The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), out of her settlement proceeds, as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 17, 2007, Alicia M. Fallon ("Alicia"), then 17 years old, drove to the mall to meet friends and became involved in an impromptu street race. Alicia lost control of the vehicle she was driving, crossed the median into oncoming traffic, and was involved in a motor vehicle crash. Her injuries consisted of traumatic brain injury ("TBI") with moderate hydrocephalus, right subdural hemorrhage, left pubic ramus fracture, pulmonary contusions (bilateral), and a clavicle fracture. Since the time of her accident, she has undergone various surgical procedures including the insertion of a gastrostomy tube, bilateral frontoparietal craniotomies, insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt, and bifrontal cranioplasties. As a result of the accident, in addition to the physical injuries described above, Alicia suffered major depressive disorder, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder injuries. She is confined to a wheelchair for mobility, has no bowel or bladder control, and suffers from cognitive dysfunction. Alicia is totally dependent on others for activities of daily living and must be supervised 24 hours a day, every day of the week. A lawsuit was brought against the driver of the other car in the race, as well as the driver's mother, the owner of the vehicle. It could not be established that the tortfeasor driver hit Alicia's car in the race, or that he cut her off. The theory of liability was only that because Alicia and the other driver in the race were racing together, that the tortfeasor was at least partially responsible for what happened. It was viewed that there was no liability on the part of the driver of the third vehicle. The tortfeasor only had $100,000 in insurance policy limits, but the insurance company did not timely offer payment. The tortfeasor had no pursuable assets. The lawsuit was bifurcated and the issue of liability alone was tried. The jury determined that the tortfeasor driver was 40 percent liable for Alicia's damages. Because of the risk of a bad faith judgment, the insurance company for the tortfeasor settled for the gross sum of $2.5 million. AHCA, through its Medicaid program, provided medical assistance to Ms. Fallon in the amount of $608,795.49. AHCA was properly notified of the lawsuit against the tortfeasors, and after settlement, asserted a lien for the full amount it paid, $608,795.49, against the settlement proceeds. AHCA did not "institute, intervene in, or join in" the medical malpractice action to enforce its rights as provided in section 409.910(11), or participate in any aspect of Alicia's claim against the tortfeasors or their insurance company. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f), to the settlement amount requires payment to AHCA in the amount of $608,795.49. Another provider, Optum, provided $592,554.18 in past medical expense benefits on behalf of Ms. Fallon. However, that amount was reduced through negotiation to a lien in the amount of $22,220.78.1/ Petitioner deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA's rights, and this constitutes "final agency action" for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Petitioner, Donna Fallon, the mother of Alicia, testified regarding the care that was and is continuing to be provided to Alicia after the accident. She is a single parent, and with only the assistance of an aide during the day, she is responsible for Alicia's care. Alicia must be fed, changed, bathed, and turned every few hours to avoid bed sores. Alicia can communicate minimally by using an electronic device and by making noises that are usually only discernable by her mother. Although she needs ongoing physical therapy and rehabilitation services, the family cannot afford this level of care. Petitioner presented the testimony of Sean Domnick, Esquire, a Florida attorney with 30 years' experience in personal injury law, including catastrophic injury and death cases, medical malpractice, and brain injury cases. Mr. Domnick is board certified in Civil Trial by the Florida Bar. He represented Alicia and her mother in the litigation against the tortfeasors and their insurance company. As a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured clients. He was accepted, without objection, as an expert in valuation of damages. Mr. Domnick testified that Alicia's injuries are as catastrophic as he has handled. Alicia has no strength, suffers contractions and spasms, and is in constant pain. Alicia has impaired speech, limited gross and fine motor skills, is unable to transfer, walk, or use a wheelchair independently. Alicia is unable to self-feed. All of her food must be cooked and cut up for her. Alicia is unable to perform self-hygiene and has no ability to help herself in an emergency and therefore requires constant monitoring. As part of his work-up of the case, Mr. Domnick had a life care plan prepared by Mary Salerno, a rehabilitation expert, which exceeded $15 million on the low side, and $18 million on the high side, in future medical expenses alone for Alicia's care. Mr. Domnick testified that the conservative full value of Alicia's damages was $45 million. That figure included $30 million for Alicia's pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of quality of life, disability, and disfigurement, extrapolated for her life expectancy, plus the low end of economic damages of $15 million. Petitioner also presented the testimony of James Nosich, Esquire, a lawyer who has practiced primarily personal injury defense for 29 years. Mr. Nosich and his firm specialize in defending serious and catastrophic personal injury/medical malpractice cases throughout Florida. As part of his practice, Mr. Nosich has reviewed more than 1,000 cases of personal injury/medical malpractice cases and formally reported the potential verdict and full value to insurance companies that retained him to defend their insureds. Mr. Nosich has worked closely with economists and life care planners to identify the relevant damages of those catastrophically injured in his representation of his clients. Mr. Nosich has also tried over 30 cases in Broward County in which a plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries similar to those of Alicia. Mr. Nosich was tendered and accepted, without objection, as an expert in the evaluation of damages in catastrophic injury cases. In formulating his expert opinion with regard to this case, Mr. Nosich reviewed: Alicia's medical records and expenses; her life care plan prepared by Ms. Salerno; and the economist's report. He took into consideration the reputation of Alicia's lawyer (Mr. Domnick); and the venue in which the case would be tried. Mr. Nosich opined that Broward County is known for liberal juries who tend to award high amounts in catastrophic cases. He also testified that Mr. Domnick is known as a lawyer with extreme capability and who has an excellent rapport with juries and the ability to get higher dollar verdicts. Mr. Nosich agreed with Mr. Domnick that the estimated $45 million figure for the total value of Alicia's case was conservative. He agreed with Ms. Salerno's estimated economic damages of $15 million and a doubling of that amount ($30 million) for Alicia's noneconomic damages. Mr. Nosich credibly explained that the $45 million total value was very conservative in his opinion based on Alicia's very high past medical bills and the fact that she will never be able to work. The testimony of Petitioner's two experts regarding the total value of damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Petitioner proved that the settlement of $2.5 million does not fully compensate Alicia for the full value of her damages. As testified to by Mr. Domnick, Alicia's recovery represents only 5.55 percent of the total value of her claim. However, in applying a ratio to reduce the Medicaid lien amount owed to AHCA, both experts erroneously subtracted attorney's fees and costs of $1.1 million from Alicia's $2.5 million settlement to come up with a ratio of 3 percent to be applied to reduce AHCA's lien.2/ Further, in determining the past medical expenses recovered, Petitioner's experts also failed to include the Optum past medical expenses in the amount of $592,554.18. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of damages, or propose a different valuation of the damages. In short, Petitioner's evidence was unrebutted. However, through cross-examination, AHCA properly contested the methodology used to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 5.55 percent is the appropriate pro rata share of Alicia's past medical expenses to be applied to determine the amount recoverable by AHCA in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. Total past medical expenses is the sum of AHCA's lien in the amount of $608,795.49, plus the Optum past medicals in the amount of $592,554.18, which equals $1,201,349.67. Applying the 5.55 percent pro rata ratio to this total equals $66,674.91, which is the portion of the settlement representing reimbursement for past medical expenses and the amount recoverable by AHCA for its lien.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Clifford J. Deyampert (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Deyampert”) pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ from settlement proceeds received by Mr. Deyampert 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 July 25, 2015, Mr. Deyampert was attending a party held at a friend’s house and was shot in the throat by another guest. The bullet traveled down Mr. Deyampert’s throat, struck his spinal cord, and caused Mr. Deyampert to be paralyzed from the chest down. As a result, Mr. Deyampert is permanently disabled, disfigured, and wheelchair-bound. In addition, Mr. Deyampert is bowel and bladder incontinent.2/ Medicaid paid $76,944.67 in order to cover Mr. Deyampert’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $76,944.67 paid by Medicaid on Mr. Deyampert’s behalf represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and Medicaid did not make payments in advance for medical care. Mr. Deyampert initiated a personnel injury lawsuit by making a claim against a homeowner’s insurance policy that covered the shooter. Mr. Deyampert’s personal injury action settled for $305,000, and that was the limit of an aforementioned insurance policy.3/ The General Release memorializing the settlement stated the following: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate Clifford Deyampert 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 Clifford Deyampert for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. The parties agree that Clifford Deyampert’s alleged damages have a value in excess of $6,000,000, of which $76,944.67 represents Clifford Deyampert’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of Clifford Deyampert’s injuries and this settlement, the parties have agreed to allocate $3,847.23 of this settlement to Clifford Deyampert’s claim for past medical expenses and allocate the remainder of the settlement toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all Clifford Deyampert’s damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that Clifford Deyampert may need future medical care related to his injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for future medical expenses Clifford Deyampert will incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that Clifford Deyampert, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for Clifford Deyampert’s future medical care and Clifford Deyampert 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. During the pendency of Mr. Deyampert’s personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the suit and asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $76,944.67 against any damages received by Mr. Deyampert. Via a letter issued on July 24, 2017, Mr. Deyampert’s attorney notified AHCA that Mr. Deyampert’s personal injury action had settled. The letter asked AHCA to specify what amount it would accept in satisfaction of the $76,944.67 Medicaid lien. AHCA responded by demanding full payment of the lien. Section 409.910(11)(f) sets forth a formula for calculating the amount that AHCA shall recover in the event that a Medicaid recipient or his or her personal representative initiates a tort action against a third party that results in a judgment, award, or settlement from a third party.4/ AHCA is seeking to recover $76,944.67 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. See § 409.910(11)(f)4., Fla. Stat. (providing that “[n]otwithstanding any provision in this section to the contrary, [AHCA] shall be entitled to all medical coverage benefits up to the total amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid.”). Valuation of the Personal Injury Claim F. Emory Springfield represented Mr. Deyampert during the personal injury action and testified during the final hearing. Mr. Springfield has practiced law for 32 years. He owns his own law firm and handles cases involving personal injury, workers’ compensation, and social security disability. Mr. Springfield has experience with jury trials and monitors jury verdicts issued in his fields of practice. Mr. Springfield routinely assesses the value of damages suffered by injured parties. He makes those assessments by determining the injured person’s life expectancy, evaluating the injuries, and conferring with lifecare planners about the injured party’s need for future care. In addition, Mr. Springfield learns as much as possible about the injured party’s past life activities and compares those activities to what the injured party is presently capable of doing. Mr. Springfield also assesses an injured party’s damages by examining jury verdicts from other cases. Mr. Springfield was accepted in this proceeding as an expert regarding the valuation of damages. Mr. Springfield is of the opinion that Mr. Deyampert’s damages (including damages for pain and suffering and economic damages) are well in excess of $6 million. According to Mr. Springfield, the $305,000 settlement does not “come close” to fully compensating Mr. Deyampert for all of his damages. Furthermore, the $305,000 settlement only represents a five percent recovery of the more than $6 million in damages incurred by Mr. Deyampert. Therefore, in Mr. Springfield’s opinion, only five percent (i.e., $3,847.23) of the $76,944.67 in Medicaid payments for Mr. Deyampert’s past medical expenses were recovered. Mr. Deyampert also presented the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire, during the final hearing. Mr. Barrett is a trial attorney who has been practicing in North Florida since the mid 1970s. Over the last 30 years, he has focused his practice on the areas of medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical liability. Mr. Barrett routinely handles jury trials and monitors jury verdicts issued in his practice areas. Mr. Barrett routinely assesses the value of damages suffered by injured parties. According to Mr. Barrett, a personal injury attorney must be skilled at estimating the value of a client’s claim. Otherwise, the high cost of bringing a case to trial can result in a personal injury attorney losing money and going bankrupt. Mr. Barrett was accepted in this proceeding as an expert regarding the valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett gave the following testimony regarding Mr. Deyampert’s damages: This man not only is a paraplegic, but during all this, and I couldn’t really tell from the records I read whether the bullet caused this or some intubation in the hospital, but he got air into the space between his lung and his diaphragm, which can be a very painful problem, he had to be intubated to get that out. He developed, I believe, sepsis, at some point in his -- in his treatment; and it’s already evidence early on in his situation that he’s going to be, and is very susceptible to pressure ulcers on his skin. His skin is going to be prone to breakdown from prolonged periods of sitting in the same position and that sort of thing. Fortunately, he has enough strength left in his upper body that he’s able to ameliorate that somewhat. He’s able actually, on his own, and after a lot of rehab, to roll over in his bed to different positions even though his lower extremities are not working at all. He’s able to -- he’s able to reposition himself in his chair using the strength of his arms, so that will cut down a little bit on that. But he had already developed a pressure ulcer or two by the time he got into rehab in this case. He – so, he’s got no use at all, it appears, of his lower extremities. He had a number of complications that had to be dealt with. He was in the hospital a long time. His overall prospects after rehabilitation -– and he was still in some rehabilitation as early as about February of this year, so I’m not totally sure he’s through all his rehab yet. He has to take rehabilitation courses to learn -– relearn how to do things. He’ll need his home made wheelchair accessible, cabinets, and thing[s] like that, all the things that a person normally does without thinking about, are going to be challenges for him just in daily household stuff. He will have to have modifications, most likely, of his kitchen, his bathroom, that sort of thing. And so, yeah, there’s quite a bit to work within this case to come up with an evaluation. Mr. Barrett opined that $6 million was a “very conservative” estimate of the damages suffered by Mr. Deyampert. Mr. Barrett also opined that allocating five percent of the $76,000 claim (i.e., $3,847.23) to past medical expenses was a reasonable and rational allocation to past medical expenses and reflected the ratio of the amount recovered to the actual value of Mr. Deyampert’s damages. Findings Regarding the Testimony Presented at the Final Hearing The undersigned finds that the testimony from Mr. Springfield and Mr. Barrett was compelling and persuasive. While attaching a value to the damages that a plaintiff could reasonably expect to receive from a jury is not an exact science, Mr. Springfield’s and Mr. Barrett’s decades of experience with litigating personal injury lawsuits make them very compelling witnesses regarding the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties such as Mr. Deyampert.5/ Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Mr. Deyampert proved by a preponderance of the evidence that $3,847.23 constitutes a fair and reasonable recovery for past medical expenses actually paid by Medicaid.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioners, Devyn Jeffries (Devyn) and Makayla Jeffries (Makayla), minors, by and through their parents and natural guardians, Theresa Jeffries and Christopher Jeffries, (collectively Petitioners), from settlement proceeds received by Petitioners from third parties.
Findings Of Fact On January 24, 2010, Devyn and Makayla were born via emergency C-Section at 27 weeks gestation. During the birthing process, both children suffered severe and permanent brain damage. As a result, Devyn suffers from Cerebral Palsy with spastic paralysis and cognitive developmental disabilities, and Makayla suffers from Cerebral Palsy, failure to thrive, feeding difficulties, and cognitive deficits. Devyn and Makayla’s medical care related to their birth injuries was paid by Medicaid in the following amounts: 1 Respondent’s Proposed Final Order was served by email and received by DOAH at 9:50 p.m. on October 21, 2020. It was, therefore, “filed” at 8:00 a.m. on October 22, 2020, in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.104(3). However, it is accepted and considered as though timely filed. In regard to Devyn, Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $108,068.58 in benefits and Medicaid, through a Medicaid Managed Care Plan known as Simply Healthcare, provided $25,087.08 in benefits. The sum of these Medicaid benefits, $133,155.66, constituted Devyn’s entire claim for past medical expenses. In regard to Makayla, Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $107,912.33 in benefits and Medicaid, through a Medicaid Managed Care Plan known as Simply Healthcare, provided $13,915.84 in benefits. The sum of these Medicaid benefits, $121,828.17, constituted Makayla’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Devyn and Makayla’s parents and natural guardians, Theresa and Christopher Jeffries, pursued a medical malpractice lawsuit against the medical providers responsible for Devyn and Makayla’s care (“Defendants”) to recover all of Devyn and Makayla’s damages, as well as their own individual damages associated with their children’s injuries. The medical malpractice action settled through a series of confidential settlements, which were approved by the court on February 21, 2020. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $108,068.58 Medicaid lien associated with Devyn’s cause of action and settlement of that action and a $107,912.33 Medicaid lien associated with Makayla’s cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, nor did it intervene or join in the medical malpractice action against the Defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of the settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $108,068.58 on behalf of Devyn and $107,912.33 on behalf of Makayla, all of which represents expenditures paid for past medical expenses. No portion of the $215,980.91 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Petitioners represented expenditures for future medical expenses. The $215,980.91 combined total in Medicaid funds paid towards the care of Devyn and Makayla by AHCA is the maximum amount that may be recovered by AHCA. In addition to the foregoing, Simply Health spent $39,002.92 on Petitioners’ medical expenses. Thus, the total amount of past medical expenses incurred by Petitioners is $254,983.83. The taxable costs incurred in securing the settlement totaled $109,701.62. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to the settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $108,068.58 Medicaid lien associated with Devyn and the full $107,912.33 Medicaid lien associated with Makayla. Petitioners have deposited the full Medicaid lien amounts in interest- bearing accounts 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). This case is somewhat unique in that it involves two petitioners, with separate injuries and separate Medicaid expenditures. However, the incident causing the injuries was singular, and resulted in a total settlement of all claims asserted by Devyn, Makayla, and their parents of $2,650,000. Therefore, for purpose of determining the appropriate amount of reimbursement for the Medicaid lien, it is reasonable and appropriate to aggregate the amounts paid in past medical expenses on behalf of Devyn and Makayla, and the economic and non-economic damages suffered by them. There was no suggestion that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement. The evidence firmly established that the total of Devyn’s and Makayla’s economic damages, consisting of lost future earnings, past medical expenses, and future medical expenses were, at the conservative low end, roughly $4,400,000 for Devyn and $2,400,000 for Makayla, for a sum of $6,800,000 in economic damages.2 Based on the experience of the testifying experts, and taking into account jury verdicts in comparable cases, Petitioners established that non- economic damages would reasonably be in the range of $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 for each of the children. Based on the forgoing, it is found that $15,000,000, as a full measure of Petitioners’ combined damages, is very conservative, and is a fair and appropriate figure against which to calculate any lesser portion of the total recovery that should be allocated as reimbursement for the Medicaid lien for past medical expenses. The $2,650,000 settlement is 17.67 percent of the $15,000,000 conservative value of the claim.3
The Issue The issue for the undersigned to determine is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Respondent), as reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2020),1 from settlement proceeds he received from third parties.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to chapter 409. On September 6, 2019, Mr. St. Surin was severely injured when his motorcycle struck a car. In this accident, Mr. St. Surin suffered severe and permanent injury to his back, neck, scapula, ribs, and knee. 1 All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification, unless otherwise indicated. Mr. St. Surin’s medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid. Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $28,482.15 in benefits. In addition, Medicaid, through a Medicaid managed care organization known as WellCare of Florida, paid $7,278.25 in benefits. The combined total amount of these benefits, $35,760.40, constitutes Mr. St. Surin’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. St. Surin pursued a personal injury claim against the owner and driver of the car who caused the accident (collectively the “Tortfeasors”) to recover all of his damages. The Tortfeasors’ insurance policy limits were $100,000, and the Tortfeasors had no other collectable assets. Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim was settled for the insurance policy limits of $100,000. During the pendency of Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim, AHCA was notified of the claim and AHCA asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $28,482.15 against Mr. St. Surin’s cause of action and the settlement proceeds. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910, or intervene or join in Mr. St. Surin’s action against the Tortfeasors. AHCA was notified of Mr. St. Surin’s settlement by letter. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Mr. St. Surin’s settlement. Application of the formula found in section 409.910(11)(f) would require payment to AHCA of the full $28,482.15 Medicaid lien given the $100,000 settlement. Petitioner has deposited the Medicaid lien amount in an interest- bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending a final administrative determination of AHCA’s rights. Petitioner presented testimony from Scott Kimmel, Esquire. Mr. Kimmel represented Mr. St. Surin in his personal injury claim against the Tortfeasors. Mr. Kimmel is a personal injury attorney and has practiced law for 30 years. Mr. Kimmel testified that he placed a conservative value of $1 million on Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim, but that the personal injury claim was settled for policy limits of $100,000 because the Tortfeasors had no other collectable assets. Using the pro rata allocation methodology, Mr. Kimmel testified that $3,576 of the $100,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses because the personal injury claim was settled for ten percent of its conservative value. Mr. Kimmel’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontradicted. AHCA did not challenge Mr. Kimmel’s valuation of the personal injury claim, or his use of the pro rata allocation methodology to determine the amount of settlement proceeds that should be allocated to past medical expenses, nor did AHCA offer any evidence from which the undersigned could arrive at a different valuation or allocation. There is no reasonable basis to reject Mr. Kimmel’s testimony, and it is accepted here in its entirety. The undersigned finds that the value of Mr. St. Surin’s personal injury claim is $1 million, and that $3,576.04 of the $100,000 settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or Agency), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Leigh Ann Holland (Petitioner), from a medical-malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third-party.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 19, 2010, Petitioner entered the North Florida Women’s Physicians, P.A. facility in Gainesville, Florida, for the birth of her second child. North Florida Women’s Physicians, P.A. (NFWP) operates in space leased from the North Florida Regional Medical Center (NFRMC). The two are separate entities. By all accounts, Petitioner was in good health at the time of her admission. The child, Colt, was delivered on November 19, 2010, by a nurse midwife employed by NFWP. After Colt was delivered, Petitioner was transferred to a room at the NFRMC, where she was attended to by staff of the NFRMC. However, decisions regarding her care remained the responsibility of the health care providers and staff of the NFWP. On November 21, 2010, Petitioner was slated for discharge. The NFRMC nurse attending was concerned that Petitioner was exhibiting low blood pressure, an elevated heart rate, and some shaking. Petitioner’s nurse midwife was off-work on November 21, 2010. The NFRMC nurse called the nurse midwife at her home. The substance of the call was disputed, with the NFRMC nurse asserting that she expressed her concern with Petitioner’s condition, and with the nurse midwife asserting that the NFRMC nurse failed to convey the potential seriousness of Petitioner’s condition.3/ Regardless, Petitioner was discharged on November 21, 2010. Over the course of the following two days, Petitioner’s health deteriorated. On November 23, 2010, Petitioner was taken to the hospital in Lake City. Her condition was such that she was sent by Life Flight to Shands Hospital (Shands) in Gainesville. While in route to Shands, Petitioner “coded,” meaning that, for practical purposes, she died. She was revived by the Life Flight medical crew. As a result of the efforts to revive her, drugs were administered that had the effect of drawing blood away from her extremities and toward her core organs. Petitioner’s fingers and toes were affected by blood loss. They mostly recovered, except for her right big toe, which later had to be partially amputated. Petitioner has since experienced some difficulty in balance and walking normally. Upon arrival at Shands, Petitioner was admitted with post-partum endometritis which had developed into a widespread sepsis infection. She spent the next three months in the hospital, and underwent five surgeries. She had 2/3 of her colon removed and underwent two ileostomies. She bears scars that extend from sternum to pelvis. While in the hospital, her body temporarily swelled to twice its normal size, leaving her with scars and stretch marks on her torso and legs. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $148,554.69. Because Petitioner’s ability to process food and absorb nutrients is so dramatically compromised, she must use the restroom 9 to 15 times per day, occasionally with no advance warning which can lead to accidents. Thus, both her social life and her ability to get and hold employment are severely limited. Petitioner has little stamina or endurance, limiting her ability to play and keep-up with her six-year-old son. Her sex life with her husband is strained, due both to issues of physical comfort and body image. Finally, Petitioner can have no more children, a fact rendered more tragic by Colt’s unexpected death at the age of three months, scarcely a week after Petitioner’s release from the hospital. As a result of the foregoing, Petitioner suffered economic and non-economic damages. Therefore, Petitioner filed a lawsuit in Alachua County seeking recovery of past and future economic and non-economic damages. Petitioner’s husband also suffered damages, and was named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Named as defendants to the lawsuit were NFWP and NFRMC. Medicaid is to be reimbursed for medical assistance provided if resources of a liable third party become available. Thus, Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $148,554.69 against any proceeds received from a third party. NFWP was under-insured, which compelled Petitioner to settle with NFWP for its policy limits of $100,000. As a result, NFWP was removed as a party to the ongoing lawsuit. Of the NFWP settlement proceeds, $18,750.00 was paid to Respondent in partial satisfaction of its Medicaid lien, leaving a remaining lien of $129,804.69. On July 10, 2013, and November 15, 2013, Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Smith, provided NFRMC’s counsel, Mr. Schwann, with his assessment of the damages that might reasonably be awarded by a jury. Mr. Smith testified convincingly that a jury would have returned a verdict for non-economic damages well in excess of $1.5 million. However, in calculating the total damages, he conservatively applied the statutory cap on non-economic damages of $1.5 million that would have been allowed by the judgment. With the application of the capped amount, the total damages -- i.e., the “value” of the case -- came to $3.1 million. That figure was calculated by the application of the following: Past lost wages - $61,000 Future loss of earning capacity - between $360,000 and $720,000 Past medical expenses - $148,982.904/ Future medical expenses - $682,331.99 Past and future non-economic damages - $1,500,000 (capped) The elements of damages are those that appear on a standard jury form. The numbers used in assessing Petitioner’s economic damages were developed and provided by Mr. Roberts. The evidence in this case was convincing that the calculation of economic damages reflected a fair, reasonable, and accurate assessment of those damages. Mr. Smith was confident that the damages could be proven to a jury, a belief that is well-founded and supported by clear and convincing evidence. However, the existence of a Fabre defendant5/ led to doubt on the part of Petitioner as to the amount of proven damages that would be awarded in a final judgment. Counsel for NFRMC, Mr. Schwann, performed his own evaluation of damages prior to the mediation between the parties. Mr. Schwann agreed that a jury verdict could have exceeded $3 million. Although he believed the strengths of the NFRMC’s case to be significant, he had concerns as to “what the worst day would have looked like,” especially given the wild unpredictability of juries. In Mr. Schwann’s opinion, the NFRMC nurse, Ms. Summers, was a credible, competent and believable witness. However, the nurse midwife presented with a reasonably nice appearance as well. Thus, there was little to tip the balance of believability far in either direction, leaving it to the jury to sort out. Mr. Schwann understood Petitioner’s personal appeal, and the significant personal and intangible damages suffered by Petitioner, that could lead a jury to award a large verdict. He also credibly testified that juries were consistent in awarding economic damages “to the penny.” The case was submitted to mediation, at which the parties established a framework for a settlement. Given the uncertainty of obtaining a verdict for the full amount of the damages due to the Fabre defendant, NFWP, the parties agreed that the most likely scenarios would warrant a settlement with NFRMC for some fraction of the total damages. After mediation, Petitioner ultimately accepted a settlement offer of $700,000 from NFRMC, which reflected, after rounding, 22.5% percent of the total value of the case as estimated by Mr. Smith. Given the facts of this case, the figure agreed upon was supported by the competent professional judgment of the trial attorneys in the interests of their clients. There is no evidence that the monetary figure agreed upon by the parties represented anything other than a reasonable settlement, taking into account all of the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. There was no evidence of any manipulation or collusion by the parties to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to the payment of costs expended for Petitioner’s medical care. On December 6, 2013, Petitioner and NFRMC executed a Release of Claims which differentiated and allocated the $700,000 total recovery in accordance with the categories identified in Mr. Smith’s earlier letters. As a differentiated settlement, the settlement proceeds were specifically identified and allocated, with each element of the total recovery being assigned an equal and equitable percentage of the recovery. The parties knew of the Medicaid lien, and of the formula for recovery set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). They understood that if the damages were undifferentiated, the rote formula might apply. However, since the Medicaid lien applied only to medical expenses, the parties took pains to ensure a fair allocation as to each element of the damages, including that element reflecting the funds spent by Medicaid. The differentiated settlement proceeds, after rounding, were allocated as follows: Past lost wages - $15,000 Future loss of earning capacity - $160,000 Past medical expenses - $35,000 Future medical expenses - $150,000 Past and future non-economic damages - $340,000 The evidence was clear and convincing that all elements of the damages were subject to the same calculation and percentage of allocation, were fact-based and fair, and were subject to no manipulation to increase or decrease any element. The full amount of the Medicaid lien (prior to the partial payment from the NFWP described herein) was accounted for and allocated as “past medical expenses” in the stipulated Release of All Claims that was binding on all parties. Respondent was not a party to the lawsuit or the settlement. Petitioner did not invite Respondent to participate in litigation of the claim or in settlement negotiations, and no one represented Respondent’s interests in the negotiations. Except for the amount recovered from the settlement with NFWP, Respondent has not otherwise executed a release of the lien. Respondent correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee from the $700,000.00 recovery leaves a sum of $525,000.00, half of which is $262,500.00. That figure establishes the maximum amount that could be reimbursed from the third-party recovery in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. Thus, application of the formula allows for sufficient funds to satisfy the unsatisfied Medicaid lien amount of $129,804.69. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $3.1 million total value of the claim was a reasonable and realistic value. Furthermore, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case, and on a competent and professional assessment of the likelihood that Petitioner would have prevailed on the claims at trial and the amount she reasonably could have expected to receive on her claim if successful, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constitutes a fair, just, and reasoned differentiated settlement for each of the listed elements, including that attributable to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
The Issue The issue in this case is the amount of money to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Larry J. Griffis, from a personal injury claim settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Griffis was severely injured in an accident occurring on April 29, 2012. The accident occurred generally as follows: Griffis owned and operated a large truck with a long aluminum dump trailer attached. He hauled hazardous waste and other materials for a living. At the end of each job, Griffis would raise the dump trailer for the purpose of cleaning out any residual material. On the date of the accident, Griffis did not clean his trailer in the usual because of some obstruction on that date. Instead, he drove out into a field next to his house to clean the trailer. When Griffis raised the trailer to clean it, he failed to notice electrical lines just above his trailer. He raised the trailer into the lines, resulting in an extremely high voltage of electricity running through his body. As a result of the accident, Griffis was transported to the burn unit at Shands hospital in Gainesville for treatment of his extensive injuries. He had over 50 medical procedures while at Shands, including debridement, skin grafts, tracheostomies, multiple chest tubes, etc. He had 19 different complications while in the hospital, including infections and kidney failure. Over 30 percent of his body surface area was burned; 23 percent of those burns were third degree. While undergoing treatment, Shands gave him only a 22 percent chance of surviving. Griffis remained in the hospital for three and one half months. The medical bills for Griffis’ treatment totaled Griffis cost $1,363,285.65. Medicaid paid $48,640.57 of that total amount. The Veterans Administration (VA) paid $275,911.87. Shands was eventually paid $324,552.44 of its charges and wrote off over $1 million. Griffis filed a lawsuit against Suwannee Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“Suwannee”), seeking payment of economic and non-economic damages related to Suwannee’s alleged liability for the accident. After negotiations and mediation, a settlement was reached whereby Griffis was to receive the sum of $500,000 from Suwannee in full settlement of all his claims. After the settlement was reached between Griffis and Suwannee, the Agency attempted to enforce its lien, seeking repayment of the entire amount it had paid. Griffis, believing that less than the lien amount was actually owed, filed a Motion for Order Apportioning Damages as part of his pending lawsuit against Suwannee. The purpose of the motion was not to have the circuit court judge determine the amount of the Agency’s lien. The motion was filed to obtain an Order that would apportion the settlement among the lawful elements of damages to which Griffis was entitled. A hearing on the motion was set for April 14, 2015, before Circuit Court Judge Andrew J. Decker, III. The Agency was served a copy of the motion and the notice of hearing. The Agency filed an objection to the motion, seeking to relieve the circuit court of jurisdiction in favor of the Division of Administrative Hearings. See § 409.910 (17)(b), Fla. Stat. Griffis replied to the Agency’s objection, stating that “the purpose of the Motion is to differentiate or allocate the settlement among Mr. Griffis’ different elements of damages [rather than] asking this Court to resolve a Medicaid lien dispute.” At the Circuit Court hearing on Griffis’ motion, the Agency made an appearance and, in fact, cross-examined the expert witness who testified. The only testimony provided at that hearing was from retired District Court of Appeal Judge Edwin B. Browning, Jr. Judge Browning provided expert testimony as to the value of Griffis’ claim, which he set at $6 million. Mr. Smith also provided some argument in support of Griffis’ claim, but as an attorney, rather than a sworn witness. Judge Decker took the $6 million figure, plus economic damages in the sum of $211,518, plus past medical expenses of $324,552.44 for a total of $6,536,070.44. That was then divided into the $500,000 settlement figure amount. That resulted in a factor of 7.649 percent, which, applied to the “value of the case” amount, resulted in a figure of $458,919.49. Applying the factor to economic damages resulted in an amount of $16,179.01. The past medical expenses amount, once factored, resulted in a figure of $24,825.01.1/ After hearing the evidence presented at his motion hearing, Judge Decker entered an Order dated April 21, 2015, establishing the past medical expenses amount, i.e., the Agency’s lien, at $24,901.50. The Order did not address future medical expenses because they were not sought by Petitioner. Inasmuch as his future medical costs would be paid by VA, his attorneys did not add potential medical expenses to the claim.2/ A copy of Judge Decker’s Order was received into evidence in the instant proceeding (although, pursuant to section 90.202, Florida Statutes, it could have been officially recognized by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge). The Order, along with Griffis’ other exhibits and Mr. Smith’s testimony, constituted the evidence in this matter.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes, from settlement proceeds he received from a third party.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on testimony, exhibits accepted into evidence, and admitted facts stated in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation. Facts Concerning Underlying Personal Injury Matter and Giving Rise to Medicaid Lien On January 6, 2012, Arnie Solheim, a then 15-year-old boy, ran away from his group home and was struck by a vehicle while walking up an interstate ramp. Mr. Solheim had a history of running away from his group home residence. As a result of the incident, Mr. Solheim suffered permanent and severe injuries including brain damage, blindness in one eye, and paralysis. Due to his injuries, Mr. Solheim will require 24 hours-a-day supervision for the remainder of his life. Mr. Solheim’s medical care related to the injury was paid by Medicaid, and Medicaid through AHCA provided $187,302.46 in benefits. Accordingly, $187,302.46 constituted Mr. Solheim’s full claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Solheim’s mother, Rosepatrice Solheim, was appointed Mr. Solheim’s Plenary Guardian. Rosepatrice Solheim, as Mr. Solheim’s Guardian, filed a personal injury action against the parties allegedly liable for Mr. Solheim’s injuries (“Defendants”) to recover all of Mr. Solheim’s damages, as well as her and her husband’s individual damages associated with their son’s injuries. Mr. Solheim’s personal injury action was settled through a series of confidential settlements in a lump-sum unallocated amount. This settlement was approved by the circuit court. During the pendency of Mr. Solheim’s personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a Medicaid lien of $187,302.46 against Mr. Solheim’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 Mr. Solheim’s action against the Defendants. By letter dated October 9, 2019, AHCA was notified of Mr. Solheim’s settlement. To date, AHCA has not filed a motion to set-aside, void, or otherwise dispute Mr. Solheim’s settlement. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $187,302.46 on behalf of Mr. Solheim, all of which represents expenditures paid for Mr. Solheim’s past medical expenses. Mr. Solheim’s taxable costs incurred in securing the settlement totaled $76,229.38. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Mr. Solheim’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $187,302.46 Medicaid lien. Expert Testimony Petitioner called two experts to testify on his behalf pertaining to valuation of Petitioner’s damages, Richard Filson and Karen Gievers. Mr. Filson, an attorney practicing law at Filson and Fenge law firm in Sarasota, Florida, has been practicing law for 36 years. He represented Mr. Solheim in the underlying case. In addition to Petitioner’s case, he has represented clients in personal injury matters representing children and childrens’ rights cases, including cases involving brain injury and paralysis. Mr. Filson evaluated Petitioner’s case and opined that $10 million was a conservative valuation of the case. The valuation of the case encompasses past medical expenses, future medical expenses, economic damages, and pain and suffering. Mr. Filson pursued the action against three defendants. He testified that there would be no admission of liability. The group home was alleged to have failed to appropriately evaluate the risk and placement of Mr. Solheim, including placing Mr. Solheim in a locked unit to maintain his safety. However, there were issues with recovering from the facility. There was a dispute regarding the director’s degree of responsibility for Mr. Solheim’s elopement. As a result, Mr. Filson opined that Petitioner settled the case for a lower amount because of liability and collectability issues with the group home. Mr. Filson opined that Mr. Solheim’s $1,150,00.00 settlement represented 11.5 percent of the full $10 million value of his claim, including past medical expenses. He relied upon the comprehensive plan and the extent of Mr. Solheim’s catastrophic injuries to assess the value of the case. Mr. Filson opined that the allocation formula is 11.5 percent. The past medical expenses totaled $187,302.46. That figure multiplied by 11.5 percent would result in recovery of $21,539.78 of the settlement proceeds allocated to past medical expenses. Karen Gievers also testified as an expert regarding valuation of Mr. Solheim’s claim. Ms. Gievers, a licensed attorney for 42 years and a former circuit court judge, focuses her practice on civil litigation. In her practice as an attorney, she has handled personal injury cases involving catastrophic injuries similar to Mr. Solheim’s injuries. Like Mr. Filson, she has also represented children in her practice. Ms. Gievers opined that the value of Mr. Solheim’s case was conservatively estimated at $10 million. She opined that Mr. Solheim’s settlement amount of $1,150,000.00 resulted in a recovery of 11.5 percent of the full value of his claim. She opined that applying the 11.5 percent to each damage category is the appropriate way to allocate the amount of damages across all categories. Thus, applying the allocation formula of 11.5 percent to the $187,302.46 claim for past medical expenses would be $21,539.78. Ms. Gievers looked at Mr. Solheim’s economic and noneconomic damages in her valuation of the case. She reviewed the comprehensive care plan and noted that all costs were not included, which would add to the value of the case being greater than Mr. Solheim’s actual recovery. Petitioner asserted that the $1,150,000.00 settlement is far less than the actual value of Petitioner’s injuries and does not adequately compensate Mr. Solheim for his full value of damages. Therefore, a lesser portion of the settlement should be allocated to reimburse AHCA, instead of the full amount of the lien. Ultimate Findings of Fact Mr. Filson and Ms. Gievers credibly opined that a ratio should be applied based on the full value of Petitioner’s damages, $10,000,000.00, compared to the amount that Petitioner actually recovered, $1,150,000.00. Based on this formula, Petitioner’s settlement represents an 11.5 percent recovery of Petitioner’s full value of damages. Similarly, the AHCA lien should be reduced and the amount of reimbursement to AHCA should be 11.5 percent of the Medicaid lien. Therefore, $21,539.78 is the portion of the third- party settlement that represents the amount AHCA should recover for its payments for Mr. Solheim’s past medical care. The expert witnesses’ testimony was supported by their extensive experience in valuing damages and their knowledge of Mr. Solheim’s injuries. AHCA, on the other hand, did not offer any witnesses or documentary evidence to question the credentials or opinions of either Mr. Filson or Ms. Gievers. AHCA did not offer testimony or documentary evidence to rebut the testimony of Mr. Filson or Ms. Gievers as to valuation or the reduction ratio. AHCA did not offer alternative opinions on the damage valuation method suggested by either Mr. Filson or Ms. Gievers. Based on the record, the testimony of Petitioner's two experts regarding the total value of damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Based on the evidence in the record, the undersigned finds that, Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a lesser portion of Mr. Solheim’s settlement should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount AHCA calculated. Accordingly, AHCA is entitled to recover $21,539.78 from Petitioner’s recovery of $1,150,000.00 to satisfy the Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issues for determination are, first, whether a lesser portion of Petitioner’s total recovery from a third-party tortfeasor should be designated as recovered medical expenses than the share presumed by statute; if so, then the amount of Petitioner’s recovery to which Respondent’s Medicaid lien may attach must be determined.
Findings Of Fact On June 17, 2018, Cruz, then age 28, went boating in Biscayne Bay, near Elliott Key. The boat belonged to Cruz’s cousin, Victor Fonseca (“Fonseca”), who operated the vessel at all relevant times. Others were with them. At some point during this outing, Fonseca’s boat became stuck on a sandbar. Cruz, who was in the water, got close to the boat’s engines, apparently intending to attempt to free the boat. As he did so, Fonseca, who knew or should have known of Cruz’s whereabouts, engaged the engines. Cruz’s clothes became caught in a moving propeller, which dragged him in. The result, predictably, was catastrophic, as the fast-spinning propeller chopped into Cruz’s lower body, causing severe injuries. The medical records describe Cruz’s injuries as including extensive trauma to all muscles of the right thigh and left gluteal muscles, multiple significant fractures of bones in the right leg, a right thigh degloving injury, and a severe rectal injury, which required the surgical removal of his anal sphincter. Post injury, Cruz developed RLE compartment syndrome and underwent a fasciotomy. He suffered an acute pulmonary embolism for which an IVC filter was placed. He underwent multiple surgical debridements and closure procedures. An end-colostomy was also laced. He underwent eternal fixation of his femur fracture. Cruz remained in the hospital for more than one year. The foregoing clinical description is amplified by emergency room photographs, which vividly depict the bodily destruction that the propeller caused. The words “gruesome” and “horrific,” or others to that effect, come to mind when viewing these pictures. It is undisputed that Cruz’s devastating injuries are disfiguring, permanently disabling, and chronically painful. As a result of this accident, Cruz will require medical treatment for the rest of his life. He must use a wheelchair or walker to move about and has been fitted with orthotic devices. Cruz is unable to care for himself and depends upon others to assist him in all activities of daily living. Before his injury, Cruz was employed as a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) technician. He will not be able to resume working in this field, and, indeed, Cruz is unlikely ever to work again. As mentioned, Cruz experiences chronic pain from his injuries, and he is unable to sit normally for extended periods without discomfort, due to the absence of gluteal muscles. His right thigh now consists, essentially, of skin- wrapped bone, because the muscle and connective tissue are gone. Not surprisingly, Cruz has suffered, and continues to suffer, adverse emotional effects, including depression. Cruz’s family suffers as well. He and his wife have two children, twins, who were three years old at the time of the accident. As a husband and father of young children, Cruz is no longer able to provide the same level of support and companionship to his family as before becoming disabled. Cruz brought a personal injury lawsuit against Fonseca, the person whose negligence seems likely to have been the sole proximate cause of the accident. (There is no evidence of, nor any reason to infer, the involvement of a defective product or joint tortfeasor. Likewise, there is no persuasive evidence that Cruz’s own negligence contributed to causing the accident.) Unfortunately for Cruz, Fonseca was practically judgment proof. He had no assets upon which to levy and could discharge any judgment in bankruptcy. Fonseca’s homeowner’s policy, having limits of $300,000, was woefully inadequate to satisfy Cruz’s damages, and the insurer initially denied coverage and refused to pay even this relatively scanty sum (as compared to Cruz’s enormous loss) because Fonseca, allegedly, had failed properly to declare his ownership of the boat. Eventually, the insurer tendered its policy limits pursuant to a confidential and complete settlement of Cruz’s claims and the derivative claims of his wife and children for loss of consortium, which the parties entered into on October 17, 2019. Of the $300,000 in insurance proceeds, which were not differentiated between claims or items of damages, the sum of $220,210.98 (“Gross Recovery”) was allocated, by Cruz’s attorney, to the settlement of Cruz’s cause(s) of action. The balance was allocated to the derivative claims of Cruz’s wife and children. Cruz’s Gross Recovery will be further reduced by attorney’s fees in the amount of $44,934.20 and costs totaling $2,842.70, leaving him a Net Recovery of $172,434.08. As mentioned, the recovery was an undifferentiated lump sum. It would be reasonable to infer that the defendant (and his carrier) had little or no interest in negotiating the manner of the plaintiffs’ distribution, between themselves, of the $300,000 settlement. There is no evidence of such bargaining, in any event. Consequently, an allocation of the recovery needed to be made, on the plaintiffs’ side, between the four injured parties (Cruz, his wife, and two children), each of whom had discrete losses for which Fonseca was liable. This is how the Gross Recovery wound up being exactly equal to the amount of medical assistance expenditures made on Cruz’s behalf by Medicaid. Cruz’s attorney testified that he had divided the $300,000 this way to give Cruz’s family members some recovery, albeit a small one, on their consortium claims. Since any allocation of the very limited, and arbitrarily capped, recovery of $300,000 between Cruz, on the one hand, and his family members, on the other, would necessarily be, at best, only very loosely related to the intrinsic value of each injured person’s individual claims; and because the Agency presented no evidence supporting an allocation that would have been as or more reasonable, the undersigned finds, based on the uncontested testimony of Cruz’s attorney, that setting aside approximately three-quarters of the insurance proceeds for the Gross Recovery, to match the Medicaid payments, was a reasonable and rational decision under the circumstances. The Agency was properly notified of Cruz’s personal injury action, and it informed the parties that medical assistance expenditures totaling $220,210.98 had been paid by Medicaid on Cruz’s behalf. The Agency asserted a lien for the reduced amount of $111,078.65 against Cruz’s settlement proceeds, pursuant to the formula found in section 409.910(11)(f). In their Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated to certain facts “which are admitted and require no proof at hearing,” including that the “application of the formula in [section] 409.910(11)(f) requires Mr. Cruz to pay back Medicaid $111,078.65 on its $220,210.98 lien … .” Given that Cruz’s litigation costs totaled $2,842.70, it is mathematically indisputable, based on the section 409.910(11)(f) equation, that the parties used the sum of $300,000 as Cruz’s gross settlement recovery.1 Therefore, although the evidence shows that Cruz’s Gross Recovery was, in fact, $220,210.98, his gross “Stipulated Recovery” is $300,000.2 The Medicaid payments for Cruz’s immediate, post-injury care comprise the lion’s share of his past medical expenses, there being, in addition, only the negligible sum of approximately $2,000, which was paid to the University of Miami Medical Group (“UMMG”). Thus, it is reasonable to treat the Medicaid payments of $220,210.98 as Cruz’s past medical expense damages, as Cruz has done without the Agency’s objection, for simplicity’s sake.3 There is no dispute that, under the anti-lien provision in the federal 1 [(300,000 × 0.75) - 2,842.70)] ÷ 2 = 111,078.65. 2 Had the Gross Recovery, rather than the Stipulated Recovery, been used as the value of the settlement for purposes of computing the default allocation under section 409.910(11)(f), the Agency’s statutory lien would have been reduced further, to $81,157.77. 3 Any difference, mathematically, in the lien amount which would result from adding in the UMMG payment is de minimus, in any event. Medicaid statute, the Agency’s lien attaches only to the portion of Cruz’s recovery attributable to past medical expenses. The ultimate question presented is whether the Agency’s default distribution, in the stipulated amount of $111,078.65, reflects “the portion of the total recovery which should be allocated”4 to Cruz’s recovery of past medical damages, or whether a lesser sum, from the total settlement, “should be allocated” to the recovery of past medical damages. It is Cruz’s burden to prove that the statutory allocation is greater than the amount which “should be” distributed to the Agency, and that the Agency’s default lien amount “should be” adjusted to better reflect the portion of his total recovery attributable to past medical expenses. For purposes of determining the portion of the “total recovery” that “should be allocated” to past medical expense damages, the undersigned will use the Stipulated Recovery as the value of the “total recovery,” even though that figure is greater than Cruz’s actual Gross Recovery, because the parties stipulated to a “total recovery” value of $300,000. To meet his burden, Cruz presented evidence at hearing, as is now typically done in cases such as this, with the goal of establishing the “true value” of his damages. Usually, and again as here, this evidence comes in the form of opinion testimony, from a trial attorney who specializes in personal injury law and represents plaintiffs in negligence actions. Cruz called two experienced plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers, one of whom is also a medical doctor, to give opinions on the valuation of his damages. The undersigned finds their opinions in this regard to be credible and persuasive. Moreover, the Agency did not offer any evidence to challenge Cruz’s valuation; no expert testimony was given, for example, by an attorney specializing in personal injury defense, which might have provided a different perspective on the value of Cruz’s case. Having no evidential basis for discounting or 4 See § 409.910(17)(b), Fla. Stat. disregarding the opinions of Cruz’s expert witnesses, the undersigned bases the findings on valuation that follow upon their unchallenged testimony. Cruz is requesting—and his expert witnesses opined that—the Medicaid lien should be adjusted according to a method that will be referred to herein as a “proportional reduction.” A proportional reduction adjusts the lien so that the Agency’s recovery is discounted in the same measure as the plaintiff’s recovery. In other words, if the plaintiff recovered 25% of the “true value” of his damages, then, under a proportional reduction, the Medicaid lien is adjusted so that the Agency recovers 25% of the medical assistance expenditures. The mathematical operation behind a basic proportional reduction is simple and requires no expertise. Using “r” to signify the plaintiff’s recovery; “v” to represent the “value” of his damages; “m” for medical assistance expenditures; and “x” as the variable for the adjusted lien amount, the equation is: (r ÷ v) × m = x. In these cases, the only unknown number (usually) is v,” i.e., the “value” of the plaintiff’s total damages. “True value,” sometimes also called “full value” or “total value,” is an elusive concept, given that the true value of damages which have not been liquidated by a judgment is not, and cannot be, known in a case that settles before the entry of a judgment. For purposes of this discussion, the undersigned will hereafter use the term “true value” to mean liquidated damages, i.e., damages reduced to judgment. To be clear, this is not how Cruz’s expert witnesses used the term. They used the term to refer to the amount that, had the personal injury case been tried to conclusion, Cruz’s attorneys would have “boarded” for the jury at trial and argued, in closing, that the jury should award the plaintiff for his total damages. For purposes of this discussion, the undersigned will use the term “plaintiff’s best-case value,” or “PBCv” for short, instead of “true value,” to refer to the amount that the plaintiff would have requested at trial in closing argument. Naturally, where there is a PBCv, there is also a “defendant’s best- case value,” or “DBCv.” In a jury trial, DBCv might well be $0, if the defendant is contesting liability, and it will nearly always be, in any event, less than PBCv. As mentioned above, the Agency chose not to present expert witness testimony as to DBCv, or any value. There are other constructs that might be considered in regard to value, such as, for example, the “fair market value” of the plaintiff’s case, or “MKTv” for short. As the undersigned will use the term herein, MKTv means the theoretical amount upon which the plaintiff and a solvent defendant, negotiating at arm’s length and without the constraint of an arbitrary financial cap on the defendant’s ability to pay, such as insurance policy limits or sovereign immunity, would agree to settle the case. MKTv reflects the strengths and weakness of the plaintiff’s case, both legal and factual, the strengths and weaknesses of the defendant’s case, both legal and factual, and all of the other considerations and motives driving the parties to reach a settlement agreement, except the defendant’s ability to pay. Generally speaking, MKTv should be a number greater than DBCv and less than PBCv. A plaintiff who has settled for MKTv effectively has made a full recovery. As the undersigned is using the term, MKTv is similar, but not identical, to the term “settlement value” as described in Mojica v. State, Agency for Health Care Administration, 285 So. 3d 393, 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), which is yet another value construct. “Settlement value,” in the Mojica sense, which is how the undersigned will use the term herein, takes into account, among other factors, the “defendant’s ability to pay.” Id. Because a personal injury plaintiff does not have the option of negotiating with someone other than the potentially liable defendant to get a better deal, however, the “defendant’s ability to pay” does not seem like an appropriate factor to consider in establishing the MKTv of the plaintiff’s case. Put differently, while a settlement for MKTv can fairly be considered a full recovery, a settlement for “settlement value” would arguably not be a full recovery, if the plaintiff were required to accept a settlement discount attributable, in part, to the defendant’s ability to pay. This distinction makes no difference in this case, because Cruz did not recover even the “settlement value” of his case; he had no alternative but to accept the defendant’s limited insurance coverage as payment in full. In other words, in Cruz’s situation, the defendant’s ability to pay was not merely a factor in determining settlement value, it was the only factor. Cruz’s recovery, thus, was arbitrarily capped at $300,000, the coverage limit of the defendant’s only available insurance policy. For purposes of this discussion, the undersigned will refer to a settlement such as Cruz’s as an “arbitrary discount settlement.” An arbitrary discount settlement is “arbitrary” in the sense that the amount of the settlement bears no relationship to MKTv; the plaintiff is simply forced to accept what is, for him, a random haircut owing to a hard limit on the defendant’s ability to pay, which has nothing to do with the plaintiff’s damages or the defendant’s liability therefor.5 The uncontested and unimpeached expert testimony in this case establishes, by any standard of proof, that Cruz’s PBCv is no less than $6 million, which is the conservative figure presented by Cruz’s witnesses. The undersigned, frankly, would not have hesitated to find that Cruz’s noneconomic damages for past and future pain and suffering, alone, should be valued at $6 million, at a minimum, given the severity of the bodily destruction involved here. With respect to the economic damages of lost earning capacity and future medical expenses, Cruz’s evidence persuasively established significant losses, albeit without exactitude. Before his accident, Cruz had been earning 5 The amount of an arbitrary discount settlement should ordinarily be less than the settlement value of the plaintiff’s case, because the defendant’s limited ability to pay is the only relevant factor in determining the amount of an arbitrary discount settlement, whereas settlement value takes other factors into account, including but not limited to the defendant’s ability to pay. approximately $20 per hour as an HVAC technician. Assuming he were able to work full time at the same rate, without a raise, for the next 35 years, his wages would total $1.4 million, more or less. A sophisticated economic analysis would take into account wage growth over time, and it would discount future earnings to present value. As Cruz’s lawyers testified at hearing, however, money was simply not available, given Fonseca’s extremely limited insurance for Cruz’s substantial losses, to justify the expense of hiring an economist to perform such an analysis. The undersigned finds that the evidence is sufficient to prove that the present value of Cruz’s lost wages is at least $1 million, conservatively calculated, in view of the relatively young age (28) at which this previously fit working man became permanently disabled. Specificity in this regard is unnecessary in any event, because Cruz’s pain and suffering damages are easily $6 million. Similarly, Cruz’s evidence proves that he will incur future medical expenses “over six figures.” There is no genuine dispute about this, the Agency having offered no evidence to the contrary. It is undisputed that Cruz will require ongoing medical care, for the rest of his life, to treat complications arising from his severe injuries. To take just one example, the evidence shows that Cruz has yet to undergo a final surgical repair of his rectum. To be sure, in an ideal case, Cruz would have presented a life care plan developed by a suitable expert, cataloguing his future medical needs and estimated expenses, aggregated to a specific dollar amount, reduced to present value, and calculated to a reasonable degree of economic certainty. Unfortunately, paying such an expert for this kind of analysis would further have reduced Cruz’s already limited Net Recovery. The undersigned cannot fault Cruz’s attorneys for electing to forego such an expense, especially since, again, specificity in regard to future medical damages is unnecessary because Cruz’s noneconomic losses, without more, meet or exceed $6 million. Once Cruz made a prima facie showing of PBCv by adducing competent substantial evidence thereof, the Agency, if it wanted to prove that the PBCv in question, $6 million, is an inflated figure, needed to adduce some evidence that would have given the fact-finder an evidentiary basis for discounting or rejecting this value.6 Here, the Agency elected not to present evidence of value, but instead it chose to argue that Cruz has failed to prove that the particular medical-expense allocation he advocates should be made, and that, as a result, the default, statutory allocation should be made. As far as the evidence goes, therefore, the undersigned has no reasonable basis for rejecting the value of $6 million that Cruz’s witnesses testified was a conservative appraisal of Cruz’s total damages. Fonseca’s negligence was likely the sole proximate cause of the accident; there are, accordingly, no obvious weaknesses in Cruz’s case from the standpoint of establishing liability. Cruz testified ably in this proceeding and likely would have proved an excellent witness in the personal injury action, had it gone to trial. The ghastly nature of Cruz’s injuries, and Fonseca’s rather obvious liability for those injuries, likely would have resulted in a substantial plaintiff’s verdict, likely not less than $6 million, as the evidence persuasively shows. The undersigned finds, based on the unrebutted and unimpeached expert testimony adduced, that a proportional reduction methodology identifies the “portion of the total recovery which should be allocated” in this 6 To be clear, the undersigned is not shifting the burden of proof to the Agency. A petitioner, however, does not have the initial burden of putting on the personal injury defense case, in order to prove DBCv, nor does the petitioner have the initial burden of establishing matters, such as comparative negligence, which the defense might have relied upon in an arms-length negotiation to settle the case for value. Defense arguments are matters that the Agency may address in its case, if it wants to show that PBCv is inflated. But the Agency is not required to put on any such evidence. The Agency is free to present no evidence, rely solely on cross- examination of the petitioner’s witnesses to undermine the testimony elicited by the petitioner on direct, and then argue that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof—as the Agency has done in this case. If the Agency takes this approach, however, it loses the opportunity affirmatively to prove that PBCv is too high, and it risks a finding that the unrebutted evidence of PBCv is a fair reflection of value. If, however, the Agency presents evidence of DBCv, MKTv, settlement value, or some alternative value, then the petitioner must rebut the evidence and try to overcome it, for the petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion with regard to establishing the value of the petitioner’s damages. case as past medical expense damages. The undersigned considers Cruz’s unchallenged proof of PBCv sufficient to establish the probable “value” of his case, i.e., v in the proportional reduction formula, where, as here, such evidence, in addition to being unchallenged and unimpeached, is otherwise persuasive to the fact-finder. Although the use of a proportional reduction to determine the portion of the total recovery that “should be allocated” to past medical expenses is justified by the competent substantial evidence presented in this case, it is found that Cruz has advocated using an incorrect value in the proportional reduction formula. Cruz would apply the following