The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. It is responsible for enforcing the workers' compensation coverage requirements pursuant to section 440.107. At all times relevant to this proceeding, USA was a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Respondent is a company engaged in the construction industry and was active during the two-year audit period from August 27, 2013, through August 26, 2015. On August 26, 2015, Julio Cabrera ("investigator" or Cabrera"), compliance investigator for the Division, conducted a random construction compliance check at the residential job site, 741 Harbor Drive in Key Biscayne ("residential home"). Cabrera observed two men on Respondent's scaffold plastering the exterior wall of the residential home. Cabrera interviewed the two men working on the scaffold. The workers told the investigator that they were employed by Respondent. They also identified Garcia as the Respondent's owner and provided Garcia's contact information to Cabrera. After interviewing the two workers, Cabrera checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System for proof of workers' compensation coverage and for exemptions associated with USA. Cabrera's search revealed Garcia had an active exemption, but Respondent did not have a workers' compensation insurance policy or an employee leasing policy for its employees. Cabrera also confirmed that Respondent did not have any type of workers' compensation coverage for its employees by examining the National Council on Compensation Insurance database. Next, Cabrera placed a telephone call to Garcia and interviewed him. Garcia informed Cabrera that the two workers were USA's employees and that Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for the workers.1/ After interviewing Garcia, the investigator returned to the two USA employees and requested their identification. Silvano Antonio Delgado Reyes provided his identification and the other USA male employee fled from the job site. That same day Cabrera issued Respondent a Stop-Work Order on behalf of the Division for Respondent's failure to secure the required workers' compensation insurance coverage. Petitioner also served Respondent a Request of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request") asking for documentation to enable the Division to determine payroll for the audit period of August 27, 2013, through August 26, 2015. USA responded to the Request for records and provided the Division with verification of its business records on several different occasions. Ultimately, Respondent provided bank statements and corresponding check images for most of the two- year audit period. Christopher Richardson ("auditor" or "Richardson"), penalty auditor for the Division, was assigned to USA's investigation. Richardson reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and determined those persons employed by USA during the audit period without workers' compensation insurance. Richardson properly recalculated the penalty amount each time new records were provided by Respondent. USA did not provide sufficient records to determine payroll for February 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, and August 1, 2015, through 25, 2015, and Richardson properly utilized the computation formula to determine the payroll for the aforementioned audit period without adequate records. Richardson concluded his audit by properly calculating the workers' compensation amount USA owed in workers' compensation insurance for the audit period using the Class Code 5022 for masonry work. Richardson applied the approved manual rates and methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d) and concluded USA owed a penalty amount of $52,489.24. On March 28, 2016, the Division served Respondent the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $52,489.24 naming those persons employed by USA during the audit period. On June 30, 2015, Respondent challenged the Stop-Work Order and penalty assessment and requested a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order affirming the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $52,489.24. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2016.
The Issue On the merits, the issues for determination are, first, whether a lesser portion of Petitioner's total recovery from a third-party tortfeasor should be designated as recovered medical expenses than the share presumed by statute; if so, then the amount of Petitioner's recovery to which Respondent's Medicaid lien may attach must be determined. Before the merits may be addressed, however, it will be necessary to decide whether, in light of the recent judicial invalidation of portions of the Medicaid Third-Party Liability Act, an administrative remedy remains available to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On June 1, 2012, Petitioner Michael Lee Smathers, II ("Smathers"), was shot two times while sitting in a vehicle parked outside of Club Lexx, a nightclub in Miami-Dade County. The shooter was a security guard who worked for Force Security, LLC ("Force"), which provided security for Club Lexx as an independent contractor. The guard also shot Smathers's friend, the