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 his settlement proceeds, as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 1, 2013, Josiah Delva ("Josiah"), who was only 18-months-old, was presented to a hospital with a fever and emesis. He was discharged only one and a half hours later after he was misdiagnosed with a "normal" condition. The following day, Josiah's fever continued, and he began suffering from a purpuric rash on his body and decompensated septic shock. He was taken back to the Emergency Room where he was diagnosed with meningococcal meningitis and meningococcal bacteremia and grew Moraxella catarrhalis in his sputum. Josiah was admitted to and remained in the intensive care unit of the hospital for five months. Due to the necrosis, which was caused by the meningococcus, Josiah's left arm below the elbow, his right leg below his knee, and the toes of his left foot were all amputated. In addition, he required bilateral patellectomies (removal of his knee caps). Josiah's medical care related to the injury was paid by AHCA's Medicaid program. Medicaid provided $237,408.60 of the costs associated with Josiah's injury. The $237,408.60 paid by Medicaid constituted Josiah's entire claim for past medical expenses. Josiah's parents and natural guardians, Jennifer Paulino Delva and Johnny Delva, brought a medical malpractice suit against the medical providers and staff responsible for Josiah's care ("Defendant medical providers") to recover all of Josiah's damages as associated with his injuries. As a condition of Josiah's eligibility for Medicaid, Josiah assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third parties any medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H); § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action, and it asserted a $237,408.60 Medicaid lien against Josiah's cause of action and future settlement of that action. AHCA made payments totaling $237,408.60 related to Josiah's injuries for which the defendant medical providers are liable. Josiah's lawsuit ultimately settled in December of 2018 or January of 2019 for the gross unallocated sum of $550,000.00. 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). There were $146,110.61 in attorney's fees and costs incurred to make the recovery. The parties stipulated that operation of the statutory formula to Josiah's settlement would require repayment to AHCA in the amount of $185,694.69. Witness Testimony Zarahi Nunez was accepted, with no objection, as an expert in life care planning. She met with the Delva family and consulted with medical professionals regarding the treatment needs and options for Josiah. She also reviewed the appropriate manuals to determine a course of treatment for Josiah. Ms. Nunez developed a life care plan, along with dollar figures for each aspect of treatment totaling $5,998,080.19.2/ Mrs. Delva testified how she noticed that Josiah developed a fever and was vomiting on New Year's Eve (December 31, 2012). After midnight, he vomited again, so Mrs. Delva brought him to the hospital. He was discharged a few hours later around 4:00 a.m. on New Year's Day (January 1, 2013). Josiah was diagnosed with a stomach flu, and was given a prescription to stop vomiting. Josiah developed a rash, which concerned Mrs. Delva. Upon talking to medical professionals via phone, Mrs. Delva determined that Josiah's rash would not change with pressure on his skin. This apparently indicated that his white blood cell count was low. Mrs. Delva immediately rushed Josiah to the hospital upon the doctor's instruction. At the hospital, Josiah bypassed triage as the rash continued to spread and as symptoms of sepsis became apparent. The doctors diagnosed Josiah as having a bacterial meningitis infection and treated him. His organs began shutting down and his body turned colors from the rash. Mrs. Delva vividly explained the horror of: watching multiple physicians rush to her son's bedside; seeing the Emergency Room go into quarantine due to her son's infection; providing the names of all the people Josiah had come into recent contact so that they could be given precautionary antibiotics; having the health department remove all of Josiah's things from the house to prevent the spread of the infection; and seeing her son essentially die on the table and be resuscitated. Josiah was in the hospital from January 1 through May 2, 2013. Due to the lack of blood circulation, Josiah lost multiple body parts. His left hand at the wrist, his right leg at the ankle, and part of his left foot were amputated, and both knee caps were removed. His skin is tough and scarred. According to Mrs. Delva, had the doctor properly diagnosed Josiah when they first arrived after midnight on New Year's Day, he would not have suffered the extent of his injuries. Mrs. Delva and her husband have four children, including Josiah, and she detailed the extent to which the family facilitates Josiah's needs. Josiah's siblings do not always understand the extra attention needed by Josiah from their parents. She explained every day is a constant struggle, and most notably explained, the need to travel from Miami to Tampa to Shriner's Hospital ten or more times per year for check-ups and to update Josiah's prosthetics. No witness testified to Josiah's or his parents claim for noneconomic damages. While it is clear that the malpractice caused grievous pain and suffering to the family that will last Josiah's entire life, no expert was presented to discuss the valuation of these damages. No testamentary or other evidence was advanced to show how the $550,000.00 settlement amount should be allocated between past medical expense damages and other elements of damages. Petitioner's Theory of the Case Petitioner's counsel argues that the total value of the case that Petitioner should reasonably have expected to be awarded by a jury was $110,735,488.79. Counsel explained that this number represents the past medicals paid by Medicaid, $6 million for future medicals, $20 million for past pain and suffering, $80 million for future pain and suffering, and $2 million each (a total of $4 million) for Mr. and Mrs. Delva's loss of consortium claims. Petitioner argues that the past medicals, as paid by Medicaid in the amount of $234,408.60, represent 0.0021 percent of the total value of the case of $110,735,488.79. Petitioner argues that applying this 0.0021 percent times the actual recovery of $550,000.00 results in Medicaid's pro rata recovery being reduced to $1,155.00 as the portion of the settlement allocable to past medicals.3/ No expert testimony was introduced on the calculation of any element of damages other than future medical expenses.4/ In support of the $110 million dollar plus "total value" of the case, Petitioner provided three jury verdicts to establish comparable pain and suffering awarded in similar circumstances. These cases include: A.H., a minor, et al. v. Trustees of Mease Hospital, Inc., et al., 2018 FL Jury Verdict Rptr. LEXIS 277; Lisa-Marie Carter v. Larry Roy Glazerman, M.D., et al., 2018 FL Jury Verdict Rptr. LEXIS 175; and Cynthia N. Underwood and Stephen R. Underwood v. Katherine Strong, 2017 FL Jury Verdict Rptr. LEXIS 11578. The facts of how the injuries happened and the effects of the injuries, in these cited cases, differ highly from Josiah's case. The first of the three jury verdicts shows a gross verdict award of $9,250,000.00. The third of the jury verdicts show a gross award of $6,132,642. The second of the three jury verdicts shows an award of $109,760,930. This includes the staggering figure of $94 million for pain and suffering damages. The undersigned took official recognition of the docket for the Carter case and the Notice of Appeal filed on March 22, 2018, which show that the Carter verdict is on appeal. Unfortunately, these jury verdicts provide no guidance for calculating Josiah's or his parents' claims for noneconomic damages or the total value of the case.
