Judges: K. N. AYERS
Agency: Agency for Health Care Administration
Latest Update: Jul. 14, 1978
Summary: Respondent never abandoned its exempt status and does not require a certificate of need.
78-0054.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ALACHUA GENERAL HOSPITAL, )
)
Petitioner, )
and )
) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) ALACHUA COUNTY, )
)
Intervenor, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 78-054
) NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, and ) DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled cases on March 31, 1978 at Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Philip DeLaney, Esquire
ANDREWS & DELANEY
1133 Northwest 23rd Boulevard Gainesville, Florida 32601
For Intervenor: George H. Nickerson, Jr., Esquire County Attorney
Post Office Drawer "CC" Gainesville, Florida 32602
For Respondent: Jon C. Moyle, Esquire and North Florida Daniel H. Jones, Esquire General Hospital Post Office Box 3888
West Palm Beach, Florida
Division of Henry Dean, Esquire State Planning IBM Building
Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Department of Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire Health and Building 1, Room 310 Rehabilitative 1323 Winewood Boulevard Services Tallahassee, Florida 32301
By letter dated December 16, 1977 the Division of State Planning forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) the petition of Alachua General Hospital for a formal hearing upon a determination of whether the proposed addition to North Florida Regional Hospital (NFRH) is a development of regional impact (DRI). By letter dated January 6, 1978 the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) forwarded to DOAH the petition of Alachua General Hospital for formal hearing upon the applicability of Sections 301.493-
381.497 Florida Statutes to the proposed additions to the NFRH at Gainesville, Florida.
By order dated January 19, 1978 these two cases were consolidated for hearing.
At a pre-hearing conference on March 17, 1978 rulings were made on various notions, including those involving discovery and Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition in Case No. 78-054. In addition, the pre-hearing conference established that a determination of the factual issues regarding the submission of plans by NFRH to HRS prior to July 1, 1973 could be dispositive of both dockets since the determination of whether or not the proposed addition to the NFRH is a DRI may depend upon whether a certificate of need is required by NFRH for this expansion. Whether a certificate of need is required depends upon the filing of preliminary plans for the hospital addition with HRS prior to July 1, 1973 so as to exempt Respondent from the requirements of obtaining a certificate of need.
At the hearing on March 31, 1978 evidence was submitted regarding the status of the plans submitted by NFRH prior to July 1, 1973 and Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition in Case No. 78-054 was renewed. Those portions of the motion to dismiss alleging that Petitioner lacked standing to maintain this action and that the Office of Community Medical Facilities of HRS is an improper party were denied. Thereafter 3 witnesses testified and 15 exhibits were offered into evidence. