The Issue The issue to be determined in this matter is the amount of money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, John Gray, a Medicaid recipient, following Petitioner’s recovery from a third-party.
Findings Of Fact On January 18, 2007, Petitioner was involved in a devastating automobile accident. Another vehicle, driven by Damil Belizaire, crossed a median and collided head-on into the car Petitioner was driving. No evidence indicates that any negligence on the part of Petitioner caused or contributed to the accident or his injury. Petitioner suffered catastrophic injuries from the collision, including a spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia. Following the accident, Petitioner was transported to UF Health Shands Hospital (“Shands”) in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner remained in Shands receiving medical treatment for 77 days. Once Petitioner became medically stable, he was transferred to the Brooks Rehabilitation Center (“Brooks”) in Jacksonville, Florida. There, Petitioner received intensive physical and occupational therapy care. Petitioner remained at Brooks until June 1, 2007, when he was discharged. Petitioner is permanently paraplegic. On April 7, 2008, Petitioner sued Mr. Belizaire seeking to recover his damages from the automobile accident. Petitioner’s lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in Duval County, Case No. 16-2008-CA-004366. On April 1, 2013, Petitioner received a jury verdict in his favor and was awarded a Final Judgment against Mr. Belizaire in the amount of $2,859,120.56, including statutory interest. The damages award was allocated as follows: $128,760.56 for past medical expenses; $1,301,268.00 for future medical expenses; $202,670.00 for the loss of earnings in the past; $916,422.00 for loss of earning capacity in the future; $50,000.00 for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the past; and $260,000.00 for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the future. Despite his verdict awarding damages, Petitioner has only been able to recover $10,000.00 from Mr. Belizaire. Mr. Belizaire’s automobile liability insurance company paid Petitioner $10,000, which was the limit of his bodily injury liability insurance policy. The Agency, through its Medicaid program, paid a total of $65,615.05 for Petitioner’s medical care resulting from the 2007 automobile accident.2/ This administrative matter centers on the amount the Agency is entitled to be paid to satisfy its Medicaid lien following Petitioner’s recovery of $10,000 from a third-party. Under section 409.910, the Agency may be repaid for its Medicaid expenditures from any recovery from liable third-parties. The Agency claims that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect $3,750 regardless of the full value of Petitioner’s damages. (The Agency subtracted a statutorily recognized attorney fee of $2,500 from $10,000 leaving $7,500. One-half of $7,500 is $3,750.) Petitioner asserts that pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of Petitioner’s recovery than the amount it calculated using the section 409.910(11)(f) formula. Petitioner specifically argues that the Agency’s Medicaid lien must be reduced pro rata, taking into account the full value of Petitioner’s personal injury claim as determined by the Final Judgment entered in the underlying negligence lawsuit. Otherwise, application of the default statutory formula under section 409.910(11)(f) would permit the Agency to collect more than that portion of the settlement representing compensation for medical expenses. Petitioner maintains that such reimbursement violates the federal Medicaid law’s anti-lien provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1), and Florida common law. Petitioner contends that the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s recovery should be reduced to the amount of $230.00. Based on the evidence in the record, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Accordingly, the Agency is entitled to recover $3,750.00 from Petitioner’s recovery of $10,000 from a third- party to satisfy its Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), is to be reimbursed for medical expenses paid on behalf of Derek Matson (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Matson”) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ from settlement proceeds received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on testimony, exhibits accepted into evidence, admitted facts set forth in the Pre- hearing Stipulation, and matters subject to official recognition. Facts Pertaining to the Underlying Personal Injury Litigation and the Medicaid Lien Mr. Matson was 25 years old in November of 2017, and employed as an executive chef responsible for managing a restaurant’s cooking operations. His annual salary was approximately $61,000.00. On November 5, 2017, Mr. Matson was drinking and having brunch with his girlfriend. He met a friend, and they decided to take the friend’s boat out that afternoon. Mr. Matson was already very intoxicated by the time he arrived at the dock and continued to drink after the boat left the dock. While the boat was anchored in very shallow water, Mr. Matson dove from the boat, struck his head on the seafloor, and suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury. Mr. Matson is now unable to walk, ambulate, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. He has no use of his legs and extremely limited use of his upper extremities. Mr. Matson spends his waking hours in a wheelchair, requires continuous care, and must be repositioned every two hours in order to prevent pressure sores. Mr. Matson frequently suffers from depression. Medicaid, through AHCA, paid $85,896.60 for Mr. Matson’s care. Via a Medicaid managed care plan known as Optum, Medicaid paid an additional $32,167.31 in benefits. The sum of these benefits, $118,063.91, constituted Mr. Matson’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Matson pursued a personal injury claim against the boat’s owner and operator. The boat owner’s insurance policy was limited to $305,000.00, and the boat owner had no other recoverable assets. Ultimately, Mr. Matson’s personal injury claim settled for an unallocated lump sum2/ of $305,000.00. During the pendency of Mr. Matson’s personal injury claim, AHCA was notified of the action and asserted an $85,896.00 lien against Mr. Matson’s recovery from the personal injury claim. AHCA did not move to intervene or join in Mr. Matson’s personal injury case. AHCA received notice of Mr. Matson’s settlement and has not moved to set-aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlement. As noted above, Medicaid spent $85,896.60 on Mr. Matson’s behalf. Application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) requires that all of AHCA’s $85,896.60 lien be satisfied.3/ Mr. Matson has deposited $85,896.60 in an interest bearing account pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights. Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim Jack Hill represented Mr. Matson during the personal injury action. Mr. Hill has practiced law since 2002 and been employed with the law firm of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart, and Shipley in West Palm Beach, Florida, since August of 2004. Mr. Hill is board certified in civil trial law by the Florida Bar and has handled personal injury cases for approximately 15 years. Mr. Hill is a member of several trial attorney associations such as the American Justice Association, the Florida Justice Association, the Palm Beach Justice Association, and AIG, a products liability plaintiffs’ organization. Mr. Hill routinely evaluates the monetary value of damages suffered by his clients. That process involves discussing individual cases with the 28 other members of his law firm and then forming a consensus regarding a case’s settlement value and the damages a jury would likely award in the event of a trial. Without objection from AHCA, Mr. Hill was accepted as an expert regarding the evaluation of damages. If Mr. Matson’s personal injury action had gone to trial, Mr. Hill is confident that a jury would have returned a verdict of at least $20 million. As for the discreet aspects of Mr. Matson’s total damages, Mr. Hill testified that Mr. Matson’s economic damages exceed $20 million and that his noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, are $20 million. Mr. Hill testified that “$305,000 was a grossly inadequate recovery for Derek, considering his injuries.” If one assumes that a jury would have returned a $20 million verdict, then the $305,000.00 settlement represents a 1.52 percent recovery of Mr. Matson’s total damages. If one applies that same percentage to the individual components of the personal injury claim, then it would be determined that Mr. Matson only recovered 1.52 percent or $1,794.57 of the $118,063.91 in past medical expenses. This computational method shall be referred to herein as “the pro rata formula.” Mr. Hill testified that the pro rata formula was a reasonable methodology to ascertain how much of Mr. Matson’s past medical expenses were recovered via the $305,000.00 settlement: Q: Mr. Hill, based on a $20 million value of all damages, the $305,000 settlement represents a recovery of 1.25% of the value of the damages. Would you agree with that? A: 1.52%. Q: All right. And accordingly, in this settlement, Mr. Matson recovered 1.52% of his claim for past medical expenses? A: Yes. He would have recovered 1.52% of all aspects of his damages, including those for past medicals that were paid on his behalf. So, yes. Q: And this is similar to how a jury verdict would work, is that correct? So the jury would assign a value to each category of damages. But if it was determined that the defendant, the jury determined that the defendant was only 1.52% liable for those damages – the jury, the judge, in entering the judgment, would reduce each element of damages to that 1.52% amount. Is that correct? A: That’s the way it works, yes. Q: All right. So 1.52% of the $118,063.91 claim for past medical expenses, that comes out to $1,794.57. Is that your math? A: It is – that there was $32,167.31 paid by private health insurance, and the Medicaid paid $85,896.60. And so you take 1.52% of $118,063.91, you get a total past recovery for medical expenses of $1,794.57. Q: All right. And that’s the amount you believe should be allocated to past medical expenses? A: It is. Yes, Sir. Findings Regarding the Testimony Presented at the Final Hearing The undersigned finds that the testimony from Mr. Hill was compelling and persuasive as to: (a) the total damages incurred by Mr. Matson; (b) that Mr. Matson only recovered 1.52 percent of his total damages; and (c) that Mr. Matson only recovered 1.52 percent of his past medical expenses. Using the pro rata formula, the ratio that results from dividing the settlement amount by total damages, is a reasonable method to determine how much of a party’s past medical expenses were recovered through the settlement. AHCA offered no evidence to counter Mr. Hill’s opinions regarding Mr. Matson’s total damages or the past medical expenses he recovered. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the total value of Mr. Matson’s personal injury claim is no less than $20 million and that the $305,000.00 settlement resulted in him recovering no more than 1.52 percent of his past medical expenses. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that $1,794.57 amounts to a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Mr. Matson and payable to AHCA.