The Issue The issue is the amount of Petitioner’s $800,000 personal injury settlement payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA’s $187,950.01 Medicaid lien.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background On July 13, 2008, Carissa Gaudio (Carissa), then 26 years old, suffered severe physical injury and catastrophic brain damage when her car was struck by a train. Carissa received extensive medical intervention to save her life and address her injuries. Eventually, her medical condition stabilized and she was discharged to her parent’s home. While Carissa demonstrated consciousness and awareness, due to her catastrophic brain damage, she was unable to speak, ambulate, eat, toilet or care for herself in any manner. She was totally dependent on others for every aspect of her daily care. Carissa’s past medical expenses related to her injuries suffered on July 13, 2008, were paid by private health insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Medicare, and Medicaid. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida provided $494,868.51 in benefits, Medicare provided $6,364.89 in benefits, and Medicaid provided $187,950.01 in benefits. The combined amount of these benefits is $689,183.41, and this $689,183.41 represented Carissa’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Carissa, or others on her behalf, did not make payments in the past or in advance for Carissa’s future medical care, and no claim for damages was made for reimbursement, repayment, restitution, indemnification, or to be made whole for payments made in the past or in advance for future medical care. Due to Carissa’s incapacity, Carissa’s mother, Roseann Gaudio, was appointed her legal guardian. Roseann Gaudio, as Carissa’s mother and guardian, brought a personal injury action in Broward County, Florida to recover all of Carissa’s damages against the railway company and train engineer (“Tortfeasor”). On January 10, 2015, Roseanne Gaudio, as Carissa’s mother and guardian, settled Carissa’s personal injury lawsuit for $800,000. In making this settlement, the settling parties agreed that: 1) the settlement did not fully compensate Carissa for all her damages; 2) Carissa’s damages had a value in excess of $16,000,000, of which $689,183.41 represents her claim for past medical expenses; and 3) allocation of $34,459.17 of the settlement to Carissa’s claim for past medical expenses was reasonable and proportionate. Because Carissa was incapacitated, her settlement required Court approval. Accordingly, by Order Approving Settlement dated February 11, 2015, the Circuit Court Judge, Honorable Jack Tuter, approved Carissa’s settlement. As a condition of Carissa’s eligibility for Medicaid, Carissa assigned to AHCA her right to recover from liable third- parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H) and § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of Carissa’s lawsuit, AHCA was notified of the lawsuit and AHCA, through its collections contractor, Xerox Recovery Services Group, asserted a $187,950.01 Medicaid lien against Carissa’s cause of action and future settlement of that action. By letter of February 17, 2015, Carissa’s personal injury attorney notified AHCA of the settlement and provided AHCA with a copy of the executed Final Release and a copy of the Order Approving Settlement. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. AHCA did not respond to Carissa’s attorney’s letter of February 17, 2015. AHCA did not file an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute Carissa’s settlement with the Tortfeasor. The Florida Medicaid program spent $187,950.01 on behalf of Carissa, all of which represents expenditures paid for Carissa’s past medical expenses. Carissa died on August 12, 2015 (Death Certificate filed by Petitioner on September 11, 2015). No portion of the $187,950.01 paid by the Medicaid program represents expenditures for future medical expenses, and AHCA did not make payments in advance for medical care. AHCA has determined that of Carissa’s $226,478.73 in litigation costs, $210,463.10 are taxable costs for purposes of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula calculation. Based on $210,463.10 in taxable costs, the section 409.910(11)(f) formula applied to Carissa’s $800,000 settlement, requires payment of $194,768.45 to AHCA in satisfaction of its $187,950.01 Medicaid lien. Since $187,950.01 is less than the $194,768.45 amount required to be paid to AHCA under the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $187,950.01 from Carissa’s $800,000 settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The full Medicaid lien amount has been deposited into an interest-bearing account pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, pursuant to section 409.910(17)(b). At hearing, Petitioner called Joseph J. Slama, a board-certified civil trial lawyer. Mr. Slama handles aviation crash, products liability, roadway defect, and automobile accident cases, including handling catastrophic brain injury cases through jury trial. He stays abreast of jury verdicts through review of publications and participation in trial attorney organizations. He testified that he routinely evaluates his client’s injuries and makes assessments concerning the value of their damages, and he explained his process for making these determinations based on his experience and training. Mr. Slama was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Slama testified that he represented Carissa in relation to her personal injury action. He explained that he first met with Carissa and her mother after she was discharged home from the hospital. Mr. Slama testified that he had reviewed the accident report, Carissa’s medical records, taken depositions of witnesses and experts, and reviewed the Life Care Plan prepared by Craig H. Lichtblau, M.D. Mr. Slama explained in great detail the facts and circumstances of Carissa’s accident. He explained that Carissa’s car became stuck on the railroad tracks. Unfortunately, a train approached and shortly before impact, Carissa exited her vehicle. Her vehicle was struck by the train and she was propelled 167 feet from the point of impact. Mr. Slama testified that as a result of the accident, Carissa suffered catastrophic physical injury and brain damage. He testified that due to this catastrophic brain injury, Carissa was left in a semi-vegetative state and was unable to ambulate. While she was conscious and aware of her condition, she was unable to communicate other than with limited facial expressions. She lived in her parents’ living room where she received around the clock care, provided by her family, until her recent death. Mr. Slama testified that through his representation of Carissa, interactions with her, review of her medical records and reports, and based on his training and experience in similar cases, it was his opinion that the “minimum reasonable value” of Carissa’s damages was $16,000,000. He testified that this $16,000,000 would be the amount a jury would award in damages if the question of damages alone was presented to the jury, and he would be disappointed in this result because he would ask for much more in damages. Mr. Slama explained that the basis of his opinion was her past expenses, her need for future life care needs, and her non-economic damages, including pain and suffering, which would have been awarded from the date of her injury by a jury and would be a huge amount. Mr. Slama explained that Carissa’s lawsuit to recover all her damages had issues related to comparative negligence and disputed facts that called into question the responsibility of the defendants to pay for Carissa’s damages. He testified that based on these issues, Carissa’s lawsuit was settled for $800,000. Mr. Slama testified that this $800,000 settlement did not fully compensate Carissa for the full value of her damages and that based on the $16,000,000 valuation of all Carissa’s damages, the $800,000 settlement represented a five percent recovery of Carissa’s damages. He testified that because she only recovered five percent of her damages in the settlement, she “only recovered 5 percent of each and every element of her damages, including only 5 percent of her $689,183.41” claim for past medical expenses, or $34,459.17. R. Vincent Barrett has been a trial attorney since 1977 and is a partner with the Tallahassee law firm of Barrett, Fasig & Brooks. He practices in the area of medical malpractice and medical and pharmaceutical product liability. He has handled catastrophic injury cases and handled numerous jury trials. Mr. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts by reviewing Jury Verdict Reports, talking with other lawyers, and attending seminars. He testified that as a routine part of his practice, he ascertains the value of damages suffered by injured parties and has served as an expert in the valuation of damages in civil cases. Mr. Barrett was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Barrett testified that he was very familiar with Carissa’s injuries and had reviewed a substantial amount of Carissa’s medical records, the Life Care Plan, accident report, before and after pictures of Carissa, Day in the Life Video, the Second Amended Complaint, the Release, and the Order Approving Settlement. Mr. Barrett explained that he was familiar with the type of injury suffered by Carissa because he had handled a number of traumatic brain and orthopedic injury cases with injuries similar to Carissa’s. He testified that with respect to virtually every injury that Carissa suffered, he had handled a case that involved one or more of those injuries. Mr. Barrett stated that Carissa’s case is “one of the worst cases I’ve ever seen,” and he described Carissa’s accident and extensive injuries. Mr. Barrett explained that Carissa’s injuries were “horrible” and “dramatic” and that “tractor trailer versus car, train versus car, those kinds of cases are worth in a jury trial generally twice as much as in a regular car accident just because of the dramatic traumatic nature of the impact it has on jurors.” Mr. Barrett testified that Carissa’s damages had a value of at least up in the $30,000,000 range and that the valuation of her damages at $16,000,000 was extremely conservative. He explained that he had reviewed jury verdicts in developing his opinion as to the value of Carissa’s damages, and he compared a number of the verdicts he had reviewed with Carissa’s case, including the Mosley 2014 Broward verdict for $75,543,527, noting that the Mosley plaintiff, unlike Carissa, was left with limited verbal language and the ability to walk short distances with assistance. Mr. Barrett stated in relation to the $16,000,000 valuation of Carissa’s damages that, “in Broward County for a pretty, young, 26-year old, gainfully employed, Hispanic lady, who was engaged, it’s got to be the limit. I mean, some of those verdicts were $75 million and some of those people weren’t hurt as bad as Carissa. So, yes, it’s very conservative.” The testimony of Mr. Slama and Mr. Barrett that the minimum reasonable value of Carissa’s damages was $16,000,000 was unrebutted, and is credible. Respondent’s position is that it should be reimbursed for its Medicaid expenditures on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the statutory formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting a 25 percent attorney’s fee ($200,000) and taxable costs ($210,463.10) from the $800,000 recovery, which yields a sum of $389,536.90, then dividing that amount by two, which yields a result of $194,768.45. Under the statute, Respondent is limited to recovery of the amount derived from the statutory formula or the amount of its lien, whichever is less. Since the Medicaid lien amount is $187,950.01, which is less than the $194,768.45 amount required to be paid to AHCA under the section 409.910(11)(f) formula, AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $187,950.01 from Carissa’s $800,000 settlement in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. Petitioner’s position is that reimbursement for past medical expenses should be limited to the same ratio as Petitioner’s recovery amount to the total value of damages. Petitioner urges Respondent should be reimbursed $34,459.17 in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. The settlement amount of $800,000 is five percent of the reasonable total value ($16 million) of Petitioner’s damages. By the same token, five percent of $689,183.41 (Petitioner’s past medical expenses paid by both Medicaid and private insurance) is $34,459.17. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.
