20-004061 Adco Billing Solutions, Lp vs. Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers' Compensation
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, February 2, 2021.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner established that its Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute was timely filed pursuant to section 440.13(7), and alternatively, that equitable tolling would excuse an untimely filing.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/02/2021
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/02/2021
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/02/2021
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held December 22, 2020). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 02/02/2021
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2021
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/12/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
Date: 01/11/2021
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 12/22/2020
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 12/22/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Judicial Notice filed.
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: 12/07/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Contactless Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
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).
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2020
Proceedings: Joint Response to Order Granting Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Official Recognition filed.
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: 11/13/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Ralph Douglas) filed.
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: 11/03/2020
Proceedings: Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Contactless Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2020
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for November 12, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2020
Proceedings: Joint Response to the Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2020
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2020
Proceedings: Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2020
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing Following Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2020
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

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

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):