The Issue What is the amount from Petitioners' settlement proceeds that should be paid to satisfy Respondent's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2013)?1/
Findings Of Fact By Order entered August 15, 2013, the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee County, Florida, appointed Robert Gibbons and Robert Gibbons, Jr., as joint plenary guardians of Georgia-Rose Gibbons. On April 6, 2012, Georgia-Rose Gibbons (Ms. Gibbons), who was a college freshman at the time, sustained numerous severe and permanent injuries, including a traumatic head injury, when she was struck by a motor vehicle while walking across a multi-lane road. Ms. Gibbons is totally incapacitated and currently resides in a nursing home. As of the date of this Order, Ms. Gibbons has a rated life expectancy of approximately 47 additional years. At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of Jeffrey A. Luhrsen, an attorney with extensive experience representing injured claimants in personal injury litigation. Mr. Luhrsen has practiced law in the State of Florida for more than twenty years and has tried multiple personal injury cases to jury verdict. Mr. Luhrsen opined that based upon a reasonable degree of certainty, and taking into consideration issues of comparative fault, $20,000,000 is the value of Ms. Gibbons' claim. AHCA did not offer evidence to the contrary. Mr. Luhrsen also credibly opined that the $400,000 settlement (explained below), which Ms. Gibbons received as a consequence of her injuries, did not fully compensate Ms. Gibbons for her damages. Mr. Luhrsen's opinions are accepted. The operator of the vehicle that collided with Ms. Gibbons was uninsured. Pursuant to an automobile insurance policy with AAA Auto Club South Insurance Company, Ms. Gibbons was insured in the amount of $400,000.00 against personal injury resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by an uninsured motorist. By correspondence dated September 19, 2013, Respondent informed Petitioners' personal injury attorney (PI attorney) that $220,519.42 is the amount of Respondent's Medicaid lien. In response, Petitioners' PI attorney, by correspondence dated October 3, 2013, advised Respondent that Ms. Gibbon's uninsured motorist claim against AAA was settled, pending approval of the Circuit Court, for $400,000. A copy of the proposed limited release and settlement agreement was included with the correspondence. The Circuit Court approved the settlement agreement on October 4, 2013. On October 17, 2013, Petitioners' PI attorney provided Respondent with copies of the Circuit Court's Order Granting Authority to Settle Claim on Behalf of Ward, and the executed Limited Release and Settlement Agreement. Respondent neither joined in the settlement nor participated in any way in settlement negotiations. The Limited Release and Settlement Agreement provides in part as follows: For and in consideration of the payment of $400,000, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Releasors being of lawful age, do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge, AAA AUTO CLUB, limited to the uninsured/underinsured liability limits of the Subject Policy, of or in any way growing out of any and all known or unknown personal injuries result[ing] from, related to and/or arising out of the Subject Accident. The Releasors acknowledge that the damages sustained as a result of the Subject Accident are permanent and that recovery therefrom is uncertain and indefinite. * * * 8. It is understood and agreed that this is a partial release and settlement agreement and that the payment referenced herein does not fully compensate the Releasors for the damages arising out of or related to the Subject Accident. . . . * * * 11. Although this settlement does not fully compensate GEORGIA ROSE GIBBONS for all the damages she has suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to the Releasees without regard to this settlement only compensating GEORGIA ROSE GIBBONS for a fraction of the total monetary value of her damages. The Releasees in this settlement are specifically not compensating one element of damage disproportionately from any other element of damage. Given the nature of the injuries suffered by GEORGIA ROSE GIBBONS, the value of the damages associated with those injuries, and the limited ability of this settlement to compensate even a fraction of GEORGIA ROSE GIBBONS' damages, the parties have agreed to an allocation of the settlement. The parties agree that a fair assessment would place 20% of her total claim for damages as past and future medical expenses, and the remaining 80% of her total claim for damages for other economic damages and non-economic damages. Accordingly, the parties have allocated 20% of the settlement, $80,000, to past and future medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement, $320,000, towards satisfaction of other damages.2/ Respondent, pursuant to section 409.910(11)(f), calculates the amount that it is to be paid to satisfy its lien as follows: $400,000 less 25% (attorney fees) is $300,000; $300,000 less $11,029.89 in taxable costs is $288,970.01; $288,970.01 divided by 2 is $144,485.01, which is less than Respondent paid for Ms. Gibbons' treatment. Accordingly, Respondent seeks $144,485.01 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien.3/ For the period mid-September 2013 through January 5, 2014, Medicaid paid $14,402.94 in additional medical assistance benefits on behalf of Ms. Gibbons. There is no evidence of record indicating that Respondent amended its lien to reflect the additional benefits paid.
The Issue The issue to be decided in this proceeding is the amount to be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA” or the “Agency”), from the proceeds of a personal injury settlement received by Petitioner, Joseph Pinto Domingo, referred to herein as either “Petitioner” or “Domingo,” to reimburse Medicaid for expenditures made on his behalf.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are derived from the exhibits and oral testimony at final hearing, as well as from the stipulated facts between the parties. On July 13, 2012, Domingo’s parents took him to a hospital emergency room (“ER”) with complaints of a persistent fever, runny nose, congestion and a cough. He was 24 months old at the time and had been sick for a few days. After evaluation by hospital ER staff, Domingo was found to have a fever of 103 degrees Fahrenheit. He was treated with Tylenol, but minutes later began to have seizures. He experienced on-going seizure activity that compromised his ability to breathe, resulting in a catastrophic hypoxic ischemic brain injury. As a result of his brain injury, Domingo is permanently disabled and unable to stand, walk, ambulate, speak, eat, toilet or care for himself in any manner. As a result of Domingo’s injuries, he suffered both economic and non-economic damages, including but not limited to: pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of ability to enjoy life, disability, disfigurement, lost ability to earn money, and extensive medical expenses, past and future. Of course Domingo’s parents also suffered extensively because of Domingo’s injuries. The medical care Domingo received for treatment of his injuries was paid for by Medicaid. The amount paid by Medicaid for his treatment was $641,174.03 (the “Lien Amount”). Domingo’s parents brought medical malpractice claims against the ER physician, the ER nurse practitioner, a professional association to which the doctor belonged, and the hospital. During the course of litigation, it was determined that a conservative value of Domingo’s claim for damages would be thirty million dollars ($30,000,000.00), referred to herein as the “Claim Amount.” After years of litigation, a settlement was reached wherein Domingo was to be paid ten million dollars ($10,000,000), which will be called the “Settlement Amount.” An undisclosed portion of the Settlement Amount, presumably 25 percent or $2,500,000, was paid for attorneys’ fees. Domingo’s recovery was therefore less than $10,000,000. The Settlement Amount was paid by two separate entities: 1) the physician, nurse practitioner, and their professional associations (collectively the “Association”); and 2) the hospital where Domingo presented to the ER for treatment. The Association paid $2,000,000 of the Settlement Amount and the hospital paid $8,000,000. Both entities entered into settlement agreements with Domingo (through his parents). Domingo offered into evidence a Complete Liability Release from the Association and a General Release from the hospital which Domingo’s representatives had signed. In the releases, the Association and the hospital were released from further liability for and in consideration of payments made to Domingo in the amounts described above. The releases, by their terms, are considered “settlement agreements” between the parties thereto. The hospital’s settlement agreement indicated that $170,937 was being allocated for Domingo’s past medical expenses, recognizing that the Settlement Amount was less than the perceived value of Domingo’s claim. The Association’s settlement agreement did not allocate any of the $2,000,000 sum specifically to past medical expenses; it did acknowledge that the Settlement Amount was less than the value of the Claim Amount. Domingo’s parents and legal counsel signed the releases, wherein all future claims against the defendants were barred. Neither the defendants in the malpractice case nor AHCA were signatories to the releases. The copies of the documents entered into evidence at final hearing were not signed by the Association or the hospital. Oddly, the documents do not even provide a place for the defendants to sign. Nor was there testimony from any principal of the Association or the hospital to verify the terms of the releases-qua-settlement agreements. Nonetheless, the gross Settlement Amount received by Domingo was only one-third, i.e., 33.3 percent, of the Claim Amount. All the parties hereto acknowledge that Domingo did not receive the full potential value of his claim in the Settlement Amount. Domingo continues to reside with his parents, who, despite the difficulties associated with Domingo’s injury and the stress related thereto, have remained married. The parents will be responsible for Domingo’s care for the rest of his life. The parties do not dispute that Domingo’s life situation is grave and serious. But that is not the issue in this proceeding. The economic and non-economic damages for Domingo include several factors: future medical expenses, loss of income, and past medical expenses comprise the economic portion; pain and suffering, loss of consortium, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and disability, to name a few, make up the non-economic damages. Of all the postulated damages, only the past medical expenses (i.e., the Lien Amount) are finite and absolute. In fact, the parties have stipulated that “[Domingo’s] medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid and Medicaid provided $641,174.03 associated with [Domingo’s] injury.” All the other damages are estimates by experts, based on comparisons of other cases and/or their professional experience. Domingo asserts that inasmuch as he received only about 33.3 percent of his Claim Amount, he should only have to pay 33.3 percent of the Lien Amount. His assertion is essentially based on a mathematical calculation which seeks to make Domingo as whole as possible. The calculation is offered as an equitable way to provide Domingo with more of the Settlement Amount than he might otherwise retain. As discussed more fully below, the mathematical calculation runs afoul of statutory provisions. The amount allocated by the hospital for Domingo’s past medical expenses ($170,397), is 26.6 percent of the Lien Amount. This is because the hospital’s share of the $10,000,000 settlement ($8,000,000) represents 26.6 percent of the alleged value of the claim, according to Petitioner. (The undersigned could not mathematically reconcile this percentage, but based on the findings and conclusions herein, the calculation is not relevant.) The Association did not allocate a specific amount for past and medical expenses, but Domingo argues that a factor of 33.3 percent should be applied to their settlement payment, as the Settlement Amount is 33.3 percent of the Claim Amount. Other than the accuracy of that mathematical calculation, Petitioner does not provide any basis for applying the percentage to the Lien Amount. AHCA was made aware of the settlement discussions between Domingo and his healthcare providers, but chose not to be involved in the process. Rather, AHCA established the amount of the lien and asserts that the entire Lien Amount should be paid from the Settlement Amount.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or Agency), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Leigh Ann Holland (Petitioner), from a medical-malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third-party.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 19, 2010, Petitioner entered the North Florida Women’s Physicians, P.A. facility in Gainesville, Florida, for the birth of her second child. North Florida Women’s Physicians, P.A. (NFWP) operates in space leased from the North Florida Regional Medical Center (NFRMC). The two are separate entities. By all accounts, Petitioner was in good health at the time of her admission. The child, Colt, was delivered on November 19, 2010, by a nurse midwife employed by NFWP. After Colt was delivered, Petitioner was transferred to a room at the NFRMC, where she was attended to by staff of the NFRMC. However, decisions regarding her care remained the responsibility of the health care providers and staff of the NFWP. On November 21, 2010, Petitioner was slated for discharge. The NFRMC nurse attending was concerned that Petitioner was exhibiting low blood pressure, an elevated heart rate, and some shaking. Petitioner’s nurse midwife was off-work on November 21, 2010. The NFRMC nurse called the nurse midwife at her home. The substance of the call was disputed, with the NFRMC nurse asserting that she expressed her concern with Petitioner’s condition, and with the nurse midwife asserting that the NFRMC nurse failed to convey the potential seriousness of Petitioner’s condition.3/ Regardless, Petitioner was discharged on November 21, 2010. Over the course of the following two days, Petitioner’s health deteriorated. On November 23, 2010, Petitioner was taken to the hospital in Lake City. Her condition was such that she was sent by Life Flight to Shands Hospital (Shands) in Gainesville. While in route to Shands, Petitioner “coded,” meaning that, for practical purposes, she died. She was revived by the Life Flight medical crew. As a result of the efforts to revive her, drugs were administered that had the effect of drawing blood away from her extremities and toward her core organs. Petitioner’s fingers and toes were affected by blood loss. They mostly recovered, except for her right big toe, which later had to be partially amputated. Petitioner has since experienced some difficulty in balance and walking normally. Upon arrival at Shands, Petitioner was admitted with post-partum endometritis which had developed into a widespread sepsis infection. She spent the next three months in the hospital, and underwent five surgeries. She had 2/3 of her colon removed and underwent two ileostomies. She bears scars that extend from sternum to pelvis. While in the hospital, her body temporarily swelled to twice its normal size, leaving her with scars and stretch marks on her torso and legs. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $148,554.69. Because Petitioner’s ability to process food and absorb nutrients is so dramatically compromised, she must use the restroom 9 to 15 times per day, occasionally with no advance warning which can lead to accidents. Thus, both her social life and her ability to get and hold employment are severely limited. Petitioner has little stamina or endurance, limiting her ability to play and keep-up with her six-year-old son. Her sex life with her husband is strained, due both to issues of physical comfort and body image. Finally, Petitioner can have no more children, a fact rendered more tragic by Colt’s unexpected death at the age of three months, scarcely a week after Petitioner’s release from the hospital. As a result of the foregoing, Petitioner suffered economic and non-economic damages. Therefore, Petitioner filed a lawsuit in Alachua County seeking recovery of past and future economic and non-economic damages. Petitioner’s husband also suffered damages, and was named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Named as defendants to the lawsuit were NFWP and NFRMC. Medicaid is to be reimbursed for medical assistance provided if resources of a liable third party become available. Thus, Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $148,554.69 against any proceeds received from a third party. NFWP was under-insured, which compelled Petitioner to settle with NFWP for its policy limits of $100,000. As a result, NFWP was removed as a party to the ongoing lawsuit. Of the NFWP settlement proceeds, $18,750.00 was paid to Respondent in partial satisfaction of its Medicaid lien, leaving a remaining lien of $129,804.69. On July 10, 2013, and November 15, 2013, Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Smith, provided NFRMC’s counsel, Mr. Schwann, with his assessment of the damages that might reasonably be awarded by a jury. Mr. Smith testified convincingly that a jury would have returned a verdict for non-economic damages well in excess of $1.5 million. However, in calculating the total damages, he conservatively applied the statutory cap on non-economic damages of $1.5 million that would have been allowed by the judgment. With the application of the capped amount, the total damages -- i.e., the “value” of the case -- came to $3.1 million. That figure was calculated by the application of the following: Past lost wages - $61,000 Future loss of earning capacity - between $360,000 and $720,000 Past medical expenses - $148,982.904/ Future medical expenses - $682,331.99 Past and future non-economic damages - $1,500,000 (capped) The elements of damages are those that appear on a standard jury form. The numbers used in assessing Petitioner’s economic damages were developed and provided by Mr. Roberts. The evidence in this case was convincing that the calculation of economic damages reflected a fair, reasonable, and accurate assessment of those damages. Mr. Smith was confident that the damages could be proven to a jury, a belief that is well-founded and supported by clear and convincing evidence. However, the existence of a Fabre defendant5/ led to doubt on the part of Petitioner as to the amount of proven damages that would be awarded in a final judgment. Counsel for NFRMC, Mr. Schwann, performed his own evaluation of damages prior to the mediation between the parties. Mr. Schwann agreed that a jury verdict could have exceeded $3 million. Although he believed the strengths of the NFRMC’s case to be significant, he had concerns as to “what the worst day would have looked like,” especially given the wild unpredictability of juries. In Mr. Schwann’s opinion, the NFRMC nurse, Ms. Summers, was a credible, competent and believable witness. However, the nurse midwife presented with a reasonably nice appearance as well. Thus, there was little to tip the balance of believability far in either direction, leaving it to the jury to sort out. Mr. Schwann understood Petitioner’s personal appeal, and the significant personal and intangible damages suffered by Petitioner, that could lead a jury to award a large verdict. He also credibly testified that juries were consistent in awarding economic damages “to the penny.” The case was submitted to mediation, at which the parties established a framework for a settlement. Given the uncertainty of obtaining a verdict for the full amount of the damages due to the Fabre defendant, NFWP, the parties agreed that the most likely scenarios would warrant a settlement with NFRMC for some fraction of the total damages. After mediation, Petitioner ultimately accepted a settlement offer of $700,000 from NFRMC, which reflected, after rounding, 22.5% percent of the total value of the case as estimated by Mr. Smith. Given the facts of this case, the figure agreed upon was supported by the competent professional judgment of the trial attorneys in the interests of their clients. There is no evidence that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement, taking into account all of the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. There was no evidence of any manipulation or collusion by the parties to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to the payment of costs expended for Petitioner’s medical care. On December 6, 2013, Petitioner and NFRMC executed a Release of Claims which differentiated and allocated the $700,000 total recovery in accordance with the categories identified in Mr. Smith’s earlier letters. As a differentiated settlement, the settlement proceeds were specifically identified and allocated, with each element of the total recovery being assigned an equal and equitable percentage of the recovery. The parties knew of the Medicaid lien, and of the formula for recovery set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). They understood that if the damages were undifferentiated, the rote formula might apply. However, since the Medicaid lien applied only to medical expenses, the parties took pains to ensure a fair allocation as to each element of the damages, including that element reflecting the funds spent by Medicaid. The differentiated settlement proceeds, after rounding, were allocated as follows: Past lost wages - $15,000 Future loss of earning capacity - $160,000 Past medical expenses - $35,000 Future medical expenses - $150,000 Past and future non-economic damages - $340,000 The evidence was clear and convincing that all elements of the damages were subject to the same calculation and percentage of allocation, were fact-based and fair, and were subject to no manipulation to increase or decrease any element. The full amount of the Medicaid lien (prior to the partial payment from the NFWP described herein) was accounted for and allocated as “past medical expenses” in the stipulated Release of All Claims that was binding on all parties. Respondent was not a party to the lawsuit or the settlement. Petitioner did not invite Respondent to participate in litigation of the claim or in settlement negotiations, and no one represented Respondent’s interests in the negotiations. Except for the amount recovered from the settlement with NFWP, Respondent has not otherwise executed a release of the lien. Respondent correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee from the $700,000.00 recovery leaves a sum of $525,000.00, half of which is $262,500.00. That figure establishes the maximum amount that could be reimbursed from the third-party recovery in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. Thus, application of the formula allows for sufficient funds to satisfy the unsatisfied Medicaid lien amount of $129,804.69. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $3.1 million total value of the claim was a reasonable and realistic value. Furthermore, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case, and on a competent and professional assessment of the likelihood that Petitioner would have prevailed on the claims at trial and the amount she reasonably could have expected to receive on her claim if successful, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constitutes a fair, just, and reasoned differentiated settlement for each of the listed elements, including that attributable to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount payable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Respondent) in satisfaction of its $157,983.63 Medicaid lien asserted against medical malpractice settlement proceeds received by Hunter Lamendola (Hunter), a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Ashley Lamendola (Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact On June 26, 2012, Petitioner presented to the hospital with a history of contractions for six hours prior to her arrival at the hospital. She had been placed on bed rest for gestational hypertension five days prior to arriving at the hospital. When she arrived, she had hypertension. Petitioner was admitted to the labor and delivery unit at 8:33 p.m. Petitioner was placed on a fetal monitor and progressed through her course of labor. Her initial fetal monitoring showed the baby was healthy and well-oxygenated, however, throughout the course of labor, the fetal monitor exhibited signs that the baby was in significant distress. At 4:01 a.m. on June 27, 2012, Petitioner was given an epidural, and after a course of labor, Hunter was delivered at 3:47 p.m. through an operative vaginal delivery. Hunter suffered permanent and catastrophic brain damage during his birth. As a result, Hunter is unable to eat, speak, toilet, ambulate, or care for himself in any manner. Hunter’s medical care related to the delivery was paid by Medicaid. The Medicaid program through AHCA provided $157,983.63 in benefits. The Medicaid program through the Department of Health Children’s Medical Services Title XIX MMA – Pedicare (DOH), provided $26,189.66 in benefits; the Medicaid program through a Medicaid-managed care organization, known as Amerigroup Community Care (Amerigroup), provided $51,696.99 in benefits; and the Medicaid program through a Medicaid-managed care organization, known as WellCare of Florida (WellCare), provided $13,239.19 in benefits. Accordingly, the sum of these Medicaid benefits, $249,109.47, constituted Hunter’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Petitioner brought a medical malpractice action against the medical providers and staff responsible for Hunter’s care (Defendant medical providers) to recover all of Hunter’s damages, as well as her own individual damages associated with Hunter’s injuries. The medical malpractice lawsuit was settled through a series of confidential settlements totaling $10,000,000 and this settlement was approved by the Court. During the pendency of Hunter’s medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action, and AHCA asserted a $157,983.63 Medicaid lien against Hunter’s cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $157,983.63 on behalf of Hunter, all of which represents expenditures paid for Hunter’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $157,983.63 paid through the Medicaid program on behalf of Hunter represent expenditures for future medical expenses, and Medicaid did not make payments in advance for medical care. Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), Florida Statutes, to Hunter’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $157,983.63 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). At the final hearing, Mr. Harwin, who represented Hunter and his family in the underlying medical malpractice action, testified, and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Harwin is a member of several trial attorney associations, stays abreast of jury verdicts relative to birth injuries, and ascertains the value of damages suffered by injured parties as a routine part of his practice. Mr. Harwin was familiar with and explained Hunter’s catastrophic brain injury giving rise to Petitioner’s claim. He also explained that, as a result of Hunter’s injury, Hunter is blind, fed through a feeding tube, unable to control his arms, legs or head, and suffers between six to eight seizures per day. Mr. Harwin testified that Hunter’s injury has also had a devastating impact on Hunter’s mother, Ashley Lamendola. According Mr. Harwin, considering Hunter’s past medical expenses, a life care plan for Hunter’s care prepared by an economist, and the extent of non-economic damages, and in light of determinations of mock juries and a jury consultant in this case, as well as Mr. Harwin’s familiarity with jury verdicts reached in similar cases, Hunter and his mother’s damages have a value in excess of $35,000,000. Mr. Harwin’s testimony as to the value of Petitioner’s claim was credible and is accepted. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Mr. Barrett, who was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett has been accepted as an expert in valuation of damages in a number of other Medicaid lien cases before DOAH. Mr. Barrett has been a trial attorney for 41 years, with a primary focus on plaintiff personal injury cases, including medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. Mr. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts and often makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. After familiarizing himself with Hunter’s injuries through review of pertinent medical records and Petitioner’s exhibits, Mr. Barrett offered his opinion, based upon his professional training and experience, as well as review of comparable jury verdicts, that a conservative value of the damages suffered would be “$35,000,000 to $50,000,000.” Mr. Barrett’s testimony as to the value of Petitioner’s claim was credible and is accepted. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of Petitioner’s claim, or propose a differing valuation of the damages. Based upon the unrebutted evidence presented by Petitioner’s experts, it is found that a conservative value of Petitioner’s claim is $35,000,000. Attorney’s fees for the underlying medical malpractice case leading to Petitioner’s $10,000,000.00 settlement totaled $4,500,000.00, with costs of $490,486.33. While the formula under section 409.910(11)(f) determines amounts distributable to Medicaid after attorney’s fees and taxable costs, there is no language in section 409.910(17)(b) suggesting that attorney’s fees or costs should be subtracted from settlement proceeds in determining whether a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated to reimburse Medicaid. Costs and attorney’s fees are not an element of Petitioner’s damages and were not subtracted from the settlement proceeds in determining whether a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated to AHCA’s Medicaid lien. Considering the valuation of Petitioner’s claim at $35,000,000.00, Petitioner’s $10,000,000.00 settlement represents only a 10/35ths recovery of Petitioner’s damages. Multiplying that same 10/35 fraction to the $157,983.63 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program for past medical expenses results in the proportional sum of $45,138.18 from the settlement proceeds available to satisfy AHCA’s Medicaid lien.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's ("AHCA" or "the agency") Medicaid lien of $267,072.91 should be reimbursed in full from the $1 million settlement recovered by Petitioner or whether Petitioner proved that a lesser amount should be paid under section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulation between the parties (paragraphs 1 through 13 below), the evidence presented, and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: On January 13, 2016, Mr. Jay Hosek was operating his 1999 Chevy Trailblazer northbound on U.S. Highway 1, near mile marker 56, in Monroe County. At that same time and place, his vehicle was struck by a southbound tractor trailer. Hosek suffered catastrophic physical injuries, including permanent brain damage. Hosek is now unable to walk, stand, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Hosek's medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid, Medicare, and United Healthcare ("UHC"). Medicaid provided $267,072.91 in benefits, Medicare provided $93,952.97 in benefits and UHC provided $65,778.54 in benefits. Accordingly, Hosek's entire claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $426,804.42. Jirina Hosek was appointed Hosek's legal guardian. As legal guardian, Jirina Hosek brought a personal injury lawsuit against the driver and owner of the tractor trailer that struck Hosek ("defendants") to recover all of Hosek's damages associated with his injuries. The defendants maintained only a $1 million insurance policy and had no other collectable assets. Hosek's personal injury action against the defendants was settled for the available insurance policy limits, resulting in a lump sum unallocated settlement of $1 million. Due to Hosek's incompetence, court approval of the settlement was required and the court approved the settlement by Order of October 5, 2018. During the pendency of Hosek's personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $267,072.91 Medicaid lien against Hosek's cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene or join in Hosek's action against the defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of Hosek's settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Hosek's settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $267,072.91 on behalf of Hosek, all of which represents expenditures paid for Hosek's past medical expenses. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Hosek's $1 million settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $267,072.91 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited AHCA's full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights, and this constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). While driving his vehicle northbound, Hosek drifted into oncoming traffic, crossed over the center line, and struck a southbound vehicle in its lane head on. Petitioner had an indisputable and extremely high degree of comparative negligence in causing this tragic vehicle accident. Petitioner presented the testimony of Brett Rosen ("Rosen"), Esquire, a Florida attorney with 12 years' experience in personal injury law. His practice includes catastrophic and wrongful death cases. Rosen is board-certified in civil trial by the Florida Bar. He is a member of several trial attorney associations. Rosen represented Hosek and his family in the personal injury case. As a routine part of his practice, Rosen makes assessments regarding the value of damages his injured client(s) suffered. He stays abreast of personal injury jury verdicts by reviewing jury verdict reports and searching verdicts on Westlaw. Rosen regularly reads the Daily Business Review containing local verdicts and subscribes to the "Law 360," which allows him to review verdicts throughout the country. Rosen was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency. Rosen testified that Hosek's case was a difficult case for his client from a liability perspective, since all the witnesses blamed Hosek for the crash and the police report was not favorable to him. In his professional opinion, had Hosek gone to trial, the jury could have attributed a substantial amount of comparative negligence to him based upon the facts of the case. There was also a high possibility that Hosek might not receive any money at all, since Hosek's comparative negligence in the accident was very high. Rosen explained the seriousness of Hosek's injuries, stating that Hosek may have fallen asleep while driving and his car veered over and crossed the centerline. It hit an oncoming commercial truck, which caused his vehicle to flip resulting in severe injuries to him. Rosen testified that Hosek is unable to communicate since he received catastrophic brain injury from the accident and is unable to care for himself. Rosen provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. He testified that the case was worth $10 million, and that this amount is a very conservative valuation of Hosek's personal injuries. He also generalized that based on his training and experience, Hosek's damages could range anywhere from $10 to $30 million at trial. He testified that Hosek would need future medical care for the rest of his life. This future medical care has a significant value ranging from $15 to $25 million.1/ Rosen testified that he reviewed other cases and talked to experts in similar cases involving catastrophic injuries. After addressing various ranges of damages, Rosen clarified that the present value of Hosek's damages in this case was more than $10 million dollars. Although he did not state specific amounts, he felt that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have a significant value in addition to his economic damages.2/ Rosen believed that a jury would have returned or assigned a value to the damages of over $10 million. He testified that his valuation of the case only included the potential damages. He did not take into account Hosek's "substantial amount" of comparative negligence and liability.3/ Despite doing so in other personal injury cases, Rosen did not conduct a mock trial in an effort to better assess or determine the damages in Hosek's case. Rosen testified that Hosek sued the truck driver, Alonzo, and Alonzo's employer. He further testified that Hosek was compensated for his damages under the insurance policy carried by the truck driver and his company and settled for the policy limits of $1 million dollars representing 10 percent of the potential total value of his claim. Rosen did not obtain or use a life care plan for Hosek, nor did he consider one in determining his valuation of damages for Hosek's case. Rosen did not provide any specific numbers or valuation concerning Hosek's noneconomic damages. Instead, he provided a broad damage range that he said he "would give the jury" or "be giving them a range of $50 Million for past and future."4/ Rosen testified that he relied on several specific factors in making the valuation of Hosek's case. The most important factor for him was to determine what his client was "going through" and experience his client's "living conditions."5/ Secondly, he considers the client's medical treatment and analyzes the client's medical records. Based on these main factors, he can determine or figure out what the client's future medical care will "look like."6/ Petitioner also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett ("Barrett"), Esquire, a Tallahassee trial attorney. Barrett has more than 40 years' experience in civil litigation. His practice is dedicated to plaintiff's personal injury, as well as medical malpractice and medical products liability. Barrett was previously qualified as an expert in federal court concerning the value of the wrongful death of an elderly person. This testimony was used primarily for tax purposes at that trial. Barrett has been accepted as an expert at DOAH in Medicaid lien cases in excess of 15 times and has provided testimony regarding the value of damages and the allocation of past medical expenses. Barrett has handled cases involving catastrophic brain injuries. He stays abreast of local and state jury verdicts. Barrett has also reviewed several life care plans and economic reports in catastrophic personal injury cases. He routinely makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by parties who have received personal injuries. Barrett determines the value of these damages based primarily on his experience and frequent review of jury verdicts. Barrett was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency.7/ Barrett testified that Hosek had a catastrophic brain injury with broken facial bones and pneumothoraxes, all sustained during an extremely violent head-on collision with a commercial truck. This assessment was based on the case exhibits and the "fairly limited medical records" he reviewed. He believed that Hosek would need extensive and expensive medical care for the rest of his life. However, no details were offered by Barrett.8/ Barrett provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. This was based on his training and experience. Barrett did not provide a firm number for Hosek's damages. Instead, he offered a nonspecific and broad range of damages. Barrett testified that Hosek's damages "probably" have a value in the range of $25 to $50 million, and the range of Hosek's future medical care would be $10 to $20 million. However, he felt that $10 million was a "very, very, very conservative" estimate of damages, primarily because he felt that future medical expenses would be so high. Barrett stated that Hosek's economic damages would have a significant value exceeding $10 million and that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have an additional value exceeding $10 million. Barrett acknowledged that he did not consider or take into account Hosek's "huge comparative negligence" in estimating the total value of the case. Instead, he only considered the amount(s) that would be awarded for damages. He testified that Petitioner's degree of comparative negligence would reduce each element of damages he was awarded. As a result of Hosek's very significant comparative negligence, Barrett testified that a trial would have likely resulted in a "complete defense verdict" against Hosek or with only minor negligence attributed to the truck driver or his company. Barrett felt that a jury in Hosek's case would not have awarded Hosek "more than one million dollars or so." Barrett explained that in a trial for personal injuries that each element of damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff on the verdict form is reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff's comparative negligence. Barrett also explained that when the jury verdict assigns ten percent of the negligence to the defendant and 90 percent of the negligence to the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable for paying only ten percent of each element of the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Barrett testified that he does not believe that the $1 million settlement fully compensated Hosek for his injuries and that a potential award of $10 million would be a conservative value of Hosek's claim. While both experts provided broad and nonspecific ranges for the value of Hosek's claims, they both summed up their testimony by concluding that $10 million was a very conservative estimate of Hosek's total claim. AHCA did not call any witnesses. The agency presented Exhibit 1, entitled "Provider Processing System Report." This report outlined all the hospital and medical payments that AHCA made on Hosek's behalf, totaling $267,072.91. On the issue of damages, the experts did not provide any details concerning several of Petitioner's claims, including the amount of past medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, or damages for pain and suffering. The burden was on Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence to prove that the "proportionality test" it relied on to present its challenge to the agency's lien under section 409.910(17)(b) was a reliable and competent method to establish what amount of his tort settlement recovery was fairly allocable to past medical expenses. In this case, the undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to carry this burden.9/ There was no credible evidence presented by Petitioner to prove or persuasively explain a logical correlation between the proposed total value of Petitioner's personal injury claim and the amount of the settlement agreement fairly allocable to past medical expenses. Without this proof the proportionality test was not proven to be credible or accurate in this case, and Petitioner did not carry his burden. There was a reasonable basis in the record to reject or question the evidence presented by Petitioner's experts. Their testimony was sufficiently contradicted and impeached during cross-examination and other questioning. Even if the experts' testimony had not been contradicted, the "proportionality test" proposed by Petitioner was not proven to be a reliable or accurate method to carry Petitioner's burden under section 409.910(17)(b). To reiterate, there was no persuasive evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that (1) a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by the agency, or (2) that Medicaid provided a lesser amount of medical assistance than that asserted by the agency.