Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

July 3, 2015 by admin

Administrative law — Agency for Health Care Administration — Medicaid lien — Wrongful death settlement

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1489d

Administrative law — Agency for Health Care Administration — Medicaid lien — Wrongful death settlement — Where parties who received settlement filed petition with Department of Administrative Hearings acknowledging obligation to reimburse AHCA out of settlement funds designated for medical expenses but contesting amount designated as recovered medical expense damages payable to AHCA, administrative law judge’s responsibility under controlling statute was to resolve amount of medical expenses reimbursable to AHCA — ALJ erred in accepting petitioners’ argument, asserted for first time at final hearing, that AHCA could recover nothing because its lien had expired and it had not sought to enforce its subrogation and assignment rights
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Appellant, v. ELSA PARNU HUNT AND ERIC HUNT, INDIVIDUALLY, AS PARENTS OF ETHAN HUNT, DECEASED, AND AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF ETHAN HUNT, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D14-3916. Opinion filed June 24, 2015. An appeal from Division of Administrative Hearings. Mary Li Creasy, Administrative Law Judge. Counsel: Alexander R. Boler of Agency for Healthcare Administration, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Floyd B. Faglie of Staunton & Faglie, PL, Monticello, for Appellee.

 

(PER CURIAM.) The State of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) appeals an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) that excused Elsa and Eric Hunt and the Estate of their son, Ethan Hunt (the Hunts), from repaying Medicaid-covered medical expenses after they settled a wrongful death lawsuit. We reverse and remand for DOAH to calculate the amount of recovered medical expenses payable to the agency.

Facts
 
After Ethan Hunt experienced a neurological injury and severe disabilities arising from birth complications, he received medical care paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program. AHCA recorded a Medicaid lien in 2005 related to the Medicaid payments, and was automatically subrogated to and assigned rights to recover medical expenses from liable third parties. See § 409.910(6), Fla. Stat.1 The Hunts later filed a wrongful death action against health care providers arising out of Ethan’s death. They ultimately received a substantial settlement from the litigation, including sums attributable to Ethan’s medical expenses.

 

After the settlement, the parties disputed the amount that AHCA should be reimbursed for Medicaid-provided medical assistance. Availing themselves of the statutory dispute settlement regime, the Hunts placed settlement funds in an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of AHCA and filed a petition with DOAH on December 6, 2013, “contest[ing] the amount designated as recovered medical expense damages payable to the agency.” § 409.910(17)(b), Fla. Stat. Under the statute, the Hunts bore the burden of proving that a lesser amount was due than the amount asserted by AHCA. Id.

The Hunts’ petition claimed that the roughly $315,000 sought by AHCA was too high based on the wrongful death litigation settlement received by the Estate. They asked DOAH to limit AHCA’s recovery by calculating “the amount owed . . . based on the Estate of ETHAN HUNT’s $162,000 settlement amount and the Estate’s $15,559.01 in costs.” At the final hearing, however, the Hunts altered their argument. Instead of merely claiming that AHCA’s medical expense recovery amount should be limited, they argued that AHCA should receive nothing at all because its lien had expired and it hadn’t yet sought to enforce its subrogation and assignment rights. See § 409.910(11)(h), Fla. Stat. (providing that enforcement of rights “shall be commenced within 5 years after the date a cause of action accrues”).2 The Hunts’ argument prevailed and the Final Order concluded that AHCA should take nothing.

Analysis
 
We now reverse because the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) responsibility under the statute was to resolve the amount of medical expenses reimbursable to AHCA, irrespective of the unalleged statute of limitations defense that the Hunts might assert in an enforcement proceeding. When the Hunts invoked DOAH’s jurisdiction under § 409.910(17) — many months before the statute of limitations deadline cited in the Final Order — the Hunts did not attack AHCA’s right to reimbursement. Rather, the Hunts conceded an obligation to reimburse AHCA out of the settlement funds designated for medical expenses. Their petition acknowledged, for instance, that Ethan had received Medicaid-funded care; that rights to recover medical expenses had been assigned to AHCA; and that the settlement included a significant sum for Ethan’s Estate in satisfaction of his medical expenses. The Hunts had also placed the subrogated and assigned funds into a trust for AHCA’s benefit before filing their petition; an act considered “final agency action and notice thereof” by § 409.910(17)(b). Under the Hunts’ petition, all that remained of the parties’ dispute was for DOAH to decide between competing views of the correct reimbursement amount, per the statute’s provision of an “exclusive method for challenging the amount of third-party benefits payable to the agency.” § 409.910(17)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The Hunts belated argument at the final hearing to zero-out AHCA’s reimbursement was not appropriate under these circumstances. That a date passed in the period between the final hearing and issuance of the Final Order that may have affected AHCA’s ability to recover in an enforcement action did not alter DOAH’s jurisdiction or responsibility to determine the reimbursement amount in accordance with the statute, and as the Hunts framed the issue in their petition.

 

We thus REVERSE and REMAND for the ALJ to determine the amount payable to AHCA in satisfaction for the medical expenses paid by Medicaid. (ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.)

__________________

1Section 409.910(6) provides, in pertinent part:

(a) The agency is automatically subrogated to any rights that an applicant, recipient, or legal representative has to any third-party benefit for the full amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid.
* * *
(b) By applying for or accepting medical assistance, an applicant, recipient, or legal representative automatically assigns to the agency any right, title, and interest such person has to any third-party benefit, excluding any Medicare benefit to the extent required to be excluded by federal law.
1. The assignment granted under this paragraph is absolute, and vests legal and equitable title to any such right in the agency, but not in excess of the amount of medical assistance provided by the agency.
2The five-year period identified by the statute was to expire one week after the final hearing, on May 20, 2014.
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982