The Issue The amount of Petitioner’s medical malpractice settlement payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), to satisfy AHCA’s $322,048.83 Medicaid lien.
Findings Of Fact On November 14, 2013, Petitioner Angela Mojica (Petitioner), who was then eight years old, suffered catastrophic brain damage during a tonsillectomy. As a result of this permanent and catastrophic brain damage, Petitioner is unable to eat, speak, toilet, ambulate, or care for herself in any manner. Petitioner’s medical care related to the accident was paid by Medicaid. The Medicaid program through AHCA provided $322,048.83 in benefits. The Medicaid program through the Department of Health Children’s Medical Services Title XIX MMA – Pedicare (DOH), provided $195,207.33 in benefits, and the Medicaid program through a Medicaid Managed Care Organization known as Amerigroup Community Care (Amerigroup) provided $77,821.29 in benefits. As a condition of Petitioner’s eligibility for Medicaid, Petitioner 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. Petitioner’s mother, Glexys Mojica, brought a medical malpractice action against the hospital and medical staff responsible for Petitioner’s care (Defendant medical providers) to recover all of Petitioner’s damages, as well as her own individual damages associated with Petitioner’s injuries. During the pendency of Petitioner’s medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $322,048.83 Medicaid lien against Petitioner’s cause of action and settlement of that action. Petitioner’s mother settled all her claims through a series of settlements with the Defendant medical providers totaling $8.8 million.2/ Petitioner’s claims against the hospital were settled by execution of a “Settlement Agreement and Release” in the amount of $7 million. The hospital release contains the following language: The parties agree that ANGELA MOJICA and her mother’s alleged damages have a value in excess of $25,000,000, of which $595,077.45 represents ANGELA MOJICA’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances and nature of ANGELA MOJICA’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $166,621.68 of this settlement to ANGELA MOJICA’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards 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 ANGELA MOJICA and her mother’s damages. The hospital release contains no signature line for, and was not executed by, AHCA. Petitioner’s claims against the medical staff were resolved by Petitioner’s mother’s execution of a “Release of Claims” in the amount of $800,000 (medical practice release). The medical practice release includes the following language: The undersigned specifically warrants and represents that at the time of the signing of this General Release, there are no liens or claims related to the treatment of Angela Mojica, from MEDICARE or MEDICAID . . . . To the extent that MEDICARE and MEDICAID may have paid medical expenses for or on behalf of injured party Angela Mojica, the undersigned warrants and represents that MEDICARE and MEDICAID have been notified of this settlement and that any claims or liens have been satisfied or in the alternative, MEDICARE or MEDICAID have waived said claims or liens, or in the alternative, MEDICARE and MEDICAID have given written consent and authorization for Releasor to enter into this settlement and sign this General Release. The medical practice release contains no signature line for, and is not executed by, AHCA. A third Defendant medical provider tendered his insurance policy in the amount of $1 million without requiring a release. By letter of August 19, 2016, Petitioner’s attorney notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed Release, a copy of the Final Order Approving Settlement of Minor’s Claim, and itemization of $84,480.85 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Petitioner’s damages had a value in excess of $25 million and the settlement represented only a 35.2% recovery of Petitioner’s $595,077.45 claim for past medical expenses. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $322,048.83 on behalf of Petitioner, all of which represents expenditures paid for Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Petitioner’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $322,048.83 Medicaid lien. The Petitioner has deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Petitioner underwent a routine tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy at a surgery center. During this surgical procedure, Petitioner suffered an arrest causing a lack of oxygen to her brain and resulting in catastrophic brain damage. Prior to the incident, Petitioner was an eight year old who enjoyed life and was an excellent student. Subsequent to the accident, Petitioner is unable to speak, ambulate, and requires assistance in all aspects of daily life. Petitioner’s injury has had a devastating impact on Petitioner’s mother, who had difficulty becoming pregnant with Petitioner. Petitioner’s mother has suffered damages due to her daughter’s requirement for round-the-clock assistance with every activity of daily living, her daughter’s inability to communicate, as well as her daughter’s inability to attend school and associate with friends. Hector More represented Petitioner and her mother from the initial investigation to the final settlement of the medical malpractice claim. During his representation, he reviewed Petitioner’s extensive medical records, met with her doctors, ordered and reviewed her Life Care Plan, reviewed the Economist Report, and met with Petitioner and her mother numerous times. Petitioner’s experts testified, convincingly, that her damages have a value far in excess of $25 million. Petitioner’s Life Care Plan was prepared projecting Petitioner’s future needs and providing an assessment that Petitioner would never be able to be gainfully employed. Petitioner’s Life Care Plan was not introduced in evidence. An economist reviewed Petitioner’s Life Care Plan and prepared an Economist Report calculating the present value of Petitioner’s future needs and lost earning capacity. The economist placed the present value of Petitioner’s future needs, lost earning capacity, and claim for past medical expenses at above $25 million. Neither party introduced testimony documenting the specific cost projections establishing Petitioner’s economic damages, other than past medical expenses. Petitioner’s non-economic damages have a value between $15 to $25 million. In arriving at his valuation of Petitioner’s non-economic damages, Mr. More compared Petitioner’s case to a similar case his firm handled where an eight year old with a brain injury was awarded $16 million in non-economic damages. Further, Mr. More reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, which he described as comparable to Petitioner’s case and supportive of his valuation of Petitioner’s non-economic damages. Mr. More consulted with other attorneys in his law firm and they agreed with his assessment of the value of Petitioner’s damages. Mr. More’s valuation of Petitioner’s total damages at $25 million was conservative. The $8.8 million settlement did not fully compensate Petitioner and her mother for the full value of their damages and in the settlement they only recovered a fraction of the total monetary value of their damages. Based on a valuation of all damages of $25 million, the $8.8 million settlement represented a recovery of 35.2% of the value of all damages. Mr. More testified that because Petitioner and her mother recovered only 35.2% of the value of their damages, they recovered only 35.2% of each element of damages including only 35.2% of the $595,077.45 claim for past medical expenses, or $209,467.26. Petitioner did not establish the value of any element of damages other than past medical expenses. The record does not support a finding of the individual value of Petitioner’s damages for other economic damages (e.g., lost earning capacity, future medical expenses) or non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering, loss of consortium). Mr. More outlined that if the case had gone to a jury verdict, and the jury had determined the value of all damages was $25 million with a line item of $595,077.45 for past medical expenses, but determined one of the Defendant medical providers was only 35.2% liable, that Defendant medical provider would only be liable for paying 35.2% of each line item of damage including only 35.2% of the claim for past medical expenses, or $209,467.26. Mr. More testified that it would be reasonable to allocate $209,467.26 of the settlement to past medical expenses. He testified that because the allocation is based on a conservative valuation of all damages of $25 million, the allocation of $209,467.27 to past medical expenses is very conservative. Because the record contains no valuation of the damages other than past medical expenses, there is no evidence of the recovery for “each line item of damage” other than past medical expenses. The record does not support a finding of how the remaining $8.5 million of the recovery was allocated among the other elements of damages. The hospital, which tendered the majority of the settlement ($7 million), agreed to an allocation to past medical expenses as part of the settlement. The hospital agreed that Petitioner and her mother’s damages had a value in excess of $25 million, of which $595,077.45 represented the claim for past medical expenses. The hospital agreed to allocate $116,621.68 of the settlement to past medical expenses because that $7 million settlement represented a 28% recovery of the $25 Million value of all damages. The hospital’s allocation to past medical expenses was memorialized in the Release. The remaining Defendant medical providers made no allocation from their settlements to any element of damages. R. Vinson Barrett testified in support of Petitioner’s allocation of damages. In support of Petitioner’s method of allocation of the settlement, Mr. Barrett outlined that if a jury had determined the value of damages at $25 million, but found the Defendant medical providers were only 35.2% liable for these damages, the judge would award only 35.2% of each line item on the jury verdict form, including only 35.2% of the line item for past medical expenses. Mr. Barrett testified that method is “the method that I’ve seen in practice used and, really, the most accurate and fair method of doing it that I can think of.” Mr. Barrett testified that allocation of $209,467.26 of the settlement to past medical expenses would be reasonable, rational, and conservative. AHCA introduced the testimony of Jesse Suber, a medical malpractice attorney of some 30 years. Mr. Suber’s testimony was that the settlement amount represents the value of the case “considering the limitations of liability, causation, the defendant’s ability to pay, risk of trial, and other limiting factors.” Mr. Suber did not provide an opinion of the value of Petitioner’s damages. Based on the methodology of applying the same ratio the settlement bore to the total monetary value of all the damages to the $595,077.45 claim for past medical expenses, $209,467.26 of the settlement represents compensation for past medical expenses. However, the methodology fails to establish the amount actually recovered by Petitioner for her past medical expenses. The testimony is insufficient to support a finding that the amount allocated to past medical expenses is the amount Petitioner recovered for past medical expenses. Without a breakout of the allocation of the settlement to other elements of damages, the undersigned cannot determine that the amount allocated to past medical expenses is reasonable. The undersigned respects the experts’ valuation of the total amount of Petitioner’s damages, but is not persuaded by their conclusory testimony that the allocation of 35.2% of Petitioner’s total payment for past medical expenses is reasonable. The only other evidence supporting the reasonableness of that allocation was the agreement between Petitioner and the hospital in the Release of claims that the allocation of $166,621.68 of the settlement to Petitioner’s claim for past medical expenses was reasonable. The hospital had no interest in the allocation of portions of the settlement to any specific element of damages. The only advantage of that clause in the settlement was to afford Petitioner’s retainer of more of the settlement amount. Following Petitioner’s theory out to its logical conclusion, Petitioner would have received only 35.2%, or $6.8 million, of her $19.4 million claim for non-economic damages; leaving roughly $1.7 million of the settlement allocable to Petitioner’s other economic damages, including future medical care and lost earning potential. $1.7 million is 35.2% of roughly $5 million. Under Petitioner’s theory of allocating damages, the value of Petitioner’s economic damages would have been around $5 million. Given the expert testimony of the extent of Petitioner’s injuries, her need for round-the-clock assistance with all activities of daily living, the costs of future doctor visits, attendant care, and other considerations factored into Petitioner’s Life Care Plan, it is not reasonable that Petitioner’s economic damages (other than past medical expenses) would have been valued at a mere $5 million. In fact, this flies in the face of the economist’s determination, based on the Life Care Plan, that the present value of Petitioner’s economic damages was in excess of $25 million. This exposes the flaw in Petitioner’s method of allocating damages.3/ Petitioner did not prove that allocation of $209,467.26 to Petitioner’s past medical expenses was reasonable. Petitioner did not prove that the portion of the total amount of recovery which should be allocated to past medical expenses is less than AHCA’s Medicaid lien of $322,048.83.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Shamarion Manley, from a personal injury settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
