20-004061
Adco Billing Solutions, Lp vs.
Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers' Compensation
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, February 2, 2021.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, February 2, 2021.
1S TATE OF F LORIDA
6D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS
13A DCO B ILLING S OLUTIONS , L P ,
21Petitioner ,
22vs. Case No. 20 - 4061
28D EPARTMENT OF F INANCIAL S ERVICES ,
35D IVISION OF W ORKERS ' C OMPENSATION ,
43Respondent .
45/
46R ECOMMENDED O RDER
50On December 2 2 , 2020, Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Telfer III, of
63the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (Division), conducted an
72evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Sta tutes (2020), in
83Tallahassee, Florida, via Zoom web - conference .
91A PPEARANCES
93For Petitioner: Marc J. Semago, Esquire
99FL Legal Group
102Suite 400
1042700 West Dr. M artin L uther K ing, Jr . , Boulevard
116Tampa, Florida 33607
119For Respondent: Keith C. Humphr ey, Esquire
126Department of Financial Services
130200 East Gaines Street
134Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4229
139S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE
146W hether Petitioner ADCO Billing Solutions, L.P.Ôs (ADCO) , Petition for
156Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute is entitled to be consid ered on the
168merits, or whether it should be dismissed.
175P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT
179On June 19, 2020, ADCO submitted a Petition for Resolution of
190Reimbursement Dispute with Respondent Department of Financial Services,
198Division of WorkersÔ Compensation (Departmen t). On July 10, 2020, the
209Department issued a Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal, dismissing the
217Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute as untimely.
225On August 26, 2020, ADCO filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing
236Following Reimbursement Disput e Dismissal with the Department. On
245September 10, 2020, the Department referred this matter to the Division.
256The undersigned initially noticed this matter for a final hearing f o r
269November 12, 2020. ADCO filed an unopposed Motion to Continue Final
280Hearing, which the undersigned granted.
285The undersigned conducted the final hearing on December 22, 2020, by
296Zoom web - conference. ADCO presented the testimony of Ryan Chenchick, its
308Collections Manager. The undersigned admitted PetitionerÔs Exhibit P1 into
317eviden ce. Marcia Paulk, R.N., a nurse case manager for the Department,
329testified on behalf of the Department. The undersigned admitted
338RespondentÔs Exhibits R1 and R2 into evidence. 1
346The one - volume T ranscript of the final hearing was filed with the Division
361on January 11, 2021. The parties timely submitted proposed recommended
371orders on January 21, 2021, which the undersigned has considered in the
383preparation of this Recommended Order.
3881 The parties filed a Joint Pre - hearing Stipulation on November 3, 2020. At the final hearing,
406the parties jointly requested that the undersigned strike parag raphs 17 and 18 from the
421partiesÔ stipulated facts, which the undersigned granted. The undersigned has considered the
433partiesÔ Joint Pre - hearing Stipulation Ð and has not considered these stricken paragraphs Ð
448in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
455All statutory references are to the 2020 codification of the Florida
466Statute s, unless otherwise indicated.
471F INDINGS OF F ACT
4761. The Department is the state agency with jurisdiction to resolve
487reimbursement disputes between health care providers and carriers,
495pursuant to section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes. Chapter 440 is known as the
507FloridaÔs WorkersÔ Compensation Law. See § 440.01, Fla. Stat.
5162. Michael S. Schurdell, M.D., a physician (Dr. Schurdell), is a Ñhealth
528care providerÒ as defined in section 440.13(1)(g).
5353. ADCO is an agent for Dr. Schurdell, responsible for preparing,
546processing, and submitting workersÔ compensation bills for repackaged
554prescription medication to insurers and carriers on Dr. SchurdellÔs behalf.
5644. Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith), a nonparty to this proceeding, is
575considered a ÑcarrierÒ as defined in s ection 440.13(1)(c).
5845. The FloridaÔs WorkersÔ Compensation Law, and its implementing rules,
594govern the process through which health care providers and carriers review
605and make determinations on health care provider bills.
6136. A carrierÔs bill review, under section 440.13(6), and implementing rules,
624culminates in a reimbursement decision to either pay the bill, or to disallow,
637adjust, or deny payment. An Explanation of Bill Review (EOBR) is Ñthe
649document used to provide notice of payment or notice of adjustm ent,
661disallowance or denial by a claim administrator or any entity acting on behalf
674of an insurer to a health care provider[.]Ò Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L - 7.710(y).
