OCT, 3 2006 12:07AM NU, 340 r 1 _ SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS, LLC, a Florida if] “ Dlo-4@d7 S - ff». STATE OF FLORIDA Bay,» Eps AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION Ig bd Appell oe STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR Mysto , 89 HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, | Meg eth a Oe AHICA Case Numbers “Mise! /Ly Petitioner, 2006006461 & 2006007516 vs. Certified Article Number * Ub SAL 9889 S242 3b72 : SENDERS RECORD..." 7 Limited Liability Company, d/b/a SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS, Respondent. / ae ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRA- TION [hereinafter AHCA or the Agency], by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT against Respondent SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b! a SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS, pursuant to §120,569 and §120.57, Florida Statutes, and alleges: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a two-count administrative complaint seeking: a, to revoke Respondent’s health care clinic license. number HCC 5551, for Respondent’s failure to secure magnetic resonance imagine (MRT accreditation as required by law [Count {]; b, to deny Respondent's 2006 change of ownership (CHOW) licensure application for hereinafter-specified failures to comply with licensure laws [Count IZ], including the failure to secure required MRI accreditation. Ol 3 2000 TZ. 0 7AM NU. 740 JURISDICTION & VENUE 9. Atall times material to this case AHCA has had and continues to have jurisdiction pursuant to its regulatory authority under the Health Care Clinic Act [the Act], Chapter 400, Part X, Florida Statutes [previously Part XII, prior to 2006 amendments to Chapter 400]. In the event that Respondent requests 4 formal hearing in _ the manner required by law and AHCA thereafter refers such request to the Division of Administrative Hearings [DOAH], then DOAH will have jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 120,569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 3. Venue for any formal hearing before the DOAH shall be determined pursuant to Rule 28-1 06.207, Florida Administrative Code. 4, Inthe event Respondent requests an informal hearing (no dispute as to under- lying 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 arguinent on the application of the facts to the Jaw. The Agency contemplates both that all material facts shall be undisputed regarding any recommendation by an informal hearing officer - ¢.g,, that the Agency revoke or not revoke the subject license - and that the rhatter shall be referred to DOAH for formal hearing if at any time either the informal hearing officer determines, or the parties agree, that a genuine dispute does exist over one or more facts material to an administrative recommendation regarding licensure revocation or licensure denial, PARTIES 5, AHCA is the regulatory agency responsible for the licensure of Florida health care clinics and for implementation and enforcement of the Act, including in particular the licensure of clinics engaged in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services. i WoL oT. 2UuQ TZU EAM Nu, 750 6, Respondent SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company (Respondent), owns, operates and is and has been doing business as SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS [the Clinic]. Respondent’s principal business address and mailing address is 1000 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34982. 7, The subject Clinic exists as a separate “entity” under the Act. The Clinic is located at 1000 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34982. 8, Prior to Respondent’s commencing its operation of the Clinic, AHCA issued health care clinic license HCC5551 to Indian River MRI, Inc, a Florida corporation, for operation of its MRI clinic at the referenced Ft. Pierce location, As more specifically alleged subsequently herein, in 2005 Respondent purchased the clinic assets and business from Indian River MRI, Inc. and concurrently secured a transfer or change of ownership [CHOW] licensure from the Agency. Tn any event, at all tumes material hereto - from the effective date of the Act on March 1, 2004, to the present - either Respondent or its corporate predecessor, operated an MRI clinic at the referenced address and were required to comply with the Act. Respondent remains required to comply. 9. Atall times material hereto, Respondent's operation and its referenced predecessor owner’s operation of an MRI clinic at the referenced Ft, Pierce address, was pursuant to the referenced subject license, HCC5531. THE FLORIDA HEALTH CARE CLINIC ACT 10, Licensure requirements of the Act, set forth in §400.991, include: 400.991 License requirements; background screenings; prohibitions. — (1)(a) Each clinic, as defined ins. 400,9902 must be licensed and shall at all times maintain a valid license with the agency. Each clinic location shall be licensed separately regardless of whether the clinic is operated under the same business name or management as another clinic. 