STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ST. VINCENT'S MEDICAL CENTER )
(Jacksonville), HALIFAX HOSPITAL ) MEDICAL CENTER (Daytona Beach), ) SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND )
CLINICS, INC. (Gainesville), and ) VARIETY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL )
(Miami), )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-041RX
) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ) AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
The Petitioners have filed a "Petition for Determination of the Invalidity of Existing Rules" pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Petitioners are seeking an order determining that various rules of the Respondent, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. By Order entered January 13, 1981, the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings assigned the matter to the undersigned. The final hearing was scheduled to be conducted on February 9, 1981, by notice dated January 16, 1981. The Petitioner St. Vincent's Medical Center had earlier filed a request for variance from the provisions of one of the challenged rules with the Respondent, and the matter had been forwarded to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. A Motion to Consolidate this rule challenge proceeding with the variance proceeding was granted. The Petitioner Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville had filed a petition for declaratory statement with the Respondent in connection with one of the rules subject to this rule challenge proceeding, and issues respecting the declaratory statement proceeding were pending in the First District Court of Appeal when the rule challenge proceeding was initiated. Memorial Hospital filed a motion to have its request for a variance from the provisions of the rule joined with this proceeding. The parties had agreed to dismiss the appeal, and the Respondent stipulated to granting the motion. It was granted on the record at the final hearing. The Respondent filed a motion in tine to dismiss the rule challenge proceeding, asserting that the Petitioners lack standing to maintain it. The motion was denied on the record at the final hearing, and issues with respect to the Petitioners' standing have been carried forward with the case. At the final hearing, the Petitioners called the following witnesses: Jack Ludwig, the head of the Plans and Construction Section of the Respondent's Office of Licensure and Certification; Robert J. Miller, the Director of Engineering at Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Joel J. Noble, M.D., the President of the Emergency Care Research Institute; Brian Parker, the Director of Bioengineering for Montefiore Hospital
and Medical Center in Bronx, New York; George N. Webb, an Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Johns-Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Staff Clinical Engineer at Johns-Hopkins Hospital; Charlie Fossler, the Director of Buildings and Grounds at Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc.; G. Guy Knickerbocker, the Chief Scientist at the Emergency Care Research Institute; Malcolm G. Ridgeway, a biomedical engineer; Carl J. Stumpf, a mechanical engineer who has contracted to design facilities at the Petitioner Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc.; Rudolph Nudo, the Director of Engineering at the Petitioner Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville; Don Benson, an architect who serves as the project manager for construction of new facilities at the Petitioner Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville; Kent Turner, an architect who represents the Petitioner St. Vincent's Medical Center; and Frank Bailey, the Director of Plant Services of the Petitioner Halifax Hospital Medical Center. The Respondent called the following witnesses: Richard C. Rosenvold, a Medical Facilities Architect Supervisor employed with the Plans and Facilities Section of the Respondent's Office of Licensure and Certification; Alan Morse, a Senior Research Officer for the National Research Council in Ottawa, Canada; and Jack Ludwig. Petitioners' Exhibits 1 through 17 and 19 through 22, and Respondent's Exhibit 2 were offered into evidence and were received. Petitioners' Exhibit 18 and Respondent's Exhibit 1 were offered into evidence and were rejected. The parties have submitted post-hearing legal memoranda, including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Petitioners have asserted that certain of the Respondent's rules constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority because the rules were not properly promulgated, because the rules exceed the scope of authority delegated by the Legislature on account of specific grants of authority to another agency, and because the rules are arbitrary and unreasonable. Resolution of this latter contention has involved consideration of inconsistent, conflicting testimony from expert witnesses. In resolving these inconsistencies and conflicts, regard has been given to the expert witnesses qualifications, including pertinent work experience, the extent to which the witnesses' opinions are supported by other evidence that has been presented, and the demeanor of the witnesses.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility, inter alia, for setting and enforcing health and safety standards for hospitals located within the state. In furtherance of this function, the Department has adopted rules set out Chapter 10D-28, Florida Administrative Code. Among these rules are provisions which set standards for hospital construction which are designed to assure the fire and electrical safety of patients, staff and visitors to hospitals. The Department enforces its rules by licensing or certifying hospitals which comply with them, and by refusing licensure or certification to those which do not.
