GGS/Superior Group employees performed all of the services required by Respondent. The process by which Respondent transferred the Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group began with Respondent issuing a single invoice to the policyholder showing the premium and the Finance and Service Fee, if the policyholder elected to pay by installments. As Mr. Symons testified, Respondent calculated the Finance and Service Fee on the basis of the 1.5 percent per month on the unpaid balance, rather than the specified fee per installment. The installment-paying policyholder then wrote a check for the invoiced amount, payable to Respondent, and mailed it to Respondent at the address shown on the invoice. Employees of GGS/Superior Group collected the checks and deposited them in Respondent's bank account. From these funds, the employees of GGS/Superior Group then paid the commissions to the independent agents, the Management Fee (calculated without regard to the Finance and Service Fee) to GGS/Superior Group, and the Finance and Service Fee to GGS/Superior Group. Respondent retained the remainder. Finance and Service Fees can be considerable in the nonstandard automobile insurance business. Many policyholders in this market lack the financial ability to pay premiums in total when due, so they commonly pay their premiums in installments. At the time of the 1996 acquisition, for instance, about 90 percent of Respondent's policyholders paid their premiums by installments. For 1996, on gross premiums of $156.4 million, Respondent earned net income (after taxes) of $1.978 million, as compared to gross premiums of $97.6 million and net income of $5.177 million in 1995. At the end of 1996, Respondent's surplus was $57.1 million, as compared to $49.3 million at the end of the prior year. "Surplus" or "policyholder surplus" for insurance companies is like net worth for other corporations. In 1996, Respondent received $2.154 million in Finance and Service Fees, as compared to $1.987 million in the prior year. However, Respondent did not pay any Finance and Service Fees to GGS in 1996. For related-party transactions in 1996, Respondent's financial statements disclose the payment of $155,500 to GGS and Fortis for "management fees," assumed reinsurance premiums and losses, and a capital contribution of $5.558 million from GGS, of which $4.8 million was in the form of a note. These related-party disclosures for 1996 were adequate. In August 1997, Symons bought out Goldman Sachs' interest in GGS for $61 million. Following the 1996 acquisition, Goldman Sachs had invested another $3-4 million, but, with a total investment of about $25 million, Goldman Sachs enjoyed a handsome return in a little over one year. Mr. Symons attributed the relatively high price to then-current valuations, which were 100 percent of annual gross premiums. More colorfully, Mr. Symons' brother, also a principal in the Goran family of corporations, attributed the purchase price to Goldman Sachs' "greed. " At the same time that Symons bought out Goldman Sachs, Symons enabled GGS to retire the Chase acquisition debt. The elimination of Goldman Sachs and Chase may be related by more than the need for $61 million to buy out Goldman Sachs. The 1996 Annual Statement that Respondent filed with Petitioner reports "total adjusted capital" of $57.1 million and "authorized control level risk-based capital" of $20.7 million, for a ratio of less than 3:1. Section 8.10 of the Chase Credit Agreement states that GGS "will not, on any date, permit the Risk Based Capital Ratio . . . of [Respondent] to be less than 3 to 1." Section 1 of the Chase Credit Agreement defines the ”Risk-Based Capital Ratio" as the ratio of Respondent's "Total Adjusted Capital" to its "Authorized Control Level Risk-Based Capital." In August 1997, Symons raised $135 million in a public offering of securities that probably more closely resemble debt than equity. After paying $61 million to Goldman Sachs and the $45-48 million then due Chase under the Credit Agreement (due to additional advances), Symons applied the remaining loan proceeds to various affiliates, as additional capital contributions, and possibly itself, for cash-flow purposes. The $135 million debt instrument, which remains in place, requires payments over a 30- year term, provides for no repayment of principal until the end of the term, and allows for the deferral of the semi-annual dividend/interest payments for up to five years. Symons exercised its right to defer dividend/interest payments for an undetermined period of time in 2000. The payments that are the subject of this case took place from 1997 through 1999. During this period, on a gross basis, Respondent paid GGS $35.2 million in Finance and Service Fees. In fact, $1.395 million paid in 1999 were not Finance and Service Fees, but were SR-22 policy fees, which presumably are charges attributable to the preparation and issuance by GGS of certificates of financial responsibility. Because Respondent's financial statements did not separate any SR-22 fees from Finance and Service Fees for 1997 or 1998, it is impossible to identify what, if any, portion of the Finance and Service Fees in those years were actually SR-22 fees. Even though SR-22 fees represent a service charge without an interest component, they are included in Finance and Service Fees for purposes of this Recommended Order. For 1997, on gross premiums of $188.3 million, Respondent earned net income of $379,000. For 1998, on gross