values to the variables in the equation: r = $300,000; v = $6 million; and m = $111,078.65. Using these numbers results in a value of $5,553.93 for x, which is the amount of his recovery Cruz would allocate to past medical expense damages and thereby expose to the Medicaid lien. It is incorrect, however, to use the sum of $111,078.65 as the value for m, as Cruz urges. This figure is the amount produced by the statutory formula, which reduces the Agency’s recovery of actual Medicaid expenditures, by default. To use this figure in the proportional reduction formula would impose a double reduction on the Agency—an obvious injustice. The correct number for m is $220,210.98, the amount that Medicaid actually expended on Cruz’s behalf, without reduction. The undersigned finds, based on the evidence presented, including the stipulation as to Cruz’s total settlement recovery, that the correct values for the variables in the proportional reduction equation are: r = $300,000; v = $6 million; and m = $220,210.98. Using these numbers, the value of x is $11,010.55—or, 5% of $220,210.98.7 7 The ratio of 300,000 to 6,000,000 is 0.05. Because the unchallenged expert testimony persuasively shows that a proportional reduction is the appropriate method of adjusting the lien in this case; and because Cruz’s mistaken use of $111,078.65 as the value of m does not undermine the validity of the methodology, which is merely the mathematical expression of an analytical framework whose existence and underlying logic are independent of any specific values for r, v, m, and x, the undersigned does not believe that he must “throw out the baby with the bathwater” and make no lien adjustment simply because Cruz used the wrong value for m. This mistake may easily be corrected based on the evidence of record; and, ordinarily, evidence-based adjustments of a factual nature would be within the province of the fact-finder to make.8 The undersigned determines as a matter of ultimate fact, therefore, that the portion of the Stipulated Recovery that “should be allocated” to past medical expense damages is $11,010.55.
The Issue The matter concerns the amount of the money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Mark Crain, a Medicaid recipient, following a settlement recovered from a third party.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding determines the amount the Agency should be paid to satisfy a Medicaid lien following Petitioner’s recovery of a $100,000 settlement from a third party. The Agency asserts that it is entitled to recover $35,700, which is the amount it calculated using the formula set forth in section 409.410(11)(f). The facts that gave rise to this matter are found pursuant to a stipulation of the parties.3/ On June 23, 2016, Petitioner was working for a tree pruning company. Petitioner’s employer assigned him to remove several branches from a tree. As directed, Petitioner climbed to the top of the tree and secured himself with one rope lanyard. Unfortunately, after he began pruning, Petitioner cut through the rope lanyard, lost his balance, and plummeted 30 feet to the ground. As a result of the fall, Petitioner suffered significant physical and neurological injuries. Petitioner underwent multiple surgeries. His medical procedures included an open reduction with internal fixation on his right wrist, lumbar fusion surgery, and a lumbar laminectomy. At the final hearing, Petitioner’s counsel represented that Petitioner’s medical prognosis is not fully known at this time. However, what is known is that Petitioner will continue to experience serious neurologic deficits. Petitioner’s injuries have left him with overall mobility issues and have affected his ability to walk normally. He suffers from a right foot drop and has limited feeling below his waist. The parties also stipulated that Petitioner has completed all medical treatment and therapy related to his accident. However, Petitioner is uncertain whether or not he will be able to return to normal activities in the future. Petitioner incurred sizable medical expenses due to his injuries. The charges for Petitioner’s medical procedures totaled approximately $375,000. However, only $62,067.28 has actually been paid for his medical care. Of this amount, the Florida Medicaid program paid $41,992.33. (In addition to the $41,992.22 paid by Medicaid, other health insurance covered $20,075.06.) Petitioner did not present evidence of monetary damages other than his past medical expenses. Petitioner subsequently initiated a civil cause of action for negligence against his (former) employer. Petitioner alleged that he was not properly trained how to safely secure himself to the tree. According to Petitioner’s counsel, Petitioner’s employer should have instructed him to use two lanyards instead of one. After two years of litigation, Petitioner settled his negligence action for $100,000. The settlement did not allocate Petitioner’s award between past medical expenses and other damage categories. The Agency, through the Florida Medicaid program, paid a total of $41,992.33 for Petitioner’s medical treatment resulting from the accident.4/ All of the expenditures that Florida Medicaid spent on Petitioner’s behalf are attributed to past medical expenses. Under section 409.910, the Agency is to be repaid for its Medicaid expenditures out of any recovery from liable third parties. Accordingly, when the Agency was notified of the settlement of Petitioner’s lawsuit, it asserted a Medicaid lien against the amount Petitioner recovered. The Agency claims that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect $37,500 to satisfy the medical costs it paid on Petitioner’s behalf. (As discussed in endnote 7, the “default” formula in section 409.910(11)(f) allows the Agency to collect $37,500 to satisfy its Medicaid lien.) The Agency maintains that it should receive the full amount of its lien regardless of whether Petitioner settled for less than what Petitioner believes is the full value of his damages. Petitioner, on the other hand, asserts that the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of the settlement than the amount calculated using the section 409.910(11)(f) formula. Exercising its right to challenge the Medicaid lien pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Petitioner specifically argues that, taking into account the full value of Petitioner’s damages, the Agency’s Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately. Otherwise, the application of the statutory formula would permit the Agency to collect more than that portion of the settlement that fairly represents Petitioner’s compensation for past medical expenses. Petitioner requests the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s third-party recovery be reduced to $4,199.23. To establish the value of his damages, Petitioner submitted the medical bills from his accident, as well as relied upon the stipulated facts. Petitioner’s medical bills show that he sustained the injuries identified above, as well as underwent surgery on his spine and wrist. To place a monetary value on Petitioner’s injuries, Petitioner’s counsel represented that his law firm appraised Petitioner’s injuries at no less than $1 to 2 million. However, Petitioner did not introduce any evidence or testimony corroborating this injury valuation or substantiating an amount Petitioner might have recovered at trial in his personal injury cause of action.5/ Neither did Petitioner offer evidence of additional damages Petitioner might be facing from his accident, such as future medical expenses, loss of quality of life, loss of employment or wages, or pain and suffering. Based on his estimate, Petitioner’s counsel asserted that the $100,000 settlement is far less than the actual value of Petitioner’s injuries and does not adequately compensate Petitioner for his damages. Therefore, a lesser portion of the settlement should be allocated to reimburse Medicaid, instead of the full amount of the lien. Petitioner proposes that a ratio should be applied based on the full value of Petitioner’s damages (conservatively estimated at $1,000,000) compared to the amount that Petitioner actually recovered ($100,000). Using these numbers, Petitioner’s settlement represents a 10 percent recovery of Petitioner’s damages. In like manner, the Medicaid lien should be reduced to 10 percent or $4,199.23 ($41,992.33 times .10). Therefore, Petitioner asserts that $4,199.23 is the portion of his third- party settlement that represents the equitable and fair amount the Florida Medicaid program should recoup for its payments for Petitioner’s medical care. The Agency was not a party to Petitioner’s negligence action or Petitioner’s $100,000 settlement. No portion of the $100,000 settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The undersigned finds that, based on the evidence in the record, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s settlement should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Accordingly, the Agency is entitled to recover $37,500 from Petitioner’s recovery of $100,000 from a third party to satisfy its Medicaid lien.
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, Yesica Cardenas, 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 December 31, 2010, Yesica Cardenas (“Ms. Cardenas”) was a passenger on a motor scooter that was involved in an accident on State Road 112 in Miami, Florida. As a result of this accident, Ms. Cardenas suffered serious physical injury, including amputation of her left leg below the knee. (JPHS p. 8) Ms. Cardenas’ past medical expenses related to her injuries were paid in part by Medicaid, and Medicaid provided $89,518.80 in benefits. This $89,518.80 in benefits paid by Medicaid, combined with $12,449.80 in medical bills not paid by Medicaid, constituted Ms. Cardenas’ entire claim for past medical expenses. Accordingly, Ms. Cardenas’ claim for past medical expenses was in the amount of $101,968.60. (JPHS p. 8) Ms. Cardenas, or others on her behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for Ms. Cardenas’ 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. Ms. Cardenas brought a personal injury lawsuit in Miami-Dade County to recover all of her damages against those responsible for her injuries (“Defendants”). (JPHS p. 8) On September 9, 2015, Ms. Cardenas compromised and settled her lawsuit with the Defendants for the amount of $240,000. (JPHS p. 8) In making this settlement, the settling parties agreed that: 1) the settlement did not fully compensate Ms. Cardenas for all her damages; 2) Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $2,400,000, of which $101,968.60 represented her claim for past medical expenses; and 3) allocation of $10,196.86 of the settlement to Ms. Cardenas’ claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate. In this regard, the General Release and Settlement Agreement (“Release”) memorializing the settlement stated: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate RELEASOR for the damages she has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete Release as to all claims against [Defendants] without regard to this settlement only compensating the RELEASOR for a fraction of the total monetary value of her alleged damages. The damages have a value in excess of $2,400,000, of which $101,968.60 represents RELEASOR’S claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of the RELEASOR’S alleged injuries and this settlement, the parties settled this matter for 10% of the value of the damages ($240,000.00) and as such, have allocated $10,196.86 of this settlement the RELEASOR’S claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of her other claims. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all of the RELEASOR’S alleged damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that the RELEASOR may need future medical care related to her alleged injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for these future medical expenses that the RELEASOR may incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that the RELEASOR, or others on her behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for the RELEASOR’S future medical care and the RELEASOR has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for payments made to secure future medical care. (JPHS p. 8-9) As a condition of Ms. Cardenas’ eligibility for Medicaid, Ms. Cardenas assigned to AHCA her right to recover from liable third parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of Ms. Cardenas’ personal injury action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA, through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $89,518.80 Medicaid lien against Ms. Cardenas’ cause of action and settlement of that action. (JPHS p. 9) By letter of September 11, 2015, AHCA was notified by Ms. Cardenas’ personal injury attorney of the settlement and provided a copy of the executed Release and itemization of $2,711.70 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $2,400,000, and the $240,000 settlement represented only a 10-percent recovery of Ms. Cardenas’ damages. Accordingly, she had recovered only 10 percent of her $101,968.60 claim for past medical expenses, or $10,196.86. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. (JPHS p. 9) AHCA did not respond to Ms. Cardenas’ attorney’s letter of September 11, 2015. (JPHS p. 9) AHCA did not file an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Ms. Cardenas’ settlement with the Defendants. (JPHS p. 9) AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. (JPHS p. 9) The Medicaid program spent $89,518.80 on behalf of Ms. Cardenas, all of which represents expenditures paid for Ms. Cardenas’ past medical expenses. (JPHS p. 9) No portion of the $89,518.80 paid by the Medicaid program on behalf of Ms. Cardenas represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. (JPHS p. 10) Ms. Cardenas is no longer a Medicaid recipient. (JPHS p. 10) AHCA has determined that $2,711.70 of Ms. Cardenas’ litigation costs are taxable costs for purposes of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula calculation. (JPHS p. 10) Subtracting the $2,711.70 in taxable costs and allowable attorney’s fees, the section 409.910(11)(f) formula applied to Ms. Cardenas’ $240,000 settlement requires payment of $88,644.15 to AHCA in satisfaction of its $89,518.80 Medicaid lien. Since the $89,518.80 Medicaid lien amount is more than the $88,644.15 amount required to be paid to AHCA under the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $88,644.15 from Ms. Cardenas’ $240,000 settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. (JPHS p. 10) 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. 10) Testimony of Michael Weisberg Mr. Weisberg has been an attorney since 1967 and is a partner with Weisberg and Weisberg, P.A. Mr. Weisberg explained that he is a civil trial attorney who has spent 30 years handling insurance defense, and in the last 20 years has focused his practice on plaintiff personal injury. Mr. Weisberg testified that over his career, he has handled approximately 550 jury trials to verdict and he often handles cases involving catastrophic injuries. Mr. Weisberg testified that as a routine and daily part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Petitioner proffered Mr. Weisberg as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties, and AHCA did not object to the proffer. Mr. Weisberg was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Weisberg represented Ms. Cardenas relative to her personal injury action. He explained that as part of his representation, he reviewed Ms. Cardenas’ medical records, met with her doctors, reviewed the accident report, took the deposition of persons involved in the accident, took the deposition of witnesses to the accident, and met with Ms. Cardenas many times. Mr. Weisberg gave a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to Ms. Cardenas’ injury. He explained that Ms. Cardenas was a hostess at a restaurant in a Miami Beach hotel. After her shift ended, she was asked to stay and continue working. After the restaurant closed, she was unable to take the Metro Mover home because it ceased running at midnight. Instead, she was given a ride home by a co-worker who had a motor scooter. The co-worker’s motor scooter was too slow for the highway he chose to travel upon, and it was struck from behind by a motorcycle. Ms. Cardenas was thrown off the motor scooter. She was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital where her leg was amputated a few inches below the knee. Due to her lack of financial resources, Ms. Cardenas was provided limited rehabilitation and she was provided only a rigid prosthetic leg that did not have a flexible ankle/foot. Mr. Weisberg explained that this injury has had a negative impact on Ms. Cardenas’ life. Because of the limitations presented by having an amputated leg, she has had difficulty maintaining her relationship with her friends and has become isolated. She is unable to enjoy her previous pastime of shopping due to the injury and is unable to play with her son in the same manner as before. Mr. Weisberg testified that Ms. Cardenas’ injury has caused Ms. Cardenas to suffer from depression and “she is not a happy girl.” Mr. Weisberg testified that Ms. Cardenas’ claim for past medical expenses related to her injury was $101,968.60, which consisted of $89,518.80 in Medicaid benefits and $12,449.80 in medical bills not paid by Medicaid. Mr. Weisberg testified that Ms. Cardenas, or others on her 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. Weisberg testified that through his representation of Ms. Cardenas, review of Ms. Cardenas’ file, and based on his training and experience, he had developed the opinion that the value of Ms. Cardenas damages was “a minimum of five million dollars.” In support of his valuation, he compared Ms. Cardenas’ case to a case he had tried to jury verdict involving a man with a preexisting leg amputation who was struck by a bus and suffered a degloving injury to his other leg. This client regained use of the injured leg and the jury still awarded him $1.3 million. Mr. Weisberg explained that if that client’s less severe injury where he regained use of his injured leg, warranted a $1.3 million verdict, then “a person with no leg, a reasonable verdict, in my opinion . . . would be in excess of five million dollars.” Mr. Weisberg also testified that he “round tabled” Ms. Cardenas’ case with five other experienced attorneys, and they believed Mr. Weisberg’s valuation of Ms. Cardenas’ damages at $5 million was low. Further, Mr. Weisberg testified that he had reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 11 and he believed those cases were comparable to Ms. Cardenas’ case and supported his valuation of Ms. Cardenas’ damages as being in excess of $5 million. Mr. Weisberg explained that the driver/owner of the motor scooter Ms. Cardenas was riding, as well as the driver/owner of the motorcycle that struck the motor scooter, did not have liability insurance or assets, so no recovery was possible against them. Instead, a lawsuit was brought against the restaurant under the theory that by requesting Ms. Cardenas to work after her shift was finished, they caused her to be unable to use public transit and rely upon transport home by way of the motor scooter. Mr. Weisberg explained that the theory of liability was difficult and there were numerous disputed facts associated with the case. Based on these issues, Ms. Cardenas settled her case for $240,000. Mr. Weisberg testified that the settlement did not fully compensate Ms. Cardenas for the full value of her damages. Mr. Weisberg testified that based on the conservative valuation of all Ms. Cardenas’ damages of $2,400,000, the settlement represented a recovery of 10 percent of the value of Ms. Cardenas’ damages. Mr. Weisberg testified that because Ms. Cardenas only recovered 10 percent of the value of her damages in the settlement, she only recovered 10 percent of her $101,968.60 claim for past medical expenses, or $10,196.86. Mr. Weisberg testified that the settling Defendant was represented by experienced trial attorneys and that the settling parties agreed in the Release that Ms. Cardenas’s damages had a value in excess of $2.4 million, as well as the allocation of $10,196.86 of the settlement to past medical expenses. Mr. Weisberg further testified that the allocation of $10,196.86 of the settlement to past medical expenses was reasonable and rational, as well as conservative, because it was based on a very low-end valuation of her damages of $2.4 million. If a higher valuation of her damages was used, the amount allocated to past medical expenses would have been much less. Mr. Weisberg 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 also testified 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. Testimony of Thomas Backmeyer Thomas Backmeyer has been an attorney since 1970, and since 1996, he has worked as a mediator. Prior to becoming a mediator in 1996, he was board-certified in civil trial law by the Florida Bar and the National Board of Trial Advocates. Mr. Backmeyer testified that he has handled 100 to 125 jury trials, 90 percent of which were personal injury cases. He further testified that in his practice he regularly made assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Petitioner proffered Mr. Backmeyer as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. AHCA did not object to the proffer, and Mr. Backmeyer was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Backmeyer testified that he was familiar with Ms. Cardenas’ injuries and had reviewed the hospital records from Jackson Memorial, pictures of Ms. Cardenas, the Complaint, and Petitioner’s exhibits. Mr. Backmeyer testified that in his opinion, Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $5 million to $10 million. He explained that his valuation was “based on my experience in handling jury trials. It’s based on my experience of dealing with cases over the last twenty years as a mediator, some of which involve amputations of, I can think of one that involved the amputation of a leg of a young lady.” Mr. Backmeyer also testified that he had reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 11 and he found those verdicts comparable with Ms. Cardenas’ case and supportive of his valuation of her damages. He discussed two of the verdicts in relation to Ms. Cardenas’ case. Mr. Backmeyer testified that he was aware of the Cardenas settlement, and that the parties had allocated $10,196.86 to past medical expenses based on a valuation of all damages of $2,400,000. He further testified that he believes allocation of $10,196.86 to past medical expenses was “a generous number” because he believed the value of the damages was much higher than the $2,400,000 valuation used by the parties in calculating the allocation to past medical expenses. AHCA did not propose a differing valuation of Ms. Cardenas’ damages or contest the methodology used by the parties to calculate the $10,196.86 allocation to past medical expenses. The testimony and evidence presented concerning the value of Petitioner’s damages, and the allocation to past medical expenses, was unrebutted. The evidence presented is not in conflict or ambiguous. The parties to the settlement agreed that: 1) Ms. Cardenas was not being fully compensated for all her damages in the settlement; 2) Ms. Cardenas’ damages had a value in excess of $2,400,000, of which $101,968.60 represented her claim for past medical expenses; 3) the parties allocated $10,196.86 of the settlement to past medical expenses based on the same ratio the settlement bore to the total monetary value of all damages; and 4) because there was no claim made for reimbursement, restitution, repayment, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past for future medical care, no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. AHCA was not a party or participant in the settlement. However, the unrebutted evidence and testimony is of sufficient quality and quantity to establish that the value of Ms. Cardenas’ damages was in excess of $2,400,000; the allocation of $10,196.86 to past medical expenses under the method of calculation used was reasonable, fair, and accurate; and no portion of the settlement represented reimbursement for future medical expenses. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that $10,196.86 of the settlement represents reimbursement for past and future medical expenses. Petitioner has 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 $88,644.15 amount calculated by the Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