The Department's Rule 10D-28.79, Florida Administrative Code, relates to codes and standards for the physical plant of new and existing hospitals. The rule does not set out code provisions, but rather adopts various construction and life safety codes by reference. Rule 10D-28.79(5) provides in pertinent part:
The following codes and regulations are herein adopted by the licensing agency [the Department], and it shall be the responsibility of the sponsor [licensed hospitals] to consult such codes for
compliance with all matters not specifically set forth in this chapter.
Standard Building Code, 1976 edition, Group I, Institutional Occupancy.
National Fire Protection Association No. 101, Life Safety Code 1973 Edition;
Appendix B of this Code adopts several other NFPA standards, which shall be met . . .
This rule became effective on January 1, 1977. Copies of the codes that were adopted by reference did not accompany the rules as the were filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. The Life Safety Code is a publication of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Appendix B to the Code, which is referenced in the Department's Rule 10D-28.79(5)(b) is titled "Referenced Publications" and provides in part as 7 follows:
The following publications are referenced
by this Life Safety Code and thereby comprise a part of the requirements or recommendations to the extent called for by the Code or Appendix A, respectively.
The Appendix goes on to list more than fifty publications, including the 1971 National Electric Code, which is another publication of the National Fire Protection Association. The crux of this proceeding is a single paragraph of this publication. Paragraph 517-51(a) sets an electrical performance standard to be met in hospital areas where "electrically susceptible patients" are housed. The paragraph provides:
In electrically susceptible patient areas the maximum 60-hertz alternating-current potential difference between any two conducting surfaces within thee reach of a patient, or those persons touching the patient, shall not exceed five millivolts measured across 500 ohms under normal operating conditions or in case of any probable failure.
The Department has interpreted its Rule 10D-28.79(5)(b) as adopting as performance standards the provisions of all of the codes set out in Appendix B of the 1973 Life Safety Code, including the 1971 National Electric Code, and paragraph 517-51 thereof. There are conflicting provisions in the various Life Safety and Electrical Codes that the Department has adopted, and contends that it has adopted through its adoption of Appendix B of the 1973 Life Safety Code. The Department resolves these conflicts by requiring hospitals to develop solutions which will meet the provisions of all of the codes. The provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code are considerably more strict than similar provisions set out in later editions of the National Electric Code, including the 1975, 1978 and 1981 Codes. The Department contends
that hospitals must comport with the most strict of these requirements, i.e. the ones set out in paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 Code.
The Petitioner Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville is an accredited, licensed hospital in the State of Florida. Memorial Hospital is presently in the process of constructing a three million dollar renovation, including a renovation to its critical care unit. In order to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code, Memorial Hospital would need to expend approximately $55,000 that would not need to be expended in order to comply with provisions of other codes. Memorial Hospital has requested a variance from the Department from the requirement of complying with this provision.
The Petitioner St. Vincent's Medical Center is an accredited, licensed hospital located in Jacksonville, Florida. St. Vincent's Medical Center is currently involved in a project to renovate and add space to its existing facilities, including a thirty-two bed critical care unit. In order to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code, St. Vincent's would be forced to expend from $75,000 to $80,000 which would not be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of other codes. St. Vincent's Medical Center has requested a variance from the requirements of that provision from the Department.
Halifax Hospital Medical Center is an accredited, licensed hospital located in Daytona Beach, Florida. Halifax Hospital has been advised that it would be required to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code in renovating and expanding its critical care unit. While the precise cost of complying with the provision cannot be determined, it is evident that Halifax Hospital would be required to expend more money to comply with the provision than would be required to comply with other provisions.
The Petitioner Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., is an accredited, licensed hospital located in Gainesville, Florida. Shands Hospital is presently in the process of expanding and renovating its facility, including its critical care unit. Shands Hospital has been advised by the Department that it would need to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code in connection with the critical care unit. The cost of complying with this provision would be approximately $140,000 over the cost of complying with other provisions.
No evidence was presented with respect to the Petitioner Variety Children's Hospital.