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact In mid-October 2012, Petitioner, a trial lawyer, woke up on a Friday morning with a pain in the big toe of his left foot. He called his family practice physician2/ and was able to obtain an appointment for the following Tuesday. At the appointment, Petitioner saw a nurse practitioner who examined him and pronounced that he had gout. The nurse practitioner prescribed a gout medication. Over the course of the next week, Petitioner’s condition worsened, with pain radiating all the way to his hip. On the following Tuesday, he saw the physician. Despite blood testing that showed an elevated white blood cell count, the physician concurred with the nurse practitioner that Petitioner was suffering from an extreme case of gout. The physician prescribed a regimen of steroids for the gout. By the next Saturday, November 3, 2012, Petitioner was so sick that a neighbor drove him to Tampa General Hospital. His blood pressure was extremely low and his kidneys had ceased functioning. Petitioner was on the verge of death. At the hospital, he learned that the physician and his nurse practitioner had misdiagnosed Petitioner’s condition. He in fact had a raging staphylococcus aureus infection. Over the course of the next several days, Petitioner underwent several surgeries to save his life. First, the toes on his left foot were amputated. Then, his left foot was amputated. Next, his left leg was amputated below the knee. Finally, the left leg was amputated above the knee. Still, the infection was not controlled. Petitioner was in and out of a coma for a month. He testified that his infectious disease doctor told him that the infection was so bad that the treatment team was at a loss on how to proceed. However, the infection ultimately was brought under control. Once he was stabilized, Petitioner was transferred to Tampa General’s rehabilitation facility and finally released to return to his home. Petitioner was sixty-one years old at the time his leg was amputated. He testified that he practiced as a trial lawyer in Florida from 1977 until his illness. Petitioner stated that he does not find it possible to be a trial lawyer with a prosthetic leg and a walker, but that he does some mediation work. His basic income is $1,653 per month in Social Security benefits. Petitioner testified that this amount is never enough to cover his expenses and that he is required to dip into the proceeds of his settlement with the medical providers in order to make ends meet. He stated that it is “terrifying” to watch the money going out and to wonder what he will do when it is gone. Petitioner lost his Tampa home to foreclosure and was forced to move 40 miles away to find a house that he could afford. Moving away from his longtime home further isolated Petitioner and necessitated paying money for things that he could previously rely on friends and neighbors to help with, such as grocery shopping. Petitioner testified that prior to the amputation he had led an active lifestyle. He ran, rode a bike, and played golf twice a week. He was an instructor pilot. Petitioner is now incapable of engaging in any of those activities. Petitioner testified that if he falls and is not near a piece of furniture or other object that allows him to use his upper body strength to lift himself, he is helpless until someone comes along to assist him. Merely going to the bathroom involves a complicated transfer from his wheelchair using specially installed bars. Petitioner testified that prior to his settlement he had not, and to his knowledge others had not, made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care. Civil trial attorney William E. Hahn testified on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Hahn has practiced since 1972, is a board certified civil trial lawyer, and is a past president of the Florida chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, a group that named Mr. Hahn “trial lawyer of the year” in 2012. Mr. Hahn testified that he generally represents plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases and has tried over 100 complex jury trials. He has won verdicts as high as $22.5 million, as low as zero, and “all in between.” Mr. Hahn takes cases involving “devastating, catastrophic” injuries such as that suffered by Petitioner. A routine part of his practice is to make a determination of the value of a client’s damages. Mr. Hahn was accepted without objection as an expert in assessing the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Hahn testified that his evaluation process begins with acquainting himself with the nature of the injury. He then calculates the expenses that have been incurred in the past for the client’s treatment and predicts the costs of future treatment. He looks at the medical records and performs his own medical research. He speaks with the treating physicians as well as the client. Mr. Hahn bases his assessments on his experience and training and the experience of other lawyers in handling similar cases throughout Florida and the United States. Mr. Hahn testified that he has known Petitioner since they were both young lawyers practicing in Tampa. When Petitioner called him and explained his situation, Mr. Hahn agreed to represent Petitioner in his medical malpractice action. Mr. Hahn noted that with proper medical treatment Petitioner would have been spared multiple surgeries and the amputation of his leg. He would likely have recovered and returned to law practice. Mr. Hahn opined that the value of Petitioner’s case was “well in excess of $2 million,” based on Petitioner’s background, his training and experience, and the devastating injury and its long term effects. Given Petitioner’s status in Tampa and the legal community, and the outrageousness of what happened, Mr. Hahn believed the verdict would have “exceeded two, four or many more millions of dollars.” Mr. Hahn explained that in order to proceed with a medical malpractice claim in Florida, the plaintiff must go through a number of administrative steps called the “notice of intent” process. Mr. Hahn secured the services of a board certified internal medicine physician as his expert. The surgeon confirmed what Mr. Hahn had surmised from the medical records, that this was a case of gross malpractice. Mr. Hahn obtained an affidavit from the surgeon and notified the potential defendants that he was about to make a claim on Petitioner’s behalf. Mr. Hahn was aware that Petitioner had received services from Medicaid and initiated a correspondence with AHCA.3/ The correspondence indicated that Medicaid had paid $135,047.86 in medical expenses for Petitioner. Mr. Hahn stated that this amount would have been part of Petitioner’s claim had the matter been fully litigated. Mr. Hahn testified that, despite the clear liability, the recoverable assets complicated any potential award of damages from the medical providers. The total insurance available was $500,000. The insurance company was acting in good faith in trying to settle the case, which ruled out a bad faith case against the insurer. The only other potential sources of funds were the personal assets of the nurse practitioner and the physician. The defense attorney informed Mr. Hahn that any assets possessed by these individuals were protected from judgment. The defendants recognized that this was a “terrible” case and wanted to settle. Mr. Hahn stated that it became apparent to him that the best business decision for Petitioner was to get the case resolved within the limits of the insurance coverage. He was able to reduce his fee, keep the litigation costs down, and get the matter resolved quickly. Mr. Hahn secured a settlement of $492,500. Mr. Hahn testified that no amount of money could ever make Petitioner whole, but that the amount of the settlement did not come close to fully compensating him for his damages and would not come close to taking care of him for the rest of his life. Mr. Hahn pointed out that in the document memorializing the settlement agreement, the defendants acknowledged that the settlement would not come close to making Petitioner whole. The portion of the settlement agreement referenced by Mr. Hahn was the “Allocation of Settlement” language, which read as follows: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate the Releasor for the damages he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete release as to all claims against the Releasees, without regard to this settlement only compensating the Releasor for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. These damages have a value in excess of $2,000,000, of which $135,047.86 represents Releasor’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of the Releasor’s alleged injuries and this settlement, $33,255.54 of this settlement has been allocated to the Releasor’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all of the Releasor’s alleged damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that the Releasor may need future medical care related to his alleged injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for these future medical expenses that the Releasor may incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that the Releasor, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for the Releasor’s future medical care and the Releasor has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for payments made to secure future medical care. Mr. Hahn testified that the allocation of settlement paragraphs were the product of a negotiation with the defendants’ lawyer. The language was acknowledged and agreed to by all parties. The defendants agreed with the valuation of damages “in excess of $2 million.” The allocation of $33,255.54 to past medical expenses was “simple math,” its relation to the $492,500 settlement amount being proportional to the relation of $135,047.86 to the $2 million value of the claim. Petitioner was settling for 24.625% of his claim’s value, and therefore the Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately. Mr. Hahn testified that all the parties believed this settlement to be reasonable. Mr. Hahn stated that in his professional judgment, the allocation of $33,255.54 was not only reasonable, it was overly generous. The real value of the case was well in excess of $2 million. Mr. Hahn believed that it would have been reasonable to value the claim at $4 million, in which case the Medicaid allocation would have been cut in half. Mr. Hahn testified that the parties were trying to recognize that Medicaid did “wonderfully” by Petitioner. They valued the case conservatively at $2 million. Many lawyers would have valued it much higher, and could have supported their valuation with documentation. Mr. Hahn stated that the parties’ concern was to be appropriate, conservative, and provide a fair recovery to Medicaid. AHCA called no witness to contest the valuation of damages made by Mr. Hahn or to offer an alternative methodology to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. No evidence was presented indicating the settlement agreement was not reasonable given all the circumstances of the case. It does not appear that the parties colluded to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to Medicaid’s payment of costs for Petitioner’s medical care. In fact, the evidence established that the settlement was extremely conservative in its valuation of Petitioner’s claim and that the settling parties could have reasonably apportioned far less to Medicaid than they actually did. AHCA was not a party to the settlement of Petitioner’s claim. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee, or $123,125, from the $492,500 recovery leaves $371,375, half of which is $185,687.50. That figure exceeds the actual amount expended by Medicaid on Petitioner’s medical care. Application of the formula would provide sufficient funds to satisfy the Medicaid lien of $135,047.86. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $2 million total value of the claim was a reasonable, if not unduly conservative, amount. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the clear strength of his case and on the fact that it was limited only by the inability to collect the full amount of the likely judgment, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constituted a fair settlement, including the portion attributed to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount payable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to satisfy a Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact On November 2, 2012, the Petitioner, then 20 years old, was a restrained passenger in his girlfriend's Ford Mustang when it was t-boned on the passenger side by a Chevy pickup truck operated by Eddie Ellison. On November 2, 2012, immediately prior to the collision, Eddie Ellison, who was driving eastbound on Harney Road in Hillsborough County, Florida, failed to stop at the stop sign at Williams Road. Eddie Ellison was negligent in the operation of his Chevy Truck on November 2, 2012, and caused it to strike the Ford Mustang occupied by the Petitioner. Eddie Ellison's wife, Alberta Ellison, was the co-owner of the Chevy truck. The Petitioner was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the collision, and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner that was a proximate cause of any injury suffered by him as a result of the motor vehicle collision. There was no negligence on the part of any person other than Eddie Ellison that was a proximate cause of the motor vehicle collision on November 2, 2012. When the Hillsborough County Fire and Rescue team arrived at the accident scene at approximately 8:20 p.m., the Petitioner was unresponsive and exhibiting decorticate posturing. He was extricated from the vehicle, intubated at the scene and immediately transported via ambulance to Tampa General Hospital (TGH). The Petitioner arrived at TGH by approximately 8:39 p.m., presenting in critical condition. He was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where he remained for 11 days. The Petitioner suffered serious injuries as a result of the collision, including: injuries to the brain; multiple fractures to the skull, face, jaw, and other head injuries; multiple pelvic fractures; pulmonary contusions; acute respiratory failure; dysphagia; and splenic lacerations. On November 3, 2012, Stephen Reintjes, M.D., performed a ventriculostomy, wherein he drilled through the right parietal region of the Petitioner's skull and placed an external ventricular drain (EVD) into the right lateral ventricle to relieve the Petitioner's elevated intracranial pressure. The EVD was removed on November 12, 2012. On November 6, 2012, David Ciesla, M.D., and a TGH resident, performed a percutaneous tracheostomy, wherein he created an opening through the Petitioner's neck and placed a windpipe because of the Petitioner's prolonged respiratory failure. That same day, John Cha, M.D., performed a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), wherein a feeding tube was placed into the Petitioner's stomach due to the Petitioner's dysphagia. The Petitioner's PEG tube was removed on January 3, 2013. On November 9, 2012, Michael Harrington, M.D., performed an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the Petitioner's right zygomaticomaxillary fracture, and a closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) of the Petitioner's right zygomatic arch fracture. Essentially, screws and plates were implanted into the Petitioner's right cheekbone and then his jaw was wired shut to facilitate healing. The Petitioner's jaw remained wired shut until December 3, 2012, and the MMF hardware was surgically removed on December 20, 2012. On November 13, 2012, the Petitioner was transferred from the ICU to a surgical trauma unit. Once the Petitioner became medically stable on December 6, 2012, he was transferred to the Tampa General Rehabilitation Center (TGRC). There, the Petitioner received intensive physical and occupational therapy, speech and swallow therapy, psychological services, and 24/7 rehabilitation nursing care. The Petitioner remained at TGRC until January 16, 2013, 75 days after the crash, when he was discharged to his home. Medicaid paid a total of $147,019.61 for the Petitioner's past medical expenses. For nearly two years following his discharge, the Petitioner was unable to perform the tasks of daily living and was completely dependent on his parents and girlfriend for his care and supervision. The Petitioner was toileted, bathed, and dressed by his parents and his girlfriend. The Petitioner could not walk without assistance. All of the Petitioner's meals were prepared for him. The Petitioner would become obsessive over minor things, easily agitated, and frequently combative. The Petitioner had violent outbursts which required all three of his caretakers to physically restrain him. If left unattended at meals, the Petitioner would overeat until he would vomit. The Petitioner gained a life-threatening 100 pounds over this period. Beyond the most basic level, the Petitioner could not use a computer, play video games, or engage in an active social life, much less skateboard or participate in any of the other physical activities he once enjoyed. The Petitioner spent the majority of his time at home with his parents and girlfriend watching television, with occasional supervised trips outside the home. On June 12, 2013, the Petitioner filed suit against Eddie Ellison and Alberta Ellison in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No: 13-CA-008277 ("the underlying lawsuit"), seeking to recover damages in excess of $15,000. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the following: medical expenses incurred in the past; medical expenses to be incurred in the future; lost earnings incurred in the past; loss of earning capacity in the future; property damage incurred in the past; pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life sustained in the past; and pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life to be sustained in the future. The Petitioner also seeks to recover costs incurred by the Petitioner in the underlying lawsuit, pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate for actual, out-of-pocket pecuniary losses from the date of the loss, and attorney's fees to the extent allowed by law. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner sued his uninsured motorist carrier, 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company (21st Century), seeking to recover $10,000 in uninsured motorist benefits owed to the Petitioner under an automobile insurance policy paid for by the Petitioner's parents, Richard and Linda Willoughby. The insurer denied coverage and refused to pay the uninsured motorist benefits. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner also sued 21st Century for violation of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, seeking to recover the total amount of the Petitioner's damages from 21st Century as provided in section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner also sought to recover from 21st Century applicable pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees pursuant to sections 624.155, 627.727(10), and 627.428 and taxable costs. On February 13, 2015, the Petitioner agreed to settle his claims against 21st Century for $4,000,000. The Petitioner received the settlement proceeds from 21st Century on March 16, 2015. On March 20, 2015, the Petitioner and 21st Century filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the Petitioner’s claims against 21st Century with prejudice. As of March 20, 2015, the Petitioner had incurred a total of $50,375.32 in taxable costs, which the Petitioner repaid to the Petitioner's counsel out of the 21st Century settlement proceeds. On May 14, 2015, a total of $147,844.16 was transferred into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of the agency's right to benefits under section 409.910. The parties to this proceeding stipulated that, of the $4 million paid by 21st Century, $3.99 million was “bad faith damages,” paid to settle the Petitioner's claim for damages under section 627.727(10), on account of 21st Century's wrongful failure to pay the Petitioner's uninsured motorist claim and other violations of section 624.155. The settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century does not specifically attribute any of the $4 million settlement amount to “bad faith” and states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The settlement agreement further states as follows: The parties agree and acknowledge that this agreement is a settlement of claims which are contested and disputed. Any payments are not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of 21st Century, which expressly denies any liability for this action. The Petitioner also received a total of $20,000 from Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, reflecting the $10,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance and $10,000 limit of uninsured motorist coverage under the automobile insurance policy that insured the driver of the Ford Mustang, Kayliegh Lewis, at the time of the crash. The Petitioner's claims against Eddie Ellison and Alberta S. Ellison remain pending in the underlying lawsuit. As of the July 30, 2015, filing of the Pre-hearing Stipulation, the Ellisons' insurer has only offered the $100,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance to settle all of the Petitioner's claims against the Ellisons. The $4,020,000 paid to the Petitioner does not fully compensate him for the full monetary value of all of his damages. The full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages is at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages was at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner had suffered not less than $23,800 in lost wages. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's work life expectancy through age 67 was 45 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's loss of future earning capacity was within the range of $794,135.92 and $2,093,950.12. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future medical expenses were projected to exceed $5 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's past non-economic damages exceeded $1 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's life expectancy was 59.7 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future non-economic damages were within the range of $5 million to $10 million. Although the parties to this proceeding stipulated that the Petitioner has recovered less than $147,019.61 as payment for past medical expenses, the settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The Petitioner is no longer eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid has not paid or committed to pay any funds for the Petitioner's future medical care.