Findings Of Fact There are nine Petitioners in this case. Each of them is a long-term health care facility (nursing home) operated under independent and separate legal entities, but, generally, under the umbrella of a single owner, Tzvi "Steve" Bogomilsky. The issues in this case are essentially the same for all nine Petitioners, but the specific monetary impact on each Petitioner may differ. For purposes of addressing the issues at final hearing, only one of the Petitioners, Madison Pointe Rehabilitation and Health Center (Madison Pointe), was discussed, but the pertinent facts are relevant to each of the other Petitioners as well. Each of the Petitioners has standing in this case. The Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by each Petitioner was timely and satisfied minimum requirements. In September 2008, Bogomilsky caused to be filed with AHCA a Change of Licensed Operator ("CHOP") application for Madison Pointe.1 The purpose of that application was to allow a new entity owned by Bogomilsky to become the authorized licensee of that facility. Part and parcel of the CHOP application was a Form 1332, PFA. The PFA sets forth projected revenues, expenses, costs and charges anticipated for the facility in its first year of operation by the new operator. The PFA also contained projected (or budgeted) balance sheets and a projected Medicaid cost report for the facility. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing nursing homes in this state. AHCA also is responsible for managing the federal Medicaid program within this state. Further, AHCA monitors nursing homes within the state for compliance with state and federal regulations, both operating and financial in nature. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Long-Term Care Services, Long-Term Care Unit ("Long-Term Care Unit") is responsible for reviewing and approving CHOP applications and issuance of an operating license to the new licensee. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, Financial Analysis Unit ("Financial Analysis Unit") is responsible for reviewing the PFA contained in the CHOP application and determining an applicant's financial ability to operate a facility in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules. Neither the Long-Term Care Unit nor the Financial Analysis Unit is a part of the Florida Medicaid Program. Madison Pointe also chose to submit a Medicaid provider application to the Medicaid program fiscal agent to enroll as a Medicaid provider and to be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. (Participation by nursing homes in the Medicaid program is voluntary.) The Medicaid provider application was reviewed by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office (MPA) which, pursuant to its normal practices, reviewed the application and set an interim per diem rate for reimbursement. Interim rate-setting is dependent upon legislative direction provided in the General Appropriations Act and also in the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the Plan). The Plan is created by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS (formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration) is a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. CMS is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, utilizing state agencies for assistance when appropriate. In its PFA filed with the Financial Analysis Unit, Madison Pointe proposed an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 per patient day (ppd) as part of its budgeted revenues. The projected interim rate was based on Madison Pointe's expected occupancy rate, projected expenses, and allowable costs. The projected rate was higher than the previous owner's actual rate in large part based on Madison Pointe's anticipation of pending legislative action concerning Medicaid reimbursement issues. That is, Madison Pointe projected higher spending and allowable costs based on expected increases proposed in the upcoming legislative session. Legislative Changes to the Medicaid Reimbursement System During the 2007 Florida Legislative Session, the Legislature addressed the status of Medicaid reimbursement for long-term care facilities. During that session, the Legislature enacted the 2007 Appropriations Act, Chapter 2007-72, Laws of Florida. The industry proposed, and the Legislature seemed to accept, that it was necessary to rebase nursing homes in the Medicaid program. Rebasing is a method employed by the Agency periodically to calibrate the target rate system and adjust Medicaid rates (pursuant to the amount of funds allowed by the Legislature) to reflect more realistic allowable expenditures by providers. Rebasing had previously occurred in 1992 and 2002. The rebasing would result in a "step-up" in the Medicaid rate for providers. In response to a stated need for rebasing, the 2007 Legislature earmarked funds to address Medicaid reimbursement. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 2800, which included provisions for modifying the Plan as follows: To establish a target rate class ceiling floor equal to 90 percent of the cost- based class ceiling. To establish an individual provider- specific target floor equal to 75 percent of the cost-based class ceiling. To modify the inflation multiplier to equal 2.0 times inflation for the individual provider-specific target. (The inflation multiplier for the target rate class ceiling shall remain at 1.4 times inflation.) To modify the calculation of the change of ownership target to equal the previous provider's operating and indirect patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the effect class ceiling and use an inflation multiplier of 2.0 times inflation. The Plan was modified in accordance with this legislation with an effective date of July 1, 2007. Four relevant sentences from the modified Plan are relevant to this proceeding, to wit: For a new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous provider participated in the Medicaid program, the interim operating and patient care per diems shall be the lesser of: the class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of this Plan, the budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of this Plan, or the previous providers' operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50% of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the class ceiling. The above new provider ceilings, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, shall apply to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective on or after July 1, 1991. The new provider reimbursement limitation above, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, which affects providers already in the Medicaid program, shall not apply to these same providers beginning with the rate semester in which the target reimbursement provision in Section V.B.16. of this plan does not apply. This new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program, even if the new provider enters the program during a rate semester in which Section V.B.16 of this plan does not apply. [The above cited sentences will be referred to herein as Plan Sentence 1, Plan Sentence 2, etc.] Madison Pointe's Projected Medicaid Rate Relying on the proposed legislation, including the proposed rebasing and step-up in rate, Madison Pointe projected an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 ppd for its initial year of operation. Madison Pointe's new projected rate assumed a rebasing by the Legislature to eliminate existing targets, thereby, allowing more reimbursable costs. Although no legislation had been passed at that time, Madison Pointe's consultants made calculations and projections as to how the rebasing would likely affect Petitioners. Those projections were the basis for the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The projected rate with limitations applied (i.e., if Madison Pointe did not anticipate rebasing or believe the Plan revisions applied) would have been $194.26. The PFA portion of Madison Pointe's CHOP application was submitted to AHCA containing the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The Financial Analysis Unit, as stated, is responsible for, inter alia, reviewing PFAs submitted as part of a CHOP application. In the present case, Ryan Fitch was the person within the Financial Analysis Unit assigned responsibility for reviewing Madison Pointe's PFA. Fitch testified that the purpose of his review was to determine whether the applicant had projected sufficient monetary resources to successfully operate the facility. This would include a contingency fund (equal to one month's anticipated expenses) available to the applicant and reasonable projections of cost and expenses versus anticipated revenues.2 Upon his initial review of the Madison Pointe PFA, Fitch determined that the projected Medicaid interim rate was considerably higher than the previous operator's actual rate. This raised a red flag and prompted Fitch to question the propriety of the proposed rate. In his omissions letter to the applicant, Fitch wrote (as the fourth bullet point of the letter), "The projected Medicaid rate appears to be high relative to the current per diem rate and the rate realized in 2006 cost reports (which includes ancillaries and is net of contractual adjustments). Please explain or revise the projections." In response to the omissions letter, Laura Wilson, a health care accountant