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: On June 12, 2010, Shamarion Manley (“Shamarion”) suffered a severe left brachial plexus injury, right humerus fracture, neurological injury, and cardiac arrest during his birth. He was hospitalized until July 7, 2010, when he was discharged home to the care of his parents. Due to his severe left brachial plexus injury and other injuries suffered during birth, Shamarion is unable to use his left arm and hand and suffers from a speech impairment. (JPHS p. 8) Shamarion’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid in part by Medicaid and Sunshine State Health. Medicaid paid $74,061.27 in benefits and Sunshine State Health paid $106,656.23 in benefits. The amounts paid by Medicaid and Sunshine State Health, together with $22,118 in unpaid medical bills, constituted Shamarion’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Accordingly, Shamarion’s entire claim for past medical expenses was $202,835.50. (JPHS p. 8-9) Shamarion, or others on his behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for Shamarion’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. Shamarion’s parents and natural guardians, Victoria and Sharmane Manley, brought a medical malpractice action to recover all of Shamarion’s damages, as well as their individual damages associated with their son’s injury, against the medical providers allegedly responsible for Shamarion’s injuries (“Defendants”). (JPHS p. 9) Shamarion’s parents compromised and settled the medical malpractice lawsuit with the Defendants for the amount of $410,000. (JPHS p. 9) In making this settlement, the settling parties agreed that: 1) the settlement did not fully compensate Shamarion for all his damages; 2) Shamarion’s damages had a value in excess of $2,250,000, of which $202,835.50 represented his claim for past medical expenses; and 3) allocation of $36,916.06 of the settlement to Shamarion’s claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate. In this regard the two (2) Releases (“Releases”) memorializing the settlement stated: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate Shamarion Manley for all of the damages he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to RELEASEES without regard to this settlement only compensating Shamarion Manley for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. The parties agree that Shamarion Manley’s alleged damages have a value in excess of $2,250,000, of which $202,835.50 represents Shamarion Manley’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Shamarion Manley’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate {$36,916.06}[1/] of this settlement to Shamarion Manley’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards 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 Shamarion Manley’s damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that Shamarion Manley may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses Shamarion Manley will incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that Shamarion Manley, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for Shamarion Manley’s future medical care and Shamarion Manley 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 future medical expenses. (JPHS p. 9) Because Shamarion was a minor, court approval of the settlement was required. Accordingly, on December 14, 2015, the Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge handling the litigation of the medical malpractice action, the Honorable Edward Artau, approved the settlement by entering an Order on Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Settlement (Order Approving Settlement). (JPHS p. 10) As a condition of Shamarion’s eligibility for Medicaid, Shamarion assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third-parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of Shamarion’s medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action, and AHCA, through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $74,061.27 Medicaid lien against Shamarion’s cause of action and settlement of that action. (JPHS p. 9) By letter of January 5, 2016, AHCA was notified by Shamarion’s medical malpractice attorney of the settlement and provided a copy of the executed Releases, Order Approving Settlement, and itemization of $146,540.70 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Shamarion’s damages had a value in excess of $2,250,000, and the $410,000 settlement represented only an 18.2 percent recovery of Shamarion’s damages. Accordingly, he had recovered only 18.2 percent of his $202,835.50 claim for past medical expenses. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. (JPHS p. 10) AHCA did not respond to Shamarion’s attorney’s letter of January 5, 2016. (JPHS p. 10) AHCA did not file an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Shamarion’s settlement with the Defendants. (JPHS p. 10) AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. (JPHS p. 10) The Medicaid program spent $74,061.27 on behalf of Shamarion, all of which represents expenditures paid for Shamarion’s past medical expenses. (JPHS p. 10) No portion of the $74,061.27, paid by the Medicaid program on behalf of Shamarion, represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. (JPHS p. 10) AHCA has determined that $146,540.70 of Shamarion’s litigation costs are taxable costs for purposes of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula calculation. (JPHS p. 11) Subtracting the $146,540.70 in taxable costs and 25 percent in allowable attorney’s fees, the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, applied to Shamarion’s $410,000 settlement, requires payment of $80,479.65 to AHCA in satisfaction of its $74,061.27 Medicaid lien. Since the $80,479.65 formula amount is more than the $74,061.27 Medicaid lien, AHCA is seeking payment of the full $74,061.27 Medicaid lien from Shamarion’s $410,000 settlement. (JPHS p. 11) 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). (JPHS p. 11) Testimony of Scott M. Newmark Mr. Newmark has been an attorney for 30 years, and during that entire time he has practiced plaintiff personal injury and medical malpractice law. Mr. Newmark testified that he handles jury trials and routinely represents children who have suffered catastrophic injury, particularly at birth. He is a member of the Florida Justice Association, the Palm Beach Justice Association, and the Trial Lawyer Section of the Florida Bar. Mr. Newmark testified that he stays abreast of jury verdicts in his area and that he routinely makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties, explaining his process for these determinations. He testified that he has been accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties by DOAH in the past. Mr. Newmark was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. He represented Shamarion and his parents relative to Shamarion’s medical malpractice action. He explained that as part of his representation, he reviewed Shamarion’s medical records, met with his doctors, met with experts, reviewed expert reports, and met with Shamarion and his parents many times. Mr. Newmark gave a detailed explanation of the injuries suffered by Shamarion during his birth. He explained that during the birth process, improper force was used and Shamarion suffered a brachial plexus injury when the nerves in his left shoulder were ripped off the spinal column. As a result of this injury, he is unable to use his left arm and has no grip strength in his left hand. Mr. Newmark testified that this injury is a permanent neurological injury and for the remainder of his life will continue to have a “tremendously dramatic impact on Shamarion.” Mr. Newmark testified that Shamarion’s claim for past medical expenses related to his injury was $202,835.50, which consisted of $74,061.27 in Medicaid benefits paid by AHCA, $106,656.23 in benefits paid by Sunshine State Health, and $22,118 in unpaid medical bills. Mr. Newmark testified that Shamarion, or others on his behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for future medical care, and no claim was brought to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. Mr. Newmark testified that through his representation of Shamarion, review of Shamarion’s file, and based on his training and experience, he had developed the opinion that the value of Shamarion’s damages “would be in excess of $2,250,000.” He explained that he had discussed Shamarion’s case with other experienced attorneys and they concurred in this damage valuation. Further, to supplement his opinion concerning the value of Shamarion’s damages, Mr. Newmark outlined that the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 were comparable to Shamarion’s case. He outlined that the Cherenfant v. Lewis 2016 Broward County $4,821,000 verdict was most supportive. Mr. Newmark outlined that in Lewis, the same plaintiff and defense experts were used as were used in Shamarion’s case, and the facts and injury in Lewis were nearly identical to the facts and injury in Shamarion’s case. Mr. Newmark outlined that in Lewis, the jury awarded $3,000,000 in pain and suffering to the child and this underscores that his valuation of all Shamarion’s damages at $2,250,000 is extremely conservative. Mr. Newmark explained that Shamarion’s medical malpractice lawsuit was brought against the obstetrician who delivered Shamarion and the hospital where the birth took place. He noted that there were many considerations that led to settlement, including most importantly that the primarily responsible party, the obstetrician, was uninsured, and the parents needed the certainty of a settlement over the risk of a defense verdict or verdict that may or may not be collectable. Based on these considerations, the case settled for $410,000. Mr. Newmark testified that the settlement did not fully compensate Shamarion for the full value of his damages. He testified that based on the conservative valuation of all Shamarion’s damages of $2,250,000, the settlement represented a recovery of 18.2 percent of the value of Shamarion’s damages. Mr. Newmark testified that because Shamarion only recovered 18.2 percent of the value of his damages in the settlement, he only recovered 18.2 percent of his $202,835.50 claim for past medical expenses, or $36,916.06. Mr. Newmark testified that the settling parties agreed in the Releases that Shamarion’s damages had a value in excess of $2,250,000, as well as the allocation of $36,916.06 of the settlement to past medical expenses. He further testified that the allocation of $36,916.06 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable and rational, as well as “the fair thing to do.” Mr. Newmark testified that the allocation of $36,916.06 to past medical expenses was conservative because it was based on a low-end valuation of Shamarion’s damages of $2,250,000, and if a higher valuation of the damages was used, the amount allocated to past medical expenses would have been much less. Mr. Newmark testified that because no claim was made to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care, no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. Mr. Newmark testified that the parties agreed in the Releases that no claim was made for reimbursement of past payments for future medical care, and no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. Mr. Newmark testified that because Shamarion was a minor, court approval of the settlement was required. Mr. Newmark testified that the court reviewed the settlement and entered an order approving it. Testimony of R. Vinson Barrett Mr. Barrett has been a trial attorney since 1977 and has dedicated his practice to handling plaintiff personal injury cases, including medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. He is the senior partner with the Tallahassee law firm of Barrett, Fasig & Brooks, which exclusively works in the area of plaintiff’s personal injury. Mr. Barrett has handled many jury trials and has handled many catastrophic injury cases, including medical malpractice cases involving injury to children. Mr. Barrett testified that he has handled a number of cases involving brachial plexus birth injuries similar to Shamarion’s injury. Mr. Barrett testified that he stays abreast of jury verdicts and he daily makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties explaining his process for making these determinations. He testified that he has been accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages by DOAH in Medicaid lien dispute proceedings in other cases. Mr. Barrett was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Barrett testified that he was familiar with Shamarion’s injuries and had reviewed Shamarion’s medical records and the exhibits filed in this proceeding. He provided a detailed explanation of Shamarion’s brachial plexus birth injury noting that “he’s probably never going to be able to have anywhere near a normal childhood or work-hood because of the limitations that he has from this injury.” Mr. Barrett testified that based on his review of Shamarion’s case, and based on his professional experience and training, Shamarion’s damages had a value higher than the $2,250,000 value used by the settling parties. Mr. Barrett testified that Shamarion’s damages have a value of $2,500,000. He further testified that Shamarion’s “loss of enjoyment of life is going to be huge for him, remember, he is going to have birth to death in actual pain and suffering . . . so with all that in mind, you know, the opinion that I have $2,000,000 wouldn’t trouble me as a jury verdict for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life” alone. Mr. Barrett outlined that the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 were comparable with Shamarion’s case and supported his valuation of the damages. Consistent with Mr. Newmark’s testimony, Mr. Barrett identified the Lewis $4,821,000 verdict as most relevant and comparable to Shamarion’s case. Mr. Barrett testified that he was aware of the settlement amount and he testified that the settlement did not fully compensate Shamarion for the full value of his damages. He explained that he was aware that the parties had allocated $36,916.06 to past medical expenses based on a valuation of all damages of $2,250,000. Mr. Barrett testified that he believes allocation of $36,916.06 to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and conservative. “I think it’s conservative because it’s based on a total damage number ($2,250,000) which I think is conservative.” AHCA did not propose a differing valuation of Shamarion’s damages or contest the methodology used by the parties to calculate the $36,916.06 allocation to past medical expenses. Consequently, the testimony and evidence presented concerning the value of Petitioner’s damages and the allocation to past medical expense was unrebutted. The Agency was not a