STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 82-179
) 82-737
ALOHA RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, these causes were heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on April 21, 1982, in Coral Gables, Florida.
Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was represented by Martha Barrera, Esquire, Coral Gables, Florida, and Respondent Aloha Retirement Residence was represented by Barry Halpern, Esquire, Miami, Florida.
Case No. 82-179 was initiated by the filing of an Administrative Complaint dated January 8, 1982, alleging numerous violations of statutory requirements. Case No. 82-737 was initiated by an Administrative Complaint dated February 15, 1982, alleging a single statutory violation. Respondent timely requested formal hearings on the allegations contained within those Administrative Complaints.
Accordingly, the issues for determination are whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained within those Administrative Complaints and, if so, the amount of administrative fine which should be levied, if any, as to each violation.
The parties agreed to consolidation of these cases for purposes of hearing and a recommended order.
Petitioner presented the testimony of Martha Perez, Maria Mier and Isabell Arango. Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 2 and 3 were admitted in evidence. Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1 and 4 were initially marked for identification but were then withdrawn.
Isabell Arango and Charles Feldman testified on behalf of the Respondent. Additionally, Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1 and 2 were admitted in evidence.
Petitioner requested leave to file post-hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To date nothing has been filed on behalf of Petitioner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent is an Adult Congregate Living Facility licensed by Petitioner.
Maria Mier is a district programs specialist employed by Petitioner in its Adult Congregate Living Facility program. She was assigned the responsibility of working with Respondent to assure Respondent's compliance with Petitioner's regulations on May 5, 1981. Petitioner presented no testimony regarding the conditions at the Aloha prior to that date.
Isabell Arango is a long-term care administrator for Petitioner. She has the responsibility for assessing the amount of administrative fine to be imposed as a result of any violation of Petitioner's regulations. In doing so, she reviews the recommendation of the specialist in charge of that facility and then applies her personal set of guidelines, which were not introduced in evidence.
Mier and Arango signed both Administrative Complaints under consideration herein.
Petitioner filed a Petition for the Appointment of a Temporary Receiver to operate the Aloha. Petitioner's Petition was heard in the circuit court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, on May 15, 1981, and a receiver recommended by Petitioner was appointed to operate and manage the facility. By order entered June 11, 1981, a circuit court judge granted an Agreed Motion for Substitution of Court-Appointed Receiver and appointed a substitute receiver recommended by the Petitioner. By order entered October 5, 1981, a circuit court judge granted the Moha's Motion to Terminate the Receivership.
On May 4, 1981, a resident of the Aloha was found naked by the police somewhere outside of the facility. He was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital, and his daughter was contacted. Adult Congregate Living Facility residents are free to come and go as they wish and do not require permission from facility personnel in order to be allowed to leave the facility. The resident located by the police had left the facility on a regular basis in the past, and no evidence was offered to indicate the resident in question would be likely to be in danger at any time that he was away from the facility or that there had been any prior problems regarding his absence from the Aloha.
On November 10, 1981, Mier went to the Aloha to investigate a complaint from a resident that an envelope addressed to her containing a check had been opened. Mier did not see any opened mail at the Aloha and did not observe the facility's procedure for handling residents' mail. On December 17, 1981, Mier prepared a citation for that complaint and had the citation delivered to the administrator of the Aloha, although the citation itself advised that Petitioner considered the alleged deficiency to have been corrected as of December 1, 1981. (These facts form the basis for an allegation found in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-179.)
On January 20, 1982, Petitioner received a complaint from a different resident that an envelope addressed to her had been opened. On February 2, 1982, the same resident filed with Petitioner a written authorization requesting that the Aloha personnel open her mail for her. (These facts form the basis for an allegation found in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-737.)
According to the facility's records, during June, 1981, a resident refused to take medication on numerous occasions. The records did not reflect that the resident's doctor was notified. A resident in an Adult Congregate Living Facility cannot be forced to take medication. The resident in question had a history of drug and alcohol addiction, and his physician had advised the staff at the Aloha to withhold any medication from him at any time they believed he had been drinking due to the dangerous combination of his medication and alcohol.