driver of the vehicle, who died as a result of his injuries. The record is silent as to the circumstances giving rise to this violence. One bullet struck Smathers in the arm, the other in the stomach, which caused life-threatening injuries. Smathers received aggressive emergency medical care and survived, but he is permanently and severely disabled. Bullet and bone fragments damaged his spinal cord, leaving Smathers paralyzed from the waist down. He is incontinent, has serious gastric difficulties, experiences constant pain, cannot have sex or reproduce, and suffers from chronic depression, among other conditions. Because it is undisputed that Smathers's injuries are severe, permanent, and indeed catastrophic, there is no need to catalogue them all here. Smathers requires round-the-clock care and will never return to the workforce due to his impairments and chronic pain. He will incur medical expenses stemming from the gunshot wounds for the rest of his life. At all relevant times, Smathers's health insurance was provided, at least in part, by Medicaid. Medicaid is a program "which provides for payments for medical items or services, or both, on behalf of any person who is determined by the Department of Children and Families . . . to be eligible on the date of service for Medicaid assistance." § 409.901(16), Fla. Stat. Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and the states that have elected to participate in the program, which include Florida. Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the agency responsible for administering Medicaid in the state of Florida. It is undisputed that Medicaid provided $206,445.41 in medical assistance on Smathers's behalf as a result of the injuries he sustained in the attack at Club Lexx. Unfortunately for Smathers, the Club Lexx shooting gave him many causes of action but no deep-pocket defendants to sue for damages. He brought suit, nonetheless, against Force and others in the state circuit court (the "Smathers Lawsuit"). Force, it happened, was insured against general liability, but only up to $1 million per occurrence, which obviously would be woefully inadequate to compensate Smathers. Force's insurer ("Evanston") sought a judicial declaration in the U.S. district court that its policy did not provide coverage for the allegations made against Force in the Smathers Lawsuit. The federal court rejected Evanston's coverage position and held that the insurer had a duty to defend Force. Evanston appealed the decision. While this appeal was pending, Evanston, Force, and Smathers entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Evanston paid the policy limit of $1 million to Smathers in exchange for the usual releases. (Smathers did not release the other defendants in the Smathers Lawsuit.) The settlement is undifferentiated——that is, no attempt was made therein to apportion the proceeds between the various elements of compensatory damages potentially available to Smathers. After deducting attorney's fees and costs, Smathers's net recovery from the settlement was $546,894.15. Upon learning of the settlement, AHCA asserted its rights under the Medicaid Third-Party Liability Act (the "Act"), section 409.910, which grants AHCA an automatic lien upon "collateral" such as settlements and settlement agreements for the full amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid to a recipient for which a third party might be liable. There is, however, an important limitation on AHCA's right of repayment from liable third parties: Because federal law prohibits a state from attaching a Medicaid lien to any part of a recipient's tort recovery not designated as payments for medical care, the lien can encumber only the portion of a settlement or recovery that represents compensation for medical expenses. As a means of complying with this anti-lien law, section 409.910(11)(f) prescribes a formula for determining how the proceeds of a settlement or other recovery from a third-party tortfeasor should be divided between medical expense damages and all other (i.e., nonmedical) compensatory damages, and it directs that the portion attributable to payments for medical care be paid to AHCA up to the total amount spent by Medicaid. The parties agree that, under this statutory formula, AHCA is entitled to be reimbursed in full for Medicaid's outlays on Smathers's behalf ($206,445.41) because that amount, which represents approximately 20.6% of Smathers's gross settlement proceeds ("GSP"), is less than the portion of his GSP that paragraph (11)(f) otherwise presumptively designates as recovered medical expense damages. Exercising his rights under section 409.910(17)(b), which provides the "exclusive method for challenging the amount of third-party benefits payable to" AHCA, Smathers initiated this proceeding to contest the statutory designation of $206,445.41 as payments for medical care. Paragraph (17)(b) confers upon DOAH final order authority over this administrative remedy. Smathers presented evidence regarding his total provable damages ("TPD"),1/ which he asserts are between $16 million and $22 million. Smathers's TPD includes past medical expenses of $2.7 million and future medical expenses of $5.7 million, for a total of $8.4 million in medical expense damages.2/ Medical expense damages and general damages comprising injury, pain, disability, disfigurement, and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life (collectively, "pain and suffering") constitute, effectively, the entirety of Smathers's TPD.3/ Smathers contends that the amount of his settlement that should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expense damages, and thus become subject to the Medicaid lien, is $12,903. Smathers arrives at this figure as follows. He reasons that because he recovered just 6.25% of his TPD ($1 million is 6.25% of $16 million), AHCA likewise should be paid just 6.25% of its total expenditures, which works out to $12,903. (That sum is 1.29% of $1 million.) For ease of discussion, this approach will be referred to as the settlement- ?????? to-value ratio method, expressed as ?????? (??), where ?? = actual Medicaid expenditures. The amount payable to AHCA pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) (the "Statutory Distribution") is either (a) an amount equal to .75 times the gross settlement, minus taxable costs, divided by 2 (hereafter, the "Presumed Recovered Medical Expense Damages" or "PRMED"); or (b) the total dollar amount of medical assistance that Medicaid actually has provided (hereafter, the "Actual Expenditure"), whichever is lower. The ratio of PRMED to GSP reflects the portion of the GSP that the statutory formula allocates by default as reimbursement to the injured party for both past and future medical expenses (hereafter collectively referred to as "Medical Damages"). ?????? The statute, it will be seen, presumes that a uniformly calculable percentage (i.e., ??????????) of any recipient's undifferentiated GSP constitutes compensation for Medical Damages. In the run of cases, this percentage likely will be somewhere in the neighborhood of one-third, although in particular cases, as here, the percentage——which cannot exceed 37.5%——can be smaller.4/ Section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), provides that "[i]n order to successfully challenge the amount designated as recovered medical expenses, the recipient must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the portion of the total recovery which should be allocated as past and future medical expenses is less than the amount calculated by the agency pursuant to the formula set forth in paragraph (11)(f)."5/ Thus, the presumption regarding the allocation of the recipient's recovery to Medical Damages is one which affects the burden of proof. See §§ 90.302(2) and 90.304, Fla. Stat. To elaborate, paragraphs (11)(f) and (17)(b) operate in tandem to create the rebuttable presumption that a certain percentage of the recipient's GSP is attributable to Medical Damages (the presumed fact), and paragraph (17)(b) makes plain that the recipient has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the nonexistence of the presumed fact. The presumption at issue, according to paragraph (17)(b), is not a "bursting bubble" presumption that vanishes upon the introduction of credible evidence contrary to the presumed fact, see section 90.302(1), Florida Statutes, but rather it imposes upon the recipient the burden to prove that a smaller portion of the settlement is attributable to Medical Damages. On April 18, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida entered a Final Judgment in Gallardo v. Dudek, No. 4:16-cv-116, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59848 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2017), which declared that section 409.910(17)(b) is preempted by federal law (and thus unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause) at least insofar as the statute authorizes AHCA to "seek[] reimbursement of past Medicaid payments from portions of a recipient's recovery that represents [sic] future medical expenses." Id. at *31. The court enjoined AHCA from "enforcing that statute in its current form" and specifically forbade AHCA from "requiring a Medicaid recipient to affirmatively disprove" the statutory allocation of third-party recoveries as reimbursement for past and future medical expenses "where . . . that allocation is arbitrary." Id. Three months later, on AHCA's motion, the court amended its judgment, slightly, to read as follows: [P]ortions of § 409.910(11)(f), Fla. Stat. (2016) and § 409.901(17)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016) are preempted by federal law. It is declared that the federal Medicaid Act prohibits the State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration from seeking reimbursement of past Medicaid payments from portions of a recipient's recovery that represents [sic] future medical expenses. The State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration is therefore enjoined from doing just that: seeking reimbursement of past Medicaid payments from portions of a recipient's recovery that represents [sic] future medical expenses. It is also declared that the federal Medicaid Act prohibits the State of Florida from requiring a Medicaid recipient to affirmatively disprove § 409.910(17)(b)'s formula-based allocation with clear and convincing evidence to successfully challenge it where, as here, that allocation is arbitrary and there is no evidence that it is likely to yield reasonable results in the mine run of cases. Gallardo v. Senior, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112448, *24 (N.D. Fla. July 18, 2017).
