Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Amelia M Park
Amelia M Park
Visitors: 67
0
Bar #183116(FL)    
Tampa FL

Are you Amelia M Park? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

82-001288  RONALD WINKFIELD vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES AND DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION  (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Oct. 28, 1982
Respondent knew of absentee policy and willfully ignored it and was absent for four days without leave. Respondent deemed to have resigned.
82-001393  LILLIE M. LEWIS vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES  (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Aug. 19, 1982
Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the method for arriving at her monthly income for low income energy assistance. Recommended Order: deny petition.
82-001229  MARY F. RANDOLPH vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES  (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jul. 12, 1982
Petitioner made too much money each month to qualify for low income energy assistance program.
80-002184  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES vs. Y & S PARTNERSHIP, LIMITED, D/B/A MANHATTAN CONVALESCENT  (1980)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: May 19, 1981
By its Administrative Complaint, dated October 14, 1980, Use Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00 upon the Y & S Partnership, Limited, d/b/a Manhattan Convalescent Center for alleged violations of Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the Petitioner charges the Respondent with allegedly failing to provide patients in its nursing home with adequate care consistent with their right to receive adequate health care in accordance with the established and recognized practice standards in the community and with rules promulgated by the Department pursuant to Section 400.022 (1)(g), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner charges also that the Respondent failed to maintain its premises and equipment and conduct its operations in a safe and sanitary manner as required by Section 400.141(4), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is concomitantly charged with violations of Rules 10D-29.33(4) and 10D-29.38(1), and Rule 10D-29.52(4) Table (36), Florida Administrative Code, in the area of patient health care. A violation of Rule 10D-29.49(1), Florida Administrative Code is alleged on the ground that no effective maintenance plan was promulgated or implemented by the Respondent. The charges at issue relate to an August 22, 1980 complaint investigation and surveillance visit conducted by personnel from the Tampa Office of Licensure and Certification of Petitioner's Department. On that visit it is charged that the Petitioner's personnel observed a patient and her bed linens soiled with fecal material and another patient who had soil accumulations on the right hand and was in need of hand care. Additionally, the Petitioner's personnel allegedly observed nurse paging cords missing or not attached to beds in approximately twelve rooms and observed various fixtures and equipment in need of repair. The issues are thus whether the acts or omissions charged occurred, and whether they constitute violations of the above-cited legal authority and concomitantly, whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to Section 400.102(c) and Section 400.121(2), Florida Statutes. Two witnesses were called by the petitioner and five by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were introduced into evidence. The Respondent moved to dismiss the Administrative Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss will be treated in the Conclusions of Law hereinbelow. The Respondent has filed 248 proposed findings of fact and has requested separate rulings upon each. In that regard, the Hearing Officer has considered all proposed findings of fact, conclusions and supporting arguments of the parties. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent that such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions have been omitted as not relevant, dispositive or as not necessary to a proper determination of the material issues presented. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses is not in accord with the findings and conclusions herein, it is not credited.Dismiss petition. There was no proof of poor sanitation, failure to perform routine duties for patients or to maintain home in repair.
80-001364  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES vs. MANHATTAN CONVALESCENT CENTER  (1980)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Apr. 22, 1981
The issues are thus whether the acts and omissions charged occurred, whether they constitute violations of Section 400.022(1)(j) and 400.141, Florida Statutes, and related rules, and whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to 400.102(c) and Section 400.121, Florida Statutes. Upon the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner moved to amend paragraph 8 of its Complaint, so that the date "March 4" would read March 14." The motion was granted on the basis that there was only a clerical error involved and paragraph 8 correctly alleges that there-was a nursing staff shortage from February 20 to March 14, 1980. Eight witnesses were called by the Petitioner, and two by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were adduced as evidence. The Respondent has submitted and requested rulings upon ninety-five proposed findings of fact. In that connection, all proposed findings, conclusions, and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments made by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith they have been rejected.Administrative fine of $1600 for allowing patients to sleep on wet sheets, leave without knowledge of staff, keeping medicine unlocked etc.
79-001925  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES vs. THE FAIRWAYS, TOWNHOUSES AND VILLAS  (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Mar. 05, 1980
The legal issues raised and the status of the parties in this cause are seemingly complex due to the manner in which the case was presented on the initial pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At bearing, it was determined that Fairways was seeking approval of a permit for use of its swimming pool. This application had been denied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on the grounds that the pool failed to meet the requirements of Rule 100-5.50, Florida Administrative Code. In order to place the parties in their proper positions, the Respondent, Fairways, was determined to be the movant party and its cross-petition considered to be the petition. The ultimate issue presented is whether the subject pool meets the requirements of Rule 100-5.50 and its use should be approved.Condominium's permit application for pool denied because of building placement and lack of public toilets poolside.
79-000712  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES vs. KERNON`S SU CASA AND VEAZEY`S RESTORIUM, INC.  (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jan. 09, 1980
In expense deduction for nursing home, all expenses but fifty percent of disallowed salaries upheld.
78-001008  UNIVERSITY PARK CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES  (1978)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Nov. 28, 1979
Rule 10C-9, Florida Administrative Code, wasn't in effect so Petitioner entitled to most of the allegedly disputed Medicaid overpayments.
79-001362  A. A. GONZALEZ HOSPITAL vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES  (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Sep. 11, 1979
Respondent should grant transitional Certificate of Need (CON) because when Petitioner began renovation/construction under old statute and law changed it was substantially injured.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer