The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact In mid-October 2012, Petitioner, a trial lawyer, woke up on a Friday morning with a pain in the big toe of his left foot. He called his family practice physician2/ and was able to obtain an appointment for the following Tuesday. At the appointment, Petitioner saw a nurse practitioner who examined him and pronounced that he had gout. The nurse practitioner prescribed a gout medication. Over the course of the next week, Petitioner’s condition worsened, with pain radiating all the way to his hip. On the following Tuesday, he saw the physician. Despite blood testing that showed an elevated white blood cell count, the physician concurred with the nurse practitioner that Petitioner was suffering from an extreme case of gout. The physician prescribed a regimen of steroids for the gout. By the next Saturday, November 3, 2012, Petitioner was so sick that a neighbor drove him to Tampa General Hospital. His blood pressure was extremely low and his kidneys had ceased functioning. Petitioner was on the verge of death. At the hospital, he learned that the physician and his nurse practitioner had misdiagnosed Petitioner’s condition. He in fact had a raging staphylococcus aureus infection. Over the course of the next several days, Petitioner underwent several surgeries to save his life. First, the toes on his left foot were amputated. Then, his left foot was amputated. Next, his left leg was amputated below the knee. Finally, the left leg was amputated above the knee. Still, the infection was not controlled. Petitioner was in and out of a coma for a month. He testified that his infectious disease doctor told him that the infection was so bad that the treatment team was at a loss on how to proceed. However, the infection ultimately was brought under control. Once he was stabilized, Petitioner was transferred to Tampa General’s rehabilitation facility and finally released to return to his home. Petitioner was sixty-one years old at the time his leg was amputated. He testified that he practiced as a trial lawyer in Florida from 1977 until his illness. Petitioner stated that he does not find it possible to be a trial lawyer with a prosthetic leg and a walker, but that he does some mediation work. His basic income is $1,653 per month in Social Security benefits. Petitioner testified that this amount is never enough to cover his expenses and that he is required to dip into the proceeds of his settlement with the medical providers in order to make ends meet. He stated that it is “terrifying” to watch the money going out and to wonder what he will do when it is gone. Petitioner lost his Tampa home to foreclosure and was forced to move 40 miles away to find a house that he could afford. Moving away from his longtime home further isolated Petitioner and necessitated paying money for things that he could previously rely on friends and neighbors to help with, such as grocery shopping. Petitioner testified that prior to the amputation he had led an active lifestyle. He ran, rode a bike, and played golf twice a week. He was an instructor pilot. Petitioner is now incapable of engaging in any of those activities. Petitioner testified that if he falls and is not near a piece of furniture or other object that allows him to use his upper body strength to lift himself, he is helpless until someone comes along to assist him. Merely going to the bathroom involves a complicated transfer from his wheelchair using specially installed bars. Petitioner testified that prior to his settlement he had not, and to his knowledge others had not, made payments in the past or in advance for his future medical care. Civil trial attorney William E. Hahn testified on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Hahn has practiced since 1972, is a board certified civil trial lawyer, and is a past president of the Florida chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, a group that named Mr. Hahn “trial lawyer of the year” in 2012. Mr. Hahn testified that he generally represents plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases and has tried over 100 complex jury trials. He has won verdicts as high as $22.5 million, as low as zero, and “all in between.” Mr. Hahn takes cases involving “devastating, catastrophic” injuries such as that suffered by Petitioner. A routine part of his practice is to make a determination of the value of a client’s damages. Mr. Hahn was accepted without objection as an expert in assessing the value of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Hahn testified that his evaluation process begins with acquainting himself with the nature of the injury. He then calculates the expenses that have been incurred in the past for the client’s treatment and predicts the costs of future treatment. He looks at the medical records and performs his own medical research. He speaks with the treating physicians as well as the client. Mr. Hahn bases his assessments on his experience and training and the experience of other lawyers in handling similar cases throughout Florida and the United States. Mr. Hahn testified that he has known Petitioner since they were both young lawyers practicing in Tampa. When Petitioner called him and explained his situation, Mr. Hahn agreed to represent Petitioner in his medical malpractice action. Mr. Hahn noted that with proper medical treatment Petitioner would have been spared multiple surgeries and the amputation of his leg. He would likely have recovered and returned to law practice. Mr. Hahn opined that the value of Petitioner’s case was “well in excess of $2 million,” based on Petitioner’s background, his training and experience, and the devastating injury and its long term effects. Given Petitioner’s status in Tampa and the legal community, and the outrageousness of what happened, Mr. Hahn believed the verdict would have “exceeded two, four or many more millions of dollars.” Mr. Hahn explained that in order to proceed with a medical malpractice claim in Florida, the plaintiff must go through a number of administrative steps called the “notice of intent” process. Mr. Hahn secured the services of a board certified internal medicine physician as his expert. The surgeon confirmed what Mr. Hahn had surmised from the medical records, that this was a case of gross malpractice. Mr. Hahn obtained an affidavit from the surgeon and notified the potential defendants that he was about to make a claim on Petitioner’s behalf. Mr. Hahn was aware that Petitioner had received services from Medicaid and initiated a correspondence with AHCA.3/ The correspondence indicated that Medicaid had paid $135,047.86 in medical expenses for Petitioner. Mr. Hahn stated that this amount would have been part of Petitioner’s claim had the matter been fully litigated. Mr. Hahn testified that, despite the clear liability, the recoverable assets complicated any potential award of damages from the medical providers. The total insurance available was $500,000. The insurance company was acting in good faith in trying to settle the case, which ruled out a bad faith case against the insurer. The only other potential sources of funds were the personal assets of the nurse practitioner and the physician. The defense attorney informed Mr. Hahn that any assets possessed by these individuals were protected from judgment. The defendants recognized that this was a “terrible” case and wanted to settle. Mr. Hahn stated that it became apparent to him that the best business decision for Petitioner was to get the case resolved within the limits of the insurance coverage. He was able to reduce his fee, keep the litigation costs down, and get the matter resolved quickly. Mr. Hahn secured a settlement of $492,500. Mr. Hahn testified that no amount of money could ever make Petitioner whole, but that the amount of the settlement did not come close to fully compensating him for his damages and would not come close to taking care of him for the rest of his life. Mr. Hahn pointed out that in the document memorializing the settlement agreement, the defendants acknowledged that the settlement would not come close to making Petitioner whole. The portion of the settlement agreement referenced by Mr. Hahn was the “Allocation of Settlement” language, which read as follows: Although it is acknowledged that this settlement does not fully compensate the Releasor for the damages he has allegedly suffered, this settlement shall operate as a full and complete release as to all claims against the Releasees, without regard to this settlement only compensating the Releasor for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. These damages have a value in excess of $2,000,000, of which $135,047.86 represents Releasor’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of the Releasor’s alleged injuries and this settlement, $33,255.54 of this settlement has been allocated to the Releasor’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all of the Releasor’s alleged damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that the Releasor may need future medical care related to his alleged injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for these future medical expenses that the Releasor may incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that the Releasor, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for the Releasor’s future medical care and the Releasor has not made a claim for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Accordingly, no portion of this settlement represents reimbursement for payments made to secure future medical care. Mr. Hahn testified that the allocation of settlement paragraphs were the product of a negotiation with the defendants’ lawyer. The language was acknowledged and agreed to by all parties. The defendants agreed with the valuation of damages “in excess of $2 million.” The allocation of $33,255.54 to past medical expenses was “simple math,” its relation to the $492,500 settlement amount being proportional to the relation of $135,047.86 to the $2 million value of the claim. Petitioner was settling for 24.625% of his claim’s value, and therefore the Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately. Mr. Hahn testified that all the parties believed this settlement to be reasonable. Mr. Hahn stated that in his professional judgment, the allocation of $33,255.54 was not only reasonable, it was overly generous. The real value of the case was well in excess of $2 million. Mr. Hahn believed that it would have been reasonable to value the claim at $4 million, in which case the Medicaid allocation would have been cut in half. Mr. Hahn testified that the parties were trying to recognize that Medicaid did “wonderfully” by Petitioner. They valued the case conservatively at $2 million. Many lawyers would have valued it much higher, and could have supported their valuation with documentation. Mr. Hahn stated that the parties’ concern was to be appropriate, conservative, and provide a fair recovery to Medicaid. AHCA called no witness to contest the valuation of damages made by Mr. Hahn or to offer an alternative methodology to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses. No evidence was presented indicating the settlement agreement was not reasonable given all the circumstances of the case. It does not appear that the parties colluded to minimize the share of the settlement proceeds attributable to Medicaid’s payment of costs for Petitioner’s medical care. In fact, the evidence established that the settlement was extremely conservative in its valuation of Petitioner’s claim and that the settling parties could have reasonably apportioned far less to Medicaid than they actually did. AHCA was not a party to the settlement of Petitioner’s claim. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Deducting the 25 percent attorney’s fee, or $123,125, from the $492,500 recovery leaves $371,375, half of which is $185,687.50. That figure exceeds the actual amount expended by Medicaid on Petitioner’s medical care. Application of the formula would provide sufficient funds to satisfy the Medicaid lien of $135,047.86. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the $2 million total value of the claim was a reasonable, if not unduly conservative, amount. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence, based on the clear strength of his case and on the fact that it was limited only by the inability to collect the full amount of the likely judgment, that the amount agreed upon in settlement of Petitioner’s claims constituted a fair settlement, including the portion attributed to the Medicaid lien for medical expenses.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount payable under section 409.910, Florida Statutes,1/ in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien on settlement proceeds received by Petitioner, Victor Hugo Herrera, Sr., from a third party.
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 2014, unbeknownst to Mr. Herrera, an individual (hereinafter Assailant) entered the common area where Mr. Herrera rented an office. The Assailant stalked Mr. Herrera and forced his way into Mr. Herrera’s office. The Assailant attacked Mr. Herrera in his office and shot Mr. Herrera in the leg. As a result of being shot in the leg, Mr. Herrera had his leg medically amputated above the knee, suffered a collapsed lung, and was comatose for nearly two months. As a result of his severe injuries, Mr. Herrera is now permanently disabled, disfigured, and wheelchair-bound, unable to walk. Mr. Herrera’s medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by Medicaid, which provided $271,344.06 in benefits. Mr. Herrera brought a personal injury lawsuit to recover all of his damages associated with his injuries against the owner of the office and security company responsible for providing security (Defendants). The $271,344.06 paid by Medicaid constituted Mr. Herrera’s entire claim for past medical expenses. On December 11, 2015, Mr. Herrera compromised and settled his personal injury action against the Defendants for $925,000. The General Release of Claims memorializing the settlement with the Defendants stated, inter alia: The First Party, the Second Party and their respective counsel acknowledge that this settlement does not fully compensate the First Party for the damages he has allegedly suffered, but as provided herein this settlement shall operate as a full and complete release as to all claims against Second Party, without regard to this settlement only compensating the First Party for a fraction of the total monetary value of his alleged damages. These parties agree that the damages suffered by the First Party have a value in excess of $5,000,000.00, of which $271,344.06 represents First Party’s claim for past medical expenses. Given the facts, circumstances, and nature of the First Party’s alleged injuries and this settlement, $50,198.65 of this settlement has been allocated to the First Party’s claim for past medical expenses and the remainder of the settlement has been allocated toward the satisfaction of claims other than past medical expenses. This allocation is a reasonable and proportionate allocation based on the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all of the First Party’s alleged damages. Further, the parties acknowledge that the First Party may need future medical care related to his alleged injuries, and some portion of this settlement may represent compensation for those future medical expenses the First Party may incur in the future. However, the parties acknowledge that the First Party, or others on his behalf, have not made payments in the past or in advance for the First Party’s future medical care and the First Party 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. During the pendency of Mr. Herrera’s personal injury lawsuit, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) was notified of the lawsuit and AHCA, through its collections contractor Xerox Recovery Services, asserted a $271,344.06 Medicaid lien against Mr. Herrera’s cause of action and settlement of that action. By letter of January 22, 2016, AHCA was notified by Mr. Herrera’s personal injury attorney of the settlement and provided a copy of the executed release and itemization of Mr. Herrera’s $10,114.38 in litigation costs. This letter explained that Mr. Herrera’s damages had a value in excess of $5,000,000, and the $925,000 settlement represented only an 18.5 percent recovery of Mr. Herrera’s damages. Accordingly, he had recovered only 18.5 percent of his $271,344.06 claim for past medical expenses, or $50,198.65. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $271,344.06 Medicaid lien. AHCA did not respond to Mr. Herrera’s attorney’s letter of January 22, 2016. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Mr. Herrera’s settlement. AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. The Medicaid program spent $271,344.06 on behalf of Mr. Herrera, all of which represents expenditures paid for Mr. Herrera’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $271,344.06 paid by the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Herrera represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. Mr. Herrera and AHCA agree that application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to Mr. Herrera’s $925,000 settlement would require payment to AHCA of the full $271,344.06 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited the full Medicaid lien amount into an interest-bearing account pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). At the final hearing, Mr. Zebersky, who represented Mr. Herrera in his underlying personal injury action, testified and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Zebersky has been an attorney for 27 years and has demonstrated considerable experience in handling plaintiffs’ personal injury and insurance class action claims in South Florida. In rendering his opinion as to the value of Mr. Herrera’s claim, Mr. Zebersky explained that, as a routine and daily part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties and he explained his process for making these determinations. Mr. Zebersky was familiar with and gave a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to Mr. Herrera’s claim. In making his valuation determination, Mr. Zebersky reviewed the police report, the State Attorney’s file on the shooting, all of Mr. Herrera’s medical records, and met numerous times with Mr. Herrera and his family. Mr. Zebersky testified that through his representation of Mr. Herrera, review of Mr. Herrera’s file, and based on his training and experience, he had developed the opinion that the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages was $5,000,000. Mr. Zebersky suggested that the $5,000,000 amount was conservative, by testifying that “five million dollars, you know, is probably what the pain and suffering value is especially in Broward County.” In addition to his first-hand experience with Mr. Herrera’s claim, Mr. Zebersky further supported his valuation opinion by explaining that he had “round-tabled” the case with other experienced attorneys and they agreed that the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages was $5,000,000. Further, Mr. Zebersky testified that he had reviewed jury verdicts in developing his opinion and the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 were comparable to Mr. Herrera’s case and support the valuation of Mr. Herrera’s damages at $5,000,000. Mr. Zebersky’s testimony was credible and is accepted. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Mr. Barrett, who was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett has been accepted as an expert in valuation of damages in a number of other Medicaid lien cases before DOAH. Mr. Barrett has been a trial attorney for 40 years, with a primary focus on plaintiff personal injury cases, including medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. Mr. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts and often makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. After familiarizing himself with Mr. Herrera’s injuries through review of pertinent medical records and Petitioner’s Exhibits, including the police report, pictures of Mr. Herrera, Mr. Herrera’s complaint and Mr. Herrera’s General Release of Claims, Mr. Barrett offered his opinion, based upon his professional training and experience, that “five million was a conservative estimate” for the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages and that Mr. Herrera’s damages were “undoubtedly at least five million dollars.” Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 and opined that those verdicts were comparable and supported his valuation of Mr. Herrera’s damages. Mr. Barrett’s testimony was credible and is accepted. AHCA’s designated expert, Mr. Bruner, was not available for testimony at the final hearing. Instead of asking for a continuance, the parties agreed to take Mr. Bruner’s deposition after the final hearing and then file the transcript with DOAH. Further, during the final hearing, AHCA agreed that Mr. Bruner would not be testifying as to the value of Mr. Herrera’s damages. In accordance with that agreement, Mr. Brunner’s deposition was subsequently taken and his deposition transcript was filed on August 3, 2016. At Mr. Bruner’s deposition, AHCA proffered Mr. Bruner as an expert in evaluation of cases and settlements. Petitioner objected on the grounds that Mr. Bruner lacked experience or expertise in personal injury cases and should not be allowed to testify as an expert. Further, Petitioner objected to the relevance of Mr. Bruner’s testimony based on AHCA’s earlier agreement that he would not be testifying concerning the value of the damages suffered. Counsel for AHCA responded to Petitioner’s objection to the relevance of Mr. Bruner’s testimony by agreeing that