Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or Petitioner) is entitled to recover from Ideal Pugh, Sr., d/b/a Services on Time, LLC (Respondent), alleged Medicaid overpayments, administrative fines, and investigative, legal, and expert witness costs.The Agency proved that Respondent received Medicaid overpayments that must be repaid and that fines should be imposed.
Whether Respondent Robin Audifredd d/b/a St. Francis Place a/k/a Family Ties (Respondent) operated an assisted living facility without a required license and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.The Agency proved that Respondent operated an assisted living facility without a license, but failed to prove its entitlement to a $115,000 fine sought in the Complaint.
Whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, etc., or by violating a duty imposed upon him by law or by the terms of a listing contract and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty; Whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(d)1., by failing to timely account or deliver to any person any personal property such as money, funds, deposit, check draft, etc. and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty; and Whether Respondent, a sales associate, registered as an officer, director of a brokerage corporation, or general partner of a brokerage partnership is in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-5.016 and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.Respondent violated many provisions of the real estate statutes, acted outside the scope of his real estate license, committed fraud or misuse of escrow funds, all under aggravated circumstances resulting in a revocation of his license, fines and costs.
Whether Petitioner demonstrated entitlement to a nonresident agency license under the name Project Medicare, Inc.Petitioner demonstrated entitlement to issuance of a non-resident agency license. The Department's policy to deny license for agencies with "Medicare" in their names is an unadopted rule under section 120.57(1)(e)1.
Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed a Class II violation as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”) on a resident at its facility.ACHA failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's failure to administer CPR to an unresponsive and dead resident directly threatened the resident's physical or emotional health, safety, or security, a Class II violation.
Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration abused its discretion when denying Petitioner’s request for exemption from disqualification to work in a position of special trust.Petitioner failed to prove that the Agency abused its discretion when denying Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification to work in a position of special trust.
The issues are whether, during 2015, Respondent held himself out as a “doctor of medicine,” even though he did not hold a license to practice medicine in Florida, in violation of section 456.072(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2014); whether, during 2015, Respondent exceeded the scope of his advanced practice registered nursing (APRN)1 license modifier by removing adipose tissue from a patient’s abdomen, performing intravitreous injections of the processed tissue into both eyes of a patient, and failing to have a protocol in place for the removal of abdominal adipose tissue and the intravitreous injection of any material into a living person, in violation of section 456.072(1)(o); and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.APRN performed intravitreal injections into the eyes of three patients resulting in blindness. APRN had no written protocol for the procedure, was unsupervised, unqualified, and represented himself as a doctor. Recommend revocation of license.
The issues are whether, during 2015, Respondent held himself out as a “doctor of medicine,” even though he did not hold a license to practice medicine in Florida, in violation of section 456.072(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2014); whether, during 2015, Respondent exceeded the scope of his advanced practice registered nursing (APRN)1 license modifier by removing adipose tissue from a patient’s abdomen, performing intravitreous injections of the processed tissue into both eyes of a patient, and failing to have a protocol in place for the removal of abdominal adipose tissue and the intravitreous injection of any material into a living person, in violation of section 456.072(1)(o); and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.APRN performed intravitreal injections into the eyes of three patients resulting in blindness. APRN had no written protocol for the procedure, was unsupervised, unqualified, and represented himself as a doctor. Recommend revocation of license.
The issues are whether, during 2015, Respondent held himself out as a “doctor of medicine,” even though he did not hold a license to practice medicine in Florida, in violation of section 456.072(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2014); whether, during 2015, Respondent exceeded the scope of his advanced practice registered nursing (APRN)1 license modifier by removing adipose tissue from a patient’s abdomen, performing intravitreous injections of the processed tissue into both eyes of a patient, and failing to have a protocol in place for the removal of abdominal adipose tissue and the intravitreous injection of any material into a living person, in violation of section 456.072(1)(o); and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.APRN performed intravitreal injections into the eyes of three patients resulting in blindness. APRN had no written protocol for the procedure, was unsupervised, unqualified, and represented himself as a doctor. Recommend revocation of license.