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Micaiah McCray, from a medical-malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on November 11, 2008. In the months following birth, Petitioner underwent several surgeries and procedures including a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement on January 26, 2009, a repair of incomplete atrioventricular canal defect on April 15, 2009, and Nissen Fundoplication and revision of gastrostomy tube on July 8, 2009. On July 23, 2009, Petitioner was admitted to St. Mary’s Medical Center with suspected bronchitis and exacerbation of reactive airway distress. During this hospitalization, on or about August 15, 2009, Petitioner suffered a stroke involving the right hand and part of the right leg. A CT scan of Petitioner’s brain revealed a left middle cerebral artery distribution infarction suggesting a large ischemic infarct. Petitioner’s condition stabilized and Petitioner was released from the hospital on August 27, 2009, with the following discharge summary: Exacerbation of reactive airway disease Bronchitis Mitral stenosis Mild pulmonary hypertension Hypersecretory upper airway Pansinusitis Clostridium difficile colitis Hypoxemia with oxygen dependency Gastroesophageal reflux disease, status post fundoplication Left cerebral infarction of unknown etiology Endocardial cushion defect status post atrioventricular canal repair Bilateral optic nerve colobomas Rule out CHARGE association/Goletz syndrome On September 21, 2009, Petitioner was admitted to Palms West Hospital with a diagnosis of respiratory distress. Petitioner’s condition improved and he was discharged home on September 25, 2009. Subsequent to that hospitalization, an MRI performed on October 19, 2009, revealed new acute strokes. In the years following Petitioner’s strokes, he underwent numerous surgeries, procedures, and therapies for a multitude of medical conditions. Petitioner’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by both private health insurance and Medicaid. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $217,545.58. United Healthcare and Aetna provided $37,090.17 and $3,231.72 in benefits, respectively. Total healthcare expense incurred for Petitioner’s injuries was $257,867.47. Petitioner is developmentally delayed and cannot walk or crawl. Petitioner requires a wheelchair or stroller for mobility and requires positioning and trunk support to maintain a seated position. His ability to independently explore his environment is severely restricted. Petitioner is completely dependent on others for activities of daily living. He cannot bathe, dress, or eat on his own. He requires a feeding tube, and receives professional in-home services to monitor his respiration and heartrate, manage his GJ tube, administer medication, and monitor bowel and bladder function. Petitioner does not vocalize words and has limited communication. He has no function of his right hand and has tightness in the right leg below the knee. Petitioner’s condition is permanent. Petitioner’s parents brought a medical malpractice action on his behalf in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County against Tenet St. Mary’s Inc., d/b/a St. Mary’s Medical Center; Palms West Hospital Limited Partnership, d/b/a Palms West Hospital; David Evan Mound Drucker, M.D.; South Florida Pediatric Surgeons, P.A.; Physicians Professional Liability Risk Retention Group; Alberto Antonio Marante, M.D.; Florida Pediatric Critical Care, P.A.; Diego Maurcio Diaz, M.D.; Gerard Minor, P.A.-C; Children’s Center Gastroenterology & Nutrition, P.A.; Chartis Claims, Inc.; Lexington Insurance Company; Eunice Cordoba, M.D; and Edwin Liu, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Pediatric Neurologist of Palm Beach (Defendants). Petitioner’s action alleged, among other theories, that the Defendants failed to recognize in Petitioner a sickle cell trait and properly treat Petitioner’s dehydration, a factor contributing to Petitioner’s strokes. Petitioner’s parents retained Scott Marlowe Newmark, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims for over 30 years, to represent Petitioner in the medical malpractice action against Defendants. In preparation for litigation, Stephanie P. Chalfin, M.S., prepared a life care plan for Petitioner. The plan sets out the need for future medical care, equipment, hospitalizations, surgeries, medications, and attendant care, through Petitioner’s expected life span. In this case, Petitioner’s life expectancy is an additional 66.9 years. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, J. Rody Borg, Ph.D., an economist, prepared a report assigning a present value between $24,373,828 and $29,065,995 for the future costs of Petitioner’s life care plan, lost benefits, and lost earning capacity. Mr. Newmark’s expert valuation of the total damages suffered by Petitioner is at least $30 million. Mr. Newmark considered the life care plan and Dr. Borg’s report in arriving at the value of total economic damages. Mr. Newmark then examined jury verdicts in similar cases involving catastrophic injury to value non-economic damages. Of the nine jury verdicts examined, Mr. Newmark highlighted three as particularly relevant because they involved young children with brain injuries similar to Petitioner’s injury and who required life-long care. The nine cases had an average award of $12 million for non-economic damages (past and future pain and suffering). Mr. Newmark arrived at his valuation of Petitioner’s damages at $30 million by considering the low-end of Dr. Borg’s economic damages estimate, $24 million, along with the average jury award for non-economic damages in similar cases. Mr. Newmark’s testimony was credible, reliable and persuasive. Mr. Newmark’s valuation of total damages was supported by the testimony of two additional personal injury attorneys, Mark Finklestein and R. Vinson Barrett, both of whom have practiced personal injury law for more than 30 years and were accepted as experts in valuation of damages (in personal injury cases). Mr. Finkelstein served as Petitioner’s guardian ad litem in the underlying medical malpractice action and agreed with the valuation of total damages at $30 million. In formulating his opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett reviewed the discharge summaries from Petitioner’s hospitalizations, the life care plan, Dr. Borg’s report, and a day-in-the-life video of Petitioner. Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury trial verdicts and awards relied upon by Mr. Newmark. Mr. Barrett likewise agreed with the $30 million valuation of Petitioner’s total damages. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s medical malpractice action during its pendency. Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $217,545.58 against the proceeds of any award or settlement arising out of that action. In 2012 and again in 2015, Petitioner received a series of settlements from the Defendants. The settlements totaled $2,450,000. The settlements do not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of his damages. The settlements are undifferentiated, meaning they are not apportioned to specific types of damages, such as economic or non-economic, past or future. In all of the releases signed by the parties thereto, the parties agreed that, “if an allocation of this settlement is necessary in the future, this allocation should be made by applying the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all [Petitioner’s] damages to the specific damage claim.” Respondent was not a party to the 2012 and 2015 settlements and did not execute any of the applicable releases. Respondent’s position is that it should be reimbursed for its Medicaid expenditures on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the statutory formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting a 25 percent attorney’s fee and taxable costs (in this case, $613,131) from the $2,450,000 recovery, which yields a sum of $1,836,869 then dividing that amount by two, which yields $918,434.50. Under the statute, Respondent is limited to recovery of the amount derived from the statutory formula or the amount of its lien, whichever is less. In the case at hand, Respondent may recover under the statute the full amount of its lien. Petitioner’s position is that reimbursement for past medical expenses should be limited to the same ratio as Petitioner’s recovery amount to the total value of damages. Petitioner urges Respondent should be reimbursed $21,067.77 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The settlement amount of $2,450,000 is 8.17 percent of the total value ($30 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, 8.17 percent of $257,867.47 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid by both Medicaid and private insurance) is $21,067.77. Both Mr. Finklestein and Mr. Barrett testified that $21,067.77 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses. Their testimony is accepted as persuasive. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact On the night of April 2, 2015, Mitchell Williams was riding his bicycle along a public sidewalk in Destin, Florida. The sidewalk intersected privately-owned driveways. At the north side of a privately-owned driveway at 239 Main Street, the concrete was broken at the point where the sidewalk and private driveway connected. The broken concrete created a dangerous condition to anyone riding along the sidewalk. Mr. Williams rode his bicycle into soft sand where the sidewalk should have been, causing his front wheel to bury into the sand before striking the leading edge of the undamaged portion of the sidewalk. Mr. Williams flipped over the handlebars of his bicycle and struck the concrete sidewalk face first. Mr. Williams underwent an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (“ACDF”), placement of an inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filter, open reduction and internal fixation (“ORIF”) of a nasal maxillary fracture, and repair of facial lacerations. Mr. Williams