On July 29 and August 3, 1981, 15 residents observed in the lobby had foul body odor and dirty clothing. Four male residents needed shaving. If a resident of an Adult Congregate Living Facility does not wish to shave or wants to wear dirty clothing, personnel at the facility cannot force that resident to shave or to remove dirty clothing.
On July 19, 1981, one resident of the Aloha was determined by a physician to be in need of nursing home care, services which the Aloha is not licensed to provide. On July 29, 1981, that resident was still at the Aloha. Only a medical doctor can order a transfer of a resident from an Adult Congregate Living Facility to a nursing home. Once the doctor orders it, the Adult Congregate Living Facility is in charge of making arrangements. If no nursing home beds are readily available, then a unit within the Petitioner's organization is in charge of placement into nursing homes. A wealthy patient can be placed easily; placement for a Medicaid patient may take time.
On August 3, 1981, 24 out of 27 resident files reviewed lacked the required physician's statement regarding the resident's physical condition. Those records were brought into compliance, and Mier knows of no medical problems involving those 24 residents during the time of noncompliance.
On August 3, 1981, the admission/discharge register for the residents of the Aloha was not properly maintained. The register was subsequently brought into compliance.
On August 3, 1981, seven out of 27 resident files reviewed lacked a properly executed contract for services between the resident and the Aloha. Seven contracts had the resident's date of admission as the date the contract was signed, although the charges listed in the contract were effective after the admission date. This deficiency was subsequently remedied.
On August 3, 1981, 23 out of 27 resident files reviewed lacked complete demographic data, i.e., the information pertinent to a death certificate.
On August 3, 1981, four out of 24 personnel records reviewed lacked references in the employment application, and one record lacked the employment application.
On August 3, 1981, nine out of 24 personnel files reviewed lacked the proper documentation that the employee was free of communicable diseases.
Respondent admits that during surveys conducted on June 2, June 15, July 17, August 3 and November 2, 1961, the following facility maintenance and housekeeping standards were violated:
Strong urine odors in resident rooms;
Lack of toilet supplies in bathrooms;
Inoperable drapes in resident rooms;
Broken fixtures in resident bathrooms;
Presence of vermin in the locked physician's examination room;
A broken corner on a mirror in a resident's room;
Two areas of cracked tile in the dining room;
Furniture in need of repair.
Mier, who conducted the inspections, has no knowledge as to what furniture was in need of repair.
Petitioner conducted inspections of the facility's physical plant on June 2, June 15 and November 2, 1981. An additional inspection was commenced on July 29 and was concluded on August 3, 1981.
On June 2, Rooms 25 and 59 had no air conditioners, but both rooms had large windows which opened for ventilation. On July 29, 1981, the air conditioning units in Rooms 31 and 40 were not working. On July 29, 1981, Rooms 27 and 73, which were being used for storage, lacked proper ventilation from either air conditioning or windows.
On July 29, 1981, Rooms 1 and 10 had light bulbs missing from fixtures in the bathrooms.
New light bulbs were installed while Mier was still present.
(c) On July 29, 1981, Rooms 36, 40, 60, 68 and
70 lacked non-slip safety devices in the bathrooms. On November 2, 1981, only Room 36 of those inspected on July 29 still lacked non-slip safety devices. Additionally, non-slip safety devices were missing in the bathrooms of Rooms 46, 48 and 57.
On July 29, 1981, the Aloha lacked handrails in 43 resident bathrooms. The Aloha purchased over
40 handrails, the total number that could be located in Miami at the time, and placed an order for an additional 45. The Aloha filed a copy of that order with Petitioner at the time.
On each of her inspections, Mier found the second floor lobby to be uncomfortably hot. She therefore determined that the lobby was unusable and that the facility, therefore, did not comply with the required 35 square feet per resident in common-use areas. She did not take the temperature
of the area which she determined to be uncomfortably hot on any of those occasions. She does not know the measurements of the second floor lobby, and no evidence was introduced regarding the size of the common areas in order to determine whether the 35- square-foot-per-resident requirement was met. Mier admits that based upon her recommendation, Aloha installed fans in that lobby. An air conditioning unit was later placed on the roof in order to cool the second floor rooms even more.
