The issues in this case are set forth in 11 separate counts within the four consolidated cases: Case No. 09-5360 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly monitor and care for a patient in restraints. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure the physician's plan of care for patient was implemented. Case No. 09-5363 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly implement the physician's plan of care for patient. Case No. 09-5364 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to ensure a patients' right to privacy. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that food was served in the prescribed safe temperature zone. Count III--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that only authorized personnel had access to locked areas where medications were stored. Count IV--Whether Respondent failed to perform proper nursing assessments of a patient. Count V--Dismissed. Count VI--Whether Respondent failed to maintain patient care equipment in a safe operating condition. Case No. 09-5365 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to triage a patient with stroke-like symptoms in a timely fashion. Count II--Whether Respondent's nursing staff failed to assess and intervene for patients or ensure implementation of the physician's plan of care.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that sanctions are warranted for two cited deficiencies.

The issues in this case are set forth in 11 separate counts within the four consolidated cases: Case No. 09-5360 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly monitor and care for a patient in restraints. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure the physician's plan of care for patient was implemented. Case No. 09-5363 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly implement the physician's plan of care for patient. Case No. 09-5364 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to ensure a patients' right to privacy. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that food was served in the prescribed safe temperature zone. Count III--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that only authorized personnel had access to locked areas where medications were stored. Count IV--Whether Respondent failed to perform proper nursing assessments of a patient. Count V--Dismissed. Count VI--Whether Respondent failed to maintain patient care equipment in a safe operating condition. Case No. 09-5365 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to triage a patient with stroke-like symptoms in a timely fashion. Count II--Whether Respondent's nursing staff failed to assess and intervene for patients or ensure implementation of the physician's plan of care.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that sanctions are warranted for two cited deficiencies.

The issues in this case are set forth in 11 separate counts within the four consolidated cases: Case No. 09-5360 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly monitor and care for a patient in restraints. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure the physician's plan of care for patient was implemented. Case No. 09-5363 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly implement the physician's plan of care for patient. Case No. 09-5364 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to ensure a patients' right to privacy. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that food was served in the prescribed safe temperature zone. Count III--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that only authorized personnel had access to locked areas where medications were stored. Count IV--Whether Respondent failed to perform proper nursing assessments of a patient. Count V--Dismissed. Count VI--Whether Respondent failed to maintain patient care equipment in a safe operating condition. Case No. 09-5365 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to triage a patient with stroke-like symptoms in a timely fashion. Count II--Whether Respondent's nursing staff failed to assess and intervene for patients or ensure implementation of the physician's plan of care.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that sanctions are warranted for two cited deficiencies.

The issues in this case are set forth in 11 separate counts within the four consolidated cases: Case No. 09-5360 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly monitor and care for a patient in restraints. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure the physician's plan of care for patient was implemented. Case No. 09-5363 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly implement the physician's plan of care for patient. Case No. 09-5364 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to ensure a patients' right to privacy. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that food was served in the prescribed safe temperature zone. Count III--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that only authorized personnel had access to locked areas where medications were stored. Count IV--Whether Respondent failed to perform proper nursing assessments of a patient. Count V--Dismissed. Count VI--Whether Respondent failed to maintain patient care equipment in a safe operating condition. Case No. 09-5365 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to triage a patient with stroke-like symptoms in a timely fashion. Count II--Whether Respondent's nursing staff failed to assess and intervene for patients or ensure implementation of the physician's plan of care.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that sanctions are warranted for two cited deficiencies.

Which of two applications for a Certificate of Need (CON) to operate a hospice in Service Area 8B, Collier County, Florida, should be granted: CON 9967 filed by Hope Hospice and Community Services, Inc., or CON 9969 filed by VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida?With need in Collier County stipulated, VITAS is the superior applicant to Hope Hospice primarily because of adverse impact Hope`s application would have on the existing provider.

Which of two applications for a Certificate of Need (CON) to operate a hospice in Service Area 8B, Collier County, Florida, should be granted: CON 9967 filed by Hope Hospice and Community Services, Inc., or CON 9969 filed by VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida?With need in Collier County stipulated, VITAS is the superior applicant to Hope Hospice primarily because of adverse impact Hope`s application would have on the existing provider.

Which of two applications for a Certificate of Need (CON) to operate a hospice in Service Area 8B, Collier County, Florida, should be granted: CON 9967 filed by Hope Hospice and Community Services, Inc., or CON 9969 filed by VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida?With need in Collier County stipulated, VITAS is the superior applicant to Hope Hospice primarily because of adverse impact Hope`s application would have on the existing provider.

This case concerns four Certificate of Need ("CON") applications ("CONs 9891, 9992, 9893, and 9894") that seek to establish long-term acute care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Miami-Dade County (the "County" or "Miami-Dade County"), a part of AHCA District 11 (along with Monroe County). Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") in CON 9891, Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc. ("Select-Dade") in CON 9892, and Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. ("Kindred"), in CON 9894, seek to construct and operate a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in the County. Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc. ("MJH"), in CON 9893, seeks to establish a 30-bed hospital within a hospital ("HIH") on its existing campus in the County. In its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR"), AHCA concluded that all of the need methodologies presented by the applicants were unreliable. Accordingly, AHCA staff recommended denial of the four applications. The recommendation was adopted by the Agency when it issued the SAAR. The Agency maintained throughout the final hearing that all four applications should be denied, although of the four, if any were to be granted, it professed a preference for MJH on the basis, among other reasons, of a more reliable need methodology. Since the hearing the Agency has changed its position with regard to MJH. In its proposed recommended order, AHCA supports approval of MJH's application. MJH and Promise agree with the AHCA that there is need for the 30 LTCH beds proposed by MJH for its HIH and that MJH otherwise meets the criteria for approval of its application. MJH seeks approval of its application only. Likewise, the Agency supports approval of only MJH's application. Promise, on the other hand, contends that there is need for a 60-bed facility as well as MJH's HIH and that between Promise, Select- Dade and Kindred, based on comparative review, its application should be approved along with MJH's application. Although Promise's need methodology supports need for more LTCH beds than would be provided by approval of its application and MJH's, its support for approval is limited to its application and that of MJH. Like Promise's methodology, Select-Dade and Kindred's need methodologies project need for many more beds than would be provided by the 60 beds each of them seek. Unlike Promise, however, neither Select-Dade nor Kindred supports approval of MJH's application. Each proposes its application to be superior to the other applications; each advocates approval of its respective application alone. Given the positions of the parties reflected in their proposed recommended orders, whether there is need for at least an additional 30 LTCH beds in District 11 is not at issue. Rather, the issues are as follows. What is the extent of the need for additional LTCH beds in District 11? If the need is for at least 30 beds but less than 60 beds, does MJH meet the criteria for approval of its application? If the need is for 60 beds or more, what application or applications should be approved depends on what applications meet CON review criteria and on the number of beds needed (60 but less than 90, 90 but less than 120, 120 but less than 150, 150 but less than 180, 180 but less than 210, and 210 or more) and whether there is health- planning basis not to grant an application even if the approval would meet a bed need and all four applicants otherwise meet review criteria. Finally, based on comparative review, what is the order of approval among the applications that meet CON need criteria? Ultimately, the issue in the case is which if any of the four applications should be approved?Of our applications for a long-term acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, two should be approved: Miami Jewish Home`s and Select-Dade`s.

This case concerns four Certificate of Need ("CON") applications ("CONs 9891, 9992, 9893, and 9894") that seek to establish long-term acute care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Miami-Dade County (the "County" or "Miami-Dade County"), a part of AHCA District 11 (along with Monroe County). Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") in CON 9891, Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc. ("Select-Dade") in CON 9892, and Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. ("Kindred"), in CON 9894, seek to construct and operate a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in the County. Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc. ("MJH"), in CON 9893, seeks to establish a 30-bed hospital within a hospital ("HIH") on its existing campus in the County. In its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR"), AHCA concluded that all of the need methodologies presented by the applicants were unreliable. Accordingly, AHCA staff recommended denial of the four applications. The recommendation was adopted by the Agency when it issued the SAAR. The Agency maintained throughout the final hearing that all four applications should be denied, although of the four, if any were to be granted, it professed a preference for MJH on the basis, among other reasons, of a more reliable need methodology. Since the hearing the Agency has changed its position with regard to MJH. In its proposed recommended order, AHCA supports approval of MJH's application. MJH and Promise agree with the AHCA that there is need for the 30 LTCH beds proposed by MJH for its HIH and that MJH otherwise meets the criteria for approval of its application. MJH seeks approval of its application only. Likewise, the Agency supports approval of only MJH's application. Promise, on the other hand, contends that there is need for a 60-bed facility as well as MJH's HIH and that between Promise, Select- Dade and Kindred, based on comparative review, its application should be approved along with MJH's application. Although Promise's need methodology supports need for more LTCH beds than would be provided by approval of its application and MJH's, its support for approval is limited to its application and that of MJH. Like Promise's methodology, Select-Dade and Kindred's need methodologies project need for many more beds than would be provided by the 60 beds each of them seek. Unlike Promise, however, neither Select-Dade nor Kindred supports approval of MJH's application. Each proposes its application to be superior to the other applications; each advocates approval of its respective application alone. Given the positions of the parties reflected in their proposed recommended orders, whether there is need for at least an additional 30 LTCH beds in District 11 is not at issue. Rather, the issues are as follows. What is the extent of the need for additional LTCH beds in District 11? If the need is for at least 30 beds but less than 60 beds, does MJH meet the criteria for approval of its application? If the need is for 60 beds or more, what application or applications should be approved depends on what applications meet CON review criteria and on the number of beds needed (60 but less than 90, 90 but less than 120, 120 but less than 150, 150 but less than 180, 180 but less than 210, and 210 or more) and whether there is health- planning basis not to grant an application even if the approval would meet a bed need and all four applicants otherwise meet review criteria. Finally, based on comparative review, what is the order of approval among the applications that meet CON need criteria? Ultimately, the issue in the case is which if any of the four applications should be approved?Of four applications for a long-term acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County two should be approved: Miami Jewish Home`s and Select-Dade`s.

This case concerns four Certificate of Need ("CON") applications ("CONs 9891, 9992, 9893, and 9894") that seek to establish long-term acute care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Miami-Dade County (the "County" or "Miami-Dade County"), a part of AHCA District 11 (along with Monroe County). Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") in CON 9891, Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc. ("Select-Dade") in CON 9892, and Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. ("Kindred"), in CON 9894, seek to construct and operate a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in the County. Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc. ("MJH"), in CON 9893, seeks to establish a 30-bed hospital within a hospital ("HIH") on its existing campus in the County. In its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR"), AHCA concluded that all of the need methodologies presented by the applicants were unreliable. Accordingly, AHCA staff recommended denial of the four applications. The recommendation was adopted by the Agency when it issued the SAAR. The Agency maintained throughout the final hearing that all four applications should be denied, although of the four, if any were to be granted, it professed a preference for MJH on the basis, among other reasons, of a more reliable need methodology. Since the hearing the Agency has changed its position with regard to MJH. In its proposed recommended order, AHCA supports approval of MJH's application. MJH and Promise agree with the AHCA that there is need for the 30 LTCH beds proposed by MJH for its HIH and that MJH otherwise meets the criteria for approval of its application. MJH seeks approval of its application only. Likewise, the Agency supports approval of only MJH's application. Promise, on the other hand, contends that there is need for a 60-bed facility as well as MJH's HIH and that between Promise, Select- Dade and Kindred, based on comparative review, its application should be approved along with MJH's application. Although Promise's need methodology supports need for more LTCH beds than would be provided by approval of its application and MJH's, its support for approval is limited to its application and that of MJH. Like Promise's methodology, Select-Dade and Kindred's need methodologies project need for many more beds than would be provided by the 60 beds each of them seek. Unlike Promise, however, neither Select-Dade nor Kindred supports approval of MJH's application. Each proposes its application to be superior to the other applications; each advocates approval of its respective application alone. Given the positions of the parties reflected in their proposed recommended orders, whether there is need for at least an additional 30 LTCH beds in District 11 is not at issue. Rather, the issues are as follows. What is the extent of the need for additional LTCH beds in District 11? If the need is for at least 30 beds but less than 60 beds, does MJH meet the criteria for approval of its application? If the need is for 60 beds or more, what application or applications should be approved depends on what applications meet CON review criteria and on the number of beds needed (60 but less than 90, 90 but less than 120, 120 but less than 150, 150 but less than 180, 180 but less than 210, and 210 or more) and whether there is health- planning basis not to grant an application even if the approval would meet a bed need and all four applicants otherwise meet review criteria. Finally, based on comparative review, what is the order of approval among the applications that meet CON need criteria? Ultimately, the issue in the case is which if any of the four applications should be approved?Of four applications for a long-term acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County two should be approved: Miami Jewish Home`s and Select-Dade`s.