was hospitalized for nine months. During his post- operative hospitalization, Mr. Williams developed stage IV decubitus ulcers that left him with significant scar tissue over his tailbone. The accident rendered Mr. Williams a partial quadriplegic from a cervical spinal cord injury. He remains confined to a wheelchair for mobility. Mr. Williams is totally dependent on others for his activities of daily living. Mr. Williams made a personal injury damages claim against the owner of the sidewalk, the City of Destin (“City”). On or about April 29, 2019, Mr. Williams entered into a pre-suit settlement of his tort claim against the City for $200,000, the statutory maximum provided by section 768.28(5), Florida Statutes. Because the City tendered the full amount for which it could be held liable, no express allocation for past medical expenses was made in the settlement. After settling with the City, Mr. Williams brought an action against Wagih Gargas, Gargas Commercial and City Produce of Fort Walton Beach, alleged as tortfeasors by virtue of their ownership and/or control of the private driveway where Mr. Williams was injured. The case against these parties remains pending with a very uncertain outcome as to liability. AHCA was properly notified of Mr. Williams’s personal injury action and indicated it had paid benefits related to his injuries in the amount of $70,460.35. AHCA’s payments were the only payments made for Mr. Williams’s past medical expenses. AHCA has asserted a lien for the full amount of $70,460.35 against Mr. Williams’s settlement proceeds. Mr. Williams will never fully recover from his injuries. He will require medical treatment and assistance with his activities of daily living for the rest of his life. Application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) would require Mr. Williams to pay back Medicaid all of its $70,460.35 lien. Mr. Williams contends that only a fraction of the settlement represents his recovery for past medical expenses. 10. Sections 409.910(11)(f) and 409.910(17)(b), as amended, provide for recovery by Medicaid for future medical expenses as well as past medical expenses. Section 409.910(17)(b) further imposes a clear and convincing burden of proof on a recipient attempting to show that the portion of the total recovery that should be allocated as past and future medical expenses is less than the amount calculated by AHCA. However, in Gallardo v. Dudek, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (N.D. Fla. 2017), the court held that the provisions allowing Medicaid to recover future medical expenses and imposing a clear and convincing standard on recipients contesting AHCA’s calculations violate and are preempted by federal law. The parties have stipulated that Gallardo v. Dudek preempts the application of the future medical expenses provision and that Petitioner’s burden of proof in this section 409.910(17)(b) proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence. See also Giraldo v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 248 So. 3d 53 (Fla. 2018)(under federal law AHCA may only reach the past medical expenses portion of a Medicaid recipient's tort recovery to satisfy its Medicaid lien). At the hearing, Mr. Williams testified as to the extent of the injuries and damages he suffered in the April 2, 2015, bicycle accident. Mr. Williams testified persuasively as to the overwhelming impact of the injuries on his life. Prior to the accident, Mr. Williams made a good living as a skilled carpenter and enjoyed fishing and golfing in his spare time. None of these activities is possible now. He is an “incomplete” quadriplegic, meaning that he is confined to a wheelchair but has limited use of his arms. John Wesley is the attorney who represented Mr. Williams in his personal injury lawsuit. Mr. Wesley is an 18-year practicing attorney who is board certified in civil trial practice. He is a partner with Wesley, McGrail & Wesley in Ft. Walton Beach. Mr. Wesley testified that he handles catastrophic personal injury and death cases, including cases involving injuries similar to those suffered by Mr. Williams. Mr. Wesley regularly evaluates the damages suffered by injured people. He testified that he does all of his work on a contingency fee basis, which makes the valuation of cases critical to his livelihood. Mr. Wesley’s representation of Mr. Williams gave him intimate familiarity with his client’s injuries and damages. Mr. Wesley testified that there are two aspects to the valuation of a case: liability and damages. As to liability, the attorney must ask whether the potential client is partly or wholly responsible for his own injuries due to factors such as comparative negligence or alcohol intake, and whether the tortfeasor is shielded under a legal concept such as sovereign immunity. The attorney must then decide whether the damages are worth pursuing even if the tortfeasor’s liability is unquestioned. Mr. Wesley testified that there was no question in this case as to the damages, which were catastrophic. The problem in Mr. Williams’s case was liability, because of the presence of contributory negligence and alcohol defenses. The most significant factor limiting