The Issue The issue is the amount of Petitioner’s $800,000 personal injury settlement payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA’s $187,950.01 Medicaid lien.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background On July 13, 2008, Carissa Gaudio (Carissa), then 26 years old, suffered severe physical injury and catastrophic brain damage when her car was struck by a train. Carissa received extensive medical intervention to save her life and address her injuries. Eventually, her medical condition stabilized and she was discharged to her parent’s home. While Carissa demonstrated consciousness and awareness, due to her catastrophic brain damage, she was unable to speak, ambulate, eat, toilet or care for herself in any manner. She was totally dependent on others for every aspect of her daily care. Carissa’s past medical expenses related to her injuries suffered on July 13, 2008, were paid by private health insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Medicare, and Medicaid. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida provided $494,868.51 in benefits, Medicare provided $6,364.89 in benefits, and Medicaid provided $187,950.01 in benefits. The combined amount of these benefits is $689,183.41, and this $689,183.41 represented Carissa’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Carissa, or others on her behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for Carissa’s future medical care, and no claim for damages was made for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Due to Carissa’s incapacity, Carissa’s mother, Roseann Gaudio, was appointed her legal guardian. Roseann Gaudio, as Carissa’s mother and guardian, brought a personal injury action in Broward County, Florida to recover all of Carissa’s damages against the railway company and train engineer (“Tortfeasor”). On January 10, 2015, Roseanne Gaudio, as Carissa’s mother and guardian, settled Carissa’s personal injury lawsuit for $800,000. In making this settlement, the settling parties agreed that: 1) the settlement did not fully compensate Carissa for all her damages; 2) Carissa’s damages had a value in excess of $16,000,000, of which $689,183.41 represents her claim for past medical expenses; and 3) allocation of $34,459.17 of the settlement to Carissa’s claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate. Because Carissa was incapacitated, her settlement required Court approval. Accordingly, by Order Approving Settlement dated February 11, 2015, the Circuit Court Judge, Honorable Jack Tuter, approved Carissa’s settlement. As a condition of Carissa’s eligibility for Medicaid, Carissa assigned to AHCA her right to recover from liable third- parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of Carissa’s lawsuit, AHCA was notified of the lawsuit and AHCA, through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services Group, asserted a $187,950.01 Medicaid lien against Carissa’s cause of action and future settlement of that action. By letter of February 17, 2015, Carissa’s personal injury attorney notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed Final Release and a copy of the Order Approving Settlement. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. AHCA did not respond to Carissa’s attorney’s letter of February 17, 2015. AHCA did not file an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Carissa’s settlement with the Tortfeasor. The Florida Medicaid program spent $187,950.01 on behalf of Carissa, all of which represents expenditures paid for Carissa’s past medical expenses. Carissa died on August 12, 2015 (Death Certificate filed by Petitioner on September 11, 2015). No portion of the $187,950.01 paid by the Medicaid program represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. AHCA has determined that of Carissa’s $226,478.73 in litigation costs, $210,463.10 are taxable costs for purposes of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula calculation. Based on $210,463.10 in taxable costs, the section 409.910(11)(f) formula applied to Carissa’s $800,000 settlement, requires payment of $194,768.45 to AHCA in satisfaction of its $187,950.01 Medicaid lien. Since $187,950.01 is less than the $194,768.45 amount required to be paid to AHCA under the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $187,950.01 from Carissa’s $800,000 settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The full Medicaid lien amount has been deposited into an interest-bearing account pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b). At hearing, Petitioner called Joseph J. Slama, a board-certified civil trial lawyer. Mr. Slama handles aviation crash, products liability, roadway defect, and automobile accident cases, including handling catastrophic brain injury cases through jury trial. He stays abreast of jury verdicts through review of publications and participation in trial attorney organizations. He testified that he routinely evaluates his client’s injuries and makes assessments concerning the value of their damages, and he explained his process for making these determinations based on his experience and training. Mr. Slama was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Slama testified that he represented Carissa in relation to her personal injury action. He explained that he first met with Carissa and her mother after she was discharged home from the hospital. Mr. Slama testified that he had reviewed the accident report, Carissa’s medical records, taken depositions of witnesses and experts, and reviewed the Life Care Plan prepared by Craig H. Lichtblau, M.D. Mr. Slama explained in great detail the facts and circumstances of Carissa’s accident. He explained that Carissa’s car became stuck on the railroad tracks. Unfortunately, a train approached and shortly before impact, Carissa exited her vehicle. Her vehicle was struck by the train and she was propelled 167 feet from the point of impact. Mr. Slama testified that as a result of the accident, Carissa suffered catastrophic physical injury and brain damage. He testified that due to this catastrophic brain injury, Carissa was left in a semi-vegetative state and was unable to ambulate. While she was conscious and aware of her condition, she was unable to communicate other than with limited facial expressions. She lived in her parents’ living room where she received around the clock care, provided by her family, until her recent death. Mr. Slama testified that through his representation of Carissa, interactions with her, review of her medical records and reports, and based on his training and experience in similar cases, it was his opinion that the “minimum reasonable value” of Carissa’s damages was $16,000,000. He testified that this $16,000,000 would be the amount a jury would award in damages if the question of damages alone was presented to the jury, and he would be disappointed in this result because he would ask for much more in damages. Mr. Slama explained that the basis of his opinion was her past expenses, her need for future life care needs, and her non-economic damages, including pain and suffering, which would have been awarded from the date of her injury by a jury and would be a huge amount. Mr. Slama explained that Carissa’s lawsuit to recover all her damages had issues related to comparative negligence and disputed facts that called into question the responsibility of the defendants to pay for Carissa’s damages. He testified that based on these issues, Carissa’s lawsuit was settled for $800,000. Mr. Slama testified that this $800,000 settlement did not fully compensate Carissa for the full value of her damages and that based on the $16,000,000 valuation of all Carissa’s damages, the $800,000 settlement represented a five percent recovery of Carissa’s damages. He testified that because she only recovered five percent of her damages in the settlement, she “only recovered 5 percent of each and every element of her damages, including only 5 percent of her $689,183.41” claim for past medical expenses, or $34,459.17. R. Vincent Barrett has been a trial attorney since 1977 and is a partner with the Tallahassee law firm of Barrett, Fasig & Brooks. He practices in the area of medical malpractice and medical and pharmaceutical product liability. He has handled catastrophic injury cases and handled numerous jury trials. Mr. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts by reviewing Jury Verdict Reports, talking with other lawyers, and attending seminars. He testified that as a routine part of his practice, he ascertains the value of damages suffered by injured parties and has served as an expert in the valuation of damages in civil cases. Mr. Barrett was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Barrett testified that he was very familiar with Carissa’s injuries and had reviewed a substantial amount of Carissa’s medical records, the Life Care Plan, accident report, before and after pictures of Carissa, Day in the Life Video, the Second Amended Complaint, the Release, and the Order Approving Settlement. Mr. Barrett explained that he was familiar with the type of injury suffered by Carissa because he had handled a number of traumatic brain and orthopedic injury cases with injuries similar to Carissa’s. He testified that with respect to virtually every injury that Carissa suffered, he had handled a case that involved one or more of those injuries. Mr. Barrett stated that Carissa’s case is “one of the worst cases I’ve ever seen,” and he described Carissa’s accident and extensive injuries. Mr. Barrett explained that Carissa’s injuries were “horrible” and “dramatic” and that “tractor trailer versus car, train versus car, those kinds of cases are worth in a jury trial generally twice as much as in a regular car accident just because of the dramatic traumatic nature of the impact it has on jurors.” Mr. Barrett testified that Carissa’s damages had a value of at least up in the $30,000,000 range and that the valuation of her damages at $16,000,000 was extremely conservative. He explained that he had reviewed jury verdicts in developing his opinion as to the value of Carissa’s damages, and he compared a number of the verdicts he had reviewed with Carissa’s case, including the Mosley 2014 Broward verdict for $75,543,527, noting that the Mosley plaintiff, unlike Carissa, was left with limited verbal language and the ability to walk short distances with assistance. Mr. Barrett stated in relation to the $16,000,000 valuation of Carissa’s damages that, “in Broward County for a pretty, young, 26-year old, gainfully employed, Hispanic lady, who was engaged, it’s got to be the limit. I mean, some of those verdicts were $75 million and some of those people weren’t hurt as bad as Carissa. So, yes, it’s very conservative.” The testimony of Mr. Slama and Mr. Barrett that the minimum reasonable value of Carissa’s damages was $16,000,000 was unrebutted, and is credible. 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 ($200,000) and taxable costs ($210,463.10) from the $800,000 recovery, which yields a sum of $389,536.90, then dividing that amount by two, which yields a result of $194,768.45. 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. Since the Medicaid lien amount is $187,950.01, which is less than the $194,768.45 amount required to be paid to AHCA under the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $187,950.01 from Carissa’s $800,000 settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid 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 $34,459.17 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The settlement amount of $800,000 is five percent of the reasonable total value ($16 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, five percent of $689,183.41 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid by both Medicaid and private insurance) is $34,459.17. 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).