3 . oo OUR Sh 200Gb PLU PAN NU. 740 48 4 (3) Applicants that submit an application on or before July 1, 2004, which meets all requirements for initial licensure as specified in this section shall receive a temporary license until the completion of an initial inspection verifying that the applicant meets all requirements in rules authorized in s. 400.9925. However, a clinic engaged in magnetic resonance imaging services may not receive a temporary license unless it presents evidence satisfactory to the agency that such clinic is making a good faith effort and substantial progress in seeking accreditation required under s. 400.9935. + ok # (7) Each applicant for licensure shall comply with the following requirements: (specifics of subsection (7) requirements omitted]* * * (e) The agency may deny or revoke licensure if the applicant has falsely represented any material fact or omitted any material fact from the application required by this part. {Emphasis added, except as to section title.] 11, Licensure requirements of the Act, set forth in §400.992, include: 400.992 License renewal; transfer of ownership; provisional license.— ko oH (4) When transferring the ownership of a clinic, the transferee must submit an application for a license at least 60 days before the effective date of the transfer. An application for change of ownership of a clinic is required only when 45 percent or more of the ownership, voting shares, or controlling interest of a clinic is transferred or assigned, including the final transfer or assignment of multiple transfers or assignments over a 2-year period that cumulatively total 45 percent or greater, (5) The license may not be sold, leased, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily, and is valid only for the clinic owners and location for which originally issued. [Emphasis added, except as to section title.] OCT. 31.2006 12: 078M . NO 26000 P10 12. Because Respondent is engaged in providing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services, the following requirements of the Act are especially pertinent: 400.9935 Clinic responsibilities. — Hoe (7) The agency may fine, or suspend or revolie the license of, any clinic licensed under this part for operating in violation of the requirements of this part or the rules adopted by the agency. (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. [Emphasis added, except as to section title. 13. The Act provides additional 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 impose administrative fines of up to $5,000 per violation for violations of the requirements of this part os 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 serious physical or emotional harm to a patient will result or has resulted, the severity of the action or potential harm, and the extent 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. OCT. 34. 2006 12:07AM NG 9400 FU (c) Any previous violations. (d) The financial benefit to the clinic of committing or continuing the violation. koh oR (7) Any clinic whose owner fails to apply for a change-of-ownership license in accordance with s. 400.992 and operates the clinic under the new ownership is subject to a fine of $5,000. [Emphasis added, except as to title.] THE VIOLATIONS - MATERIAL FACTS 14, With the enactment of the Health Care Clinic Act in 2003, and the referenced requirement that then-existing clinics and any other clinics formed prior to July 1, 2004, must seek and secure a “temporary” clinic license, the Agency issued numerous clinic temporary licenses with effective dates between March 1, 2004 and July 1, 2004. As amended, the Act additionally requires all clinics established after July 1, 2004, to secure a valid clinic license pursuant to the Act and for all clinics, regardless of when licensed, to maintain a valid license (see ¢.g,, statutes referenced in {10 above). 15. Respondent’s Clinic constitutes a health care clinic as defined by the Act, which Clinic is subject to licensure under the Act. In the Spring of 2004, Indian River MRI, Inc. [Indian River MRI], Respondent's referenced predecessor both in title and in operation of the MRI Clinic at this location, sought licensure under the Act by filing its application for clinic licensure, expressly seeking licensure of this Clinic at this location, as a clinic that provides MRI services. 