AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, APPELLANT,

v.

DOROTHY MCGRIFF RILEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CAESAR RILEY, DECEASED, APPELLEE

ALTENBERND, Judge.

The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) appeals an order of the trial court determining the portion of a personal injury settlement subject to AHCA’s Medicaid lien. For reasons further explained in this opinion, we reverse and remand.

Caesar Riley was shot by a third party who has not been involved in this litigation. Mr. Riley brought a personal injury lawsuit against the owner of the property on *515which the shooting occurred. Mr. Riley’s injuries were serious and much of his medical treatment was covered by Florida’s Medicaid program, which is administered by AHCA. The medical expenses for which AHCA claimed a Medicaid lien totaled somewhat in excess of $225,000. While Mr. Riley was still alive, he settled his case with the property owner.1 AHCA was not actively involved in that settlement and the details of the settlement are confidential.2

Following the settlement, Mr. Riley filed a motion to determine the Medicaid lien. In the trial court proceeding, AHCA refused to stipulate concerning the portion of the settlement attributable to medical expenses. Relying, in part, on our decision in Russell v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 23 So.3d 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), it maintained that it was entitled to full satisfaction of its lien. AHCA maintained that under Florida’s Medicaid Third-Party Liability Act, specifically section 409.910(ll)(f), Florida Statutes (2010), and consistent with this court’s decision in Russell, it was entitled to a full reimbursement of its Medicaid lien and that the trial court should not consider evidence presented by the Medicaid recipient that might rebut the application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(ll)(f).3 The trial court rejected this argument and allocated an amount that was less than the actual Medicaid payments made on behalf of the Medicaid recipient, Mr. Riley.

After the trial court made its ruling and while this case was pending on appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Wos v. E.M.A., — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1391, 185 L.Ed.2d 471 (2013), which severely undermined the reasoning of our decision in Russell. Also while this appeal was pending, the Fourth District issued a decision authorizing a trial court to conduct a hearing similar to the hearing conducted in this case. See Roberts v. Albertson’s Inc., 119 So.3d 457, 2012 WL 5232182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, modified on reh’g, No. 4D10-2313 (Fla. 4th DCA June 26, 2013).

When Wos was released, this court ordered each party to submit a memorandum of law addressing the impact of Wos on this case. In its memorandum of law, AHCA modified its position and it now argues that section 409.910 should be read in such a way as to allow a recipient to attempt to rebut the presumption set forth in section 409.910(ll)(f).4 It now argues *516that Mr. Riley failed to present evidence that rebutted the presumption.

AHCA’s acknowledgement that a recipient should be afforded an opportunity to attempt to rebut the statutory presumption is consistent with the holding of the Fourth District in Roberts, which treats the statutory allocation as a “default allocation.” Roberts, 119 So.3d at 464. We conclude that the Fourth District’s holding in Roberts is correct. To avoid any confusion, we expressly adopt the holding of Roberts, which states

that a plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to seek the reduction of a Medicaid lien amount established by the statutory default allocation by demonstrating, with evidence, that the lien amount exceeds the amount recovered for medical expenses.

Id. 5

Although the hearing conducted by the trial court in this case may be similar to the hearing contemplated by the Fourth District in Roberts and the United States Supreme Court in Wos, the trial court obviously had no ability to apply this new law during the hearing. AHCA had the right to rely on our Russell opinion at the time of that hearing. We conclude that Russell is no longer correct law. Recognizing that the trial court may ultimately make a decision similar to the decision that it has already made, we nevertheless conclude that the issue should be newly decided at a hearing at which both parties and the trial court will be guided by the decisions in Wos and Roberts. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for a supplemental hearing. The trial court is free to rely on evidence in the record from the prior hearing and, as needed, to consider additional evidence.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.