AHCA would not be seeking any “expert testimony as to evaluation of damages,” but would only be using Mr. Bruner’s testimony to “evaluate” the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12. While Mr. Bruner does not have the same level of experience in personal injury claims as the experts offered by Petitioner, Mr. Bruner has sufficient experience to offer an opinion on the jury verdicts set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, and to that extent, his expertise in the evaluation of cases is accepted. However, because of his lack of recent experience in settling personal injury claims, Mr. Brunner is not accepted as an expert in personal injury settlements.2/ In his deposition testimony, Mr. Bruner criticized the relevance of the 12 verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 on the grounds that, while the verdicts involved amputations of legs, there were factual differences in the mechanism of injury. Mr. Bruner further asserted that, to the extent the verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 included awards for future medical expenses, they should not be considered because, according to Mr. Bruner’s understanding, Mr. Herrera did not recover any future medical expenses in the settlement. Finally, while the juries in the 12 jury verdicts had determined the value of the damages, Mr. Bruner criticized the verdicts because he asserted that it was possible that the cases may have settled post-verdict for less, or that the injured parties may have received less, due to reductions for comparative negligence. On this last point, it appears that Mr. Bruner confused the issue of the value of the damages with the settlement value of the case. The value of the damages is the estimation of the monetary value a jury would assign to the damages. On the other hand, the settlement value of the case is the amount it settled for with the considerations of liability, causation, the Defendant’s ability to pay, risk of trial, and other limiting factors, which are a calculus in every settlement. Despite Mr. Bruner’s criticisms of the jury verdicts in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, the undersigned finds those verdicts supportive of the valuation opinions offered by Petitioner’s experts. Further, Petitioner’s experts’ opinions were not primarily reliant on those 12 verdicts, but were rather based upon their knowledge of Mr. Herrera’s injury and their extensive experience in handling cases involving catastrophic injury, including jury trial experience. Mr. Bruner’s testimony did not provide an alternative value of the damages suffered by Petitioner. The value of $5,000,000 for Mr. Herrera’s claim opined by Petitioner’s experts is unrebutted. Considering the valuation of Mr. Herrera’s claim in the amount of $5,000,000, his $925,000 settlement represents only an 18.5 percent recovery of Mr. Herrera’s damages. Applying that same 18.5 percent to the $271,344.06 paid by Medicaid for past medical expenses results in the sum $50,198.65 from the settlement proceeds available to satisfy AHCA’s Medicaid lien.
The Issue This matter concerns the amount of money to be reimbursed to the Agency for Health Care Administration for medical expenses paid on behalf of Gregory McElveen, 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 $240,000.00 settlement from a third party. The Agency asserts that it is entitled to recover the full amount of its $72,907.93 lien. The incident that gave rise to this matter resulted from alleged medical malpractice. In 2016, Mr. McElveen saw his primary care physician complaining of pain and redness in his hand. The pain was ultimately traced to a metal shaving that had lodged in his finger. Despite repeated visits complaining of pain and swelling, however, Mr. McElveen’s physician failed to locate and remove the foreign object. In the meantime, his health worsened. On July 17, 2017, Mr. McElveen was admitted to the hospital, and was found to be critically ill with septic emboli. On August 15, 2017, Mr. McElveen died as a result of a systemic infection. He was survived by his wife and three daughters.3 2 By requesting a deadline for filing post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after receipt of the Transcript at DOAH, the 30-day time period for filing the Final Order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 3 Although Mr. McElveen’s three daughters survived his death, in his subsequent wrongful death lawsuit, only one of his daughters was considered a “minor child” under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, because the other two were over the age of 25. § 768.18, Fla. Stat. The Agency, through the Medicaid program, paid a total of $72,907.93 for Mr. McElveen’s medical care, which was the full amount of his past medical expenses. In 2019, Mr. McElveen’s estate brought a wrongful death action against his treating physician.4 Charles T. Moore, Esquire, represented Petitioner’s estate and was the primary attorney handling the litigation. Ultimately, Mr. Moore was able to settle the wrongful death action for $240,000. The Agency was not a party to, nor did it intervene in, Petitioner’s wrongful death lawsuit. 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 asserts that, pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), it should collect $72,907.93 to satisfy the medical costs it paid on Petitioner’s behalf. The Agency maintains that it should receive the full amount of its lien regardless of the fact that Petitioner settled for less than what Petitioner believes is the full value of his damages. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), the Agency should be reimbursed a lesser portion of the settlement than the amount the Agency calculated pursuant to the section 409.910(11)(f) formula. Petitioner specifically asserts that the Medicaid lien should be reduced proportionately, taking into account the full value of Petitioner’s damages. 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 medical expenses. Petitioner insists that reimbursement of the full lien amount violates the federal Medicaid law’s anti-lien provision (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1)) and 4 Petitioner Daniel Hallup was appointed Personal Representative of Mr. McElveen’s estate. Florida common law. Petitioner requests that the Agency’s allocation from Petitioner’s recovery be reduced to $5,832.63. To establish the value of Mr. McElveen’s damages, Petitioner offered the testimony of Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore has practiced law for 24 years and is a partner with the law firm of Morgan & Morgan in Tampa, Florida. In his practice, Mr. Moore focuses exclusively on medical malpractice causes of action. Mr. Moore represented that he has taken a number of his cases to jury. As part of his practice, Mr. Moore routinely evaluates damages similar to those Petitioner suffered. This activity includes analyzing jury verdicts to keep current on case values, as well as discussing cases with other attorneys. In calculating the value of Mr. McElveen’s wrongful death claim, Mr. Moore reviewed Mr. McElveen’s medical records. Mr. Moore stated that, based on his professional assessment and experience, Mr. McElveen’s damages equaled between three to five million dollars which is the