16, Among other things, Indian River MRI's licensure application met the requirements of referenced §400.991(3) in that Indian River MRI presented evidence to the Agency that it was making a good faith effort to secure the MRI accreditation OCT. 31.2006 12:00AM . NO 940 0° FLL required by the Act. More specifically, among other things, Indian River MRI provided _ to the Agency a copy of its letter dated March 8, 2004, to the American College of Radiology (ACR), asking ACR about Indian River MRI’s securing a certificate of accreditation from ACR “for the Hitachi 7000 Ft. Pierce location.” A copy of that letter dated March 8, 2004, is attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHICA’s Exhibit “A.” 17. Based both upon the 2004 licensure application submitted by Indian River MRI to the Agency for operation of the Clinic at the referenced Ft. Pierce address, and upon the evidence that Indian River MRI was making a good faith effort to secure the required MRI accreditation, in due course on or about May 18, 1004, the Agency issued a temporary Clinic license, WCC5551, Certificate #6821, to Indian River MRI, effective March 1, 2004, for operation of the Clinic at the referenced Ft. Pierce address. A copy of that letter dated May 18, 2004, and of that license, are attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Composite Exhibit “B2” The license expiration date on the face of the temporary license is February 28, 2006. 18. On our about I anuary 25, 2005, less than a year after the issuance of the temporary license to Indian River MRI, Respondent advised the Agency by the filing of its change of ownership [CHOW] licensure application (2005 CHOW application] of its then imminent acquisition of the Clinic from Indian River MRI, to be effective February 15, 2005, The individual principal in this acquisition by Respondent was one CHRIS VERNA. A copy of Respondent's (6-page) 2005 CHOW licensure application is attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHICA’s Exhibit “C.” The 2005 CHOW application includes Respondent’s acknowledgment of the requirements of the Act for OCT. 31. 2006 12:08AM NOO74d FP, 13 MRI accreditation and expressly advises the Agency (see page 5) that MRI accreditation is “pending” by the American College of Radiology [ACR]. 19. Based upon Indian River MRI's 2004 licensure application of Indian River, with knowledge of the concurrent pending nature of Respondent’s 2005 CHOW licensure application, on or about February 17, 2005, the Agency in its ordinary course, of business issued to Indian River MRI a “standard” clinic license, HCC5551 (the same license number as in Indian River MRI’s referenced temporary license), Certificate #8519, effective January 6, 2005, for operation of the clinic at the referenced address, A copy of the cover letter dated February 17, 2005, and copy of that standard clinic license, are attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Composite Exhibit “D.” The license expiration date on the face of that standard license is February 28, 2006, the same expiration date as on Indian River MRI's temporary license (consistent with the uniform treatment by the Agency of all such changes of licensure from temporary to standard’), 20. Indian River MRI never secured the required MRI accreditation for the Clinic’s operation at the referenced Ft, Pierce address. Nor did Indian River MRI ever suggest to the Agency that ithad secured MRI accreditation for use at the Clinic (at the Ft, Pierce location) of some MRI unit (e.g., a mobile MRI unit) that Indian River MRI conceivably could have believed that it might legitimately be able to use at the subject Clinic as. an “accredited unit.” 21. The Agency is aware that certain confusion might exist over a merger in February 2004 of Indian River MRI with another corporation (Mobile Resonance Imaging, Inc.) with the two corporations sharing the same business address (with Indian River MRI being the “surviving entity of this merger”). However, any such confusion OCT, 31. 2006 12:00AM : WW. 74a °F does not change the underlying material fact that neither Indian River MRI nor any other entity with a relationship with Indian River MRI, ever secured the required MRI acereditation for the Clinic (in Ft. Pierce) during the time that Indian River MRI operated the Clinic. Indian River MRI did tell the Agency (see the letter in Exhibit “A”) that it had received MRI accreditation from ACR for its Vero Beach MRI clinic, specifically for use of a “Phillips Intera 1.5” MRI unit. In summation, however, none of these questionably-pertinent facts about any such confusion means anything other than the pertinent fact, and material allegation here, that no smokescreen regarding MRI accreditation activities can hide the fact that the activities of Indian River MRI (after filing its licensure application in the Spring of 2004 for operation of the subject MRI Clinic in Ft, Pierce) were only ostensibly, rather than actually, directed at securing MRI accreditation of the Clinic within one year of the May 18, 2004, issuance of the temporary license. 22, On or about February 28, 2005, Respondent SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS, LLC, with CHRIS VERNA as the principal owner of the corporation at that time, acquired the business previously operated by Indian River MRI, including the physical assets and equipment for operating the Clinic at the referenced location, and more specifically also including Indian River’s MRI equipment and its MRI services business. A copy of the first page of a Bill of Sale between Respondent Sports Imaging Centers LLC and Christopher Verna, as buyers, and Leslie Waller, signing the bill of sale , on behalf of himself individually and for “Mobile Resouance (sic) Imaging” is attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Exhibit “E.” (Notably, the Agency is not privy to and does not have a copy of, ag of the date of the service of this Administrative OCT. 31. 