The Department's interpretation of its Rule 10D-28.79 as having adopted by reference the performance standard set out at paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code is in error. While the Department's rule references Appendix B to the 1973 Life Safety Code, it provides only that that Appendix adopts several other standards which must be met. While the Appendix references the 1971 National Electric Code, it adopts only the provisions of the 1971 National Electric Code and the other referenced publications to the extent that they are otherwise adopted in the 1973 Code or Appendix A thereto. Paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 Code is not referenced in Appendix A to the 1973 Life Safety Code, nor in any other pertinent place.
The Department has, albeit erroneously, interpreted its rules as adopting paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code. This
interpretation is being uniformly applied by the Department, and therefore itself constitutes a rule. The interpretation has not itself been adopted as a rule other than through the provisions of Rule 10D-28.79. The 1971 National Electric Code was not filed with the Office of the Secretary of State when Rule 10D-28.79 was filed, and is not generally available. It has been replaced by subsequent editions of the National Electric Code and is no longer generally available to members of the public at large.
The effect of the Department's interpretation of its rules as adopting the standard set out in paragraph 517-51(a) is to require hospitals to install "isolated power sources" in critical care units. The standard by its terms applies to areas of a hospital where electrically susceptible patients are housed. Such patients are housed in operating rooms, rooms where highly flammable anesthetics are used, and in critical care units. Other standards adopted by the Department expressly require installation of isolated power sources in operating rooms and in rooms where flammable anesthetics are used. The fact that these are "wet" areas and areas where flammable materials are kept justifies those requirements. These conditions do not apply to critical care units. The electrically susceptible patients who are housed in critical care units are patients who have catheters inserted into their bodies, and extensions from the catheters protruding outside their bodies. The most common such patient is a patient with a pacemaker attached to his or her heart. With such patients an electrical device outside the body is connected through a catheter into a vein, and eventually to an area close to or actually at the heart. These patients are electrically susceptible because low levels of electrical current that might flow through the catheter could kill the patient. A power source of less than 100 millivolts if attached to the catheter in such a way that current could flow through the catheter could have the effect of fibrillating a patient's heart and killing him. This is much less power than would do any damage to a person under normal conditions, and considerably less voltage than would commonly result from short circuits or other malfunctions in equipment powered by conventionally grounded power sources.
The amount of voltage that would be available given a fault or short circuit condition can be reduced through use of isolated power systems. Such a system includes a transformer which provides a demarcation between the incoming or primary power line, which is conventionally grounded, and the outgoing or secondary line. The secondary line is isolated from ground, neither wire being connected to ground. The secondary line runs into circuit breakers then to receptacles about the room. All of this equipment is installed in an electrical box. A monitor or gauge is installed on the face of the box. The monitor visually displays the extent of degradation of the secondary line, i.e. , whether the secondary line has become grounded. By observing the monitor, it is possible to avoid grounding a patient so that electrical currents cannot pass through the patient.
The Department maintains that the 1971 Code standard can be met only through installation of isolated power sources. Under some fault circumstances this is correct, and, no other practical technology exists to meet the standard under any fault circumstances.
Imposition of the standard set out at paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code is arbitrary and unreasonable. In the first place, no known technology can meet the standard. Even an isolated power system will meet the standard only in the case of line-to-ground faults. In cases where ground is lost, the isolated power system will not stay within the standard. The Department's action in requiring hospitals to install line isolation monitors
thus meets the standard only under one fault circumstance, and it is not the one that most commonly occurs. Even as to those faults for which the line isolation monitor will accomplish the meeting of the 1971 standard, there is no valid reason for requiring their installation. The goal of protecting an electrically susceptible patient from electrocution can be easily and reliably accomplished by protecting the catheter from contact with electrical power sources.