total monetary value of the survivors’ and estate’s wrongful death damages. Therefore, Mr. Moore opined that a conservative value of Mr. McElveen’s damages is $3,000,000. Based on his evaluation, Mr. Moore asserted that the $240,000 settlement was far less than the value of the actual damages Mr. McElveen suffered. Mr. Moore explained that Petitioner settled for a much lower amount because his potential recovery was limited due to the fact that the one potential defendant (Mr. McElveen’s physician) was retiring and carried minimal insurance coverage ($250,000). Mr. Moore also felt that the other possible liable parties (including the hospital) had met the appropriate standard of medical care when treating Mr. McElveen. Therefore, Mr. Moore believed that he had settled for the best deal he could under the circumstances, and Mr. McElveen’s estate was not likely to recover more. Finally, to support the Petition to reduce the amount of the Medicaid lien, Mr. Moore explained that Petitioner’s estate received only eight percent of the true value of Mr. McElveen’s damages ($3,000,000 divided by $240,000). Because only eight percent of the damages were recovered, in like manner, the $72,907.93 Medicaid lien should be reduced to eight percent, or $5,832.63, as a fair and reasonable allocation of the amount of Petitioner’s past medical expenses recovered the $240,000 settlement. The Agency did not present evidence or testimony disputing Mr. Moore’s valuation of the “true” value of Petitioner’s damages or his calculation of the amount of the settlement that should be allocated as Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Petitioner also offered the testimony of R. Vinson Barrett, Esquire, to established the value of Mr. McElveen’s damages. Mr. Barrett is a trial attorney with over 40 years’ experience. Mr. Barrett works exclusively in the area of plaintiff’s personal injury, medical malpractice, and medical products liability cases. He has also handled wrongful death cases. Mr. Barrett expressed that, as a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. In addition, not only does he have personal experience with jury trials, but he stays current in recent jury verdicts and regularly discusses jury results with other attorneys. Mr. Barrett was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured persons. Prior to testifying, Mr. Barrett familiarized himself with the facts and circumstances of Mr. McElveen’s injuries and death. He reviewed Petitioner’s exhibits, including Petitioner’s medical records. He also reviewed the sample jury verdicts Petitioner introduced as Petitioner’s Exhibit 8. Based on his valuation of Petitioner’s injuries, as well as his professional training and experience, Mr. Barrett placed a “very conservative value” on Petitioner’s injuries at $3,000,000. Mr. Barrett explained that injuries similar to Petitioner’s would result in jury awards averaging approximately $3.5 million dollars. Mr. Barrett supported Mr. Moore’s pro rata methodology of calculating a reduced portion of Petitioner’s $240,000 settlement to equitably and fairly represent past medical expenses. With injuries valued at $3,000,000, the $240,000 settlement only compensated Petitioner for eight percent of the total value of his damages. Therefore, the most “fair” and “reasonable” manner to apportion the $240,000 settlement is to apply that same percentage to determine Petitioner’s recovery of medical expenses. Petitioner asserts that applying the same ratio to the total amount of medical costs produces the definitive value of that portion of Petitioner’s $240,000 settlement that represents compensation for past medical expenses, i.e., $5,823.63 ($72,907.93 times eight percent). Similar to Mr. Moore’s testimony, Mr. Barrett’s expert testimony was unrebutted. Further, the Agency did not offer evidence or testimony proposing a more appropriate or different valuation of Mr. McElveen’s total damages, or contesting the methodology Petitioner used to calculate the portion of the $240,000 settlement fairly allocable to Petitioner’s past medical expenses. Based on the testimony from Mr. Moore and Mr. Barrett that the $240,000 settlement does not fully compensate Petitioner for Mr. McElveen’s damages, Petitioner argues that a lesser portion of the medical costs should be calculated to reimburse Medicaid, instead of the full amount of the lien. Petitioner proposes that a ratio be applied based on the true value of Petitioner’s damages ($3,000,000) compared to the amount that Petitioner actually recovered ($240,000). Using these numbers, Petitioner’s settlement represents approximately an eight percent recovery of the full value of Petitioner’s damages. In similar fashion, the Medicaid lien should be reduced to eight percent or approximately $5,832.63 ($72,907.93 times .08). Therefore, Petitioner asserts that $5,832.63 is the portion of his third-party settlement that represents the equitable, fair, and reasonable amount the Florida Medicaid program should recoup for its payments for Petitioner’s medical care. All of the expenditures Medicaid spent on Petitioner’s behalf are attributed to past medical expenses. No portion of the $72,907.93 Medicaid lien represents future medical expenses. The undersigned finds that the unrebutted testimony at the final hearing demonstrates that the full value of Petitioner’s damages from this incident equals $3,000,000. Further, based on the evidence in the record, Petitioner met his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lesser portion of Petitioner’s settlement should be allocated as reimbursement for medical expenses than the amount the Agency calculated using the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).5 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the competent substantial evidence adduced at the final hearing establishes that the Agency should be reimbursed in the amount of $5,832.63 from Petitioner’s recovery of $240,000 from a third party to satisfy the 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 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 is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement offer received on behalf of Petitioner, Ciara Thomas.
Findings Of Fact Ciara Thomas is a six-year-old female who currently resides in St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent is the state agency authorized to administer Florida's Medicaid program. See § 409.902, Fla. Stat. On October 18, 2012, Ciara, then two and one-half weeks shy of her third birthday, was severely injured when she fell into a bathtub and was scalded by hot water. At that time, Ciara, her mother, and a brother were tenants of a residential dwelling located at 8181 91st Terrace, Seminole, Florida, which was owned by Selvie Berberi, the landlord. Ciara suffered from second- and third-degree burns over 65 percent of her total body surface area, and in particular, to her back, buttocks, chest, bilateral tower extremities, bilateral upper extremities, and genitals. Ciara received extensive medical care and treatment for her scald burns at Tampa General Hospital, where she was hospitalized from October 18, 2012, through January 9, 2013. The parties have stipulated that through the Medicaid program, AHCA spent $174,675.05 on behalf of Ciara. Because of the extensive