6897. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Law R ule 69L - 7.740(14), a carrier
702(or its claim administ rator) must use an EOBR that details the reasons for a
717reimbursement decision for each line item. The EOBR must reflect EOBR
728codes (up to three for each line item billed), which are reasons for the
742reimbursement decision.
7448. The EOBR is what triggers a hea lth care providerÔs option to submit a
759petition for resolution of reimbursement dispute with the Department,
768pursuant to section 440.13(7).
7729. Section 440.13(7) provides, in pertinent part:
779(7) UTILIZATION AND REIMBURSEMENT
783DISPUTES. Ð
785(a ) Any health care provider who elects to contest
795the disallowance or adjustment of payment by a
803carrier under subsection (6) must, within 45 days
811after receipt of notice of disallowance or adjustment
819of payment, petition the department to resolve the
827dispute. The petitione r must serve a copy of the
837petition on the carrier and on all affected parties by
847certified mail. The petition must be accompanied by
855all documents and records that support the
862allegations contained in the petition. Failure of a
870petition to submit such doc umentation to the
878department results in dismissal of the petition.
88510. Melissa Malarae , a nonparty to this proceeding, sought medical
895treatment from Dr. Schurdell, as a result of a workplace injury that occurred
908on August 31, 1998.
91211. Ms. Malarae subsequ ently filed a Petition for WorkersÔ Compensation
923Benefits on August 29, 2002, with the Office of the Judges of Compensation
936Claims (OJCC), in a matter styled Melissa Malarae v. TLC Child Care Center
949of Sarasota and Zenith Insurance Company , OJCC Case Numbe r 02 -
961034031RLD.
96212. Dr. Schurdell provided medical care related to the 1998 workplace
973injury and dispensed prescription medications to Ms. Malarae on August 8,
9842019. Notably, two of the prescription medications that Dr. Schurdell
994prescribed and dispensed w ere ÑLidocaine Ointment 5%Ò and ÑDiclofenac
1004Sodium Solution 1.5%.Ò
100713. On August 8, 2019, ADCO, on behalf of Dr. Schurdell, submitted a
1020ÑHealth Insurance Claim FormÒ for prescription medications he had
1029prescribed and dispensed, to Zenith, Ms. Malarae Ôs emp loyerÔs workersÔ
1040compensation carrier, for payment.
104414. As Zenith had not paid for those prescription medications, on
1055February 18, 2020, Ms. Malarae (through her attorney, Ronald S. Fanaro,
1066Esq uire ) filed another Petition for WorkersÔ Compensation Benefits , in OJCC
1078Case N o. 02 - 034031RLD, seeking payment for prescription medications that
1090ADCO, on behalf of Dr. Schurdell, submitted to Zenith.
109915. On March 11, 2020, Zenith filed a Response to Petition for Benefits in
1113OJCC Case N o. 02 - 034031RLD. In the portion of the Response to Petition for
1129Benefits entitled ÑResponse to Each Benefit Requested,Ò Zenith stated:
1139Petition(s) 02/18/2020(9) are covered by this
1145response.
1146Payment in the amount of $29,942.34 to ADCO
1155Billing Solutions.
1157Attorney Fees and Costs.
1161Resp onse:
1163The EC denies entitlement to attorney fees as the
1172requested benefits are being paid within 30 days of
1181the Petition. The EC agrees to reimburse taxable
1189costs associated with obtaining benefits in the
1196Petition.
119716. However, also on March 11, 2020, Ze nith issued an EOBR that
1210adjusted the August 8, 2019, payment for medications listed on the Health
1222Insurance Claim Form. The March 11, 2020, EOBR indicated a significant
1233downward adjustment of payment for the ÑLidocaine Ointment 5%Ò and
1243ÑDiclofenac Sodium Solution 1.5%Ò that ADCO requested.
125017. Mr. Chenchick, the collections manager for ADCO that sought
1260reimbursement for the multiple medications Dr. Schurdell dispensed to
1269Ms. Malarae (including the Lidocaine Ointment and Diclofenac Sodium
1278Solution), testif ied that he worked with Mr. Fanaro in the filing of the
1292February 18, 2020, Petition for WorkersÔ Compensation Benefits, to seek
1302reimbursement in the amount of $29,942.34. Mr. Chenchick testified that,
1313following receipt of Ms. Malarae Ôs Petition for Workers Ô Compensation
1324Benefits:
1325[T]hey [Zenith] rescinded their denial. That was the
1333response from Zenith. It was from the adjuster,
1341Katy Lamb. It was another document that said we
1350rescind, and, you know, there was a guarantee of
1359payment of that [$]29,942.34.