Martha Perez is a nutrition consultant for the Petitioner. She conducted inspections of the food service standards at the Aloha on June 3 and November 3, 1981.
On June 3, 1981, the Aloha had 129 residents. The chart of one of those residents indicated a need for a diabetic diet. Perez found no diabetic foods or special menus regarding a diabetic diet
at the Aloha. On November 3, 1981, the Aloha still had 129 residents. Perez found no special provision for anyone needing a special diet but was also unable to identify anyone residing at the Aloha whose file indicated a need for a special diet.
On June 3, 1981, the Aloha had only a one-and- a-half days' supply of non-perishable food, rather than the one-week's supply required. On November 3, 1981, the emergency food supply had been increased
so that it was sufficient for two and a half days.
On June 3, 1981, Perez found frozen raw meat being defrosted at room temperature. On November 3, 1981, Perez found a fully cooked meatloaf cooling off on the stove.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1981).
Section 400.419, Florida Statutes (1981), establishes the penalties assessable by Petitioner for a violation of its regulations. Subsection (3) of that Section establishes Classes in which violations are to be placed and provides that no penalty shall be imposed if the violation is corrected within the time specified by Petitioner except where a violation presents imminent danger to the residents or guests of the facility or a substantial probability that death or serious physical or emotional harm will result. Subsection (4) sets forth authority for Petitioner to levy a fine for violations which cannot be classified according to Subsection (3). Petitioner apparently was determined that none of the violations charged in either Administrative Complaint is capable of being classified. Accordingly, it must be concluded that Petitioner has determined that no violation charged presented an imminent danger to the residents or a substantial probability that death or harm would result. Petitioner apparently relies only on Subsection (4), which further provides that in no event shall any fine in the aggregate exceed $5,000. Accordingly, Petitioner has filed two Administrative Complaints: the January 8, 1982, Administrative Complaint seeks an aggregate fine of $5,000, and the Administrative Complaint of February 15, 1982, seeks an additional fine of $400.
In addition to its repeated inspections of the Respondent over a short period of time, Petitioner exercised its authority under Section 400.422 by obtaining the appointment of a receiver recommended by it to take over the day- to-day operations of the facility. That section gives the receiver the full power to direct and manage the facility, to discharge employees, to take over the books and records of the facility, and to correct and eliminate any deficiencies in the management of the facility of which the receiver is in full control. Almost all of the allegations of violations for which Petitioner seeks
to assess a fine occurred during the time that the receivers obtained by and recommended by the Petitioner were in charge of the facility; yet, Petitioner seeks to assess a fine against the owners of the facility who were no longer in control of its operation. Accordingly, it is appropriate in determining whether the violations charged existed and the amount of fine to be assessed, if any, to also determine whether the violation was committed by the owners of the facility or by Petitioner's receivers.
The Administrative Complaints will be considered in the order in which they were filed. Paragraph A of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 82-179 was withdrawn by the Petitioner following testimony of Petitioner's witness.
Paragraph B of the first Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with failing to report a major incident within 24 hours of the occurrence to the District Administrator by failing to report the unaccountable absence for a week of a resident who was likely to injure himself, was in need of medication or treatment, and was likely to have difficulty returning to the facility. It further charges that the incident was discovered by Petitioner when Petitioner confirmed the resident's daughter's complaint. Petitioner seeks a fine of $500, the maximum allowable under Subsection (4) of Section 400.419, Florida Statutes (1981). The only testimony introduced to support this allegation involved that of Mier, who testified that a resident of the Aloha had been found naked by the police. No direct evidence was introduced to show how long the resident had been absent from the facility, where the resident was found, why the resident was naked, that the resident was likely to injure himself, that the resident was in need of medication or treatment, or that the resident was likely to have difficulty in returning to the facility. Rather, the testimony showed that the resident left the facility on a regular basis without incident. Accordingly, no "major" incident as defined by Section 10A-5.13(25)(b), Florida Administrative Code, occurred, and therefore the Aloha had no duty to report the event to the District Administrator as set forth in Section 10A-5.l8(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Paragraph C of the first Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with violating the rights of residents to unrestricted private correspondence based upon Mier's November 10, 1981, investigation which allegedly revealed that the facility's staff routinely opened envelopes addressed to residents of the facility which contained income checks, removed those checks from their envelopes and presented them to the residents for signature. On the date alleged, Mier investigated a single complaint from a single resident by speaking to that resident. She did not observe the facility's procedures and did not observe any open mail. Well over a month later, she wrote her report on that incident and included in that report a determination that Petitioner considered the "deficiency" to have been corrected by December 1, 1981. No evidence has been introduced to show that the allegation was in fact true. Accordingly, no violation of Section 400.428(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1981), has been proven.