working for Madison Pointe, sent Fitch an email on June 27, 2008. The subject line of the email says, "FW: Omissions Letter for 11 CHOW applications."3 Then the email addressed several items from the omissions letter, including a response to the fourth bullet point which says: Item #4 - Effective July 1, 2007, it is anticipated that AHCA will be rebasing Medicaid rates (the money made available through elimination of some of Medicaid's participation in covering Medicare Part A bad debts). Based on discussions with AHCA and the two Associations (FHCA & FAHSA), there is absolute confidence that this rebasing will occur. The rebasing is expected to increase the Medicaid rates at all of the facilities based on the current operator's spending levels. As there is no definitive methodology yet developed, the rebased rates in the projections have been calculated based on the historical methodologies that were used in the 2 most recent rebasings (1992 and 2002). The rates also include the reestablishment of the 50% step-up that is also anticipated to begin again. The rebasing will serve to increase reimbursement and cover costs which were previously limited by ceilings. As noted in Note 6 of the financials, if something occurs which prevents the rebasing, Management will be reducing expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement. It is clear Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate was based upon proposed legislative actions which would result in changes to the Plan. It is also clear that should those changes not occur, Madison Pointe was going to be able to address the shortfall by way of reduced expenditures. Each of those facts was relevant to the financial viability of Madison Pointe's proposed operations. Madison Pointe's financial condition was approved by Fitch based upon his review of the PFA and the responses to his questions. Madison Pointe became the new licensed operator of the facility. That is, the Long-Term Care Unit deemed the application to have met all requirements, including financial ability to operate, and issued a license to the applicant. Subsequently, MPA provided to Madison Pointe its interim Medicaid rate. MPA advised Madison Pointe that its rate would be $194.55 ppd, some $8.95 ppd less than Madison Pointe had projected in its PFA (but slightly more than Madison Pointe would have projected with the 50 percent limitation from Plan Sentence 1 in effect, i.e., $194.26). The PFA projected 25,135 annual Medicaid patient days, which multiplied by $8.95, would equate to a reduction in revenues of approximately $225,000 for the first year of operation.4 MPA assigned Madison Pointe's interim Medicaid rate by applying the provisions of the Plan as it existed as of the date Madison Pointe's new operating license was issued, i.e., September 1, 2007. Specifically, MPA limited Madison Pointe's per diem to 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the applicable ceilings, as dictated by the changes to the Plan. (See Plan Sentence 1 set forth above.) Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate in the PFA had not taken any such limitations into account because of Madison Pointe's interpretation of the Plan provisions. Specifically, that Plan Sentence 3 applies to Madison Pointe and, therefore, exempts Madison Pointe from the new provider limitation set forth in Plan Sentences 1 and 2. However, Madison Pointe was not "already in the Medicaid program" as of July 1, 2007, as called for in Plan Sentence 3. Rather, Madison Pointe's commencement date in the Medicaid program was September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 1 is applicable to a "new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous operator participated in the Medicaid program." Madison Pointe falls within that definition. Thus, Madison Pointe's interim operating and patient care per diems would be the lesser of: (1) The class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of the Plan; (2) The budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of the Plan; or (3) The previous provider's operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the class ceiling. Based upon the language of Plan Sentence 1, MPA approved an interim operating and patient care per diem of $194.55 for Madison Pointe. Plan Sentence 2 is applicable to Madison Pointe, because it applies to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective after July 1, 1991. Madison Pointe's certification was effective September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 3 is the primary point of contention between the parties. AHCA correctly contends that Plan Sentence 3 is not applicable to Petitioner, because it addresses rebasing that occurred on July 1, 2007, i.e., prior to Madison Pointe coming into the Medicaid system. The language of Plan Sentence 3 is clear and unambiguous that it applies to "providers already in the Medicaid program." Plan Sentence 4 is applicable to Madison Pointe, which entered the system during a rate semester, in which no other provider had a new provider limitation because of the rebasing. Again, the language is unambiguous that "[t]his new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program. . . ." Madison Pointe is a new provider entering the program. Detrimental Reliance and Estoppel Madison Pointe submitted its CHOP application to the Long-Term Care Unit of AHCA for approval. That office has the clear responsibility for reviewing and approving (or denying) CHOP applications for nursing homes. The Long-Term Care Unit requires, as part of the CHOP application, submission of the PFA which sets forth certain financial information used to determine whether the applicant has the financial resources to operate the nursing home for which it is applying. The Long-Term Care Unit has another office within AHCA, the Financial Analysis Unit, to review the PFA. The Financial Analysis Unit is found within the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. That Bureau is responsible for certificates of need and other issues, but has no authority concerning the issuance, or not, of a nursing home license. Nor does the Financial Analysis Unit have any authority to set an interim Medicaid rate. Rather, the Financial Analysis Unit employs certain individuals who have the skills and training necessary to review financial documents and determine an applicant's financial ability to operate. A nursing home licensee must obtain Medicaid certification if it wishes to participate in the program. Madison Pointe applied for Medicaid certification, filing its application with a Medicaid intermediary which works for CMS. The issuance of a Medicaid certification is separate and distinct from the issuance of a license to operate. When Madison Pointe submitted its PFA for review, it was aware that an office other than the Long-Term Care Unit would be reviewing the PFA. Madison Pointe believed the two offices within AHCA would communicate with one another, however. But even if the offices communicated with one another, there is no evidence that the Financial Analysis Unit has authority to approve or disapprove a CHOP application. That unit's sole purpose is to review the PFA and make a finding regarding financial ability to operate. Likewise, MPA--which determines the interim Medicaid rate for a newly licensed operator--operates independently of the Long-Term Care Unit or the Financial Analysis Unit. While contained within the umbrella of AHCA, each office has separate and distinct duties and responsibilities. There is no competent evidence that an applicant for a nursing home license can rely upon its budgeted interim rate--as proposed by the applicant and approved as reasonable by MPA--as the ultimate interim rate set by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office. At no point in time did Fitch tell Madison Pointe that a rate of $203.50 ppd would be assigned. Rather, he said that the rate seemed high; Madison Pointe responded that it could "eliminate expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement." The interim rate proposed by the applicant is an estimate made upon its own determination of possible facts and anticipated operating experience. The interim rate assigned by MPA is calculated based on the applicant's projections as affected by provisions in the Plan. Furthermore, it is clear that Madison Pointe was on notice that its proposed interim rate seemed excessive. In response to that notice, Madison Pointe did not reduce the projected rate, but agreed that spending would be curtailed if a lower interim rate was assigned. There was, in short, no reliance by Madison Pointe on Fitch's approval of the PFA as a de facto approval of the proposed interim rate. MPA never made a representation to Madison Pointe as to the interim rate it would receive until after the license was approved. There was, therefore, no subsequent representation made to Madison Pointe that was contrary to a previous statement. The Financial Analysis Unit's approval of the PFA was done with a clear and unequivocal concern about the propriety of the rate as stated. The approval was finalized only after a representation by Madison Pointe that it would reduce expenditures if a lower rate was imposed. Thus, Madison Pointe did not change its position based on any representation made by AHCA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, approving the Medicaid interim per diem rates established by AHCA and dismissing each of the Amended Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), from settlement proceeds received from third parties by Petitioners, Ray A. Siewert and Rose E. Siewert, for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Mr. Siewert.