13641 8. Mr. Chenchick testified that he considered ZenithÔs March 11, 2020,
1376response to the February 18, 2020, Petition for WorkersÔ Compensation
1386Benefits a Ñguarantee of payment[,]Ò and that he believed that Zenith would
1399make full payment for the multiple medi cations at issue.
140919. Mr. Chenchick testified that on March 17, 2020 Ð after he received
1422ZenithÔs March 11, 2020 , response to the Petition for WorkersÔ Compensation
1433Benefits Ð he received the EOBR, dated March 11, 2020, and payment from
1446Zenith. Mr. Chenchick t estified:
1451So the other dates of service were reimbursed
1459properly. This was the only date of service that was
1469Ï that we were taking issue with, this date of
1479service of 8/8/2019, and the billed amount was,
1487yeah, $13,536.43, and for that date of service, we
1497were only reimbursed $349.67.
150120. After receiving the March 11, 2020, EOBR, which Mr. Chenchick
1512considered a Ñshort pay,Ò Mr. Chenchick contacted ZenithÔs bill review
1523department on March 27, 2020, to discuss this discrepancy. Mr. Chenchick
1534testified that a Ñshort payÒ error was common, and that ADCO regularly
1546addressed such an error with carriers directly, as opposed to utilizing the
1558dispute resolution process with the Department, pursuant to
1566section 440.13(7).
156821. Mr. Chenchick further testified concerni ng the alleged Ñshort payÒ of
1580the two prescription medications:
1584What we had in this one, which typically we donÔt,
1594was the Ï a guarantee of payment is what I
1604considered it where they rescinded and said they
1612would be paying the bills. So when I had that in my
1624hand saying we are rescinding the denial, we will
1633pay this amount, and then an amount comes in
1642thatÔs lower than that . . . .
1650I didnÔt feel at that time that I needed to submit
1661anything to the State because it was still under
1670review. It had not hit a h ard denial.
167922. ADCO did not contest the March 11, 2020, EOBR, pursuant to the
1692procedure set forth in section 440.13(7), and , therefore , did not petition the
1704Department within the 45 - day requirement contained in this provision. Nor
1716did ADCO and Zenith sub mit a Joint Stipulation of the Parties to the
1730Department, pursuant to rule 69L - 31.012, which would have allowed the
1742parties to Ñmutually s t ipulat[e] in writing that the reimbursement dispute be
1755held in abeyance for a specified time period, not to exceed si xty (60) calendar
1770days, for the parties to s eek a resolution of the reimbursement dispute
1783without the need for a determination by the Department.Ò
179223. Instead, Mr. Chenchick testified that he continued to negotiate with
1803Zenith concerning the payment discre pancy through May 2020. On May 20,
18152020, Mr. Chenchick, on behalf of ADCO, sent Zenith an ÑAppeal for
1827Reconsideration,Ò that explained ADCOÔs position that Zenith had short - paid
1839the two prescription medications.
184324. On May 27, 2020, Zenith issued a second, separate EOBR, that ADCO
1856received on June 3, 2020 (Second EOBR). The Second EOBR differed from the
1869March 11, 2020, EOBR, in that it only concerned the two prescription
1881medications at issue here , and that Zenith completely disallowed payment
1891($13,536.43) f or them.
189625. ADCO filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute with
1907the Department on June 19, 2020, which the Department received on
1918June 30, 2020 , 27 days after ADCO received the Second EOBR.
192926. At the time Zenith issued the Second EOBR, t he August 8, 2019 ,
1943billing remained at issue in OJCC Case N o. 02 - 034031RLD. A June 10, 2020 ,
1959mediation agreement, signed by Ms. Malarae , Mr. Fanaro, and a
1969representative from Zenith, states, in part:
1975Parties agree as follows:
1979Regarding PFB of 2/18/20, th e outstanding bills
1987submitted by ADCO Billing Solutions have been
1994paid and accepted by E/C, with the exception of
2003prescriptions for Date of Service 8/8/19 for
2010Diclofenac and Lidocaine ointment. E/C made a
2017payment for the 8/8/19 prescriptions, but the
2024provi der is disputing the amount paid. This dispute
2033between the E/C and the billing provider is not
2042within the purview of the JCC, who is without
2051jurisdiction to address such billing disputes, and
2058must be handled administratively.