Paragraph D of the first Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with failing to offer close supervision of a resident by properly supervising the self-administration of the resident's medication during June, 1981, in that the resident refused to take his medication and the facility staff took no action to contact the resident's family or physician. Petitioner introduced no testimony to show that the resident's family or physician had not in fact been contacted. Since a resident of an Adult Congregate Living Facility has the right to refuse medication, and since the staff had been instructed by the physician to withhold medication under certain circumstances, and since the
receiver was in control of the facility in June, 1981, no violation of Section 10A-5.18(4)(b) or (d), Florida Administrative Code, has been proven.
Paragraph E of the first Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with failing to offer close supervision to residents of the facility in that during the inspections conducted on July 29 and August 3, 1981, 15 residents observed in the lobby had foul body odor and their clothes were dirty, and four male residents needed shaving. Respondent has admitted the facts alleged in that paragraph. Arango testified that this was a first-time offense and, therefore, she assessed a fine of $300 of the maximum $500 fine allowable by statute. Since the evidence is uncontroverted that an Adult Congregate Living Facility has no authority to force a resident to shave, bathe or change clothing, there is no basis for assessing a fine for something not under the control of the facility. Additionally, the owner cannot be fined for such an offense during the time that the receiver was in control of the facility.
Paragraph F of the first Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with admitting and allowing to remain in the facility during April and may, 1981, three residents in need of nursing care, which the facility was not licensed to provide. It further alleges that the Petitioner informed Respondent that the residents needed to be removed and that upon inspection conducted on July 29, 1981, the three residents were still at the facility, and Respondent had made no efforts to relocate same. The only evidence introduced in support of this allegation is that on July 19, 1981, a physician determined that one resident of the Aloha should be removed to a nursing home. Although that resident did in fact remain in the Aloha on July 29, 1981, Petitioner failed to show that no efforts had been made by Respondent to relocate that resident or that such relocation could have been accomplished within ten days. Rather, the evidence shows that had the facility been unable to relocate that one resident expeditiously, the responsibility for doing so would have been the Petitioner's. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent has violated Section 10A-5.18(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code.
Paragraph G of the first Administrative Complaint charges that on August 3, 1981, 24 out of 27 resident files reviewed lacked the required physician's statement regarding the resident's physical condition. Respondent admits the facts alleged in this paragraph, and Petitioner admits that Respondent corrected this deficiency. Petitioner has offered no evidence that any harm resulted to any of those residents as a result of this deficiency, which occurred during the time of the receiver's operation of the facility. Accordingly, the assessment of a fine against Respondent for this violation is not appropriate.
Paragraph H of the first Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with failing to properly maintain an admission/discharge register for the residents of the facility on August 3, 1981. It further alleges that the Department cited Respondent for that violation on May 5, June 2, June 15 and July 17, 1981. Although Petitioner failed to introduce any evidence in support of its contention that Respondent had been previously cited for this violation, Respondent admitted that the admission/discharge register was not properly maintained on August 3, 1981, while the receiver was operating the facility. Arango testified she assessed a $500 fine on this violation since the Respondent had no admission/discharge register, a belief contrary to the allegation in the complaint. Since Respondent is only charged with improperly maintaining the register, and since no evidence was introduced to show what deficiency there was regarding the register, there is no basis for assessing a fine against Respondent.