nature of the burns on her lower extremities and entire back, Ciara has undergone five skin grafts. She has completed physical therapy in the burn center and does not anticipate any further medical treatment until she is fully grown. Ciara has very visible scars over much of her body, which will not likely improve over time. The skin feels rubbery, with no smooth texture, and it is affected by the weather. Whenever she is outside, Ciara must be completely covered with clothing. She attends school but cannot play outdoors due to potential injury or infection. Because of the condition of her skin, she is subjected to stares by other persons and students, causing her to be extremely self- conscious. Petitioner filed suit in Pinellas County Circuit Court against the landlord in negligence for her failure to provide safe and proper working plumbing to the rental home. Among other things, the water heater had been set far above the legal limits of 120 degrees. During the pendency of that litigation, the landlord's homeowner's insurance company offered payment in settlement in the amount of $101,000.00, representing the $100,000.00 coverage limit for bodily injury liability, and $1,000.00 as payment of the coverage limit of the policy's medical payments provisions. At hearing, Ciara's mother indicated that she intends to accept the offer if it is approved by the court. AHCA contends it should be reimbursed for Medicaid expenditures on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting a 25 percent attorney's fee ($25,250.00) and taxable costs ($879.59) from the $101,000.00 recovery, which yields a sum of $74,870.41. This amount is then divided by two, which yields $37,435.21. Under the statute, Respondent is limited to recovery of the amount derived from the statutory formula or the amount of the lien, whichever is less. Petitioner agrees that under the statutory default allocation, AHCA would be entitled to $37,435.21. Section 409.910(17)(b) provides that a Medicaid recipient has a right to rebut the default allocation described above. Utilizing that provision, Petitioner asserts that reimbursement should be limited to the same ratio as her recovery amount is to the full or total value of her damages. Under this theory, Petitioner contends that had her case gone to trial, a jury would have awarded at least $3.5 million, or the mid-point between $3 million and $4 million. Because the settlement represents a recovery of 2.9 percent of the valuation of her total damages, Petitioner contends she should pay 2.9 percent of AHCA's past medical expenses, or $5,066.00, to satisfy the Medicaid lien. The statute requires that Petitioner substantiate her position by clear and convincing evidence. To support the proposed full value of damages, Petitioner presented the testimony of Keith Ligori, a trial attorney in Tampa for the last 15 years, who specializes in all types of personal injury cases. Mr. Ligori has handled similar cases "numerous times," and on a daily basis he makes assessments of the valuation of potential claims. He is familiar with the reasonable valuation of personal injury cases in the greater Tampa Bay area, including Pinellas County. Mr. Ligori presented fact and opinion testimony on the issue of valuation of damages. Before forming his opinion on damages in this case, Mr. Ligori reviewed the medical records, including photographs of Ciara, interviewed the child and her mother, and discussed the case with her trial counsel. He also relied on his training and experience and familiarity with other cases in the Tampa Bay area. Based on his review of the case, Mr. Ligori valued total damages, conservatively, at $3.5 million. This figure took into account non-economic factors, including mental anguish, loss of ability or capacity to enjoy life, disability, and scarring and disfigurement, and economic damages consisting of the medical expenses paid by AHCA. Mr. Ligori testified that if he was actually trying the case before a jury, he would seek damages of between $5 million and $10 million. The undersigned finds the valuation of damages at $3.5 million to be credible and persuasive and is hereby accepted. In summary, by clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner has demonstrated that, conservatively, the full value of her damages is $3.5 million. The settlement amount of $101,000.00 is 2.9 percent of the total value of Petitioner's damages. The application of this factor to total medical expenses incurred by AHCA results in an allocation of $5,066.00 as a reasonable payment of the Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Micaiah McCray, from a medical-malpractice settlement received by Petitioner from a third party.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on November 11, 2008. In the months following birth, Petitioner underwent several surgeries and procedures including a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement on January 26, 2009, a repair of incomplete atrioventricular canal defect on April 15, 2009, and Nissen Fundoplication and revision of gastrostomy tube on July 8, 2009. On July 23, 2009, Petitioner was admitted to St. Mary’s Medical Center with suspected bronchitis and exacerbation of reactive airway distress. During this hospitalization, on or about August 15, 2009, Petitioner suffered a stroke involving the right hand and part of the right leg. A CT scan of Petitioner’s brain revealed a left middle cerebral artery distribution infarction suggesting a large ischemic infarct. Petitioner’s condition stabilized and Petitioner was released from the hospital on August 27, 2009, with the following discharge summary: Exacerbation of reactive airway disease Bronchitis Mitral stenosis Mild pulmonary hypertension Hypersecretory upper airway Pansinusitis Clostridium difficile colitis Hypoxemia with oxygen dependency Gastroesophageal reflux disease, status post fundoplication Left cerebral infarction of unknown etiology Endocardial cushion defect status post atrioventricular canal repair Bilateral optic nerve colobomas Rule out CHARGE association/Goletz syndrome On September 21, 2009, Petitioner was admitted to Palms West Hospital with a diagnosis of respiratory distress. Petitioner’s condition improved and he was discharged home on September 25, 2009. Subsequent to that hospitalization, an MRI performed on October 19, 2009, revealed new acute strokes. In the years following Petitioner’s strokes, he underwent numerous surgeries, procedures, and therapies for a multitude of medical conditions. Petitioner’s past medical expenses related to his injuries were paid by both private health insurance and Medicaid. Medicaid paid for Petitioner’s medical expenses in the amount of $217,545.58. United Healthcare and Aetna provided $37,090.17 and $3,231.72 in benefits, respectively. Total healthcare expense incurred for Petitioner’s injuries was $257,867.47. Petitioner is developmentally delayed and cannot walk or crawl. Petitioner requires a wheelchair or stroller for mobility and requires positioning and trunk support to maintain a seated position. His ability to independently explore his environment is severely restricted. Petitioner is completely dependent on others for activities of daily living. He cannot bathe, dress, or eat on his own. He requires a feeding tube, and receives professional in-home services to monitor his respiration and heartrate, manage his GJ tube, administer medication, and monitor bowel and bladder function. Petitioner does not vocalize words and has limited communication. He has no function of his right hand and has tightness in the right leg below the knee. Petitioner’s condition is permanent. Petitioner’s parents brought a medical malpractice action on his behalf in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County against Tenet St. Mary’s Inc., d/b/a St. Mary’s Medical Center; Palms West Hospital Limited Partnership, d/b/a Palms West Hospital; David Evan Mound Drucker, M.D.; South Florida Pediatric Surgeons, P.A.; Physicians Professional Liability Risk Retention Group; Alberto Antonio Marante, M.D.; Florida Pediatric Critical Care, P.A.; Diego Maurcio Diaz, M.D.; Gerard Minor, P.A.