206227. The Department assigned M s. Paulk, a registered nurse consultant
2073with the DepartmentÔs Bureau of Monitoring and Audit within its Medical
2084Services Section, to review ADCOÔs Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement
2094Dispute. Her job duties include reviewing petitions for resolution
2103r eimbursement disputes for deficiencies, under section 440.13(7) and
2112rules 69L - 31 and 69L - 7.
212028. Ms. Paulk reviewed ADCOÔs Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement
2130Dispute, dated June 19, 2020, and compared it to the date ADCO received an
2144EOBR that would t rigger section 440.13(7)Ôs 45 - day deadline for this process.
2158Ms. Paulk testified that she reviewed the two EOBRs, and noted that both
2171indicated a Ñdisallowance or adjustment of paymentÒ for the two prescription
2182medications. Under this circumstance, Ms. Pau lk testified that the
2192Department used the earlier, March 11, 2020, EOBR for purposes of
2203calculating the deadline for a petition for resolution of reimbursement
2213dispute. As ADCOÔs Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute was
2223filed more than 45 days after the March 11, 2020, EOBR, the Department
2236dismissed it as untimely served on the Department, pursuant to
2246section 440.13(7).
224829. Ms. Paulk admitted, on cross - examination, that when she made the
2261decision to dismiss ADCOÔs Petition for Resolution of Rei mbursement
2271Dispute, she was unaware of OJCC Case N o. 02 - 034031RLD, had no contact
2286with either ADCO or Zenith, and that the March 11, 2020, EOBR and the
2300Second EOBR were not identical, as the March 11, 2020 , EOBR actually
2312reflected an adjustment of the amou nts for reimbursement for the two
2324prescription medications ( i.e., Zenith would pay an amount for the two
2336prescriptions totaling $349.67), while the Second EOBR reflected that Zenith
2346completely disallowed payment in full for the two prescriptions.
235530. The u ndersigned finds that the March 11, 2020, EOBR differs from the
2369Second EOBR. The March 11, 2020, EOBR reflected a downward adjustment
2380for the two prescription medications. The Second EOBR reflects that Zenith
2391completely disallowed payment for these two pre scriptions. Additionally, the
2401March 11, 2020, EOBR considered additional dates of service, which were not
2413at issue in the Second EOBR.
241931. With respect to the payment for the two prescription medications at
2431issue between ADCO and Zenith, the March 11, 2020 , EOBR also conflicts
2443with ZenithÔs Response to Petition for Benefits in OJCC Case N o. 02 -
2457034031RLD, in which Zenith admitted that it would pay for all of the
2470medications (including the two prescription medications at issue) listed in
2480ADCOÔs August 8, 2019 , Health Insurance Claim Form. The OJCC was the
2492wrong forum for Ms. Malarae to seek payment for these two medications. See
2505£ 440.13(7), Fla. Stat. However, ZenithÔs response, and Mr. ChenchickÔs
2515testimony that ADCO considered it a Ñguarantee of payment,Ò e stablishes
2527that ADCO had been lulled or misled into inaction, as ADCO relied on
2540ZenithÔs response, and reasonably believed that the adjustment reflected in
2550the March 11, 2020, EOBR was erroneous.
255732. Mr. ChenchickÔs additional testimony concerning ADCOÔs a ttempt to
2567reconcile what he believed to be a common error known as Ñshort pay,Ò
2581reflected in the March 11, 2020, EOBR (which he received after Zenith filed
2594its Response to Petition for Benefits), is further evidence that ADCO
2605reasonably believed that Zenit h intended to pay, in full, the amount of the
2619two prescription medications at issue.
2624C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW
262933. The Division has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties
2641to this proceeding in accordance with sections 120.569, 120.57(1) and 440.13 ,
2652Florida Statutes .