party to settlements or written settlement agreements, if any exist, separate and apart from the Releases. Nor were the Defendants signatories to the settlement agreement, apparently accepting the Releases signed by Petitioners in exchange for the settlement payments. No value of Shamarion’s future medical expenses was advanced by either party. As noted earlier, both Releases contained the following provision: Further, the parties acknowledge that Shamarion Manley may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses Shamarion Manley will incur in the future. Given the nature and severity of Shamarion’s injury, it can reasonably be expected that Shamarion will incur future medical expenses. Notably, Mr. Newmark testified that Shamarion has suffered a permanent neurological impairment, and has “already had five surgeries down at Miami Children’s with Dr. Grossman and Dr. Price.” Moreover, the Life Care Plan prepared for Shamarion reflects regular pediatric orthopedist and psychiatric evaluations and treatments to age 18. Mr. Newmark further testified that Shamarion’s total damages would be in excess of $2,250,000, which “would take into account his future life care needs, his past medicals, his future earning and earning capacity, benefits, losses.” Petitioner offered in evidence a Preliminary Economic Damages Analysis, which presented life care cost computations and earnings capacity losses. A summary of those computations is presented below: BASIC INFORMATION Shamarion Manley All Figures are in Present Value LOW AVERAGE HIGH LIFE CARE PLAN: EARNINGS LOSSES: BENEFIT LOSSES: $556,109.16 $858,606.03 $1,161,102.90 $262,214.24 $262,214.24 $262,214.24 $52,442.85 $52,442.85 $52,442.85 Overall Range LOW AVERAGE HIGH $870,766.24 $1,173,263.11 $1,475,759.99 Mr. Newmark also noted that some portion of the $2,250,000 valuation would be for non-economic (pain and suffering) damages. Mr. Newmark testified that Shamarion’s non- economic damages would be factored in “at over a million dollars.” Other than the Life Care Plan and Preliminary Economic Damages Analysis, at hearing, Petitioner did not advance a valuation for future medical expenses. However, given the figures contained in the economic damages analysis, it is clear that the vast majority of future economic damages will relate to the costs associated with the life care plan, including future medical expenses. Petitioner has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that $36,916.06 of the settlement represents reimbursement for past medical expenses and payment for future medical expenses. Petitioner has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the $74,061.27 amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), is to be reimbursed for medical expenses paid on behalf of Markus Smith (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Smith”) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ from settlement proceeds he received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits accepted into evidence, 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 On February 12, 2018, Mr. Smith was 26 years old and working for $11.00 an hour as a custodian for E&A Cleaning at All Saints Academy, in Winter Haven, Florida. While leaving the school just before 9:00 a.m., Mr. Smith came to a traffic light at the school’s entrance. When the light turned green and Mr. Smith moved into the intersection, another car ran the red light and slammed into the driver’s side of Mr. Smith’s vehicle. Mr. Smith was severely injured and transported to Lakeland Regional Medical Center where he stayed until approximately April 13, 2019. Mr. Smith’s injuries included, but were not limited to, a collapsed lung, altered mental state, intracerebral hemorrhage, traumatic subdural hematoma, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, traumatic intraventricular hemorrhage, lumbar transverse process fracture, and a left ankle fracture. Mr. Smith required surgery to repair his left ankle, and he now walks with a severe limp. He experiences a constant, dull ache in his left ankle and is unable to walk any significant distance without experiencing severe pain. It is very difficult for Mr. Smith to stand, and he has a constant fear of falling because his balance is “terrible.” Mr. Smith is left-handed, and the accident left him with very limited use of his left hand. Since the accident, Mr. Smith’s vision has been blurry, and he suffers from double vision. He believes that his impaired vision would prevent him from obtaining a driver’s license. As described above in paragraph 3, Mr. Smith suffered a brain injury during the accident, and there was some bleeding inside his skull. He now has difficulty forming long-term memories and often records conversations so that he has a record of what was said. Since the accident, Mr. Smith has been struggling with anger and depression. He has difficulty controlling his anger and is prone to random outbursts of rage. He has experienced suicidal thoughts and asked his current caretaker if she would kill him, if he gave her a knife. Since being released from the hospital, Mr. Smith has not received any physical or occupational therapy. He was receiving some mental health treatment and taking medicine to treat his depression and memory issues. However, he cites a lack of transportation as to why he is no longer receiving any care. Mr. Smith has not worked since the accident, and the Social Security Administration has determined that he is disabled. After leaving the hospital, Mr. Smith stayed with his girlfriend. After they separated, Mr. Smith lived with his father. Since November of 2018, he has been living with his father’s ex-wife in Georgia. Mr. Smith, through counsel, filed a lawsuit against the driver and owner of the car that slammed into him. They settled Mr. Smith’s claims for the available policy limits of $100,000.00. There was no other liable person or other insurance available to Mr. Smith to compensate him for his injuries. AHCA provided $74,312.38 in Medicaid benefits to Mr. Smith and determined through the formula in section 409.910(11)(f), that $36,596.54 of Ms. Smith’s settlement proceeds was subject to the Medicaid lien. Mr. Smith, through counsel, deposited the entire settlement proceeds of $100,000.00 into an interest bearing account pending resolution of AHCA’s interest. Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim David Dismuke was identified as Mr. Smith’s expert witness. Since 2012, Mr. Dismuke has been a board-certified trial lawyer, and approximately one percent of attorneys in Florida possess that credential. That designation essentially means that an attorney can represent that he or she is an expert in civil trial practice. Mr. Dismuke has his own law practice and has handled at least 34 civil jury trials. Over the course of his 18-year legal career, he has assessed the value of at least 2,000 personal injury cases, including ones involving brain injuries. Mr. Dismuke also has extensive experience in valuing the individual components of a damages award: Q: Before we get to this final opinion, Mr. Dismuke, in your practice, have you had to allocate portions of settlements between past medical expenses, usual medical expenses, and the other elements of damages? A: Many times. Q: And for what purpose would you do that sort of allocation? A: We do it, we do it frequently. We do it often times in situations just like this, where we’re trying to determine what an appropriate amount would be for either a Medicare or Medicaid lien, health insurance liens, we deal with it in situations, and we have lien issues on almost every case. Q: And do you also do it when you are trying to help clients figure out how, and in what manner, to structure their settlements, so they can have enough money for their future medical expenses and pay their old medical expenses? A: Yes, we do. And in fact to make another point, every single case I have to allocate [] the value [of past medical expenses], that’s one element of damages, what the value of future [medical expenses] is, that’s another element of damages, past lost wages, another element of damages, future lost wages, another element of damages, pain and suffering, inconvenience, you know, the noneconomic stuff. Every case we make these, we make these determinations. That’s how we come to total value on every case that we settle or get a verdict on. Q: And even on the ones that you settle for less than full value, are you still performing that same evaluation of the allocation of the various elements of damages? A: Yes sir. Mr. Dismuke has similar experience with Medicare set asides: Q: Now, another area where you allocate between elements of damages is where you require a Medicare set aside, isn’t that true? A: That’s correct. Q: Now, tell the court what a Medicare set aside is? A: A Medicare set aside is something that we put in place to protect the future interest of Medicare for when there’s a settlement. So we receive a large settlement that the person is still going to require future medical care, so we have to evaluate what is a reasonable amount of that settlement to set aside to protect Medicare’s future interests, so the client doesn’t just get a windfall from the settlement. Q: And have you done that? A: Multiple times. Q: And that requires you to evaluate the total settlement and allocate between past medical expenses, future medical expenses, pain and suffering and other elements of damages? A: That’s correct. In Mr. Dismuke’s opinion, Mr. Smith’s total damages easily amount to $1 million and could be as high as $2 to $3 million. Mr. Dismuke values Mr. Smith’s lost wages at no less than $750,000.00. While Mr. Smith is not currently receiving medical treatment, Mr. Dismuke believes those expenses would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions of dollars. However, the damages resulting from Mr. Smith’s pain and suffering would be the largest component of his total damages. Mr. Dismuke believes that Mr. Smith’s past medical expenses would be the smallest component of his total damages given Mr. Smith’s age, future needs, and lost wages. With regard to allocating $10,000.00 of Mr. Smith’s total recovery to past medical expenses, Mr. Dismuke testified that a “$10,000 allocation of the $100,000 settlement is perfectly reasonable if not, more than generous, given the past [medical expenses] in this case of around $70,000. So setting forth ten percent of that is a generous allocation for past medical expenses.” Findings Regarding the Testimony Presented at the Final Hearing The undersigned finds that the testimony from Mr. Dismuke was compelling and persuasive as to the total damages incurred by Mr. Smith. While attaching a value to the damages that a plaintiff could reasonably expect to receive from a jury is not an exact science, Mr. Dismuke’s considerable experience with litigating personal injury lawsuits makes him a very compelling witness regarding the valuation of damages suffered by an injured party such as Mr. Smith. The undersigned also finds that Mr. Dismuke was qualified to present expert testimony as to how a damages award should be allocated among its components, such as past medical expenses, economic damages, and noneconomic damages.2/ AHCA offered no evidence to counter Mr. Dismuke’s opinions regarding Mr. Smith’s total damages or the past medical expenses he recovered. Accordingly, it is found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the total value of Mr. Smith’s personal injury claim is no less than $1 million and that the $100,000.00 settlement resulted in him recovering no more than 10 percent of his past medical expenses. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that $10,000.00 amounts to a fair and reasonable determination of the past medical expenses actually recovered by Mr. Smith and payable to AHCA.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is the amount payable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to satisfy a Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact On November 2, 2012, the Petitioner, then 20 years old, was a restrained passenger in his girlfriend's Ford Mustang when it was t-boned on the passenger side by a Chevy pickup truck operated by Eddie Ellison. On November 2, 2012, immediately prior to the collision, Eddie Ellison, who was driving eastbound on Harney Road in Hillsborough County, Florida, failed to stop at the stop sign at Williams Road. Eddie Ellison was negligent in the operation of his Chevy Truck on November 2, 2012, and caused it to strike the Ford Mustang occupied by the Petitioner. Eddie Ellison's wife, Alberta Ellison, was the co-owner of the Chevy truck. The Petitioner was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the collision, and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner that was a proximate cause of any injury suffered by him as a result of the motor vehicle collision. There was no negligence on the part of any person other than Eddie Ellison that was a proximate cause of the motor vehicle collision on November 2, 2012. When the Hillsborough County Fire and Rescue team arrived at the accident scene at approximately 8:20 p.m., the Petitioner was unresponsive and exhibiting decorticate posturing. He was extricated from the vehicle, intubated at the scene and immediately transported via ambulance to Tampa General Hospital (TGH). The Petitioner arrived at TGH by approximately 8:39 p.m., presenting in critical condition. He was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where he remained for 11 days. The Petitioner suffered serious injuries as a result of the collision, including: injuries to the brain; multiple fractures to the skull, face, jaw, and other head injuries; multiple pelvic fractures; pulmonary contusions; acute respiratory failure; dysphagia; and splenic lacerations. On November 3, 2012, Stephen Reintjes, M.D., performed a ventriculostomy, wherein he drilled through the right parietal region of the Petitioner's skull and placed an external ventricular drain (EVD) into the right lateral ventricle to relieve the Petitioner's elevated intracranial pressure. The EVD was removed on November 12, 2012. On November 6, 2012, David Ciesla, M.D., and a TGH resident, performed a percutaneous tracheostomy, wherein he created an opening through the Petitioner's neck and placed a windpipe because of the Petitioner's prolonged respiratory failure. That same day, John