Mr. Williams’s recovery was the sovereign immunity cap on damages. The City of Destin tendered $200,000, the full limit it would be required to pay under the cap. To recover more would require passing a claim bill in the legislature, an unlikely outcome given Mr. Williams’s contributory negligence. Under the circumstances, Mr. Wesley determined that nothing further could be recovered from the City. Mr. Williams’s net recovery, after attorney’s fees, was $140,000. Mr. Wesley provided detailed testimony about how the accident occurred and the mechanism of injury. He credibly testified regarding the process he undertook in evaluating and arriving at his opinion related to the value of the damages suffered by Mr. Williams. He met with Mr. Williams, evaluated the facts of the case, reviewed all the medical information and all other records and reports regarding Mr. Williams’s injuries, analyzed liability issues and comparative fault, developed economic damages estimates, and valued non-economic damages such as past and future pain and suffering, loss of capacity to enjoy life, and mental anguish. Mr. Wesley testified that the full value of Mr. Williams’s damages was likely in excess of $19 million. That figure included Mr. Williams’s pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of quality of life, and economic damages. Mr. Wesley testified that non-economic damages were the greatest element of the damages sustained by Mr. Williams, and therefore were the largest driver of the valuation and the greatest portion of damages recovered in the settlement. Mr. Wesley stated that he used a very conservative valuation figure of $6 million for the purpose of resolving Medicaid’s lien, rather than his actual valuation of more than $19 million. If the conservative valuation of $6 million is accepted, then the $200,000 recovery is only 3.33 percent of the value of the damages. Mr. Williams’s $140,000 net recovery amounted to only 2.33 percent of the full measure of his damages. Mr. Wesley’s testimony was uncontroverted, reasonable, and persuasive. Charles F. Beall, Jr., a member of the Pensacola firm Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., testified on behalf of Mr. Williams. Mr. Beall is board certified in both civil trial and appellate practice. His practice focuses on defending large scale personal liability and mass tort cases. Mr. Beall has handled more than 225 appellate cases in state and federal courts. His cases have resulted in over 60 published opinions. At the trial court level, Mr. Beall has represented hundreds of clients ranging from individual homeowners to multinational corporations in a wide variety of civil litigation, including product liability suits, contract claims, and insurance coverage disputes. He has tried more than a dozen civil jury trials to verdict as lead counsel and has served on the trial team for several multi-week trials. Mr. Beall was accepted without objection as an expert in the valuation of personal injury claims. Mr. Beall and his firm specialize in defending serious and catastrophic personal injury cases throughout Florida. Mr. Beall has reviewed thousands of personal injury cases and formally reported potential verdicts and valuations to insurance companies that have retained him to defend their insureds. Mr. Beall has worked closely with economists and life care planners to identify the relevant damages of persons suffering catastrophic injuries. Mr. Beall testified that he has handled cases involving catastrophic injuries similar to those suffered by Mr. Williams. Mr. Beall testified that he arrived at his valuation opinion by examining all the elements of damages suffered by Mr. Williams. He agreed with Mr. Wesley that Mr. Williams’s greatest element of loss was non-economic damages. Mr. Beall reviewed numerous verdicts that had been affirmed on appeal involving injuries similar to those suffered by Mr. Williams. Mr. Beall opined that the valuation of the total damages suffered by Mr. Williams was in excess of $10 million. He agreed that Mr. Wesley’s more conservative $6 million valuation was appropriate for purposes of the lien reduction formula. AHCA did not offer any witnesses or documentary evidence to question the credentials or opinions of either Mr. Wesley or Mr. Beall. AHCA did not offer testimony or documentary evidence to rebut the testimony of Mr. Wesley and Mr. Beall as to valuation or the reduction ratio. AHCA did not offer alternative opinions on the damage valuation method suggested by either Mr. Wesley or Mr. Beall, both of whom testified knowledgably and credibly as experienced practitioners. The testimony of Petitioner's two experts regarding the total value of damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Petitioner proved that the settlement of $200,000 does not begin to fully compensate Mr. Williams for the full value of his damages. Petitioner asserts that the settlement allocation should be based on the ratio between the net settlement, $140,000, and the conservative valuation of $6 million, meaning that 2.33 percent of the settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses. Petitioner cited no authority and the undersigned is not otherwise