Administrative Judge Rejects Medicaid Minimum Wage Challenges
The disputes involve fine print in this year's state budget that directed money to the Agency for Health Care Administration to adjust reimbursement rates so Medicaid providers would pay at least $15 an hour to direct-care employees.
February 09, 2023 at 11:26 AM
4 minute read
An administrative law judge has rejected challenges by two health-care groups to the way state Medicaid officials have carried out a requirement that "direct care" workers get paid a minimum of $15 an hour.
Judge Robert Cohen on Monday issued a 26-page decision that backed the state Agency for Health Care Administration in the challenges filed by the Florida Assisted Living Association and the Florida Ambulance Association. The groups also are pursuing a separate case in Leon County circuit court.
The disputes involve fine print in this year's state budget that directed money to the Agency for Health Care Administration to adjust reimbursement rates so Medicaid providers would pay at least $15 an hour to direct-care employees. Also, the budget said employees could file civil lawsuits against providers that do not pay $15 an hour, including possibly class-action lawsuits.
In the cases filed at the state Division of Administrative Hearings, the health-care groups contended, in part, that the agency should have gone through a formal rule-making process to define the workers who would be subject to the $15 minimum wage. Also, they contended that a rule-making process was needed for agreements that Medicaid providers would sign to show compliance.
They said the agency's interpretation of direct-care workers and its use of the agreements were improper "unadopted" rules.
But Cohen rejected the arguments, saying that the agency's interpretation of the term "direct care" workers is not a rule.
"The undersigned [judge] will not attempt to define the phrase 'direct care employee' here," Cohen wrote. "A literal reading of the phrase, however, would be an employee who provides care directly. Certainly, there are countless employees of the many healthcare providers represented by petitioners … who provide administrative, clerical, maintenance and other tasks for the providers that do not provide care directly to the patients, customers and clients of the providers. It is hard to imagine that these experienced health-care providers cannot parse out which employees provide care directly to their patients, customers and clients and distinguish those from others who do not provide their respective services directly to Medicaid recipients so as to trigger the minimum wage increase."
Cohen added that in "the context of those segments of the healthcare industry represented by petitioners … and as testified by witnesses for them, it appears that employees who 'put their hands on a Medicaid beneficiary' would fall within the ordinary and plain meaning of 'direct care employees.' If more is required in a Medicaid rule, such as an exhaustive list of direct versus non-direct care employees, then most every healthcare-related rule from AHCA might need a similar list of every possible situation encompassed by a rule. The law does not require that every word or phrase used by an agency be tailored and defined for every conceivable situation or individual."
But a document filed Jan. 17 by the health-care groups pointed to confusion about the definition.
"Although the agency strained to insist that 'direct care employee' has a common and plain meaning that is known throughout the Medicaid industry, it never actually stated what that definition is," the document said. "Nor did it offer testimony from any substantially-affected Medicaid provider or other knowledgeable member of the industry concurring with this assessment."
The separate case in Leon County circuit court focuses on the constitutionality of the part of the budget that could open providers to lawsuits if they don't comply with the minimum-wage requirement. It contends that, under the Florida Constitution, creating such a "legal cause of action" must be done in state law, rather than in the annual budget
Leon County Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey in December rejected a request for a temporary injunction to block that part of the budget.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readNorth Carolina Courts Switch to Digital, Face Extreme Weather in 2024
'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250