2006 12:00AM NO 94d P19 Complaint, the referenced “List of purchased assets” that ostensibly is attached to the Bill of Sale as its exhibit “A”.] 23, The Agency in due course thereupon on April 4, 2005, less than one year after the issuance of the temporary license for the operation of the Clinic, issued to Respondent standard clinic license HCC55S1 (same clinic license number as on the previous licenses), on Certificate #8859, effective February 28, 2005, for operation of the Clinic under the Clinic’s same, unchanged referenced Ft. Pierce location, but under the changed name of the corporate licensee (SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS , LLC). A copy of the Agency’s cover letter dated April 4, 2005, and copy of that standard clinic license, are attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Composite Exhibit “F.” The license expiration date on the face of this license is February 27, 2007. ‘24. Months passed, with the Agency receiving no information from Respondent regarding the required MRI accreditation of the Clinic, or of any MRI unit, or of any progress being made with respect to the “pending” MRI accreditation by ACR that Respondent did state and report on its 2005 CHOW application. 25, More than two years (29 months) have passed since the issuance of the referenced temporary license HCC5551 to Respondent’s predecessor licensee (Indian River MRD) without any MRI accreditation of the Clinic ever occurring for the operation of the Clinte at the referenced Ft. Pierce location under any of the three different certificates of Licensure issued under this MRI clinic license number HCCS551. 26. More than eighteen (18) months have passed since the Agency’s lieensure of the Clinic specifically to Respondent, without Respondent having secured the MRI accreditation required under the Act. 10 OCT, 31, 2006 12: 08AN . NQ 940 PF. 1a 27. Neither Respondent nor its predesssox licensee under this referenced license ever requested any extension of time to secure MRI accreditation. 28, On June 19, 2006, the Agency received Respondent’s change of ownership [CHOW] licensure application [2006 CHOW application], essentially advising the Agency of a reportedly yet-to-occur substantial transfer of the ownership interest in the Respondent corporation, from CHRIS VERNA to one RAYMOND M. WINDSOR. Documentation provided to the Agency indicated that the transfer would occur on or before August 15,2006. The 2006 CHOW application indicates in handwritten notes on its face (see page 5 of 7 in section VID that Respondent concurrently submitted to ACR with the filing of the application itself, a check for $2100, in anticipation of Respondent's own consultant “coming to site in August of 2006." A copy of the 2006 CHOW application is attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Exhibit “G.” 29, The Agency timely responded by sending Respondent its “omissions” letter, dated July 10, 2006, informing Respondent of various deficiencies in the 2006 CHOW application that rendered it “incomplete.” The omitted items include the Agency’s request for Respondent’s “certificate of accreditation or any application for a certificate of accreditation for current MRI services.” A copy of the Agency's letter dated July 10, 2006, is attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Exhibit “H.” 30. On July 31, 2006, the Agency received Respondent’ s response to its referenced omissions letter. Among other things, Respondent said: a. that the closing on the transfer of ownership was not occurring in the future in August 2006 as previously stated, but had already occurred four months earlier on March 15, 2006; Mt OCT. 31. 2006 12:0¢AM NU, 9440 b, that Raymond M. Windsor had taken over the majority interest (ownership) in. Respondent, become Respondent's managing partner, including for the operation of the subject Ft. Pierce Clinic, and as such managing partner had “entered into a purchase contract for new MRI equipment” which is “to be installed in September (2006), which will replace the existing 5 GE Sigma;” c. that this latter MR unit, a mobile unit, impliedly the one jn use at the Clinic in 2006, including currently, had ACR accreditation for use by someone at some time, somewhere, that the Agency here alleges never included any accreditation for use by Respondent at the subject Ft Pierce Clinic); and d, that, in any event, such accreditation not incidentally “expired in November of 2005" which the Agency here alleges means that Respondent knowingly continues to provide MRI services with an MRI unit for which the asserted once-existing accreditation pertained to some other user’s use at some other place, and which in any event expired eleven (11) months ago (November 2005). A copy of Respondent's referenced response (3 pages) is attached hereto and made a part hereof as AHCA’s Composite Exhibit “1.” 