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Findings of Fact On October 15, 2017, the Siewerts were involved in a motorcycle versus automobile crash, which required extensive hospital, skilled nursing, therapy, and other medical treatment including, but not limited to, a four- level spinal fusion procedure and rehabilitative care and services for Mr. Siewert and multiple leg surgeries for Mrs. Siewert, that ultimately led to an above-the-knee amputation (hereinafter referred to as the “auto claims”). On January 3, 2018, Mr. Siewert was discharged from a rehabilitation facility to his home, where he began receiving home health nursing, physician, and therapy services. On January 22, 2018, Mr. Siewert was diagnosed with an abscess near his surgical site, which was allegedly not properly addressed in the days that followed. On January 31, 2018, Mr. Siewert was hospitalized due to worsening neurological deficits, namely in his lower body, and he was transferred to the hospital that had performed his prior spinal surgery. On February 1, 2018, Mr. Siewert had another spinal surgery to address an abscess compressing on his spinal cord, leading to the decreased neurological function. The damage done to his spinal cord preoperatively was significant enough that he has been unable to walk since January 31, 2018, and remains bedbound to present. Mr. Siewert has a neurogenic bladder/bowel, wears diapers, has to be catheterized multiple times per day,1 and is unable to ambulate. To date, he is living with his wife in a single room residence at a skilled nursing facility in the Orlando area, where he is expected to remain.2 The Siewerts brought the following claims: negligence claims relating to the auto claims; nursing home neglect claims under chapter 400, Florida Statutes; and medical malpractice claims under chapter 766, Florida Statutes, each of which were pursued against several companies/entities, individuals, and healthcare providers, seeking, in part, compensable damages to the Siewerts for past bills and future economic needs as well as noneconomic mental pain and suffering and consortium claims for their injuries and losses. In April 2021, the Siewerts settled one of the medical malpractice claims for a limited confidential amount. The Siewerts have had a health plan with Aetna Better Health of Florida, which is a Medicaid plan through AHCA, that has retained the services of Equain relating to the settlement of part of the Siewerts’ medical malpractice claims (referred to below as “Aetna”). Aetna was properly notified of the Siewert’s medical malpractice claims against those defendants and indicated it had paid benefits related to the injuries from the incident in the amount of $75,923.82, as it relates to the settlement at issue. Through their counsel, the Siewerts have asked Aetna to accept a reduced lien amount given the other claims still pending and large 1 The evidence adduced at hearing indicates that Mr. Siewert has now been fitted with a permanent abdominal suprapubic catheter. 2 Though Mrs. Siewert could manage in an assisted living facility, Mr. Siewert could not. Thus, Mrs. Siewert has chosen to stay in the skilled nursing facility to be with her husband. total case value. Nonetheless, Aetna has continued to assert a lien, for the amount of $75,923.82, against the Siewerts’ settlement proceeds relating to the single settlement. Aetna has maintained that it is entitled to application of section 409.910’s formula to determine the lien amount. Applying the statutory reduction formula to this particular settlement would result in no reduction of this lien given the amount of the settlement. The Siewerts also have been covered by AHCA’s fee-for-service Medicaid program. AHCA has contracted with Health Management Systems and Conduent to run its recovery program. AHCA was properly notified of the Siewerts’ medical malpractice claims against those defendants. AHCA provided medical assistance benefits related to the injuries from the incident in the amount of $33,836.09. Through their counsel, the Siewerts have asked AHCA to accept a reduced lien amount. AHCA has continued to assert a lien for the amount of $33,836.09, against the Siewerts’ settlement proceeds relating to the single settlement. AHCA has maintained that it is entitled to application of section 409.910’s formula to determine the lien amount. Applying the statutory reduction formula to this particular settlement would result in no reduction of this lien given the amount of the settlement. AHCA’s $33,836.09 payment and Aetna’s $75,923.82 payment total $109,759.91, and this amount constitutes Mr. Siewert’s claim for past medical expense damages. There remain claims against numerous other defendants which also relate to the AHCA and Aetna liens at issue, including all remaining defendants in the auto and medical malpractice claims. Repayment to AHCA’s Medicaid program is prioritized by law and contract over Medicaid-managed care plans Facts Adduced at Hearing During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the 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. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlement. The Medicaid program, through AHCA, spent $33,836.09 on behalf of Mr. Siewert, all of which represents expenditures paid for past medical expenses. No portion of the $33,836.09 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Siewert represented expenditures for future medical expenses. The $33,836.09 in Medicaid funds paid by AHCA is the maximum amount that may be recovered by AHCA. There was no evidence of the taxable costs incurred in securing the settlement. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to the settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $33,836.09 Medicaid lien asserted by AHCA, and the full $75,923.82 Medicaid lien asserted by Aetna. Petitioners have 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). 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 Mr. Siewert incurred economic damages, consisting of lost future earnings, past medical expenses, and future medical expenses. Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Marx testified that those economic damages totaled roughly $2,000,000. However, the economic loss analysis upon which their testimony was based showed a total of $1,770,775 in future life care needs for Mr. Siewert, reduced to present value.3 The only direct evidence of past medical expenses was the $109,759.91 in Medicaid expenditures. There was no evidence of other economic damages. Thus, the evidence established that economic damages total $1,880,534.90. The total amount of damages for Mr. Siewert was calculated to be $10,000,000, which was described as a conservative figure based on the knowledge and experience of Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Marx, and based on an analysis of representative jury verdicts involving comparable facts and damages. However, Mr. Gilbert engaged in a more detailed analysis of Mr. Siewert’s non-economic damages, which requires review. Although comparable jury verdicts suggest that it could be considerably more, Mr. Gilbert testified that his calculation, though subjective, would include $3,000,000 in non-economic damages in the past three years, and an additional $4,000,000 in non-economic damages into the future based upon a projected 12-year life expectancy, for a total amount of non-economic damages of $7,000,000. That figure was accepted by both of the testifying experts. As part of Petitioners’ calculation of the total value of the claim was $1,000,000 in loss-of-consortium damages incurred by Mrs. Siewert. Although the loss of consortium technically applies to the loss of the full marital relationship previously enjoyed by Mrs. Siewert, who is not the Medicaid recipient, that value was included as an element of the claim and settlement. Based on the forgoing, the evidence supports, and it is found that $9,880,534.90, as a full measure of Petitioners’ combined damages, is a conservative and appropriate figure against which to calculate any lesser 3 Respondent objected to the life care plan on the basis of hearsay. However, the plan was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Mr. Siewert would be expected to incur $1,770,775 for future care, but was offered as evidence of the more general value of a claim in litigation. Furthermore, the life care plan, even if inadmissible, could be used as support of an expert opinion as to claim valuation “when those underlying facts are of a type relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinions expressed.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 704.1 (2020 Edition). A life care plan is evidence that, for that purpose, would “be sufficiently trustworthy to make the reliance reasonable.” Id. portion of the total recovery that should be allocated as reimbursement for the Medicaid lien for past medical expenses. The full value of the settlement is 5.06 percent of the $9,880,534.90 value of the claim.
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), out of her settlement proceeds as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018).
