[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-441888-105":59,"doc-detail-441888-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","state-of-florida-division-of-administrative-hearings-recommended-order","STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS - Recommended Order","","Recommended Order issued by the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings in case No. 17-0723. The document addresses whether a request for approval of the ReWalk exoskeleton system should be covered under the State Employees’ Preferred Provider Organization PPO insurance plan. It summarizes notice, the April 13, 2017 final hearing, witness testimony and admitted exhibits, and procedural deadlines for proposed recommended orders after the transcript filing.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/state-of-florida-division-of-administrative-hearings-recommended-order/441888/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/state-of-florida-division-of-administrative-hearings-recommended-order/441888.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"WPS_1786070896","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the issue addressed in the Recommended Order?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Whether approval for the ReWalk exoskeleton system should be covered under the State Employees’ Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) insurance plan.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"When was the final hearing held and before whom?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"A final hearing was conducted on April 13, 2017 in Tallahassee, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge R. Bruce McKibben.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What procedural steps were required after the final hearing?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Proposed recommended orders were due on or before April 24, 2017, adjusted based on the transcript being ordered and filed; parties then filed their proposed recommended orders within the allowed period after the transcript was filed.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},441888,1791235476,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":41,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},549768072016,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","STATE OF FLORIDA  \nDIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS  \nPetitioner, vs .  \nDEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF STATE GROUP INSURANCE,  \nRespondent .   /  \nCase No . 17-0723  \nRECOMMENDED ORDER  \nPursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this case on April 13, 2017, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge R . Bruce McKibben of the Division of Administrative Hearings .  \nAPPEARANCES  \nFor Petitioner: Michael B . Roberts, Esquire  \nReed Smith, LLP  \nSuite 1000, East  \n1301 K Street  \nWashington, DC 20005  \nVicki Morris, Esquire  \nReed Smith, LLP  \nThree Logan Square  \n1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100  \nPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19103  \nFor Respondent: Anita J . Patel, Esquire  \nDepartment of Management Services Suite 160  \n4050 Esplande Way  \nTallahassee, Florida 32399  \nSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUE  \nThe issue in this case is whether a request by Petitioner,  for approval of certain medical equipment, specifically the ReWalkTM exoskeleton system (“ReWalk”), should be covered under the State Employees’ Preferred Provider Organization (“PPO”) insurance plan (the “Plan”) . (Petitioner, a medical doctor, will be referred to herein as “  \nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT  \nBy letter dated August 18, 2016, Respondent, Department of Management Services/Division of State Group Insurance (the \"Department\"), through its administrator, Florida Blue, issued a letter to  denying her request for Voluntary Pre-Service Coverage Review relating to the ReWalk .   filed a Level I Appeal to challenge the Department’s decision .  \nThe Level I Appeal was denied by letter dated September 27, 2016.  then filed a request for a Level II Appeal; that appeal was denied on December 14, 2016. Petitioner timely filed a request for formal administrative hearing to contest the Level II denial and the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) . Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held on the date and time set forth above .  \nAt the final hearing,  testified on her own behalf and also called one additional witness, Dr . Steven Vanni, accepted as an expert in the treatment of spinal cord injuries  \nand devices relative to such treatment .  Exhibits A2 through A7, A9, A11, A13 through A15, A18, A20, B through G, I and J were admitted into evidence . The Department called two witnesses: Dr . Daniel Hudec, accepted as an expert in utilization management as it relates to coverage decisions under the Plan; and Kathy Flippo, nurse consultant for the Division of State Group Insurance (“DSGI”) . The Department’s Exhibits 1, 2, and 8 through 14 were admitted into evidence .  \nAt the conclusion of the final hearing, the parties advised that a transcript of the proceeding would not be ordered; proposed recommended orders (“PROs”) were therefore due on or before April 24, 2017. Seven days after the final hearing, Petitioner filed a notice that a transcript would be ordered after all . The parties were allowed 10 days from the date the transcript was filed at DOAH to file PROs . The Transcript was filed on May 9, 2017; PROs were due May 19, 2017. Each party timely submitted a PRO and each was duly considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order .  \nFINDINGS OF FACT  \n1.  is a licensed neuro-ophthalmologist, but is currently unable to work . She is 50 years old and is married with two children: a daughter, age 12; and a son, age 9. She and her family live in  Tallahassee, Florida .   is  \nenrolled in the Plan through her husband, who is a state  \nemployee . The Plan is a health insurance plan administered by Florida Blue, a BlueCross BlueShield (“BCBS”) affiliate .  \nFlorida Blue provides administrative services to the Department, including claims processing and medical coverage guidelines .  \n2. In 2008,  had a complicated pregnancy and delivery . After she had recovered from those complications, she was diagnosed with breast cancer . A bilateral mastectomy was performed, followed later by radiation treatment . From a","cbCaifDiqnd2E3kn","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifDiqnd2E3kn","pdf",106816,"English","# Statement of the Issue\n## Preliminary Statement\n## Findings of Fact","[{\"question\":\"What is the issue addressed in the Recommended Order?\",\"answer\":\"Whether approval for the ReWalk exoskeleton system should be covered under the State Employees’ Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) insurance plan.\"},{\"question\":\"When was the final hearing held and before whom?\",\"answer\":\"A final hearing was conducted on April 13, 2017 in Tallahassee, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge R. Bruce McKibben.\"},{\"question\":\"What procedural steps were required after the final hearing?\",\"answer\":\"Proposed recommended orders were due on or before April 24, 2017, adjusted based on the transcript being ordered and filed; parties then filed their proposed recommended orders within the allowed period after the transcript was filed.\"}]","STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS - Recommended Order | PDF",1790697978,76]