31, Respondent continues to engage in providing MRI services at the Clinic, notwithstanding the long-standing failure of Respondent and its predecessor Indian River MRI to secure the required MRI accreditation. 32. Raymond M. Windsor, prior to becoming Respondent's managing partner, had personal experience in the ownership, state licensure, operation and management of Windsor Imaging, an MRI clinic in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Such experience includes that Mr. Windsor, as managing partner for the operation of Windsor {maging, signed the 12 OCT. 31.2006 12:00AM ; NW, 749 2004 licensure application for the licensure by the Agency of Windsor Imaging as an MRI clinic. That application evidences Mr. Windsor’s personal knowledge as far back as 2004 both that the Act requires MRI accreditation of censed MRI olinics in this state, and that Windsor Imaging did secure the required MRI accreditation in compliance with the Act. COUNTI . [REVOCATION OF CLINIC LICENSE HCCU 5551] 33, As and for its Count |, the Agency re-alleges the factual allegations of paragraphs 1-32 and incorporates those allegations here as if fully stated in this count. 34, As alleged, more than one year has passed since the Agency’s licensure of the Clinic without Respondent having secured, at any time in 2004, 2005 or 2006, the MRI accreditation required under the Act for the Clinic to provide MRI services. 35. Respondent's referenced licensure under clinic license number HCCS51, Certificate #8859, thus currently exists contrary to and in direct violation of the express requirement of referenced §400.9935 (11)(a) of the Act, to wit: that a health care clinic that is engaged in providing MRI services must secure accreditation within one year of its licensure, 36. Respondent, through its Clinic, not only continues to be engaged in providing MRI services in violation of the Act, and in violation of its spirit and intent specifically with respect to MRI services, but also appears quite willing to do so for many months in the future in the absence of Agency action to revoke the referenced license for its failure to secure the required accreditation. 37, The facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s violation of the Act by its failure to secure MRI accreditation of the Clinic as required by the Act, particularly 13 rr id OCT. 34.2006 12:00AM NO 24d 0 PV? for so long and so blatantly, fully warrant revocation of the referenced license by the Agency pursuant to either §400,9935 (7) or §400.995(1) of the Act. COUNT I NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY 2006 CHOW LICENSURE 38. As and for its Count Il, the Agency re-alleges the factual allegations of paragraphs 1-32 and incorporates those allegations here as if fully stated in this count. . 39. On the facts and law as alleged herein, the Agency has determined that it has the factual and legal basis for denying Respondent’s referenced 2006 CHOW licensure application for operation of the Clinic under a new license to Respondent, as required by §400,992 of the Act upon a transfer of ownership as significant as that which occurred here, Among other things: a. Respondent has been in direct violation of the express requirement of referenced §400.9935(11)(a) of the Act, to wit: that a health care clinic that is engaged in providing MRI services must secure accreditation within one year of its censure. This requirement of the Act cannot be circumvented or avoided lawfully by the transfer of the majority ownership in the subject licensee/limited liability company and the subsequent attempt to secure a re-licensure of that non-compliant licensee to operate an MRI clinic (the subject Clinic) under facts and circumstances such as exist here. b. The Agency also has determined that a material misrepresentation of fact occurred here as to the 2006 CHOW application in that Respondent tried, and then capitulated on its attempt to misrepresent to the Agency that the 2006 CHOW application was timely filed; when it was uot. Such material misrepresentation constitutes a violation of the Act that supports denial of licensure, pursuant to referenced §400,991(7)(e) of the Act. The Agency has determined that Respondent’s attempt to correct this violation of 14 OCT. 31. 