Cha, M.D., performed a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), wherein a feeding tube was placed into the Petitioner's stomach due to the Petitioner's dysphagia. The Petitioner's PEG tube was removed on January 3, 2013. On November 9, 2012, Michael Harrington, M.D., performed an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the Petitioner's right zygomaticomaxillary fracture, and a closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) of the Petitioner's right zygomatic arch fracture. Essentially, screws and plates were implanted into the Petitioner's right cheekbone and then his jaw was wired shut to facilitate healing. The Petitioner's jaw remained wired shut until December 3, 2012, and the MMF hardware was surgically removed on December 20, 2012. On November 13, 2012, the Petitioner was transferred from the ICU to a surgical trauma unit. Once the Petitioner became medically stable on December 6, 2012, he was transferred to the Tampa General Rehabilitation Center (TGRC). There, the Petitioner received intensive physical and occupational therapy, speech and swallow therapy, psychological services, and 24/7 rehabilitation nursing care. The Petitioner remained at TGRC until January 16, 2013, 75 days after the crash, when he was discharged to his home. Medicaid paid a total of $147,019.61 for the Petitioner's past medical expenses. For nearly two years following his discharge, the Petitioner was unable to perform the tasks of daily living and was completely dependent on his parents and girlfriend for his care and supervision. The Petitioner was toileted, bathed, and dressed by his parents and his girlfriend. The Petitioner could not walk without assistance. All of the Petitioner's meals were prepared for him. The Petitioner would become obsessive over minor things, easily agitated, and frequently combative. The Petitioner had violent outbursts which required all three of his caretakers to physically restrain him. If left unattended at meals, the Petitioner would overeat until he would vomit. The Petitioner gained a life-threatening 100 pounds over this period. Beyond the most basic level, the Petitioner could not use a computer, play video games, or engage in an active social life, much less skateboard or participate in any of the other physical activities he once enjoyed. The Petitioner spent the majority of his time at home with his parents and girlfriend watching television, with occasional supervised trips outside the home. On June 12, 2013, the Petitioner filed suit against Eddie Ellison and Alberta Ellison in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No: 13-CA-008277 ("the underlying lawsuit"), seeking to recover damages in excess of $15,000. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner seeks to recover damages for the following: medical expenses incurred in the past; medical expenses to be incurred in the future; lost earnings incurred in the past; loss of earning capacity in the future; property damage incurred in the past; pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life sustained in the past; and pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life to be sustained in the future. The Petitioner also seeks to recover costs incurred by the Petitioner in the underlying lawsuit, pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate for actual, out-of-pocket pecuniary losses from the date of the loss, and attorney's fees to the extent allowed by law. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner sued his uninsured motorist carrier, 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company (21st Century), seeking to recover $10,000 in uninsured motorist benefits owed to the Petitioner under an automobile insurance policy paid for by the Petitioner's parents, Richard and Linda Willoughby. The insurer denied coverage and refused to pay the uninsured motorist benefits. In the underlying lawsuit, the Petitioner also sued 21st Century for violation of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, seeking to recover the total amount of the Petitioner's damages from 21st Century as provided in section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner also sought to recover from 21st Century applicable pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees pursuant to sections 624.155, 627.727(10), and 627.428 and taxable costs. On February 13, 2015, the Petitioner agreed to settle his claims against 21st Century for $4,000,000. The Petitioner received the settlement proceeds from 21st Century on March 16, 2015. On March 20, 2015, the Petitioner and 21st Century filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the Petitioner’s claims against 21st Century with prejudice. As of March 20, 2015, the Petitioner had incurred a total of $50,375.32 in taxable costs, which the Petitioner repaid to the Petitioner's counsel out of the 21st Century settlement proceeds. On May 14, 2015, a total of $147,844.16 was transferred into an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of the agency's right to benefits under section 409.910. The parties to this proceeding stipulated that, of the $4 million paid by 21st Century, $3.99 million was “bad faith damages,” paid to settle the Petitioner's claim for damages under section 627.727(10), on account of 21st Century's wrongful failure to pay the Petitioner's uninsured motorist claim and other violations of section 624.155. The settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century does not specifically attribute any of the $4 million settlement amount to “bad faith” and states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The settlement agreement further states as follows: The parties agree and acknowledge that this agreement is a settlement of claims which are contested and disputed. Any payments are not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of 21st Century, which expressly denies any liability for this action. The Petitioner also received a total of $20,000 from Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, reflecting the $10,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance and $10,000 limit of uninsured motorist coverage under the automobile insurance policy that insured the driver of the Ford Mustang, Kayliegh Lewis, at the time of the crash. The Petitioner's claims against Eddie Ellison and Alberta S. Ellison remain pending in the underlying lawsuit. As of the July 30, 2015, filing of the Pre-hearing Stipulation, the Ellisons' insurer has only offered the $100,000 limit of bodily injury liability insurance to settle all of the Petitioner's claims against the Ellisons. The $4,020,000 paid to the Petitioner does not fully compensate him for the full monetary value of all of his damages. The full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages is at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the full monetary value of all of the Petitioner's damages was at least $10 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner had suffered not less than $23,800 in lost wages. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's work life expectancy through age 67 was 45 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's loss of future earning capacity was within the range of $794,135.92 and $2,093,950.12. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future medical expenses were projected to exceed $5 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's past non-economic damages exceeded $1 million. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's life expectancy was 59.7 years. At the time of the settlement with 21st Century, the Petitioner's future non-economic damages were within the range of $5 million to $10 million. Although the parties to this proceeding stipulated that the Petitioner has recovered less than $147,019.61 as payment for past medical expenses, the settlement agreement between the Petitioner and 21st Century states that “all sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The Petitioner is no longer eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid has not paid or committed to pay any funds for the Petitioner's future medical care.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 2012, Luca Weedo’s natural mother, who was 30 weeks pregnant with Luca, was walking on the sidewalk on the east shoulder of Airport Pulling Road in Naples, Florida. At the same time, a Jeep Wrangler was traveling on Airport Pulling Road. As the Jeep Wrangler approached Luca’s natural mother, the left front tire and wheel separated from the Jeep Wrangler. The separated wheel bounced along the roadway at a high rate of speed, crossing the median and northbound lane of Airport Pulling Road. The wheel approached Luca’s natural mother at such a high rate of speed that she was unable to avoid it. She was struck by the wheel and knocked to the ground, which caused her to lose consciousness and suffer a ruptured placenta. Luca’s natural mother was transported to Lee Memorial Hospital. Upon admission, she underwent emergency surgery due to abdominal trauma. Luca was delivered via emergency C-section. Luca was born with extreme fetal immaturity and catastrophic brain damage. Luca remained in the hospital for three months, undergoing numerous medical procedures associated with his serious medical needs and brain damage. Luca now suffers from catastrophic brain damage and a seizure disorder that causes him to have multiple seizures every day. He is unable to ambulate, speak, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Prior to Luca’s birth, his natural mother had decided to place Luca up for adoption. Accordingly, when Luca was discharged from the hospital, the Florida Department of Children and Families asked Debra and Kenneth Weedo to take Luca into their home as a foster child. Kenneth Weedo is a retired truck driver and his wife Debra is a foster parent for medically needy children. Debra and Kenneth Weedo took Luca into their home and adopted him on May 2, 2013. Luca’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by Medicaid, which provided $319,188.20 in benefits. This $319,188.20 paid by Medicaid constituted Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Luca, through his parents and guardians, Debra and Kenneth Weedo, brought a personal injury action to recover all his damages. The lawsuit was initially brought against the owner/driver of the Jeep Wrangler. However, through discovery, it was determined that the party responsible for the wheel separating from the Jeep Wrangler was the tire and rim shop that installed the wheel on the Jeep Wrangler approximately a year prior to the accident (“Tire Shop”). The Tire Shop maintained insurance with a policy limit of $1 million. The Tire Shop’s insurance company tendered the $1 million insurance policy limit, which was accepted by Debra and Kenneth Weedo in settlement of Luca’s claim for damages against the Tire Shop. The General Release and Hold Harmless Agreement (“Release”), executed on December 21, 2015, memorialized the settlement with the Tire Shop as follows, in relevant part: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for all of the damages that he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Second Parties without regard to this settlement only, compensating LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO has alleged his damages have a value in excess of $25,000,000, of which $319,188.20 represents LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s injuries and allegations, $12,767.53 of this settlement has been allocated to LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement towards the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that this allocation is reasonable and proportionate based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s damages. Further, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO acknowledges that he may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses that LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO will incur in the future. However, LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO alleges that his family and/or others on his behalf have not made payments in the past or in advance for LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s future medical care and LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, it is LUCA ALECZANDER WEEDO’s contention that no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Luca was a minor, Court approval of the settlement was required. Accordingly, on February 17, 2016, Collier County Circuit Court Judge James Shenko approved the settlement by entering an Agreed Order on Petitioner’s Unopposed Petition to Approve Minor’s Settlement. As a condition of his eligibility to receive Medicaid benefits, Luca assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third-parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. AHCA was notified of Luca’s personal injury action during its pendency. Through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, AHCA has asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $314,747.23 against Luca’s cause of action and settlement of the personal injury action. This is the amount that the Medicaid program spent on behalf of Luca for his past medical expenses.2/ Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f) requires that AHCA be reimbursed for the full $314,747.23 Medicaid lien. Neither Luca nor others on his behalf made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care. No claim for damages was made for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Debra Ann Weedo attended the final hearing along with Luca. Ms. Weedo is a foster parent for medically needy children. She testified that she currently has four children in her home: three-year-old Luca; a six-year-old in more or less the same condition as Luca; a five-year-old who is “basically normal”; and an autistic eight-year-old. Ms. Weedo first met Luca in the hospital during his post-birth hospitalization. She was asked to take him as a foster child and visited him several times in the hospital before taking him home at age three months. Ms. Weedo stated that when she brought Luca home, the whole family fell in love with him and “he became our family.” As soon as it was possible, Ms. Weedo and her husband adopted Luca. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca’s siblings interact with him and that Luca knows the voices of his caregivers and “will kind of try to talk to us.” At the hearing, the undersigned observed that Luca is somewhat aware of his surroundings and responsive to voices. Ms. Weedo testified that her family does everything together. Luca travels, goes on vacations, and goes out to eat as part of the family. Ms. Weedo testified that Luca requires 24-hour supervision and that his condition will become progressively worse as he ages. Luca has been on oxygen since December 2014. He must use a BiPAP (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) machine when he sleeps because the oxygen saturation level in his blood tends to be perilously low. He receives his nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. Civil trial attorney Todd Rosen testified on behalf of Petitioner as a fact witness and an expert on the valuation of damages. Mr. Rosen has been an attorney for 15 years and is the principal of the Todd Rosen Law Group in Coral Gables. Mr. Rosen stated that his practice is exclusively devoted to representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases. Mr. Rosen is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Florida Justice Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, and the Dade County Bar Association. Mr. Rosen has handled many jury trials and has represented plaintiffs who have suffered catastrophic brain injuries. A daily part of his practice is to assess the value of damages to injured persons. He stays abreast of jury verdicts in his area and routinely “round-tables” legal issues and damage valuations with other attorneys. Mr. Rosen testified that he was hired by Luca Weedo’s parents to investigate the potential claims they might have on behalf of their son. Mr. Rosen reviewed thousands of pages of Luca’s medical records, the accident report, and insurance policies for the defendants. The records indicated that Luca suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of placental abruption and that this injury had a permanent and devastating impact on the child’s life. Mr. Rosen explained that he could not file a lawsuit until the adoption process was complete, about eight months after the accident. He initially brought the suit against the driver of the Jeep, who had only PIP and property damage insurance and no collectable assets. Mr. Rosen interviewed the Jeep owner and learned the name of the Tire Shop. He made a demand for payment of the Tire Shop’s $1 million insurance policy. The full policy amount was tendered very soon after Mr. Rosen’s demand. Mr. Rosen testified that no life care plan or economist’s report was prepared in this case because the case settled so quickly. He believed that it would have been imprudent to spend money out of the $1 million settlement on a life care plan when the Weedos were not facing the prospect of a jury trial. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca’s past medical care related to the accident was paid by Medicaid. He testified that Medicaid provided $319,188.20 in benefits, representing Luca’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that Luca, or others on his behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for future medical care and no claim was brought to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. Mr. Rosen opined that Luca’s damages had a value “well in excess of” $25 million. Mr. Rosen explained that based on his experience in other cases, he believed the value of Luca’s future life care needs “would be well in excess of at least 10 to 15 million dollars” and that Luca’s non-economic damages would have a high value. Mr. Rosen noted that a jury would also take into account how “wonderful” Debra and Kenneth Weedo are to have devoted their lives to caring for Luca and other children in similar circumstances. Mr. Rosen believed that the $25 million valuation on Luca’s damages was “very conservative.” Mr. Rosen stated that the Tire Shop’s insurance counsel believed they had a strong argument that the owner of the Jeep must have done something to the tires after the Tire Shop put them on the car. However, despite the contested liability, the insurance company readily agreed during informal settlement discussions to pay the policy limits because the lawyers believed they were facing a verdict of up to $50 million. Mr. Rosen testified that the biggest cost factor in assessing Luca’s damages is the 24-hour attendant care that he will require for the rest of his life. Depending on how many caregivers are employed, the skill level required, and the location, attendant care may range from $25 to $40 per hour. Mr. Rosen estimated that a life care plan for Luca would be in the neighborhood of $10 million, including attendant care, nursing, and medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the $1 million settlement did not come close to fully compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Based on the conservative valuation of all Luca’s damages at $25 million, the $1 million settlement represented a recovery of four percent of the value of Luca’s damages. Mr. Rosen testified that because Luca only recovered four percent of the value of his damages in the settlement, he only recovered four percent of his $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53.3/ Mr. Rosen noted that the settling parties agreed in the Release that Luca’s damages had a value in excess of $25 million, as well as to the allocation of $12,767.53 to past medical expenses. Mr. Rosen testified that the allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and more than fair because it was based on a conservative estimate of Luca’s damages. He stated, “Me, personally, I believe it should be less, but yes, that is fair just being conservative.” Mr. Rosen testified that because no claim was made to recover reimbursement for past payments for future medical care, no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for past payments for future medical care. He noted that the parties agreed in the Release that no claim was made for reimbursement of past payments for future medical care, and no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. Because Luca was a minor, court approval of his settlement was required. The court appointed another experienced attorney to act as Luca’s Guardian ad Litem to review the terms of the settlement and make a report to the court as to its appropriateness. The Guardian ad Litem recommended approval of the settlement, and the court adopted that recommendation. Also testifying on behalf of Petitioner as an expert in the valuation of damages was R. Vinson Barrett, a partner in the Tallahassee firm of Barrett, Fasig and Brooks, which Mr. Barrett described as a mid-sized firm that exclusively undertakes personal injury and products liability cases. Mr. Barrett stated that he has been a trial lawyer for 40 years and for the last 15 years has confined his practice to medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability cases. Mr. Barrett testified that he has done many jury trials. He discussed the importance of accurately estimating the value of the damages suffered by his clients because of the heavy investment that a trial firm must make in a complex case. Mr. Barrett stated that a firm can easily spend a quarter of a million dollars on experts and discovery, as well as life care plans, economic analyses, and vocational rehabilitation analyses, among other items required to establish damages. He stated that it is essential not to spend so much money in putting on the case that the client has nothing left after the verdict. Mr. Barrett stated that he has reviewed dozens of life care plans and economist reports, many for children with the same kind of injuries suffered by Luca Weedo. Mr. Barrett testified that he was familiar with Luca’s injuries and had reviewed the accident report, hospital birth records, records from a second hospitalization, medical records from Luca’s neurologist, the Guardian ad Litem report, the court order approving the settlement, Mr. Rosen’s demand letter to the insurance carrier, and each of Petitioner’s exhibits. He had also spoken to Debra Weedo by phone concerning Luca’s medical condition. Mr. Barrett gave a detailed explanation of Luca’s injuries and extent of his disability. He concluded that Luca’s injury “is as bad an injury as you can possibly receive and stay alive . . . . It could not be more catastrophic.” The medical records indicate that Luca will not get better and his prognosis is poor. Mr. Barrett opined that Luca’s life care plan alone would probably exceed $25 million. He conceded “that seems like a huge, huge, huge amount of money,” but explained that it really is not such a large sum when one considers that Luca is supposed to have 24-hour attendant care throughout his lifetime. Life care plans are not limited to the cost of services provided by Medicaid, which is a safety net that “takes care of things that are absolutely essential to keep on breathing.” However, Medicaid does not cover many things that medically needy children require for quality of life, such as wheelchair-equipped vans. The life care plan includes all of the child’s needs. Mr. Barrett testified that a life care planner accounts for every cost, “pill by pill, wheelchair replacement by wheelchair replacement,” then reduces it to present value. Mr. Barrett testified that based on his experience working with life care planners in trial preparation, and his extensive experience in evaluating damages in cases similar to that of Luca Weedo, he had no doubt that $25 million is a conservative estimate of Luca’s pure losses. Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement did not come close to compensating Luca for the full value of his damages. Using $25 million as the conservative measure of all his damages, Luca had recovered only four percent of the value of his damages. Mr. Barrett testified that “by equity and basically, now by federal law, you look at the same ratio for the lien that you look at [for] the claimant.” Accordingly, Mr. Barrett testified that the settlement provided Luca with only four percent of Medicaid’s $319,188.20 claim for past medical expenses, or $12,767.53. Mr. Barrett testified that the settling parties’ allocation of $12,767.53 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable, rational, and conservative. Both Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett testified at some length about comparable jury verdicts and prior DOAH Medicaid lien cases involving children with catastrophic brain injuries. This discussion had some value in establishing that $25 million was by no means an unreasonable estimate of Luca Weedo’s damages, but was secondary and supplemental to the directly expressed expert opinions of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Barrett. AHCA presented the testimony of attorney James Bruner, who was accepted as an expert for the limited purpose of comparing the jury verdicts in the cases cited by Petitioner to the facts of the instant case. Mr. Bruner correctly noted that it can be misleading to cite the numbers from a jury verdict without reference to later reductions made on appeal or via settlement pending appeal. Mr. Bruner also effectively demonstrated that there is never a precise correlation between the facts of one case and those of another, and therefore that there cannot be a precise comparison of damages from one case to another.4/ However, the undersigned did not look to the comparative verdicts for such a strict comparison, but simply for the purpose of establishing a range of reasonableness in broadly similar cases. AHCA called no witness to directly contest the valuation of damages made by Mr. Rosen or to offer an alternative methodology to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. No evidence was presented that the settlement agreement was not reasonable given all the circumstances of the case. It does not appear that the parties colluded to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to Medicaid’s payment of costs for Petitioner’s medical care. In fact, the evidence established that the settlement was conservative in its valuation of Petitioner’s claim and that the settling parties could have reasonably apportioned less to Medicaid than they actually did. AHCA was not a party to the settlement of Petitioner’s claim. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee, or $250,000, as well as $8,112.70 in taxable costs, from the $1 million recovery, leaves $741,887.30, half of which is $370,943.65. That figure exceeds the actual amount expended by Medicaid on Petitioner’s medical care. Application of the formula would provide sufficient funds to satisfy the Medicaid lien of $314,747.23. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $25 million total value of the claim was a reasonable, even somewhat conservative, amount. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the strength and sympathy of his case and on the fact that it was limited only by the inability to collect the full amount of the likely judgment, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constituted a fair settlement, including the portion attributed to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), out of her settlement proceeds, as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 11, 2014, Amanda Baker, then 15 years old, was transferred from a medical center to a specialty pediatric hospital where she presented with complaints and symptoms of back pain, weakness, and paresthesia in her lower extremities. Over the next few days, she underwent examinations and assessments, but no steps were taken to prevent her development of blood clots/embolisms due to her immobility nor were signs and symptoms of her development of blood clots/embolisms recognized. On August 13, 2014, Amanda suffered two cardiac arrests due to blood clots/embolisms traveling to her heart and lungs. She was resuscitated, but due to a lack of oxygen to her brain, Amanda suffered a catastrophic hypoxic brain injury. She is now in a persistent vegetative state. The Agency provided $162,146.65 in Medicaid benefits associated with Amanda's injuries, all of which represent expenditures paid for her past medical expenses. Amanda's parents brought a medical malpractice action against the medical providers responsible for her care to recover all of the damages associated with her injuries, as well as their individual damages associated with their daughter's injuries. Seven defendants maintained insurance policies with a policy limit of $250,000. The medical malpractice action was settled for each of the insurance policy limits, resulting in a lump sum unallocated settlement of $1,750,000. This settlement was approved by the court. During the pendency of the malpractice action, the Agency was notified of the action. It asserted a $162,146.65 Medicaid lien against the Bakers' cause of action and settlement of that action. However, it did not institute, intervene in, or join in the action to enforce its rights, as provided in section 409.910(11), or participate in any aspect of the litigation. Application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) to Amanda's $1,750,000 settlement requires full payment of the Medicaid lien. Petitioner presented the testimony of Daniel Moody, Esquire, a Lakeland attorney with 30 years' experience in personal injury law, including medical malpractice. He represented Amanda and her family in the medical malpractice action. As a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured clients. He also stays abreast of jury verdicts in his area by reviewing jury verdict reporters and discussing cases with other trial attorneys. He has been accepted as an expert in valuation of damages. Based on his training and experience, Mr. Moody opined that the damages recoverable in Amanda's case had a conservative value of $30 million. Petitioner also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire, a Tallahassee trial attorney with more than 40 years' experience. His practice is dedicated to plaintiff's personal injury, as well as medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. He routinely makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. He was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages. Based on his training and experience, Mr. Barrett opined that Amanda's damages are "worth at a bare minimum – and we're talking very conservatively here -- $30,000,000." Both experts testified that using $30,000,000 as the value of all damages, Amanda only recovered 5.83 percent of the value of her damages. Accordingly, they opined that it would be reasonable, rational, and conservative to allocate 5.83 percent of the settlement, or $9,453.15, to past medical expenses paid by the Agency through the Medicaid program. The Agency did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of damages, propose a different valuation of the damages, or contest the methodology used to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. In short, Petitioner's evidence was unrebutted. The testimony from Mr. Moody and Mr. Barrett is compelling and persuasive. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that $9,453.15 of the settlement represents reimbursement for past medical expenses.
The Issue On October 3, 2016, Petitioners, Ammar Al Batha, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Abdel-Kader Al Batha, deceased, and Shahira Alshami, individually, filed a Petition to Determine Amount Payable to Agency for Health Care Administration in Satisfaction of Medicaid Lien (Petition) with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes (2016).1/ The final hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2016. On November 30, 2016, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Final Order. In the Motion for Summary Final Order, Respondent asserted that Petitioners, as a matter of law, cannot successfully challenge the amount payable to AHCA under section 409.910(17)(b) because Petitioners are not the Medicaid recipients. On December 2, 2016, Petitioners filed a Motion for Continuance and Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Final Order. That motion was granted by the undersigned on December 6, 2016, and the hearing scheduled for December 14, 2016, was canceled. On December 12, 2016, Petitioners filed an Objection to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Final Order, asserting that a Medicaid recipient’s right to challenge the payment of a Medicaid lien through DOAH does not die with the recipient, and the recipient’s representative is entitled to challenge the amount payable to AHCA under the procedure in section 409.910(17)(b). Both Respondent’s Motion for Summary Final Order and Petitioners’ Objection to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Final Order have been duly considered in preparation of this Summary Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On July 2, 2015, Abdel-Kader Al Batha (Mr. Al Batha) was involved in a car accident in Broward County, Florida. In this accident, Mr. Al Batha suffered catastrophic physical and neurological injuries, and, as a result, died on July 20, 2015. Mr. Al Batha was survived by his spouse, Shahira Alshami (Ms. Alshami). Mr. Al Batha’s medical care related to his injury was paid by Medicaid, and AHCA, through the Medicaid program. Medicaid provided $143,663.18 in benefits associated with Mr. Al Batha’s injury. This $143,663.18 represented the entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Al Batha’s funeral expenses were in the amount of $3,850. As a result of Mr. Al Batha’s injury and death, Ms. Alshami suffered economic and non-economic damages, which are defined and limited by the Florida Wrongful Death Act to loss of support, services, companionship, and protection from the date of injury, as well as her mental pain and suffering from the date of injury per section 768.21, Florida Statutes. In addition, the Estate of Abdel-Kader Al Batha (the Estate) suffered economic damages, which are defined and limited, by the Florida Wrongful Death Act, to medical expenses, funeral expenses, and loss of net accumulations per section 768.21(6). Altogether, the total combined monetary value of Ms. Alshami and the Estate’s individual damages, and the value a jury would assign to these damages, are no less than $2,500,000 to $5,000,000. Ammar Al Batha, as the Personal Representative of the Estate, brought a wrongful death action to recover both the individual statutory damages of Ms. Alshami, as well as the individual statutory damages of the Estate, against the driver/owner of the vehicle that caused the accident (Defendant). While Ms. Alshami and the Estate’s damages have an exceedingly high monetary value in excess of $2,500,000 to $5,000,000, there were significant limitations to recovering the full value of these damages from the Defendant associated with disputed facts, liability, and policy insurance limits of the primary responsible parties. Based on these significant limiting factors, the wrongful death action was settled through a confidential settlement. While settlement was appropriate given the limiting factors, that does not negate that in the settlement, Ms. Alshami and the Estate are not being fully compensated for all their damages, and they are only receiving a fraction of the total monetary value of all their damages. Understanding that the settlement does not fully compensate Ms. Alshami and the Estate for all their damages, and in the settlement they are only receiving a fraction of the total monetary value of all the damages, including only a fraction of the $143,663.18 claim for past medical expenses, the parties to the settlement made an allocation to the claim for past medical expenses. This allocation was based on the calculation of the ratio the settlement bore to the total monetary value of all damages. Using the conservative valuation of all damages of $2,500,000, the parties calculated that Ms. Alshami and the Estate were receiving 44.5 percent of the total monetary value of all their damages in the settlement, and accordingly they were receiving in the settlement 44.5 percent, or $63,930.12, of their $143,663.18 claim for past medical expenses. In making this allocation, the parties agreed that: The settlement does not fully compensate Mr. Al Batha’s surviving spouse and the Estate of Abdel-Kader Al Batha for all the damages they have suffered and the settlement only compensates them for a fraction of the total monetary value of all the damages; The damages have a value in excess of $2,500,000; The claim for past medical expenses was $143,663.18; and Allocation of the $63,930.12 of the settlement to past medical expenses, and the remainder of the settlement toward the satisfaction of claims other than the past medical expenses, is reasonable and proportionate based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all the damages. The parties memorialized the allocation of $63,930.12 of the settlement to past medical expenses in the General Release (Release). The Release stated: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement may not fully compensate Releasing Party for all of the damages they have allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to Released Parties without regard to this settlement only compensating Releasing Party for a fraction of the total claimed monetary value of their alleged damages. The parties agree that Releasing Party’s alleged damages may have a value in excess of $2,500,000, of which approximately $143,663.18 represents the claimed amount for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Releasing Party’s damages and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $63,930.12 of this settlement to Releasing Party’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement towards 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 claimed total monetary value of all Releasing Party’s damages. As a condition of Mr. Al Batha’s eligibility for Medicaid, Mr. Al Batha, before his death, assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third parties, medical expenses paid by Medicaid. During the pendency of the wrongful death action, AHCA was notified of the action, and AHCA, through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $143,663.18 Medicaid lien against the Estate’s cause of action and settlement of that action. The attorney handling the wrongful death claim notified AHCA of the settlement by letter and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed General Release. The letter explained that the damages had a value in excess of $2,500,000, and the settlement represented only a 44.5 percent recovery of the $143,663.18 claim for past medical expenses, or $63,930.12. The letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $143,663.18 Medicaid lien. AHCA calculated its payment pursuant to the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) based on the gross settlement, which includes those funds compensating Ms. Alshami for her individual claim for pain and suffering and loss of support, services, and companionship. This resulted in AHCA demanding payment for the full amount of the Medicaid lien, or $143,663.18.
The Issue The issue is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), in satisfaction of Respondent’s Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioner, James T. Stirk, from a third party pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015).
Findings Of Fact On January 24, 2014, Petitioner, then 25 years old, was involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Petitioner struck the rear of a truck with a trailer near mile marker 129 on I-75 in Lee County, Florida. Petitioner was taken to Lee Memorial Hospital where he remained in a coma for a couple of months. He sustained a broken back at T-4 level, two broken arms, a fractured neck and internal injuries. As a result of his injuries, Petitioner is now a paraplegic from the chest down and confined to a wheelchair. Respondent is the state agency authorized to administer Florida’s Medicaid program. See § 409.902, Fla. Stat. Prior to the accident, Petitioner worked as an appliance and air conditioning repairman, earning $16 an hour. After the accident and his recovery, Petitioner has been unable to work and his only source of income is through a Social Security disability check of approximately $1,083 monthly. He believes he is now eligible for Medicare, which should start “next month” (August 2016). He rents a home ($750 monthly) and lives there with his four-year-old son. Petitioner brought a negligence claim against the truck driver to recover his damages sustained in the crash. Petitioner settled his negligence claim for $95,000.00. During the pendency of Petitioner’s claim, AHCA was notified of the third-party negligence claim. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside or otherwise object to Petitioner’s $95,000.00 settlement. Petitioner’s past medical care related to his motorcycle accident totaled approximately $929,589.46. Petitioner was insured under a Florida Blue ERISA Health Insurance Plan (Florida Blue) for a portion of the time he received medical treatment. He subsequently became eligible for Medicaid after being unable to work after the accident. Florida Blue paid approximately $501,487.30 towards Petitioner’s medical care. Medicaid paid $47,008.81 towards Petitioner’s medical care. No portion of this amount was paid for future medical expenses and no payments were made in advance for medical care. By letter dated January 20, 2016, AHCA, through its contractor Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a lien of $47,008.81 against Petitioner’s third-party negligence claim and settlement thereof. By letter dated January 21, 2016, Petitioner’s counsel provided Xerox Recovery Services the settlement information and requested the Medicaid lien be proportionally reduced to $714.05, 1.9 percent of the total value of Petitioner’s claim. By letter dated February 18, 2016, AHCA, through its contractor, applied the statutory formula to Petitioner’s gross settlement and requested a check in the amount of $32,062.25 for full satisfaction of its lien. Petitioner’s attorney forwarded payment of $32,062.25 from Petitioner’s settlement proceeds. The payment of these funds to AHCA constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Section 409.910(11)(f), provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (f) [I]n the event of an action in tort against a third party in which the recipient or his or her legal representative is a party which results in a judgment, award, or settlement from a third party, the amount recovered shall be distributed as follows: After attorney’s fees and taxable costs . . . one-half of the remaining recovery shall be paid to the agency up to the total amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid. The remaining amount of the recovery shall be paid to the recipient. For purposes of calculating the agency’s recovery of medical assistance benefits paid, the fee for services of an attorney retained by the recipient . . . shall be calculated at 25 percent of the judgement, award, or settlement. Pursuant to the formula set forth in 409.910(11)(f), Respondent should be reimbursed $32,062.25, the amount set forth in the February 18, 2016, letter. However, the statute provides a method by which a recipient may contest the amount designated as recovered medical expense damages payable to the agency pursuant to the formula set forth in subsection (11)(f). “In order to successfully challenge the amount payable to the agency, the recipient must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past and future medical expenses than the amount calculated by the agency” pursuant to the formula. § 409.910(17)(b), Fla. Stat. The testimony spoke in generalities and global assessments. The testimony did not explicitly disclose that a lesser amount of the total recovery should be allocated for past and future medical expenses in this instance. Ty Roland is an attorney with over 20 years’ experience representing plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death claims. The majority of Mr. Roland’s cases have been in the Fort Myers area. Mr. Roland was accepted as an expert in the valuation of the damages (in personal injury cases), and testified as to his opinion of the total value of damages in Petitioner’s underlying action. In formulating his opinion of the total value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Roland considered cases he has previously tried. Petitioner’s suit demanded $5 million; however, Mr. Roland estimated the value of Petitioner’s suit at $10 million. There were no specifics as to the elements of damages. Total recovery for Petitioner’s damages through settlement was $95,000, roughly 1.9 percent of the estimated total value of his damages. The parties stipulated the amount due under section 409.910(11)(f) is $32,062.25.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's ("AHCA" or "the agency") Medicaid lien of $267,072.91 should be reimbursed in full from the $1 million settlement recovered by Petitioner or whether Petitioner proved that a lesser amount should be paid under section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulation between the parties (paragraphs 1 through 13 below), the evidence presented, and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: On January 13, 2016, Mr. Jay Hosek was operating his 1999 Chevy Trailblazer northbound on U.S. Highway 1, near mile marker 56, in Monroe County. At that same time and place, his vehicle was struck by a southbound tractor trailer. Hosek suffered catastrophic physical injuries, including permanent brain damage. Hosek is now unable to walk, stand, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Hosek's medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid, Medicare, and United Healthcare ("UHC"). Medicaid provided $267,072.91 in benefits, Medicare provided $93,952.97 in benefits and UHC provided $65,778.54 in benefits. Accordingly, Hosek's entire claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $426,804.42. Jirina Hosek was appointed Hosek's legal guardian. As legal guardian, Jirina Hosek brought a personal injury lawsuit against the driver and owner of the tractor trailer that struck Hosek ("defendants") to recover all of Hosek's damages associated with his injuries. The defendants maintained only a $1 million insurance policy and had no other collectable assets. Hosek's personal injury action against the defendants was settled for the available insurance policy limits, resulting in a lump sum unallocated settlement of $1 million. Due to Hosek's incompetence, court approval of the settlement was required and the court approved the settlement by Order of October 5, 2018. During the pendency of Hosek's personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $267,072.91 Medicaid lien against Hosek's cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene or join in Hosek's action against the defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of Hosek's settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Hosek's settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $267,072.91 on behalf of Hosek, all of which represents expenditures paid for Hosek's past medical expenses. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Hosek's $1 million settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $267,072.91 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited AHCA's full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights, and this constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). While driving his vehicle northbound, Hosek drifted into oncoming traffic, crossed over the center line, and struck a southbound vehicle in its lane head on. Petitioner had an indisputable and extremely high degree of comparative negligence in causing this tragic vehicle accident. Petitioner presented the testimony of Brett Rosen ("Rosen"), Esquire, a Florida attorney with 12 years' experience in personal injury law. His practice includes catastrophic and wrongful death cases. Rosen is board-certified in civil trial by the Florida Bar. He is a member of several trial attorney associations. Rosen represented Hosek and his family in the personal injury case. As a routine part of his practice, Rosen makes assessments regarding the value of damages his injured client(s) suffered. He stays abreast of personal injury jury verdicts by reviewing jury verdict reports and searching verdicts on Westlaw. Rosen regularly reads the Daily Business Review containing local verdicts and subscribes to the "Law 360," which allows him to review verdicts throughout the country. Rosen was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency. Rosen testified that Hosek's case was a difficult case for his client from a liability perspective, since all the witnesses blamed Hosek for the crash and the police report was not favorable to him. In his professional opinion, had Hosek gone to trial, the jury could have attributed a substantial amount of comparative negligence to him based upon the facts of the case. There was also a high possibility that Hosek might not receive any money at all, since Hosek's comparative negligence in the accident was very high. Rosen explained the seriousness of Hosek's injuries, stating that Hosek may have fallen asleep while driving and his car veered over and crossed the centerline. It hit an oncoming commercial truck, which caused his vehicle to flip resulting in severe injuries to him. Rosen testified that Hosek is unable to communicate since he received catastrophic brain injury from the accident and is unable to care for himself. Rosen provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. He testified that the case was worth $10 million, and that this amount is a very conservative valuation of Hosek's personal injuries. He also generalized that based on his training and experience, Hosek's damages could range anywhere from $10 to $30 million at trial. He testified that Hosek would need future medical care for the rest of his life. This future medical care has a significant value ranging from $15 to $25 million.1/ Rosen testified that he reviewed other cases and talked to experts in similar cases involving catastrophic injuries. After addressing various ranges of damages, Rosen clarified that the present value of Hosek's damages in this case was more than $10 million dollars. Although he did not state specific amounts, he felt that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have a significant value in addition to his economic damages.2/ Rosen believed that a jury would have returned or assigned a value to the damages of over $10 million. He testified that his valuation of the case only included the potential damages. He did not take into account Hosek's "substantial amount" of comparative negligence and liability.3/ Despite doing so in other personal injury cases, Rosen did not conduct a mock trial in an effort to better assess or determine the damages in Hosek's case. Rosen testified that Hosek sued the truck driver, Alonzo, and Alonzo's employer. He further testified that Hosek was compensated for his damages under the insurance policy carried by the truck driver and his company and settled for the policy limits of $1 million dollars representing 10 percent of the potential total value of his claim. Rosen did not obtain or use a life care plan for Hosek, nor did he consider one in determining his valuation of damages for Hosek's case. Rosen did not provide any specific numbers or valuation concerning Hosek's noneconomic damages. Instead, he provided a broad damage range that he said he "would give the jury" or "be giving them a range of $50 Million for past and future."4/ Rosen testified that he relied on several specific factors in making the valuation of Hosek's case. The most important factor for him was to determine what his client was "going through" and experience his client's "living conditions."5/ Secondly, he considers the client's medical treatment and analyzes the client's medical records. Based on these main factors, he can determine or figure out what the client's future medical care will "look like."6/ Petitioner also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett ("Barrett"), Esquire, a Tallahassee trial attorney. Barrett has more than 40 years' experience in civil litigation. His practice is dedicated to plaintiff's personal injury, as well as medical malpractice and medical products liability. Barrett was previously qualified as an expert in federal court concerning the value of the wrongful death of an elderly person. This testimony was used primarily for tax purposes at that trial. Barrett has been accepted as an expert at DOAH in Medicaid lien cases in excess of 15 times and has provided testimony regarding the value of damages and the allocation of past medical expenses. Barrett has handled cases involving catastrophic brain injuries. He stays abreast of local and state jury verdicts. Barrett has also reviewed several life care plans and economic reports in catastrophic personal injury cases. He routinely makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by parties who have received personal injuries. Barrett determines the value of these damages based primarily on his experience and frequent review of jury verdicts. Barrett was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in the valuation of damages in personal injury cases, without objection by the agency.7/ Barrett testified that Hosek had a catastrophic brain injury with broken facial bones and pneumothoraxes, all sustained during an extremely violent head-on collision with a commercial truck. This assessment was based on the case exhibits and the "fairly limited medical records" he reviewed. He believed that Hosek would need extensive and expensive medical care for the rest of his life. However, no details were offered by Barrett.8/ Barrett provided an opinion concerning the value of Hosek's damages. This was based on his training and experience. Barrett did not provide a firm number for Hosek's damages. Instead, he offered a nonspecific and broad range of damages. Barrett testified that Hosek's damages "probably" have a value in the range of $25 to $50 million, and the range of Hosek's future medical care would be $10 to $20 million. However, he felt that $10 million was a "very, very, very conservative" estimate of damages, primarily because he felt that future medical expenses would be so high. Barrett stated that Hosek's economic damages would have a significant value exceeding $10 million and that Hosek's noneconomic damages would have an additional value exceeding $10 million. Barrett acknowledged that he did not consider or take into account Hosek's "huge comparative negligence" in estimating the total value of the case. Instead, he only considered the amount(s) that would be awarded for damages. He testified that Petitioner's degree of comparative negligence would reduce each element of damages he was awarded. As a result of Hosek's very significant comparative negligence, Barrett testified that a trial would have likely resulted in a "complete defense verdict" against Hosek or with only minor negligence attributed to the truck driver or his company. Barrett felt that a jury in Hosek's case would not have awarded Hosek "more than one million dollars or so." Barrett explained that in a trial for personal injuries that each element of damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff on the verdict form is reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff's comparative negligence. Barrett also explained that when the jury verdict assigns ten percent of the negligence to the defendant and 90 percent of the negligence to the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable for paying only ten percent of each element of the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Barrett testified that he does not believe that the $1 million settlement fully compensated Hosek for his injuries and that a potential award of $10 million would be a conservative value of Hosek's claim. While both experts provided broad and nonspecific ranges for the value of Hosek's claims, they both summed up their testimony by concluding that $10 million was a very conservative estimate of Hosek's total claim. AHCA did not call any witnesses. The agency presented Exhibit 1, entitled "Provider Processing System Report." This report outlined all the hospital and medical payments that AHCA made on Hosek's behalf, totaling $267,072.91. On the issue of damages, the experts did not provide any details concerning several of Petitioner's claims, including the amount of past medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, or damages for pain and suffering. The burden was on Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence to prove that the "proportionality test" it relied on to present its challenge to the agency's lien under section 409.910(17)(b) was a reliable and competent method to establish what amount of his tort settlement recovery was fairly allocable to past medical expenses. In this case, the undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to carry this burden.9/ There was no credible evidence presented by Petitioner to prove or persuasively explain a logical correlation between the proposed total value of Petitioner's personal injury claim and the amount of the settlement agreement fairly allocable to past medical expenses. Without this proof the proportionality test was not proven to be credible or accurate in this case, and Petitioner did not carry his burden. There was a reasonable basis in the record to reject or question the evidence presented by Petitioner's experts. Their testimony was sufficiently contradicted and impeached during cross-examination and other questioning. Even if the experts' testimony had not been contradicted, the "proportionality test" proposed by Petitioner was not proven to be a reliable or accurate method to carry Petitioner's burden under section 409.910(17)(b). To reiterate, there was no persuasive evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that (1) a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by the agency, or (2) that Medicaid provided a lesser amount of medical assistance than that asserted by the agency.