Paragraph I of the first Administrative Complaint alleges that on August 3, 1981, seven out of 27 resident files reviewed lacked properly executed contracts for services to be provided by the Aloha in that the contracts had the residents' date of admission as the date the contracts were signed although the charges listed in the contracts were effective after the admission date.
Section 10A-5.24(1)(a)3., Florida Administrative Code, simply requires that a contract of services to be provided and of financial arrangements be placed in the resident's file. Paragraph I simply does not allege any violation of that Section.
Paragraph J of the first Administrative Complaint alleges that on August 3, 1981, 23 out of 27 resident files reviewed lacked complete demographic data. Respondent admits this paragraph. Section 10A-5.24(1)(a)5., Florida Administrative Code, requires that demographic data be maintained. It further provides that missing data requirements be evaluated to determine whether the operator made a good faith attempt to obtain the information. If a good faith attempt was made, the missing data shall not be considered a deficiency. Petitioner has made no showing as to whether a good faith attempt was made to obtain the information, what information was missing, or why the data was not provided. Accordingly, the missing data, whatever it was, cannot be considered a deficiency.
Paragraph K of the first Administrative Complaint alleges that on August 3, 1981, four out of 24 personnel records reviewed lacked references in the employment application, and one record lacked the employment application in direct violation of Section 10A-5.24(1)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code. Although Respondent admits the facts contained within this paragraph, there is no showing that those records related to personnel employed by the owners of the Moha rather than by the receiver, who was in control during the time alleged. Accordingly, no fine can be assessed against the owner based upon the allegations in this paragraph.
Paragraph L of the first Administrative Complaint charges that on August 3, 1981, nine out of 24 personnel files reviewed lacked the proper documentation that the employee was free of communicable diseases in direct violation of Section 10A-5.24(1)(b)2., Florida Administrative Code. Respondent admits the facts contained in this paragraph. However, no fine can be assessed against Respondent based upon the allegation contained in this paragraph for the same reasons as set forth in paragraph numbered 14 of this Recommended Order.
Paragraph M of the first Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with failing to implement a written plan to comply with the facility maintenance and housekeeping standards in direct violation of Section 10A-5.22(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code, as evidenced by the failure to correct the following conditions found in surveys conducted on April 23, June 2, June 15, June 17, August 3 and November 2, 1981:
Strong urine odors in resident rooms;
Lack of toilet supplies in bathrooms;
Inoperable drapes in resident rooms;
Broken fixtures in resident bathrooms;
Presence of vermin in the physician's examination room;
Broken wall mirror;
Cracked tile in dining room;
Furniture in need of repair.
No evidence was introduced to show that there was no written plan for maintenance and housekeeping standards. No evidence was introduced to show the condition of the facility on April 23, 1981. The only date charged when the receiver was not in control is November 2, 1981. Mier testified she did not know anything about any furniture needing repair. She further testified that the broken wall mirror was not in an area available to the residents but rather was a broken corner on a mirror in a resident's room. No other testimony was introduced to show the extent of the other items alleged, such as lack of toilet supplies in bathrooms, or what Petitioner defines as vermin. Arango testified that she assessed a fine of $400 for the violation charged in this paragraph because of the number of things involved on the number of dates. However, Petitioner has not introduced any testimony to show which of the deficiencies were present on November 2, 1981, as opposed to being present on the other five dates charged in this same paragraph. The construction of the Administrative Complaint prohibits the assessment of any fine against Respondent. The grouping of charges is simply illustrative of the charge that Respondent failed to implement a written plan during a time period when the receiver was in primary control.
Paragraph N of the first Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with failing to comply with rules setting minimum standards for the maintenance of the facility's physical plant in direct violation of Section 10A-5.23(1), (3), (9) and (12), Florida Administrative Code, as evidenced by the failure to correct the following conditions found in inspections conducted on April 23, June 2, June 15, July 29, August 3 and November 2, 1981:
Lack of ventilation in two resident rooms;
Lack of adequate lighting in two resident bathrooms;
Lack of non-slip safety devices in five resident bathrooms;
Lack of handrails in 43 resident bathrooms;
The second floor lobby was not climatically controlled for the residents' use, rendering it unusable, therefore, the facility did not comply with the required 35 square feet per resident in common-use areas.