2006 T23)9AM NW, 740 reo£v the Act by admitting to the falsity of the representation, cannot and does not cure the violation in this case, under these facts and circumstances. c. The Agency also has determined that Respondent unlawfully operated the Clinic after the transfer of ownership to the new majority owner of the limited liability company on March 15, 2006, by operating without a valid license, in violation of §400.991(1)(a) of the Act. -The Agency has determined that Respondent's operation of the Clinic under the new ownership of the limited liability company, without first securing the CHOW license contemplated by §400.992(4) of the Act, left Respondent without a valid license as of the March 15, 2006, date of the transfer of ownership interest to the new majority owner, These acts of transfer by Respondent's principals, bath the individual buyer (Varna) and the individual seller (Windsor), not only establish a violation of §400.992(4) of the Act on that date, but also constitute the violation of §400,992(5) of the Act. That referenced subsection, as a matter of law, contemplates that a health care clinic license is valid only for the clinic owner - to wit, the Hcensee limited liability company here ~ under the individual ownership of that clinic owner (i.e., the 100% ownership of the LLC by Varna) that existed prior to the transfer. Otherwise, there is little point to requiring the CHOW licensure process (upon a transfer of a 45% or more * interest in an LLC) to take place prior to the actual transfer, CLAIM FOR RELIEF 40, The Agency has considered the referenced sanctions available to it under the Act, and specifically also has considered the factors set forth in §400.995(1) [See f 12 above] and has determined that the facts and law support the following agency actions: a. As to Count], revocation of HCCU 5551; ‘15 OCT. 31.2006 12: 094M NU 740 0 TZ} b. As to Count II, denial of the 2006 CHOW licensure application. 41, AHCA intends to issue its final order imposing these sanctions and, ifa hearing is sought in this matter by Respondent, ABCA respectfully requests of the administrative law judge or informal hearing officer that he or she enter his or her recommended order that the Agency enter its final order imposing such sanctions. Respectfully submitted this igthay of October, 2006. Dawrey ae A Tom R. Moore, Esquire ANCA Senior Attorney Fla. Bar No, 097383 - Agency for Health Care Administration Palmer Building, HCCU, MSC #53 272'7 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308-5407 (850) 488-0215 (office) (850) 488-5897 (fax) 16 OCT. 34. 2006 12:09AM NW 74 > | re © 4 EXHIBITS TO ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The following exhibits are attached hereto and made a part hereof. O} ig ' ‘ 0 - AHICA’S Exhibit “A” + Indian River MRI letier dated March 8, 2004, regarding “Hy Sree applicant's MRI accreditation effort. 1A Rings! VE AHICA’'s Composite Exhibit “pr - Agency's cover letter dated May 18, 2004, and temporary license HCC5551 issued to Indian River MRI. AHCA’s Exhibit “C” - Respondent's (6-page) 2005 CHOW licensure application. AHCA's Composite Exhibit up” - Agency’s cover Jeter dated February 17, 2005, and standard clinic license 11CC5551 issued to Indian River MRI. AHCA’s Exhibit “E” - Bill of Sale between Respondent Sports Imaging Centers LLC and Christopher Verna, as buyers, and Leslie Waller, signing the bill of sale on behalf of himself individually and for “Mobile Resouance (sic) Imaging.” [The Agency does not possess a copy of the referenced attachment of a list of assets. ] AHCA’s Composite Exhibit sc - Agency's cover letter dated April 4, 2005, with standard clinic license HCC5551 issued to Respondent SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS. ABICA’s Exhibit “G” - Respondent's 2006 CHOW application. AYICA’s Exhibit “A” - Agency's “omissions” letter dated July 10, 2006. AHCA’s Composite Exhibit “I” - Respondent's response (3 pages) to AHCA’s omissions letter, received by AHCA July 31, 2006. 17 OCT. 34. 2006 12:09AM : NW. 750 FLoo£3 soy : f / i s} Sm fe 06 om Esah Respondent is notified that it has a right to request an administrative hearing, he 4 3: 4g pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Specific options for 4 ORY CISION pe administrative review of the relief sought herein are set out in the attached Electionpt, OTR AT ys Rights form and explained inthe attached Explanation of Rights form. : RIGS nE NOTICE 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 NOTIFIED 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. 18 OCT. 31. 2006 12:07AM Ne TO RIIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF Sea The undersigned AHCA counsel hereby certifies that a truc and correct copy of the above and foregoing Administrative Complaint, together with its exhibits “A” through “T" and with an Blection of Rights form, has been furnished to the first addressee below by certified mail, return receipt requested, and also furnished to Counsel for Respondent by U.S. mail and telephone facsimile at the address and to the facsimile number indicated: ) Raymond M. Windsor, Managing Partner SPORTS IMAGING CENTERS, LLC 1000 Virginia Avenue Ft. Perce, Florida 34982 Lester J. Perling, Esq. Broad & Cassel Counsel for Sports Imaging P.O, Box 14010 - Ft, Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Telephone: (954) 764-7060 Facsimile: (954) 761-8135 on this 0! day of October, 2006. Siz MRI 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) 19 o £T

Docket for Case No: 06-004639