STATE OF FLORIDA "AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION _ STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, 2005007308 vs. MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING OF JUPITER, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a MIAMI BEACH OPEN IMAGING CENTER, ‘Respondent. Os abeY| ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION [hereinafter AHCA ‘or the Agency], by and through its undersi gned counsel, hereby files and serves this ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT against Respondent MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC IMAGIN G OF JUPITER, INC, a Florida corporation, abla MIAMI BEACH OPEN IMAGING CENTER, pursuant to §120.569 and $120. 57, Florida Statutes, and alleges: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This ig an administrative action to revoke the health care clinic license, number HCC5565, Certificate #9636, improvidently issued to Respondent on August 10, 2005, effective May 11, 2005. _ JURISDICTION & VENUE 2. AHCA has. jurisdiction pursuant to its regulatory authority under the Health Care Clinic Act [the Act], Chapter 400,-Part XIIL, Florida Statutes (2004). In the event that Respondent requests a formal hearing in the manner required by law and AHCA 1 2 EXHIBIT A thereafter refers the case to DOAH, the Division of Administrative Hearings [DOA] will have jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 3. Venue for any format hearing shall be determined pursuant to Rule 28- 106.207, Florida Administrative Code, 4, In the event Respondent requests an informal hearing (no dispute as to the underlying material facts), then the Agency will refer the matter to an informal hearing officer who will hear the matter by telephone conference as to any argument as to the application of the law to the undisptited underlying facts pertaining to revocation. . PARTIES 5. AHCA is the regulatory agency responsible for the licensure of Florida health care clinics and for implementation and enforcement of the Act. 6. MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING OF JUPITER, INC., a Florida corporation [Respondent], owns, operates and i is doing business as MIAMI BEACH OPEN IMAGING CENTER [the Clinic]. Respondent s principal business address i is 875 North Military Trail, Suite 101, Jupiter, “Florida 3345 8. Respondent’ s mailing address i is . 2290 10th Avenue North, Lake Worth, Florida 33461. The Clinic is located at 400 Arthur : Godfrey Road, Suite 103, Miami Beach, Florida 33140. 7. Atall times material hereto both Respondent and the Clinic were and are required to.comply with the Act THE FLORIDA HEALTH. CARE CLINIC ACT 8. §400.991(1)(a) ofthe Act states that: “Bach clinic, as defined i in s. 400. 9902 must be licensed and shall at all times, maintain a yalid license with the agency.” [Emphasis bold and d underlined added. 4] 9, Respondent is one of a minority of clinic licensees that provides magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services, which subjects Respondent to the following requirement of the Act imposed only upon such licensees: 400.9935. Clinic responsibilities. — (11}(a) Each clinic engaged in magnetic resonance imaging services must be accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, the American College of Radiology, or the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, within 1 year after. licensure. However, a clinic may request a Single, 6-month extension if it provides evidence to the agency establishing that, for good cause shown, such clinic can not be accredited within | year after licensure, and that such accreditation will be completed within the 6- . month extension. After obtaining accreditation as required by this subsection, each such clinic must maintain accreditation as a condition of renewal of its license. : 10. The Act provides authority to the Agency to revoke a license, as follows: 400.995 Agency administrative penalties.-- (1) The agency may deny the application for a license renewal, revoke or suspend the license, and i impose administrative fines of up to $5, 000 per violation for violations of the requirements of this part or rules of the agency. In determining if a penalty is to be imposed and in fixing the amount of the fine, the agency shall consider the following factors: (a) The gravity of the violation, ‘including the probability that death or seriouis physical or emotional harm to a patient will result or has resulted, the severity of the action or potential harm, and theextent to which the provisions of the applicable laws or rules were violated. (b) Actions taken by the owner, medical director, or clinic director to correct violations. . (c) Any previous violations. (d) The financial benefit to the clinic of committing or continuing the violation. (Emphasis added, except as to title.] THE VIOLATION. 11. With the enactment tof the Health Care Clinic Act the Legislature required then-existing clinics to seek and secure clinic licenses effective March 1, 2004. 12. Respondent correctly determined in early 2004 that it then-operated a health care clinic as defined by the Act, at the above-referenced address for the Clinic and that such Clinic thus was subject to licensure under the Act. Respondent thereupon sought dicensure under the Act for its operation of the Clinic. - 13. Based upon the licensure application submitted by Respondent to the Agency - for operation of the Clinic, in due course on or about May 19, 2004, the Agency issued to Respondent temporary clinic license HCCS5 565, Certificate #6839, effective March l, 2004. A copy of the cover letter dated May 19, 2004, and of the temporary clinic license, are attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Exhibit “A.” 14. Based upon that same licensure application, in due course on of about August 10, 2005, the Agency improvidently issued to Respondent standard clinic license HCC5565, Certificate #9636, effective May 11, 2005. A copy of the cover letter dated August 10, 2005, and of the subject standard clinic license, are attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Exhibit “B.” 15. The Agency improvidently issued the standard clinic license in that the _ Agency did so contrary to the requirements of above-referenced $400.9935(1.1)(a) of the Act, to wit: that Respondent did not secure the accreditation of its MRI unit within one _ year after licensure of the Clinic by the Agency. 