265534. At issue in this case is whether ADCOÔs June 19, 2020, Petition for
2669Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute, filed pursuant to section 440.13(7),
2678was untimely, as the Department initially determined. If untimely filed,
2688ADCO raises the de fense of equitable tolling to excuse the untimeliness. 2
270135. As the party raising the affirmative of the issue, ADCO has the burden
2715of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is entitled to the relief
27302 AD CO has also raised the defense of equitable estoppel. However Ð with the exception
2746of equitable tolling Ð the undersigned does not have jurisdiction to award or recommend
2760equitable relief. Rather, in Florida, circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases
2773in equity, and only circuit courts can resolve matters involving equitable relief. See
2786£ 26.012(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (ÑCircuit courts shall have È exclusive original jurisdiction [i]n all
2800cases in equity including all cases relating to juveniles excep t traffic offenses as provided i n
2817chapters 316 and 985 [ . ] Ò). ÑWhile an administrative agency may exercise quasi - judicial power
2835when authorized by statute, it may not exercise power which is basically and fundamentally
2849judicial such as the grant of an equit able remedy.Ò Biltmore Constr. Co. v. Fla. DepÔt of G en.
2868Servs. , 363 So. 2d 851, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
2878it seeks. See Balino v. DepÔt of HRS, 348 So. 2d 349, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977);
2895§ 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.
289936. Section 440.13(7)(a) requires that a health care provider who elects to
2911contest the disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier must, within
292345 days after receipt of the notice or disallowance or adjustment of payment,
2936petition the department to resolve the dispute.
294337. The Department contends that the March 11, 2020, EOBR, which
2954adjusted the payments for the two prescription medications at issue
2964downward, triggered the 45 - day deadl ine for ADCO to submit its Petition for
2979Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute. ADCO contends that the Second
2988EOBR (which ADCO received on June 3, 2020), which disallowed the
2999payments for the two prescription medications at issue, was the proper
3010starting poin t for calculating the timeframe for submitting its petition, and
3022having filed its Petition for Resolution Dispute on June 19, 2020, that it was
3036timely.
303738. ADCO contends, and the undersigned agrees, that the Second EOBR
3048was a separate, different decision t han what is reflected in ZenithÔs March 11,
30622020, EOBR. The March 11, 2020, EOBR adjusted the payment for the two
3075prescription medications downward, and considered other dates of service.
3084The Second EOBR, in contrast, simply disallowed payment for the two
3095prescription medications at issue. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L - 7.740(14)
3107(ÑAn EOBR shall specifically state that the EOBR constitutes notice of
3118disallowance or adjustment of payment within the meaning of
3127subsection 440.13(7), F.S.Ò). The plain language of section 440.13(7)(a) states
3137that a health care provider must, Ñwithin 45 days after receipt of notice of
3151disallowance or adjustment of payment, petition the department to resolve
3161the dispute.Ò (emphasis added). As the Second EOBR reflected a disallowance
3172of payment, the undersigned concludes, in accordance with
3180section 440.13(7)(a), that it was separate from the March 11, 2020, EOBR.
319239. The undersigned concludes that ADCO timely submitted a Petition for
3203Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute based on the Se cond EOBRÔs
3213disallowance of payment for the two prescription medications. Accordingly,
3222the Department erred in dismissing it as untimely.
323040. Although the Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute was
3240timely submitted to the Department, the undersig ned also concludes that
3251equitable tolling would excuse ADCOÔs untimely filing of the petition even if
3263the March 11, 2020, EOBR was considered the trigger for section 440.13(7)Ôs
327545 - day deadline.
327941. Section 120.569(2)(c) requires agencies to dismiss untime ly petitions,
3289but further provides that this direction Ñdoes not eliminate the availability of
3301equitable tolling as a defense to the untimely filing of a petition.Ò Madison
3314Highlands, LLC v. Fla. Housing Fin. Corp. , 220 So. 3d 467, 471 - 72 (Fla. 5th
3330DCA 201 7).
333342. The Florida Supreme Court first applied the doctrine of equitable
3344tolling in administrative proceedings in Machules v. Department of
3353Administration, which it described as follows:
3359The tolling doctrine is used in the interests of
3368justice to accommo date both a defendantÔs right not
3377be called to defend a stale claim and a plaintiffÔs
3387right to assert a meritorious claim when equitable
3395circumstances have prevented a timely filing.
3401Equitable tolling is a type of equitable modification
3409which focuses on th e plaintiffÔs excusable ignorance
3417of the limitations period and on the lack of
3426prejudice to the defendant.