Basically, in order to create an electrical incident, or a shock, one part of a person's body has to touch some metal, another part has to touch some metal, and some current has to flow. This can be broken down into eight steps that would need to occur for a patient to be shocked: First, a power source or power line has to run close to the patient. Second, the line has to be exposed and touch metal. Third, the metal has to become live. Fourth, the metal must become ungrounded. Fifth, the patient has to touch the metal directly or through some conductive path. Sixth, a second conductive surface (more metal) has to be available. Seventh, the patient has to touch it. Eighth, the current has to be at a level that will cause harm. If any of these things does not happen, there will not be a shock. During the 1960's and early 1970's, the fact that very low levels of electrical current could cause fibrillation of the heart was not understood. This fact has been understood now for some time, and hospitals have looked to avoid placing patients in circumstances where the eight steps can occur. Looking at the problem in this manner allows hospitals to focus on what factors can easily be eliminated. Current practice is not to ground things which do not have to be grounded. It had previously been the practice to ground all of the metal around the patient, creating a "bathtub" effect. The line isolation monitor serves to eliminate the eighth of these steps by, in at least one fault circumstance, allowing only very low levels of current to flow. The other steps can be more easily eliminated. One means of accomplishing that is to isolate the power source to the catheter. Thus, battery powered equipment is now typically used, rather than equipment that attaches directly to the main power source. Furthermore, catheters protruding from a patient's body are now insulated, and critical care unit personnel are instructed not to touch them unless they are wearing rubber gloves. The taking of these steps eliminates the possibility for electrocution of an electrically susceptible patient through low voltage currents (microshock). There have been no documented deaths of patients through such microshock anywhere in the world since 1972. Even in that instance, which occurred in the United Kingdom, the accident did not happen in a critical care unit, but rather in an operating unit. The circumstances of the incident were that a hospital had been callously negligent in allowing its equipment to be modified so that inadequate switches were attached to an operating table and open current lines were exposed. Blood from a patient flowed to the open lines, and electrocution resulted. This incident bears no relevance to the instant rule. In the first place, it occurred in an operating room, where isolated power systems are properly required. In the second place, the hospital staff was incredibly negligent about its procedures and equipment.
In addition to the fact that isolated power systems no longer accomplish any valid purpose in preventing microshock, there are disadvantages to their use. These disadvantages include: (1) Line isolation monitors limit the amount of power that is available at bedside in critical care units. There is a need for considerable available power at bedside, and line isolation monitors limit available power, and can contribute to power interruptions. (2) A component is added to the power distribution system so that an additional point of failure exists. (3) The isolation system is installed at the head of beds in a critical care unit, thus interfering with the possibility of putting other equipment in that place. (4) Isolated power systems with their
transformers and monitors can produce an annoying hum. (5) Isolated power systems give off heat. (6) Line isolation monitors which go with isolated power systems can cause interference with other devices, such as electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms. (7) Several models of isolated power systems, including those required under the 1971 National Electric Code, require special electrical receptacles, thus limiting the use of various appliances in a critical care unit. (8) Personnel have to be trained as to the nuances of isolated power systems, and as to the meaning of readings on the monitor. (9) Isolated power systems can give personnel a false security and cause carelessness in preventing the factors which could cause and electrical current to flow through a catheter.
Except for electrically susceptible patients as described herein, there is no reason to require installation of isolated power sources in critical care units.
Petitioners have contended that other regulations of the Department which relate to the setting of fire protection standards in hospitals constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. No evidence was presented as to how these standards specifically affect any of the Petitioners. No evidence was presented to establish that any of the Petitioners are in any way injured or adversely affected by the rules.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
No evidence was offered to establish that the Petitioner Variety Children's Hospital is substantially affected by the rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at issue in this proceeding.
The Petitioners Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville, St. Vincent's Medical Center, Halifax Hospital Medical Center, and Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., are substantially affected by the Department's rules which have the effect of imposing the standard set out in paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code upon the Petitioners. The Petitioners are adversely affected by imposition of the standard because they are being required to pay significant sums of money to comply with it and because if they do not, they will not be licensed by the Department.
None of the Petitioners have established that they are adversely impacted by the Departments rules relating to fire protection. They thus lack standing to maintain this rule challenge with respect to those rules. Jerry v. Department of Offender Rehabilitation, 353 So.2d 1230 (1 DCA Fla. 1978).
The Department has erroneously interpreted its own rule as adopting the standard set out at paragraph 517-51 (a) of the 1971 National Electric Code. While the Department has adopted the standards that are adopted in Appendix B to the 1973 Life Safety Code, Appendix B does not have the effect of adopting that standard. The Appendix adopts only those provisions of the listed documents that are otherwise required in the Code, and that paragraph is not among such provisions.
The Department's interpretation of its Rule 10D-28.79 as adopting the standard set out at paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code,
constitutes a rule. Section 120.52(14), Florida Statutes. The interpretation is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it was not properly promulgated as a rule. Harvey v. Department of Administration, Division of Personnel, 356 So.2d 323 (1 DCA Fla. 1977); Department of
Environmental Regulation v. Leon County, 344 So.2d 297 (1 DCA Fla. 1977). No effort was made by the Department to expressly adopt the provisions set out in the paragraph. The Department's interpretation of its rule as establishing the provision is not correct. Even to the extent that it is correct, the Department did not include a copy of the 1971 National Electric Code with the rules that it filed with the Secretary of State. The volume is not generally available, and the Petitioners are therefore prejudiced in that they cannot easily determine what standards the Department is imposing. Florida Project Directors Association v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 368 So.2d 954 (1 DCA Fla. 1979). Furthermore, the Petitioners have established that imposing the standard set out in paragraph 517-51(a) is unreasonable. Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759 (1 DCA Fla.
1978). This conclusion is based upon the facts that even use of isolated power systems as required by the Department will not meet the standard except under certain specified fault conditions; that the standard cannot be met under all fault conditions, including the most common fault conditions, by any known technology; that the standard is not needed in order to protect electrically susceptible patients from dangers of microshock; and that isolated power systems have disadvantages as enumerated in the findings of fact.
To the extent that the Department's Rule 10D-28.79 adopts as a standard paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code, it constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Department's rule does not adopt that standard, and the Department's policy of imposing the standard constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
FINAL ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby
This matter is hereby dismissed as to the Petitioner Variety Children's Hospital.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Rule 10D-28.79 is hereby declared to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority insofar as the rule adopts the standard set forth in paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code. The Department's policy of enforcing the standard set out in paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
The Petitioners have not established that they have standing to maintain rule challenge actions with respect to other rules which were the subject of this proceeding. The Petition is hereby dismissed as to those rules.
DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1981.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire Oertel & Laramore, P.A.
Suite 646, Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Robert P. Daniti, Esquire Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 308 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Carroll Webb, Esquire Executive Director
Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Ms. Liz Cloud, Chief
Bureau of Administrative Code Department of State
Suite 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF JACKSONVILLE, ) ST. VINCENT'S MEDICAL CENTER )
(Jacksonville), HALIFAX HOSPITAL ) MEDICAL CENTER (Daytona Beach), ) SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND )
CLINICS, INC. (Gainsville), and ) VARIETY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL (Miami), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-041RX
)
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH )
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER RULINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 120.59(2)
The parties have submitted post-hearing legal memoranda, including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rulings upon proposed findings and conclusions are set out herein in accordance with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioners numbered 1 through 4, 6 through 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 23 have been substantially adopted in the findings of fact set out in the Final Order. These proposed findings are hereby adopted as fully as if they had been set out in the Final Order, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the findings of fact set out in the Final Order. Proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioners numbered 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 are rejected as being contrary to the evidence or irrelevant to the issues.
Proposed paragraph 5 of the findings of fact submitted by the Petitioners would be adopted if the word "practical" were inserted between "only" and "technological." Paragraph 12 is rejected because the evidence is insufficient to establish total representation on the National Fire Protection Association, and the expertise of members of the association. Paragraph 19 of the Petitioners' proposed findings is adopted except for the word "imaginable" at the end of the second sentence. Paragraphs 24 through 28 are rejected because the Petitioners have not demonstrated that they have standing to file rule challenges with respect to the rules referenced in the paragraphs.
Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3, and 10 have been substantially adopted in the Final Order. These proposed findings are hereby adopted as fully as if they had been set out in the Final Order to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the findings of fact set out in the Final Order.
Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 4 through 9, and 11 through 20 are hereby rejected as being contrary to the evidence or not supported by the evidence, or irrelevant to the issues.
Proposed conclusions of law submitted by the parties have been adopted to the extent that they are expressly adopted in the conclusions of law set out in the Final Order.
ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1981.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire Oertel & Laramore, P.A.
Suite 646, Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Robert P. Daniti, Esquire Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 308 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Carroll Webb, Esquire Executive Director
Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Ms. Liz Cloud, Chief
Bureau of Administrative Code Department of State
Suite 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Mar. 12, 1981 | CASE CLOSED. Final Order sent out. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 12, 1981 | DOAH Final Order | Respondent's inclusion of National Electrical Code requirements in hospital construction rule without explicitly citing them was invalid. |