Findings Of Fact On April 21, 2011, Ms. Puzanskas gave birth to her son. After birth, Ms. Puzanskas began experiencing symptoms of nervousness, panic attacks, and being overwhelmed. On June 21, 2011, she called her doctor's office and described her symptoms to her midwife. Her midwife concluded that Ms. Puzanskas was depressed or experiencing "baby blues." Based on this telephonic diagnosis, the midwife arranged for a prescription of the anti-depressant psychotropic drug, Zoloft, to be called into Ms. Puzanskas' pharmacy. The next day after taking the Zoloft, Ms. Puzanskas again called her doctor's office with complaints that the Zoloft was causing her to feel strange and jittery. Ms. Puzanskas was instructed to continue taking the medication. On June 24, 2011, Ms. Puzanskas began suffering from severe depression and hallucinations. That same day, she went into her back yard and doused herself with gasoline and set herself on fire. She suffered third-degree full thickness burns over 30 percent of her body requiring multiple skin grafts, with scarring over 60 percent of her body from all burns and grafts. Ms. Puzanskas' medical care for the injuries was paid by Medicaid, which provided $54,171.70 in benefits associated with her injuries. This amount constituted her entire claim for past medical expenses. As a condition of her eligibility for Medicaid, Ms. Puzanskas assigned to the Agency her right to recover from liable third-party medical expenses paid by Medicaid. Ms. Puzanskas brought a medical malpractice action against the medical staff responsible for her care to recover all of her damages associated with her injuries. During the pendency of the lawsuit, the Agency was notified of the action. Although it did not dispute the ultimate settlement received by Petitioner or otherwise participate in any aspect of the litigation, the Agency asserted a $54,171.70 Medicaid lien against Ms. Puzanskas' cause of action and settlement of the action. In preparation for the trial, Petitioner's counsel used mock jury panels to evaluate their trial strategies, value of damages, and the likelihood of a defense verdict. Mock jurors split. Some would have returned a verdict for the defense, finding no liability, while others would have returned a verdict for Ms. Puzanskas and given her some limited damages. Still others would have given her a very high amount of damages. See Pet'r Ex. 9. Eleven mock jurors provided verdicts from approximately $16,554,000 down to approximately $554,000. The remaining six jurors would have returned zero-dollar verdicts. The average award in the 17 verdicts was $3,741,000. Nine of the 11 jurors who produced a verdict for Petitioner included approximately $54,000 in their verdict, and then added amounts ranging from $500,000 to $16,500,000. The $54,000 is representative of Petitioner's rounded hospital bills. The insurance policy covering the incident had limits of $250,000 and the medical providers had no collectable assets. After the first day of trial, the medical providers offered $500,000 to settle the case, and this was accepted. However, this amount did not fully compensate Petitioner for her injuries. Mr. Moore, an experienced trial attorney who represented Petitioner, testified that based on his training and experience, Petitioner's damages had a value in excess of $3,700,000. However, using a conservative number for purposes of this case, he valued her damages at $3,000,000. Thus, the $500,000 settlement represented a recovery of 16.6 percent of the value of her damages, and a similar percentage for past medical expenses. Therefore, he testified that an allocation of $8,992.50, or 16.6 percent of $54,171.70, would be a reasonable and conservative portion of the settlement for past medical expenses. Based on his training and experience and review of the medical records and file, Mr. Barrett, a trial attorney, valued Petitioner's damages between three and five million dollars. He also opined that $3,000,000 would be a very conservative figure. Using the same allocation method advocated by trial counsel, Mr. Barrett applied a 16.6 percent ratio to the Medicaid expenses, and concluded that an allocation of $8,992.50 of the settlement to past medical expenses is reasonable, rational, and appropriate. This testimony was not rebutted by the Agency, and the Agency did not present any evidence proposing a differing valuation of damages or contest the methodology used to calculate the $8,992.50 allocation to past medical expenses. The testimony from Mr. Moore and Mr. Barrett is compelling and persuasive. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that $8,992.50 of the settlement represents reimbursement for past medical expenses.
The Issue The amount to be paid by Petitioners, Pedro Garcia, a minor by and through his parents and natural guardians, Jesus Garcia and Norma Cisneros ("Petitioners") to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), out of the settlement proceeds, as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pedro Garcia ("Pedro") was born on October 30, 2014. When he was two months old, he presented to the emergency room ("ER") with vomiting and excessive crying. The doctors failed to diagnose an intestinal blockage and discharged Pedro home. Pedro was taken again to the ER in dire distress. He was airlifted to a pediatric hospital where emergency surgery was performed to remove 90 percent of his intestine. Pedro now suffers from the effects of having 90 percent of his intestine removed, including: nutritional deficiencies, diarrhea, dehydration, and abdominal distress. He cannot play with exertion and his activities are limited. Pedro will suffer the effects of his injury for the remainder of his life. A portion of Pedro's medical care related to the injury was paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program and Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $71,230.43 in benefits. Pedro's parents and natural guardians, Jesus Garcia and Norma Cisneros, brought a medical malpractice action against the medical providers and staff responsible for Pedro's care ("Defendants") to recover all of Pedro's damages, as well as their individual damages associated with their son's injury. Because of uncertainty on issues of liability and only a $250,000 insurance policy on the most culpable defendant, Pedro's medical malpractice action against the Defendants was settled for a confidential unallocated lump sum of $2,000,000. During the pendency of Pedro's medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $71,230.43 Medicaid lien against Pedro's cause of action and settlement of that action. The Medicaid program through AHCA, spent $71,230.43 on behalf of Pedro, all of which represents expenditures paid for Pedro's past medical expenses. Another non-AHCA Medicaid provider, Integral Quality Care, provided $223,089.26 in past medical expenses on behalf of Pedro. Another non-AHCA Medicaid provider, Department of Health, Child's Medical Services, provided $168,161.12 in past medical expenses on behalf of Pedro. Accordingly, a total of $462,480.81 was paid for Pedro's past medical expenses. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene or join in Pedro's action against the Defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of Pedro's settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set-aside, void, or otherwise dispute Pedro's settlement. Application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) to Pedro's $2,000,000 settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $71,230.43 Medicaid lien. At the hearing, Petitioners presented the expert testimony of attorney Edward H. Zebersky, who represented Pedro throughout the underlying medical malpractice action against the Defendants. Without objection, Mr. Zebersky was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Zebersky has been an attorney since 1991. Since 1992, Mr. Zebersky has been a plaintiff's trial lawyer, with a substantial portion of his practice devoted to personal injury cases, including medical malpractice matters. He is a partner with the law firm of Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz, LLP and AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Zebersky is a member of numerous trial attorney associations and has held leadership positions in several associations, including president of the Florida Justice Association in 2006 and serving on the Board of Governors of the American Association for Justice for the past ten years. Mr. Zebersky handles jury trials. He has secured multiple eight-figure verdicts and several seven-figure verdicts, and he stays abreast of jury verdicts on other cases in his area. As a routine part of his practice, Mr. Zebersky makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by his clients. Mr. Zebersky was accepted as an expert in a Medicaid lien dispute at DOAH in the case of Herrera v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 16-1270MTR, 2016 Fla. Div. Admin. Hear. LEXIS 493 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 11, 2016). Mr. Zebersky was familiar with the circumstances surrounding Pedro's injury and medical malpractice claims and gave a detailed explanation of them. Mr. Zebersky reviewed Pedro's life care plan, which details Pedro's future medical needs, and an economist report, which calculated the present value of Pedro's future medical care and present value of Pedro's lost future earnings. The economist placed the present value of Pedro's future medical expenses and lost future earnings at approximately $9,500,000. According to Mr. Zebersky, past medical expenses would also be added to arrive at the full value of Pedro's economic damages. Mr. Zebersky testified that in addition to economic damages, a jury would also be asked to assign a value to past and future noneconomic damages (i.e., pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life). Mr. Zebersky testified that Pedro's claim for noneconomic damages would have an exceedingly high number, which as a "rule of thumb" is three times the value of his economic damages. Mr. Zebersky persuasively and credibly testified that the total value of all of Pedro's damages would be in excess of $20,000,000, and that valuing Pedro's damages at $15,000,000 is a very conservative and low valuation of his damages. Mr. Zebersky persuasively and credibly testified that the $2,000,000 settlement did not fully compensate Pedro for the full value of his damages. Mr. Zebersky testified that based on a conservative value of all of Pedro's damages of $15,000,000, the $2,000,000 settlement represents a recovery of 13.33 percent of the full value of his damages. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of damages, or propose a different valuation of damages. Mr. Zebersky's testimony regarding the total value of Pedro's damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Petitioner proved that the settlement of $2,000,000 does not fully compensate Pedro for the full value of his damages. Mr. Zebersky further testified that because Pedro only recovered in the settlement 13.33 percent of the full value of his damages, he only recovered 13.33 percent of AHCA's $71,230.43 Medicaid lien, or $9,495.01. Mr. Zebersky testified that it would be reasonable to allocate $9,495.01 of the settlement to past medical expenses paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program. Following the settlement, Mr. Zebersky negotiated the non-AHCA Integral Quality Care Medicaid lien from $233,089.26 to $18,737.00, and the non-AHCA Department of Health, Child's Medical Services lien from $168,161.12 to $22,415. On cross-examination, Mr. Zebersky acknowledged that the $233,089.26 and $168,161.12 from Integral Quality Care and Department of Health, Child's Medical Services are part of Pedro's claim for past medical expenses. However, Mr. Zebersky failed to include these past medical expenses in applying the ratio to reduce the Medicaid lien amount owed to AHCA. AHCA successfully contested the methodology used to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses based on Mr. Zebersky's failure to include these past medical expenses in applying the ratio. Accordingly, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 13.33 percent is the appropriate pro rata share of Pedro'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 $71,230.43, and the past medical expenses in the amounts of $233,089.26 and $168,161.12, which equals $462,480.81. Accordingly, following Mr. Zebersky's methodology and applying the $15,000,000 valuation to the proper amount of total past medical expenses of $462,480.81, the settlement portion properly allocable to Pedro's past medical expenses to satisfy AHCA's lien is $61,648.69 ($462,480.81 x 13.33 percent = $61,648.69).