-C; Children’s Center Gastroenterology & Nutrition, P.A.; Chartis Claims, Inc.; Lexington Insurance Company; Eunice Cordoba, M.D; and Edwin Liu, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Pediatric Neurologist of Palm Beach (Defendants). Petitioner’s action alleged, among other theories, that the Defendants failed to recognize in Petitioner a sickle cell trait and properly treat Petitioner’s dehydration, a factor contributing to Petitioner’s strokes. Petitioner’s parents retained Scott Marlowe Newmark, an attorney specializing in personal and catastrophic injury claims for over 30 years, to represent Petitioner in the medical malpractice action against Defendants. In preparation for litigation, Stephanie P. Chalfin, M.S., prepared a life care plan for Petitioner. The plan sets out the need for future medical care, equipment, hospitalizations, surgeries, medications, and attendant care, through Petitioner’s expected life span. In this case, Petitioner’s life expectancy is an additional 66.9 years. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, J. Rody Borg, Ph.D., an economist, prepared a report assigning a present value between $24,373,828 and $29,065,995 for the future costs of Petitioner’s life care plan, lost benefits, and lost earning capacity. Mr. Newmark’s expert valuation of the total damages suffered by Petitioner is at least $30 million. Mr. Newmark considered the life care plan and Dr. Borg’s report in arriving at the value of total economic damages. Mr. Newmark then examined jury verdicts in similar cases involving catastrophic injury to value non-economic damages. Of the nine jury verdicts examined, Mr. Newmark highlighted three as particularly relevant because they involved young children with brain injuries similar to Petitioner’s injury and who required life-long care. The nine cases had an average award of $12 million for non-economic damages (past and future pain and suffering). Mr. Newmark arrived at his valuation of Petitioner’s damages at $30 million by considering the low-end of Dr. Borg’s economic damages estimate, $24 million, along with the average jury award for non-economic damages in similar cases. Mr. Newmark’s testimony was credible, reliable and persuasive. Mr. Newmark’s valuation of total damages was supported by the testimony of two additional personal injury attorneys, Mark Finklestein and R. Vinson Barrett, both of whom have practiced personal injury law for more than 30 years and were accepted as experts in valuation of damages (in personal injury cases). Mr. Finkelstein served as Petitioner’s guardian ad litem in the underlying medical malpractice action and agreed with the valuation of total damages at $30 million. In formulating his opinion on the value of Petitioner’s damages, Mr. Barrett reviewed the discharge summaries from Petitioner’s hospitalizations, the life care plan, Dr. Borg’s report, and a day-in-the-life video of Petitioner. Mr. Barrett also reviewed the jury trial verdicts and awards relied upon by Mr. Newmark. Mr. Barrett likewise agreed with the $30 million valuation of Petitioner’s total damages. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s medical malpractice action during its pendency. Respondent asserted a Medicaid lien in the amount of $217,545.58 against the proceeds of any award or settlement arising out of that action. In 2012 and again in 2015, Petitioner received a series of settlements from the Defendants. The settlements totaled $2,450,000. The settlements do not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of his damages. The settlements are undifferentiated, meaning they are not apportioned to specific types of damages, such as economic or non-economic, past or future. In all of the releases signed by the parties thereto, the parties agreed that, “if an allocation of this settlement is necessary in the future, this allocation should be made by applying the same ratio this settlement bears to the total monetary value of all [Petitioner’s] damages to the specific damage claim.” Respondent was not a party to the 2012 and 2015 settlements and did not execute any of the applicable releases. Respondent’s position is that it should be reimbursed for its Medicaid expenditures on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the statutory formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting a 25 percent attorney’s fee and taxable costs (in this case, $613,131) from the $2,450,000 recovery, which yields a sum of $1,836,869 then dividing that amount by two, which yields $918,434.50. Under the statute, Respondent is limited to recovery of the amount derived from the statutory formula or the amount of its lien, whichever is less. In the case at hand, Respondent may recover under the statute the full amount of its lien. Petitioner’s position is that reimbursement for past medical expenses should be limited to the same ratio as Petitioner’s recovery amount to the total value of damages. Petitioner urges Respondent should be reimbursed $21,067.77 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The settlement amount of $2,450,000 is 8.17 percent of the total value ($30 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, 8.17 percent of $257,867.47 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid by both Medicaid and private insurance) is $21,067.77. Both Mr. Finklestein and Mr. Barrett testified that $21,067.77 is a reasonable and rational reimbursement for past medical expenses. Their testimony is accepted as persuasive. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue The issue in this 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 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 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 issues are whether, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b), Florida Statutes (17b),1 Petitioner has proved that Respondent's recovery of $535,312 in medical assistance expenditures2 from $5 million in proceeds from the settlement of a personal injury action must be reduced to avoid conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1) (Anti-Lien Statute)3; and, if so, the maximum allowable amount of Respondent's recovery.