premiums of $179.8 million, Respondent suffered a net loss of $8.122 million. For 1999, on gross premiums of $170.5 million, Respondent suffered a net loss of $19.232 million. Respondent's surplus decreased from $65.1 million at the end of 1997, to $57.6 million at the end of 1998, to $34.2 million at the end of 1999. In its Quarterly Statement filed as of September 30, 2000, Respondent disclosed, for the first nine months of 2000, a net loss of $5.89 million and a decline in surplus to $24.0 million. By the end of 2000, Respondent's surplus decreased to $21.6 million. However, at all times, Respondent's surplus exceeded the statutory minimum. For 1999, for example, Respondent's surplus of $34.2 million doubled the statutory minimum. Respondent also satisfied the statutory premium-to-surplus ratio, although possibly not the statutory risk-based capital ratio. As of the final hearing, Petitioner had required Respondent to file a risk-based capital plan, Respondent had done so, Petitioner had required amendments to the plan, Respondent had declined to adopt the amendments, and Petitioner had not yet taken further action. From 1997-1999, Respondent's annual statements, quarterly statements, and financial statements inadequately disclosed the payments that Respondent made to GGS. The annual statements disclose "Service Fee on Ceded Business," which is a write-in item described in language chosen by Respondent. Petitioner's contention that this item appears to be a reinsurance transaction in which Respondent is ceding risk and premiums to a third-party is rebutted by the fact that the Schedule F, Part 5, on each annual statement discloses relatively minor reinsurance transactions whose ceded premiums would not approach those reported as "Service Fee on Ceded Business." Notwithstanding the unconvincing nature of Petitioner's contention as to the precise confusion caused by Respondent's reporting of the payment of Finance and Service Fees, Respondent's reporting was clearly inadequate and even misleading. The real problem in the annual statements, quarterly statements, and financial statements is their failure to disclose Respondent's payments to a related party, GGS. Respondent unconvincingly attempts to explain this omission by an imaginative recharacterization of the Finance and Service Fee transactions as pass-through transactions. These were not pass-through transactions in 1996 when Respondent retained the Finance and Service Fees. These were not pass- through transactions in 1997-1999 when Respondent properly accounted for these payments from policyholders as income and payments to GGS as expenses. The proper characterization of these transactions involving the Finance and Service Fees does not depend on the form that Respondent and GGS/Superior Group selected for them-- in which policyholders pay Respondent and Respondent pays GGS/Superior Group--although this form does not serve particularly well Respondent's present contention. Even if Respondent had changed the form so that the policyholders paid the Finance and Service Fees directly to GGS/Superior Group, the economic reality of the transactions would remain the same. Even if policyholders paid their installments to Respondent, GGS/Superior Group, or any other party, the Finance and Service Fees would initially vest in Respondent, which, under an agreement, would then owe them to GGS/Superior Group. The inadequacy of the disclosure of the Finance and Service Fees is a relatively minor issue, in itself, in this case. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent invites direction as to how Petitioner would like Respondent to report these payments in the future. The major impact of Respondent's nondisclosure of these payments is that none of the statements filed after the 1996 acquisition notified Petitioner of the existence of these payments. It is thus impossible to infer an agreement or even acquiescence on the part of Petitioner regarding Respondent's payment of Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group. The major issue in this case is whether the Consent Order authorizes Respondent to pay $35 million in Finance and Service Fees after the 1996 acquisition or, if not, whether Petitioner has approved of such payments by any other means. As already noted, the Consent Order authorizes the payment of agents' commissions and Management Fees, but not Finance and Service Fees. To the contrary, the Consent Order prohibits the payment of Finance and Service Fees for four years, at least without Petitioner's approval, because of the provision otherwise prohibiting agreements, contracts, and the transfer of assets involving Respondent and its affiliates. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the absence of an integration clause invites consideration of oral agreements that may have preceded the execution of the Consent Order. The Consent Order is somewhat of a hybrid: Petitioner orders and Respondent consents. However, the Consent Order is sufficiently an agreement to be subject to interpretation under normal principles governing the interpretation of contracts. Respondent contends that such agreements encompassed the payment of Finance and Service Fees because Respondent disclosed such payments several times to Petitioner prior to the issuance of the Consent Order. (Any testimonial assertion of an explicit agreement by Petitioner to the payment of the Finance and Service Fees is discredited.) Respondent repeated disclosures to Petitioner of the Finance and Service Fees began with the Acquisition Statement at the start of the application process. The parties discussed these fees in March 1996. The Proformas disclose two main revenue sources from which GGS/Superior Group could service its acquisition debt: Management Fees and Finance and Service Fees. And the Proformas project almost exactly the amount that Respondent paid GGS in Finance and Service Fees from 1997-99. Although the ratio of Management Fees to Finance and Service Fees was 4:1 in the Proformas, this ratio does not minimize the role of the Finance and Service Fees. Based on gross revenues, this ratio is no indication of the relative profitability of these two sources of revenue. In fact, in 1999, the expenses covered by the Management Agreement exceeded the Management Fees by $3 million. The Finance and Service Fees are thus an important component of the revenue on which GGS intended to rely in servicing the acquisition debt. However, neither the clear disclosure of the Finance and Service Fees nor Petitioner's recognition of the importance of these fees in servicing the acquisition debt necessarily means that Petitioner agreed to their payment. By a preponderance of, although less than clear and convincing, evidence, the record precludes the possibility that Petitioner agreed in preclosing discussions or the Consent Order to preapprove the Finance and Service Fees. In this respect, Petitioner treated the Finance and Service Fees differently from the Management Fees, which Petitioner agreed to preapprove, subject to annual reevaluation for the first three years. At the level of a preponderance of the evidence, it is possible to harmonize this construction of the Consent Order with Respondent's repeated disclosures of the Finance and Service Fees. The Acquisition Statement mentions dividends as a revenue source--although a "secondary" source--and the Consent Order clearly did not impliedly preapprove the payment of dividends. Aware of the reliance of GGS upon the Finance and Service Fees to service the Chase acquisition debt, Petitioner may have chosen, for the first four years, to consider Respondent's requests for approval of the Finance and Service Fees, based on the circumstances in existence at the time of the requests. This interpretation is consistent with the testimony of Petitioner's employee that he believed that Petitioner would be able to restrict Respondent's payment of Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group because Petitioner's approval was required for the payment of dividends. The payments are pursuant to a contract or agreement for services and, as such, are not dividends, but the Consent Order requires Petitioner's approval for all contracts and agreements during the first four years. The common point is that Petitioner understood that its approval would be required for Finance and Service Fees, which had not been preapproved like Management Fees. During the application process, GGS may not have been concerned by Petitioner's failure to preapprove the Finance and Service Fees. At the time of the 1996 acquisition, as contrasted to the period after the 1997 refinancing, GGS enjoyed a relatively light debt load due to Goldman Sachs' equity investment and the "tremendous wherewithal" of its 48 percent co-owner. Another practical distinction between the Finance and Service Fees and the Management Fees militates against finding that the Consent Order impliedly approves the Finance and Service Fees and militates in favor of a finding that GGS viewed these fees as more contingent and less likely to be needed than the Management Fees. At the start of the application process, GGS submitted to Petitioner a form Management Agreement. At no time did GGS ever submit to Petitioner a form Finance and Service Agreement. The contingent nature of the Finance and Service Fees, relative to the Management Fees, is reinforced by the fact that, in 1996, Respondent retained the Finance and Service Fees. Respondent's contention that the Finance and Service Fees were a component of the agreement between it and Petitioner is not without its appeal. The contention is sufficient to preclude a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement between the parties did not include a preapproval of Finance and Service Fees. Unlike the Management Fees, the maximum amount of the Finance and Service Fees is set by statute. Two consequences follow. First, Petitioner might not have found it necessary to incorporate these fees in a written agreement, as long as the maximum amount were acceptable to Petitioner, because the law establishes a ceiling on the fees and identifies the services for which they are compensation. Second, Petitioner might not have found it necessary provide for annual reevaluation of the fees, again due to the applicable statutory maximum. In one respect, the relatively contingent quality of the Finance and Service Fees inures to Respondent's benefit, at least in theory. If no policyholder paid by installments, there would be no Finance and Service Fees; however, as a practical matter, the Finance and Service Fees are almost as pervasive as the Management Fees. More importantly, though, the Finance and Service Fees, especially when imposed as a percentage of the unpaid balance, contain a significant interest component. Paying these fees to GGS/Superior Group, Respondent denies itself the investment income attributable to this forbearance. Alternatively, to the extent that the Finance and