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 amount to be reimbursed to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“Respondent” or “AHCA”), for medical expenses paid on behalf of Petitioner, Mitchell Fowler, from settlement proceeds received by Petitioner from third parties.
Findings Of Fact On September 4, 2016, Mr. Fowler suffered a catastrophic and permanent spinal cord injury when he fell at a boat ramp. Mr. Fowler is now a paraplegic unable to walk, stand, or ambulate without assistance. Mr. Fowler’s medical care related to his injury was paid by Medicaid. Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $74,693.24 in benefits and Medicaid, through a Medicaid Managed Care Plan known as Humana, provided $7,941.28 in benefits. The sum of these Medicaid benefits, $82,634.52, constituted Mr. Fowler’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Mr. Fowler pursued a personal injury action against the owner/operator of the boat ramp where the accident occurred (“Defendants”) to recover all his damages. The personal injury action settled through a series of confidential settlements in a lump-sum unallocated amount of $800,000. As a condition of Mr. Fowler’s eligibility for Medicaid, Mr. Fowler assigned to AHCA his right to recover from liable third-parties medical expenses paid by Medicaid. See § 409.910(6)(b), Fla. Stat. During the pendency of the medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $74,693.24 Medicaid lien associated with Mr. Fowler’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 settlements. AHCA has not filed a motion to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the settlements. The Medicaid program through AHCA spent $74,693.24 on behalf of Mr. Fowler, all of which represents expenditures paid for past medical expenses. No portion of the $74,693.24 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program on behalf of Mr. Fowler represented expenditures for future medical expenses. The $74,693.24 in Medicaid funds paid towards the care of Mr. Fowler by AHCA is the maximum amount that may be recovered by AHCA. In addition to the foregoing, Humana spent $7,941.28 on Mr. Fowler’s medical expenses. Thus, the total amount of past medical expenses incurred by Mr. Fowler is $82,634.52. The taxable costs incurred in securing the settlements totaled $45,995.89. Application of the formula at section 409.910(11)(f) to the $800,000 settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $74,693.24 Medicaid lien. 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). 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 Mr. Fowler’s economic damages, including future medical expenses, were $5,652,761.00 which, added to the $82,634.52 in past medical expenses, results in a sum of $5,735,395.52 in economic damages. Based on the experience of the testifying experts, and taking into account jury verdicts in comparable cases, Petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence that was unrebutted by AHCA, that non-economic damages alone could reasonably be up to $26,000,000. When added to the economic damages, a value of Mr. Fowler’s total damages well in excess of $30,000,000 would not be unreasonable. However, in order to establish a very conservative figure against which to measure Mr. Fowler’s damages, both experts agreed that $15,000,000 would be a reasonable measure of Mr. Fowler’s damages for purposes of this proceeding. Based on the forgoing, it is found that $15,000,000, as a full measure of Mr. Fowler’s 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 $800,000 settlement is 5.33 percent of the $15,000,000 conservative value of the claim.
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 March 26, 2014, Sanchez, who was then 19 years old, suffered a subdural hematoma while sparring at a boxing training facility, which resulted in catastrophic brain damage. At the time of the hearing, seven years after the injury, Sanchez remained extremely impaired. He cannot care for himself, will not be able to work again, and will most likely be significantly incapacitated for the rest of his life. There is no dispute that Sanchez is permanently disabled from the severe brain trauma that occurred while he was in the boxing ring. Sanchez’s injury-related medical care was paid for by Medicaid. A portion of his Medicaid benefits, totaling $253,843.04, was paid by AHCA. An even larger share of Sanchez’s Medicaid benefits, $555,439.81, was paid by Sunshine Health Plan, Inc. (“Sunshine”), which operates a Medicaid managed care plan pursuant to a contract with AHCA. The combined amount of these benefits, $809,282.85, constitutes Sanchez’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Sanchez’s mother and guardian, Guzman, brought a personal injury lawsuit on Sanchez’s behalf (collectively, the “Plaintiff”) against the owner of the gym (the “Defendant”), alleging that the Defendant was negligent in allowing Sanchez to box. The Defendant, whose liability coverage limit was $1,000,000.00, raised multiple defenses to the personal injury claims. The underlying negligence action presented a difficult case for the Plaintiff, both factually and legally, for several reasons. To begin, Sanchez had a preexisting seizure disorder, which he apparently never disclosed to the gym. Moreover, he had been hospitalized previously due to seizures and advised by his doctor to avoid contact sports. Sanchez also had executed a waiver of liability in favor of the gym prior to training at the facility. There was even a question of fact as to whether the injury Sanchez suffered on March 26, 2014, resulted from a blow to the head or rather from a seizure that would have occurred regardless of where he was at the time. In short, as a personal injury plaintiff, Sanchez faced an uphill battle, for the Defendant had multiple promising defenses (waiver, assumption of the risk, comparative negligence) and strong positions on liability (duty, causation). Guzman candidly disclosed these issues at hearing and presented a fair, balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Plaintiff’s case, eliciting testimony not only from the Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Silverstein, but also from the Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Stone. The personal injury action was settled for $850,000.00, a figure which was below the limits of available insurance, and a mere fraction of Sanchez’s monetary damages. Both sides were represented by experienced and competent attorneys, and the agreed upon payment, resulting from an arms- length negotiation, reflects the full settlement value (“Claim Value”) of the Plaintiff’s tort claims. Sanchez, in other words, recovered 100% of the Claim Value of his personal injury action against the Defendant. As mentioned, however, the Plaintiff settled for a tiny portion of his total damages (“Total Value”). To be more precise, whereas Sanchez recovered 100% of his Claim Value, the settlement yielded him only 3.4% of the Total Value of his damages. This was due to the substantial risk of the Plaintiff’s coming up empty-handed if the lawsuit were adjudicated. As the Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Stone, explained, even if the Plaintiff managed to survive summary judgment, which was not a sure thing, the likelihood of a defense verdict was high. Still, Mr. Stone agreed that the severity of Sanchez’s disabilities would translate into enormous monetary damages if the jury found in the Plaintiff’s favor. This was the strength of the Plaintiff’s case. A jury award could have exposed the Defendant to a catastrophic judgment in excess of policy limits. The settlement was a prudent decision for both sides, given the Defendant’s potential exposure and the Plaintiff’s long odds. AHCA was notified of the personal injury action. AHCA did not “institute, intervene in, or join in” the personal injury action to enforce its rights as provided in section 409.910(11), or participate in any aspect of the personal injury action against the Defendant. Instead, AHCA asserted a $253,843.04 Medicaid lien against Sanchez’s cause of action and settlement of that action. By letter, AHCA was notified of the settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set-aside, have declared void, or otherwise disputed Sanchez’s settlement. The Medicaid program, through AHCA and Sunshine, spent $809,282.85 on behalf of Sanchez, all of which represents expenditures paid towards Sanchez’s past medical care and treatment. Sanchez’s taxable costs incurred in securing the $850,000.00 settlement totaled $12,987.78. Application of the section 409.910(11)(f) formula to Sanchez’s $850,000.00 recovery produces a statutory default allocation of $312,256.11 in settlement funds to past medical expenses, which would satisfy AHCA’s Medicaid lien in full and leave a balance of $58,413.07 for reimbursing Sunshine.1 Sunshine, however, reportedly settled with Sanchez (presumably with AHCA’s approval) before the hearing and agreed to accept $18,884.00, or 3.4% of its expenditures. There is no dispute that, under the anti-lien provisions in the federal Medicaid statute, the Medicaid lien attaches only to the portion of Sanchez’s 1 At the outset of the hearing, AHCA’s counsel stipulated that there is, in effect, only one Medicaid lien, the proceeds of which are divided between AHCA and Sunshine, presumably pursuant to the contract