Findings Of Fact On September 28, 2005, Petitioner was born by an unremarkable delivery at 42 weeks' gestation at a hospital in West Palm Beach. On October 1, 2005, from all appearances a healthy infant, Petitioner was discharged to home. However, Petitioner was born with an extremely rare metabolic disorder known as B-ketothiolase deficiency (BKT), which prevents the body from processing a protein building block called isoleucine and impedes the body's processing of ketones. A few weeks after Petitioner's birth, the birth hospital began screening that would have detected this condition and permitted timely management and treatment of this serious condition. Petitioner progressed normally until, at the age of five years, she acquired an infection that caused her to suffer a decompensation attack and guardian," and DOAH Case 20-2124MTR identifies by name a parent, "individually and as parent and natural guardian of A. F., a minor." As to the latter case, the same attorneys represent the petitioner and respondent as represent Petitioner and Respondent. 9 Resp.'s proposed final order, footnote 2. metabolic crisis. Over the span of a few hours, Petitioner suffered irreversible and progressive atrophic changes to her basal ganglia. This brain damage produced, among other permanent conditions, intermittent painful spasms, multiple times during the day and night, that cause Petitioner to thrash her head about wildly, to arch her back into an extreme "U-like position," and uncontrollably to scratch her eyes or mouth until the spasm ends or her arms are secured or become entrapped in the wheelchair. Otherwise, Petitioner's arms and legs are in a permanent state of contracture, so as to be of little use to her, and her head is typically deviated to the left. Unable to walk, Petitioner requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility, but chronic pain, especially in her back, prevents her from remaining in the chair for more than 30 minutes at a time. Unable to maintain any position for very long, Petitioner is unable even to watch television or a movie. Petitioner attends school, where she is assisted by a one-to-one paraprofessional, but, due to pain, she typically finds it necessary to leave, often in tears, prior to the end of the school day. Petitioner is completely dependent on others for all of the activities of daily living. She is fed through a gastrostomy tube. Without respite care, Petitioner's mother is unable to leave her daughter unattended and provides nearly all of the required care. Among many other things, the mother secures Petitioner to her bed, changes her position, stretches her, brushes her teeth, and takes her to appointments, including brain stimulation therapy in Gainesville twice weekly to help with the spasms. The impact of Petitioner's condition upon the family is nearly inestimable. For instance, nearly the entire family must accommodate Petitioner's desire to go to an amusement park, as the mother, Petitioner's father, and the older of their other two children must help to get Petitioner into one ride. Petitioner's ability to speak is limited, and she lacks the means of expressive communication by writing or a keyboard. The frustration of these communication barriers is heightened by the fact that Petitioner is likely to be cognitively intact, meaning that she is substantially "locked in," so as to understand what is going on about her, but is unable to express herself, even by body movement or gesture. No single measure adequately conveys the extensive care required just to maintain, to the maximum extent possible, Petitioner's present, limited functionality. When assessed for a life care plan, Petitioner was being seen by nine different physicians, three therapists, and the school nurse; was taking nine different medications; and was served by or consumed nearly two dozen items of equipment or supplies. In 2013, Petitioner filed a personal injury action in circuit court in West Palm Beach against the birth hospital and its corporate parent. The case presented three major problems in establishing liability. At the time of Petitioner's birth, only two hospitals in the state of Florida provided BKT screening at birth, and the birth hospital was not one of them. However, the corporate parent owns numerous hospitals in other states, and at least some of these hospitals were providing BKT screening at the time. Petitioner's ability to establish a favorable standard of care was thus dependent on keeping the corporate parent in the case, even though its liability was attenuated. Petitioner's task was complicated by a Florida statute that explicitly provides that the failure of a healthcare provider to provide supplemental diagnostic tests is not actionable if the provider acted in good faith with due regard to the prevailing standard of care.10 Lastly, Petitioner was confronted by a causation issue because, when informed of Petitioner's rare metabolic condition, the parents did not immediately obtain a screening for her older brother. In September 2017, the circuit judge ordered the parties to submit to two summary jury trials, in which each side had a little over one hour to present the case to actual jurors for a nonbinding verdict. Each party devoted 10 § 766.102(4). nearly all of its allotted time to a presentation on liability, not damages. One jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the other returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding $23.5 million as follows: the loss of earning capacity and future medical expenses after the age of 18 years--$10.5 million; past and future pain and suffering--$5 million; past and future medical expenses until the age of 18 years--$5 million; and the parents' loss of consortium--$3 million. In the ensuing settlement negotiations, the defendants' counsel did not contest the damages. Significantly, in calculating future medical expenses and loss of earning capacity, both sides chose conservative reduced actuarial values with only four years separating their choices. Additionally, the defendants' counsel did not contend that a timely screening might not have prevented the injuries. Instead, the defendants' counsel argued the above-described liability and causation issues. The plaintiffs' counsel opposed these arguments and, secondarily, argued that the $23.5 million summary jury verdict was too low due to the necessity of counsel's preoccupation with liability during their presentations. Nearly one year after the summary jury verdicts and after extensive discovery and the expenditure of about $200,000 in costs by the plaintiffs, the parties reached the settlement described above. By any standard of proof, Petitioner has proved that the true value of her case was at least $23.5 million, including $535,000 for past medical expenses, and that the $5 million settlement was driven by concerns as to liability and causation, not damages. The only noteworthy damages component in the true value is Petitioner's past and future pain and suffering, which could have supported a larger value based on the Florida Supreme Court's jury instructions on the matter.11 11 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, Appendix B, Form 2, states in part: What is the total amount of (claimant’s) damages for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect (list any other noneconomic damages) and loss The $5 million settlement represents a discount of $18.5 million or 78.7% when compared to the true value of the case. Applying the same discount to $535,312 results in Respondent's recovery of $114,021.