Service Fees defray services, as they do to some unknown extent, the greater weight of the evidence, although not clear and convincing evidence, establishes that these services are among the services that GGS/Superior Group undertook in the Management Agreement. These factors militate strongly against treating the Finance and Service Fees as an implied exception to the provision of the Consent Order requiring approval of all contracts or agreements with affiliates during the first four years. For these reasons, Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence, although not clear and convincing evidence, that GGS/Superior Group and Respondent needed Petitioner's approval for all payments of Finance and Service Fees prior to April 30, 2000. To the extent that, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner withholds such approval, the next issue is to determine the amount of Finance and Service Fees that GGS/Superior Group must return to Respondent. The determination of the amount of the repayment is substantially affected by two facts. First, Petitioner's approval is not required for any Finance and Service Fees that Respondent paid GGS/Superior Group after April 30, 2000. The Consent Order did not require Petitioner's approval for such payments, which were not dividends, for which approval would always be required, if inadequate surplus existed. Second, GGS/Superior Group is entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit, against any liability for improperly received Finance and Service Fees, for about $20 million that it directly or indirectly transferred to Respondent since the 1996 acquisition. Half of the $20 million credit arises from Management Fees that GGS did not collect from Respondent in 1996 and 1998. As Petitioner notes, there is little, if any, documentation concerning these uncollected fees. Mr. Symons persuasively testified that the proper characterization of these amounts is dependent upon the outcome of Petitioner's effort to disallow the Finance and Service Fees already paid by Respondent. Petitioner must credit to GGS/Superior Group these $10 million in fees as an offset to the $35.2 million (or such lesser amount remaining after any retroactive approvals from Petitioner) that Respondent improperly paid GGS/Superior Group in Finance and Service Fees. Also, in 1997, GGS contributed about $10 million to Respondent's capital. As was the case with the uncollected Management Fees in 1996 and 1998, the record contains little, if any, documentation concerning the transfer, including any conditions that may have attached to it. Petitioner should credit GGS/Superior Group with this sum as an offset against the $35.2 million (or such lesser amount remaining after any retroactive approvals from Petitioner) that Respondent improperly paid GGS/Superior Group in Finance and Service Fees. As for the remaining $15 million in Finance and Service Fees that Respondent improperly paid to GGS through 1999 and any additional amounts through April 30, 2000, the impropriety arises because Respondent failed first to obtain Petitioner's approval--not because any transaction was otherwise necessarily improper. Concerning the remaining $15 million, then, Petitioner should give Respondent and GGS/Superior Group an opportunity to request retroactive approval for the payment of all or part of this sum, without regard to the lateness of the request. Applying any and all factors that Petitioner would ordinarily apply in considering such requests, Petitioner can then reach an informed determination as to the propriety of this $15 million in Finance and Service Fees. If Petitioner determines that Respondent must obtain from GGS/Superior Group repayment of any Finance and Service Fees, then Petitioner may consider the issue of the timing of the repayment. As Petitioner mentions in its proposed recommended order, an evidentiary hearing might be useful for this purpose. Obvious sources would be setoffs against Management Fees and Finance and Service Fees that Respondent is presently paying Superior Group.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final cease and desist order: Determining that, without the prior written consent of the Department, Superior Insurance Company paid Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group in the net amount of approximately $15 million, plus all such amounts paid after the period covered by this case through April 30, 2000. Requiring that Superior Insurance Company immediately file all necessary documentation with the Department to seek the retroactive approval of all or part of the sum set forth in the preceding paragraph. If any sum remains improperly paid after implementing the procedure set forth in the preceding paragraph, establishing a reasonable repayment schedule for Respondent to impose upon Superior Group--if necessary, in the form of setoffs of Management Fees and Finance and Service Fees due at the time of, and after, the Final Order. Determining that Superior Insurance Company inadequately disclosed related-party transactions and ordering that Superior Insurance Company comply with specific guidelines for the reporting of these transactions in the future. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 S. Marc Herskovitz Luke S. Brown Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street, Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Clyde W. Galloway, Jr. Austin B. Neal Foley & Lardner 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
