welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  7. Ryan R. Davis
Ryan R. Davis
Ryan R. Davis
Visitors: 47
3
Bar #193755(FL)     License for 24 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Ryan R. Davis? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

10-004740  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs SA-PG--SUN CITY CENTER, LLC, D/B/A PALM GARDEN OF SUN CITY  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 06, 2010
The issues in this case are whether Respondent, SA-PG Sun City Center, LLC, d/b/a Palm Garden of Sun City (hereinafter "Palm Garden" or the "Facility") failed to follow established and recognized practice standards regarding care to its residents; and whether Respondent failed to comply with the rules governing skilled nursing facilities adopted by Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter "AHCA" or the "Agency"). If the answer to those questions is in the affirmative, then there is an issue as to what penalty should be imposed on Respondent. HOLDING: There is no competent and substantial evidence that Palm Garden failed to follow established practice standards that resulted in harm to its residents and failed to comply with rules governing skilled nursing facilities, or that otherwise warrants a fine or Conditional rating. Palm Garden was marginally deficient in two minor areas concerning their own policies, but neither violation is a Class II deficiency, nor warrants imposition of a sanction.The Agency did not prove alleged deficiencies by clear and convincing evidence. The Administrative Complaint is dismissed.
05-002789  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs DELTA HEALTH GROUP, INC., D/B/A FOUNTAINHEAD CARE CENTER  (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 02, 2005
Whether Respondent is guilty of the isolated Class III deficiency alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.A Class III deficiency was established by failure to adhere to perineal care policy.
05-000121  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs LAKELAND MANOR HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC, D/B/A WEDGEWOOD HEALTHCARE CENTER  (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 13, 2005
Whether Respondent, Lakeland Manor Health Care Associates, LLC, d/b/a Wedgewood Healthcare Center, committed a Class I deficiency at the time of a survey conducted on October 29, 2004, so as to justify the issuance of a "conditional" license; and whether to impose an administrative fine of $10,000 under Section 400.23, Florida Statutes (2004), and an additional fine of $6,000 under Section 400.19, Florida Statutes (2004).Although the hot water temperature coming out of the sinks in four residents` rooms was 140 degrees, well above the 115-degree maximum, the evidence did not prove the likelihood of serious injury to a resident. Recommend that the complaint be dismissed.
04-003859  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs TAMPA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC, D/B/A HABANA HEALTH CARE CENTER  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 26, 2004
The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of a class I violation, within the meaning of Subsection 400.23(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), for the alleged failure to provide either supervision of residents or assistance devices that were adequate to prevent accidents; whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from Standard to Conditional; whether Petitioner should impose a $10,000 administrative fine and a $6,000 survey fee; and whether Petitioner should place Respondent on an accelerated six-month survey cycle.Enforcement action by Petitioner cannot be used to impose new requirements not in prior non-rule policy stated in previous enforcement action.
04-000335  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs LAKE MARY HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, INC., D/B/A LAKE MARY HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 28, 2004
The issues are whether Respondent violated regulatory requirements to maintain and to implement a written policy that prohibits the neglect of nursing home residents; whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from Standard to Conditional; and whether Petitioner should fine Respondent $2,500 and recover investigative costs.Factual allegations in the Administrative Complaint, if proven, did not violate requirements to maintain and to implement anti-neglect policy. Petitioner is not guilty of violating requirements based upon allegations in Administrative Complaint.
04-000338  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs GULF COAST HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC, D/B/A SEA BREEZE HEALTH CARE  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 28, 2004
The primary issue for determination is whether Sea Breeze Health Care (Respondent) committed the deficiencies as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated April 2, 2004, which amended both complaints in the above-styled consolidated cases. Secondary issues include whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from Standard to Conditional for the time period of August 28, 2003 until October 29, 2003; and whether Petitioner should impose administrative fines for alleged deficiencies that are proven to be supported by the evidence.Respondent committed three class two deficiencies and thus imposition of $7,500 in civil penalties and conditional licensure status is appropriate.
04-000334  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs GULF COAST HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC, D/B/A SEA BREEZE HEALTH CARE  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 28, 2004
The primary issue for determination is whether Sea Breeze Health Care (Respondent) committed the deficiencies as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated April 2, 2004, which amended both complaints in the above-styled consolidated cases. Secondary issues include whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from Standard to Conditional for the time period of August 28, 2003 until October 29, 2003; and whether Petitioner should impose administrative fines for alleged deficiencies that are proven to be supported by the evidence.Respondent committed three class two deficiencies and thus imposition of $7,500 in civil penalties and conditional licensure status is appropriate.
03-002114  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs TAMPA HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, LLC, D/B/A HABANA HEALTH CARE CENTER  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 04, 2003
The issues for determination are whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from standard to conditional; and whether Petitioner should impose administrative fines of $7,500 and recover costs for alleged deficiencies in the care of four residents of a nursing home.Petitioner did not prove that the nursing home failed to provide one resident with adequate tracheal tube care and failed to provide another resident with the necessary treatment to prevent or cure avoidable pressure sores.
03-003320  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs TAMPA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC., D/B/A HABANA HEALTH CARE CENTER  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 16, 2003
The issues for determination are whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from standard to conditional; and whether Petitioner should impose administrative fines of $7,500 and recover costs for alleged deficiencies in the care of four residents of a nursing home.Petitioner did not prove that the nursing home failed to provide one resident with adequate tracheal tube care and failed to provide another resident with the necessary treatment to prevent or cure avoidable pressure sores.
03-000164  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs EASTBROOKE HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC, D/B/A HERON POINTE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 17, 2003
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent violated the statutes and regulations cited in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint and referenced in this Recommended Order at the time of a survey for compliance conducted on October 1 and 2, 2002. If any of the charged violations occurred, it must be determined whether an administrative fine should be imposed, and, if so, in what amount. It must also be determined whether Heron Pointe should be subjected to the imposition of a conditional licensure status as a result of any proven violations.Petitioner failed to prove that latex gloves were "restraints" requiring a doctor`s order, to establish neglect of the resident, and to establish that the facility did not implement a written policy designed to prevent abuse or neglect of the residents.

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