persuaded that section 409.910 allows attorney’s fees to be deducted from the settlement prior to calculating the percentage of the settlement that should be allocated to past medical expenses. With that correction, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 3.33 percent (the ratio that $200,000 bears to $6 million) is the appropriate pro rata share of Mr. Williams’s past medical expenses to be applied to determine the amount recoverable by AHCA in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. ACHA’s lien for past medical expenses is $70,460.35. Applying the 3.33 percent pro rata ratio to this total yields $2,346.33, which is the portion of the settlement representing reimbursement for past medical expenses and the amount recoverable by AHCA for its lien.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent was an employee engaged in the construction industry and required to obtain workers' compensation insurance while working on the roof of the Myakka Animal Clinic and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On August 24, 1998, Petitioner's investigator observed Respondent working on the roof of the Myakka Animal Clinic in Venice, Florida. At the time, Respondent was regularly employed by Paradise Roofing, Inc., where he had an exemption from workers' compensation insurance coverage. He has never previously been guilty of a violation of the workers' compensation laws. The contract price was $800. However, the evidence is conflicting as to the identity of the party that entered into the contract with the Myakka Animal Clinic. The veterinarian testified that her understanding of the agreement was that Respondent was to do the work, but, if any problems arose, he was not alone, and she could go to Paradise Roofing, Inc., to ensure that the labor and materials were satisfactory. Although there are other indications in the record that Respondent may have been working on his own on this job, there is sufficient conflict in the evidence that Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent was doing the job as a self- employed person, rather than an exempt employee of Paradise Roofing, Inc. Respondent's understanding of the contractual relationship carries less weight than the veterinarian's understanding of this relationship.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a final order dismissing the Notice and Penalty Assessment Order and any related stop work order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Louise T. Sadler, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Eric Kristiansen 3750 Aba Lane North Port, Florida 34287
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly dismissed Petitioner's Petition for Resolution of Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Dispute, pursuant to section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, C. G. was employed by Solo Printing, Inc., which had workers' compensation coverage through Intervenor. On March 2, 2012, C. G. was injured at work as a result of falling onto his knee during a fight with a coworker. C. G. was transported from the worksite by ambulance to Petitioner's hospital, where he was admitted. Later the same day, C. G. underwent emergency surgery to his knee. He was discharged from the hospital on March 8, 2012. On April 2, 2012, Petitioner billed Intervenor for services rendered to C. G. during his hospitalization. On May 11, 2012, Intervenor issued a Notice of Denial. On June 8, 2012, Petitioner filed with Respondent the Petition. On June 14, 2012, Respondent issued the Dismissal. Intervenor's Notice of Denial cites three grounds for denying payment for the bill: section 440.09(3), which prohibits compensation for injuries to an employee "occasioned primarily" by his willfully trying to injure another person; lack of authorization for services; and any other defense that may become available. The Dismissal cites one ground for dismissing the Petition: Petitioner's failure to submit an EOBR with its Petition. The only ground cited in the preceding paragraph that is relevant is the first cited by Intervenor. This ground raises the issue of compensability by disclosing that Intervenor has not conceded that C. G.'s injuries are compensable. Nor has a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) ever entered an order determining that C. G.'s injuries are compensable. In fact, G. has never filed a claim for benefits. At the time in question, C. G. had health insurance, but his insurer reportedly denied coverage on the ground that it insured's injuries were covered by workers' compensation. It does not appear that Petitioner has commenced a legal action against C. G. for payment for the services that it rendered to him in March 2012.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Lorne S. Cabinsky, Esquire Law Offices of Lorne S. Cabinsky, P.A. Suite 1500 101 Northeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mari H. McCully, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 James T. Armstrong, Esquire Walton Lantaff Schroeder and Carson, LLP Suite 1575 200 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Division of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