3430523 So. 2d 1132, 1134 (Fla. 1988)(internal quotations and citations omitted).
344143. The Machules court described the type of equitable circumstances t hat
3453might justify equitable tolling when they prevent a timely filing in the proper
3466forum:
3467Generally, the tolling doctrine has been applied
3474when the plaintiff has been misled or lulled into
3483action, has in some extraordinary way been
3490prevented from asserti ng his rights, or has timely
3499asserted his rights mistakenly in the wrong forum.
3507Id.
350844. The undersigned concludes that equitable tolling would be applicable
3518in this case because ADCO was misled or lulled into inaction by Zenith.
3531Mr. Chenchick testified that ADCO relied on ZenithÔs March 11, 2020,
3542Response to Petition for Benefits in OJCC Case Number 02 - 034031RLD, as a
3556Ñguarantee of payment,Ò and after later receiving the March 11, 2020, EOBR,
3569considered it an erroneous, but common, Ñshort payÒ that he d iligently
3581attempted to resolve with Zenith. ADCO was not aware that Zenith would
3593disallow payment on the two prescription medications until it received the
3604Second EOBR.
360645. The undersigned further concludes that neither the Department nor
3616Zenith will be pr ejudiced by allowing ADCOÔs Petition for Resolution for
3628Reimbursement Dispute to go forward. ADCO, however, will be prejudiced if
3639the DepartmentÔs dismissal of its Petition for Resolution for Reimbursement
3649Dispute is allowed to stand, as it will be require d to write off the cost for the
3667two prescription drugs at issue without an opportunity to contest ZenithÔs
3678decision, and would have no other recourse under chapter 440.
3688R ECOMMENDATION
3690Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the
3702u ndersigned hereby R ECOMMEND S that the Department of Financial Services,
3714Division of WorkersÔ Compensation, enter an Order that reinstates the
3724Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute filed by ADCO Billing
3734Solutions.
3735D ONE A ND E NTERED this 2nd day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon
3750County, Florida.
3752S
3753R OBERT J. T ELFER III
3759Administrative Law Judge
37621230 Apalachee Parkway
3765Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
3770(850) 488 - 9675
3774www.doah.state.fl.us
3775Filed with the Clerk of the
3781Division of Administrative H earings
3786this 2nd day of February, 2021 .
3793C OPIES F URNISHED :
3798Keith C. Humphrey, Esquire Marc J. Semago, Esquire
3806Department of Financial Services FL Legal Group
3813200 East Gaines Street Suite 400
3819Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4229 2700 West Dr. MLK Jr Boulevard
3830Tampa, Florida 33607
3833Ralph Paul Douglas, Esquire
3837McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Diane Wint, Agency Clerk
3844Weaver & Stern, P.A . Division of Legal Services
3853Suite 200 Department of Financial Services
38591709 Hermitage Boulevard Roo m 612.17, Larson Building
3867Tallahassee, Florida 32308 200 East Gaines Street
3874Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0390
3879N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS
3890All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from
3903the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to thi s Recommended
3915Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this
3930case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 02/02/2021
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- Date: 01/11/2021
- Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 12/22/2020
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 12/14/2020
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Affidavit of Ronald S. Fanaro filed (not available for viewing) Confidential document; not available for viewing.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/20/2020
- Proceedings: Order Denying Non-Party Zenith Insurance Company's Motion to Quash Subpoena/Motion to Limit Testimony.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/20/2020
- Proceedings: Order Rescheduling Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for December 22, 2020; 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time).
- Date: 11/13/2020
- Proceedings: Non-Party, Zenith Insurance Company's Motion to Quash Subpoena / Motion to Limit Testimony filed (confidential information, not available for viewing). Confidential document; not available for viewing.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/06/2020
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by November 20, 2020).
- PDF:
- Date: 11/06/2020
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing of November 12, 2020 filed.
- Date: 11/04/2020
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/22/2020
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for November 12, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee).
Case Information
- Judge:
- ROBERT J. TELFER III
- Date Filed:
- 09/10/2020
- Date Assignment:
- 09/11/2020
- Last Docket Entry:
- 09/07/2021
- Location:
- Tallahassee, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
Counsels
-
Ralph Paul Douglas, Esquire
Address of Record -
Keith C. Humphrey, Esquire
Address of Record -
Marc J Semago, Esquire
Address of Record