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Breana Collins was born on January 31, 1985, with a severe chromosomal growth deficiency known as 3P2 Trisomy. She was unable to speak or care for herself and could walk only with assistance. Breana lived at home with her parents, Clifford and Gwen Collins, until she was 17 years old, at which time she was placed in Howell Branch Court, a group home located in Winter Park near the family’s home. On July 11, 2017, Breana underwent an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, or “EGD” procedure. On July 11, 2017, while undergoing the EGD procedure, Breana Collins was noted to be unarousable and unresponsive. Breana was transported by emergency medical services to Florida Hospital Altamonte. She was experiencing severe distress and was unresponsive. She was diagnosed with acute respiratory failure. On August 24, 2017, Breana died. Her cause of death was noted as acute cardiorespiratory arrest. Petitioner, Clifford Collins, brought the following claims: a medical malpractice tort claim; a claim for abuse, neglect, and exploitation under section 415.1111, Florida Statutes, commonly called the “Vulnerable Adult” statute; and a claim under section 393.13, Florida Statutes, the “Bill of Rights of Persons with Developmental Disabilities.” The claims were brought against several healthcare providers, seeking wrongful death damages for Breana Collins’s parents for non-economic mental pain and suffering for the loss of their daughter, and survival damages for Breana’s loss, injury, and damage, including, but not limited to, acute hypoxic respiratory failure, right lower lobe pneumonia, aspiration pneumonia, urinary tract infection, sepsis with shock, and leukocytosis. In 2020, Petitioner, Clifford Collins, settled the tort action for a limited confidential amount due to significant liability and causation challenges with the claims. AHCA was properly notified of the Collins’s lawsuit against the defendants and provided notice that it had paid benefits related to the injuries from the incident in the amount of $44,836.83. AHCA paid benefits in the amount of $44,836.83 for the care of Breana related to the injuries allegedly caused by third parties. The parties stipulated that the application of the formula provided by section 409.910(11)(f), to the confidential settlement amount, would require payment to AHCA in the amount of $44,836.83 from the settlement proceeds. J. Scott Murphy is an attorney, who is Florida Board Certified in Civil Trial Law. Mr. Murphy is also certified by the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys and the National Board of Trial Advocates, and is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. Mr. Murphy specializes in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases, primarily in medical malpractice. He has over 35 years’ experience in this area of practice. As part of his ongoing practice, Mr. Murphy routinely evaluates the damages suffered by injured persons, including wrongful death medical malpractice cases involving adult children as defined by section 768.18(2), Florida Statutes, i.e., persons over the age of 25. In formulating his opinions, Mr. Murphy reviewed the deposition of Mr. Collins, as well as the amended complaint and the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants in the underlying case. Mr. Murphy also reviewed the pre-suit expert affidavits and jury verdict reports related to damage awards and settlements involving the death of an adult child. Mr. Murphy testified that in medical malpractice cases brought under section 768.21, emotional loss, pain, and suffering for the parents’ loss of an adult child is specifically disallowed. Mr. Murphy testified as to the substantial legal obstacles to pursuing the underlying personal injury/medical malpractice claim brought by Clifford and Gwen Collins for the death of Breana. Mr. Murphy stated that it would be extremely difficult to prove the causation element because no autopsy was performed to establish definitively Breana’s cause of death. Mr. Murphy opined that Breana’s survival claim for her pain and suffering over the month and a half between the EGD procedure and her death would be de minimus because of her congenital disability. Mr. Murphy further testified as to the extreme difficulties in pursuing the two statutory claims under sections 415.1111 and 393.13. He testified that similar claims under section 415.1111 have been specifically rejected by the First and Third District Courts of Appeal, both of which concluded that the medical malpractice statutes provide an exclusive remedy that cannot be circumvented by resorting to the Vulnerable Adult statute. Mr. Murphy testified that, while the appellate courts have yet to address the question of whether a claim under section 393.13 could be used to avoid the limitations of the medical malpractice statute, he would expect the result to be the same as that reached by the courts on section 415.1111. Mr. Murphy testified that his review of the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants in the underlying action led him to conclude that the odds of success were very low on the claims under section 415.1111 and 393.13. Mr. Murphy testified that Breana’s EGD procedure was performed by a gastroenterologist and monitored by a certified registered nurse anesthetist, both of whom met the statutory definition of “health care providers.” Because the claims would likely have been construed as “medical malpractice claims,” Clifford and Gwen Collins would have been limited to the recovery of medical expenses incurred as a result of the negligence of the defendants, plus Breana’s funeral expenses. The significant damages associated with the parents’ pain and suffering and emotional loss would have likely been barred by the limitations imposed under section 768.21. Mr. Murphy’s unrefuted testimony was that the total value of the parents’ claims would be at least $1 million by a very conservative estimate. The Collins family was very close knit and the parents remained intimately involved in Breana’s life for as long as she lived. Based on the Collins’s depositions and family photographs that were admitted into evidence, Mr. Murphy found it “glaringly apparent” that the loss of their daughter was devastating to Clifford and Gwen Collins. Mr. Collins’s testimony at the hearing confirmed Mr. Murphy’s opinion. Mr. Collins testified that his health has suffered, and he has lost substantial weight since Breana’s death. Mr. Collins appeared reticent to discuss his feelings, but he did state, “It’s the worst thing that can happen to a parent. I mean, we knew her limitations, but she was – you know, she was a joy in our lives and it’s emotional.” In her deposition testimony, Gwen Collins stated, “I know I can’t ask you questions, but if you were a parent and you truly are involved and love your child, you’re impacted daily by that loss and you never get over it.” Ms. Collins testified that she now has high blood pressure that she did not have before Breana’s death. She is now pre-diabetic, which she also attributes to the stress of losing a child. Mr. Murphy testified that the amount of the settlement in this case was $190,000, or 19 percent of the conservative valuation of $1,000,000.00. Using a pro rata methodology, Mr. Murphy concluded that the appropriate share of Breana’s past medical expenses to be applied to satisfy AHCA’s medical lien should be 19 percent of the $44,836.83 total, or $8,518.99. Mr. Murphy’s testimony was uncontradicted and persuasive on this point. Petitioner’s counsel, Alan J. Landerman, testified as an expert in the evaluation of damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death cases, without objection from AHCA. Mr. Landerman is an AV-rated civil trial attorney with over 35 years of experience, primarily as counsel in catastrophic injury cases, medical malpractice, and product liability cases. Mr. Landerman has tried multiple medical malpractice cases and product liability cases, and has achieved multiple verdicts in excess of $1 million in those cases. A routine part of Mr. Landerman’s practice is to make assessments concerning the value of damages, including damages in wrongful death cases under section 768.21. Mr. Landerman concurred with Mr. Murphy’s testimony regarding the strict monetary limitations associated with pursuing medical malpractice wrongful death cases on behalf of parents for the death of an adult child. Mr. Landerman testified that he keeps abreast of settlement and damage awards through the Florida Jury Verdict Reporters, and as a member of many plaintiff attorneys’ organizations, including the American Justice Association and Central Florida Trial Lawyers. Mr. Landerman was the primary trial attorney for Clifford and Gwen Collins in the underlying civil lawsuit. Mr. Landerman testified that after the defendants filed motions to dismiss, he initiated settlement discussions with defense counsel. Mr. Landerman testified that he accepted a compromise settlement on behalf of his clients, in light of the substantial factual and legal impediments previously described by Mr. Murphy. Mr. Landerman testified that in evaluating the underlying wrongful death action, he elected to plead “novel theories” under sections 415.1111 and 393.13 in order to evade the limitations imposed by the wrongful death statute on medical malpractice cases. Mr. Landerman testified that, unfortunately, the recent case styled Specialty Hospital-Gainesville, Inc. v. Barth, 277 So. 3d 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), held that the wrongful death statute is the exclusive remedy for medical malpractice, and that chapter 415 cannot serve as a vehicle for a medical malpractice claim. As to the claim under section 393.13, Mr. Landerman testified that this was a case of first impression. While he concurred with Mr. Murphy that the result would likely be the same as that in Specialty Hospital, Mr. Landerman also believed that uncertainty about the outcome in a jury trial was a driving factor in the defendants’ willingness to settle the case. Mr. Landerman agreed with Mr. Murphy that a very conservative total value for the case was $1 million. Mr. Landerman testified that he conducted jury verdict research that revealed the case of the death of a 30-year-old, in a non-medical malpractice setting, in which the parents were awarded in excess of $10 million in non-economic damages. Mr. Landerman further agreed with Mr. Murphy that if one accepts the $1 million figure as the full value of the claim, then the settlement amount equaled 19 percent of the value of the parents’ damages. Applying a pro rata analysis, Mr. Landerman testified that 19 percent of $44,836.83 yields $8,518.99, which is the amount that should be allocated to the past medical expenses claim of AHCA. AHCA did not offer any witnesses or documentary evidence to question the credentials or opinions of either Mr. Murphy or Mr. Landerman. AHCA did not offer testimony or documentary evidence to rebut the testimony of Mr. Murphy and Mr. Landerman as to valuation or the pro rata reduction ratio. AHCA did not offer alternative opinions on the damage valuation or allocation method suggested by either Mr. Murphy or Mr. Landerman, both of whom testified knowledgably and credibly as experienced practitioners. The testimony of Petitioner's two experts regarding the total value of damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Petitioner proved that the settlement of $190,000 does not begin to fully compensate Clifford and Gwen Collins for the full value of their damages. Petitioner’s recovery represents only 19 percent of a conservative valuation of the Collins’s claims. AHCA argues with some force that this case is distinguishable from other Medicaid reimbursement cases in that here the question of the value of the Collins’s damages versus the settlement amount is not merely a matter of the uncertainty of pressing forward with the underlying litigation. The parents in this case faced a statutory barrier to recovering non-economic damages for the wrongful death of their adult daughter, which leads AHCA to argue that the $1 million valuation of their damages is unrealistically high and that this case is not suitable for application of the pro rata reduction methodology. ACHA’s argument is undercut by the settlement itself, which was more than a nominal amount even if only a fraction of the total damages estimated by Petitioner’s experts. The fact that the defendants were willing to pay over $190,000 to settle the lawsuit indicates a degree of uncertainty as to the outcome of the claim brought under section 393.13 that is sufficient to bring this case comfortably within the ambit of the pro rata reduction analysis. The undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 19 percent (the ratio that $190,000 bears to $1 million) is the appropriate pro rata share of Breana Collins’s medical expenses to be applied to determine the amount recoverable by AHCA in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. ACHA’s lien for past medical expenses is $44,836.83. Applying the 19 percent pro rata ratio to this total yields $8,518.99, which is the portion of the settlement representing reimbursement for past medical expenses and the amount recoverable by AHCA for its lien.