Once again, the actual violation charged is failure to comply with minimum standards with the recitation of five kinds of conditions found on six different dates, only on the last of which--November 2, 1981--was Respondent in control of its own facility. Petitioner seeks a $500 fine because of the accumulation of things alleged in this paragraph. The only evidence presented regarding the lack of ventilation concerned the inspections on June 2 and July
The allegation of lack of adequate lighting was cured immediately by inserting light bulbs in the fixtures in the two bathrooms in question. No testimony was introduced as to the lack of non-slip safety devices or the lack of handrails in the bathrooms on November 2, the only date on which the owners of the Aloha were in charge of their facility. However, Mier did testify that the second floor lobby was hot on all dates alleged in this paragraph. She further testified that Respondent installed fans pursuant to her recommendation. No testimony was introduced regarding the measurements of the second floor lobby or any common areas in order to make any determination regarding the required 35 square feet per resident for common-use areas. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proving the allegations in this paragraph.
Paragraph O of the first Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with certain violations made during Perez's food service standards inspection on November 3, 1981, as follows:
Lack of information or documentation on meeting the needs of residents who require special diets in direct violation of Section 10A-5.20(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Perez was unable to identify any resident of the facility on November 3, 1981, who required a special diet.
Lack of one week's supply of non-perishable food in direct violation of Section 10A-5.20(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner proved that on that date the Aloha had only a two-and-one-half days' supply of non-perishable food. Accordingly, Petitioner has proven the allegation contained within this section of Paragraph O.
Failure to prepare food as to be safe for human consumption as evidenced by meatloaf cooling at room temperature on top of the stove in direct violation of Section 10A-5.20 (1)(n)8., Florida Administrative Code. Perez testified that the meat- loaf was fully cooked and was cooling at room temperature on top of the stove. No evidence was introduced to show that a cooked meatloaf cooling
at room temperature constitutes failure to prepare food as to be safe for human consumption. Further, no evidence was even introduced to show that the meatloaf was later consumed.
Arango testified that she assessed a fine of $150 for Respondent's failure to maintain a one-week's supply of non-perishable food, since this violation constituted a first-time offense for the Aloha. In mitigation of that fine, Respondent introduced testimony that when Perez made an additional inspection on February 18, 1982, the supply of non-perishable food was in excess of the one-week's supply required. Since this was a first-time offense, since the owners had been back in control of the Aloha for only one month on November 3, and since the supply met the required standard the next time an inspection was made, there is no basis for the assessing of a fine against Respondent.
The Administrative Complaint in Case No. 82-737 charges Respondent with one statutory violation. That Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with violating the right of residents to unrestricted private communication, including receiving unopened correspondence. The factual basis for the charge was the second complaint by the second resident that an envelope containing a check had been opened by the staff of the Aloha. As set forth in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order, Petitioner received a complaint from a resident in November, 1981. Petitioner considered the matter to have been corrected as of December 1, although it did not issue its notice of deficiency to Respondent until December 17. No additional complaints were received from that resident. On January 20, 1982, Petitioner received the second complaint from the second resident. On February 2, 1982, that same second resident, the one whose complaint forms the entire basis for the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 82-737, advised Petitioner in writing that she requested the staff of the Aloha to open her mail for her. Yet, on February 15, 1982, Petitioner filed its Administrative Complaint against Respondent, totally ignoring the written
authorization it had received. In other words, Mier testified that when she signed the Administrative Complaint she knew it was not true. Accordingly, further discussion of the charge in the second Administrative Complaint is totally unnecessary.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT:
A final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in Case No. 82-179 and further dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in Case No. 82-737.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer 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 1st day of December, 1982.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Martha F. Barrera, Esquire Department of HRS
1320 South Dixie Highway Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Barry L. Halpern, Esquire Koger Executive Center, Suite B-106
8405 NW 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33166
David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS
1317 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 16, 1983 | Final Order filed. |
| Dec. 01, 1982 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 11, 1983 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 01, 1982 | Recommended Order | Administrative complaints dismissed because deficiencies in operating facility occurred while department's receiver was in charge of the facility. |