between them. According to the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the allocation under section 409.910(f) is used to pay AHCA first, and, if AHCA is fully reimbursed, then Sunshine it entitled to the remainder. Thus, even in Sunshine’s best-case scenario, Sunshine’s recovery was capped at about 10.5% of its expenditures. recovery attributable to past medical expenses. Sanchez’s recovery, however, was an undifferentiated lump sum payment, meaning that the parties did not negotiate an apportionment of the settlement proceeds as between the several categories of damages comprising the Total Value of Sanchez’s loss. The ultimate question presented is whether the Agency’s default distribution, in the amount of $312,256.11, reflects “the portion of the total recovery which should be allocated”2 to Sanchez’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 Guzman’s burden to prove that the statutory allocation is greater than the amount which “should be” distributed to the Agency, and that the default Medicaid lien amount “should be” adjusted to better reflect the portion of the Plaintiff’s total recovery attributable to past medical expenses. To meet her burden, Guzman presented evidence at hearing, as is now typically done in cases such as this, with the goal of establishing the “true value” of the Plaintiff’s damages. Usually, and again as here, this evidence comes in the form of opinion testimony, from a trial attorney or attorneys who specialize in personal injury law and represent plaintiffs in negligence actions. Guzman called two experienced plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers, one of whom represented the Plaintiff in the underlying personal injury lawsuit, to give opinions on the valuation of his damages. She presented the testimony, as well, of the Defendant’s counsel, whose conclusion that the full value of Sanchez’s damages ranged from $35 million to $40 million was compelling. The undersigned finds the opinions of these attorneys on valuation of damages to be credible and persuasive. Moreover, the Agency did not offer any evidence to challenge Guzman’s proof of the full value of the Plaintiff’s damages. Having no evidential basis for discounting or 2 See § 409.910(17)(b), Fla. Stat. disregarding the opinions of Guzman’s expert witnesses, the undersigned bases the findings on valuation that follow upon their unchallenged testimony. Guzman is requesting—and her 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 plaintiff’s recovered past medical damages. The mathematical operation behind a 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 past medical expenses; 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. The uncontested and unimpeached expert testimony in this case establishes, by any standard of proof, that the “true value” of Sanchez’s damages is somewhere between $35 million and $40 million, and is no less than $25 million, which is the most conservative figure presented by Guzman’s witnesses, Darryn Silverstein, Esquire; Kenneth Bush, Esquire; and Andrew Stone, Esquire. Thus, the undersigned finds as a matter of ultimate fact that the Total Value is $25 million. It is true that, except for past medical damages, Guzman’s expert witnesses did not have terribly precise numbers for Sanchez’s economic damages such as lost wages and future medical expenses. This is immaterial here, however, because Sanchez’s noneconomic damages for past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, etc., so eclipse the economic damages as to make the latter almost a rounding error. As a practical matter, setting the Total Value at $25 million (instead of, say, $35 million, which the evidence would also support) eliminates any issue regarding the value of Sanchez’s economic losses. There is no getting around the fact that the settlement is paltry in relation to Sanchez’s total damages, at most reflecting only a few percentage points thereof. Mr. Silverstein testified that because Sanchez recovered only 3.4% of the Total Value of his damages, conservatively appraised, it stands to reason that he recovered only 3.4% of the $809,282.85 in total past medical damages, or more specifically, only 3.4% of the $253,843.04 in benefits that AHCA paid. These numbers are $27,515.62 and $8,630.66, respectively. Mr. Silverstein testified that it would be reasonable to allocate $8,630.66 of the settlement to AHCA’s share of the past medical expenses. Mr. Bush, the other expert on allocation methodology, concurred. An allocation of $27,515.62 from the settlement to past medical expenses, pursuant to the proportional reduction methodology, would be consistent with the expert testimony presented in this case (and other Medicaid lien adjustment cases) and supported by the case law. Once Sanchez made a prima facie showing of Total Value by adducing competent substantial evidence thereof, and offered expert testimony regarding the proportional reduction methodology, the Agency might have introduced some evidence that would have given the fact-finder an evidentiary basis for discounting or rejecting the $25 million Total Value figure, or for rejecting the pro-rata allocation method.3 The Agency, however, 3 To be clear, the undersigned is not shifting the burden of proof to the Agency. The Agency is not required to put on any such evidence. The Agency is free to present no evidence, rely elected not to present evidence, preferring instead to argue that Guzman has failed to prove that the particular medical-expense allocation she 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 full value figure of $25 million, which Guzman’s witnesses established, via credible and compelling expert opinion, was a conservative appraisal of Sanchez’s total damages, or for declining to use the proportional reduction approach. An argument might have been made that instead of using Total Value as the number for the variable v in the proportional reduction formula, the Claim Value should be used. In this case, competent substantial evidence of a genuine Claim Value was adduced, as underscored by the fact that the Plaintiff left money on the table, agreeing to accept in settlement less than the amount of insurance available to the Defendant. On such grounds, AHCA might have argued that Sanchez recovered the full value of his claim, if not the full value of his damages, and thus that he recovered 100% of what he could fairly have hoped to obtain, as opposed to 3.4% of everything he might theoretically have won in an alternative universe where he had an airtight case and the Defendant had no defenses and limitless resources. AHCA, however, did not make this argument and, more important, did not present any evidence to support the use of such an allocation methodology.4 The opinion testimony elicited at hearing, in addition to being 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 the Total Value is too high, and it risks a finding that the unrebutted evidence of Total Value is a fair reflection of the full value of the petitioner’s damages. If, however, the Agency presents evidence of full value, or 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. 4 The undersigned, to be clear, is not signaling that he necessarily would have adopted such an approach, but only noting that this is an alternative which he would have taken seriously, had there been evidence in the record to support it. unchallenged and unimpeached, is otherwise persuasive to the fact-finder and convincingly establishes that the probable “full value” of Sanchez’s damages, i.e., v in the proportional reduction formula, is $25 million. The unchallenged expert testimony convincingly shows, as well, that a proportional reduction methodology appropriately identifies the “portion of the total recovery which should be allocated” in this case as past medical expense damages. Accordingly, the undersigned determines as a matter of ultimate fact that the portion of Sanchez’s $850,000.00 recovery that “should be allocated” to past medical expenditures is $27,515.62, or 3.4% of Sanchez’s total past medical expenses. A wrinkle here is Guzman’s settlement with Sunshine for $18,884.00. The record is silent as to the terms of this settlement, and as to whether Guzman has paid this amount to Sunshine. Also unknown to the undersigned is whether AHCA and Sunshine have an agreement as to whether Sunshine will be allocated $18,884.00 of the lien proceeds. The reason these things matter is that (unless Guzman has agreed otherwise in her settlement with Sunshine) the Medicaid lien should attach only to the $27,515.62 which, the undersigned has found, Sanchez recovered for past medical expenses. That is, $27,515.62 is the amount from which both AHCA and Sunshine must be paid. If Guzman has already paid Sunshine $18,884.00, then she should not be required to pay out more than an additional $8,631.625 to satisfy Sanchez’s statutory obligation to reimburse Medicaid—unless, that is, she agreed otherwise. If Guzman has not yet paid Sunshine $18,884.00, then (absent an agreement otherwise) she should be required to pay only $27,515.62 to AHCA, which can then allocate to Sunshine whatever amount AHCA owes Sunshine under the contractual arrangements governing such transfer. 5 This figure is slightly different (+ $0.96) from the number in paragraph 20, supra, due to rounding in the calculations. The discrepancy is obviously immaterial.