16, The Agency recently became aware: (a) that the MRI unit used by Respondent at the Clinic is a unit that at one _ time had been accredited by the ‘American College of Radiology [ACR] through January 4, 2004 (see ACR Accreditation | attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Exhibit ene) (b) that Respondent represented to the Agency at the time of initial licensure under the temporary license that “Reaccreditation is expected no later than June 30, 2004” for the MRI unit under the Clinic’s name (see Accreditation Explanation attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Exhibit “D”); (c) that no such re-accreditation ever occurred. following the January 2004 expiration of ACR accreditation for the MRI unit; (d) that, in fact, the previously accredited MRI unit failed to meet the requirements of ACR for re-accreditation which failure ACR expressly stated ina letter to the Clinic, dated May 06, 2004, reporting that the unit was “not acceptable” in nuultiple areas of evaluation of the unit (see ACR letter/réport dated May 06, 2004 to the Clinic, attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Exhibit “E£”); and (e) that Respondent very recently advised the Agency, concurrently with ' _ providing the above-referenced accreditation information to the Agency upon the Agency's request, that Respondent is in the process of “purchasing anew MRI” unit, with delivery expected “sometime in September” with the expectation of securing accreditation of that new unit at some date thereafter (see two Clinic memos, each dated August 17, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Exhibit “RR” . ) 14. ‘Respondent continues to operate the Clinic, unabated, using its “old” MRI unit for rendering MRI services and doing so notwithstanding the failure more than a year ago of that MRI unit to meet multiple standards, all of which must be met before ACR will grant accreditation of the MRI unit. 15. Respondent never sought any extension of time for securing the accreditation required by the above-referenced provisions of the Act. CLAIM FOR RELIEF 16. The Agency considered the sanctions available to it under the Act, specifically including consideration of the factors set forth in §400.995(1) and determined that the facts and law set forth above constitute a lawful basis for the Agency to revoke Respondent’s referenced license for operation of the Clinic. 17. AHCA thus seeks revocation of the subject referenced license held by Respondent, which if not invalid ab initio when improvidently issued on August 10, 2005, in any event currently exists contrary to the intent, purpose ‘and express mandate of the Act regarding required accreditation of Respondent’s MRI unit within one year of licensure. ; | ao Respectfully submitted this BR Bray of August 2005. Tom R. Moore, Esquire AHCA Senior Attorney Fla. Bar No. 097383 Agency for Health Care Administration. Palmer Building, HCCU, MSC #53 2727 Mahan Drive . Tallahassee, FL 32308-5407 (850) 488-0215 (office) (850) 488-5897 (fax). NOTICE ° 9s % % Respondent is notified that it has a right to request an administrative heaving < 2, My) Sgt . pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Specific options for 20 administrative review of the relief sought herein are set out in the attached Election o oO Rights form and explained in the attached Explanation of Rights fon. All requests for hearing shall be made to the Agency for Health Care Administration and delivered to: Mr. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Building #3, MSC #3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - Please also furnish a copy thereof to the above-named AHCA Senior attorney who prepared and signed this Administrative Complaint (see address below signature). RESPONDENT IS FURTHER N OTIFIED THAT THE AGENCY MUST RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR HEARING WITHIN 21 DAYS OF RECEIPT. OF THIS PLEADING BY RESPONDENT. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL CONSTITUTE AN ADMISSION OF THE FACTS ALLEGED HEREIN AND RESULT IN ENTRY OF A FINAL ORDER BY THE AGENCY CONSISTENT WITH THE ACTIONS. CONTEMPLATED BY THE AGENCY IN THIS PLEADING. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned AHCA counsel hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Administrative Complaint, together with its exhibits and with both an Election of Rights formand a form regarding the Explanation of Rights Under Section 120.569, F.S.A. attached thereto, has been fumished by certified mail, return receipt requested, to each of the following at the address indicated for each: Barbara Ann Perez, Administrator Miami Beach Open Imaging Center 400 Arthur Godrey Road, Suite 103 Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Michael Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer: Medical Diagnostic Imaging of Jupiter, Inc. 2290 10th Avenue North ’ Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Raymond W. Royce, Registered Agent Medical Diagnostic Imaging of Jupiter, Inc. 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 800 : Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 yy on this gal? day of August, 2005. Que Waal Tom R. Moore, Esquire _ AHCA Senior Attorney - Fla. Bar No. 097383 Agency for Health Care Administration | Palmer Building, HCCU, MSC #53 _-! 2727 Mahan Drive : ‘’ Tallahassee, FL 32308-5407 . (850) 488-0215 (office) (850) 488-5897 (fax)

Docket for Case No: 05-003641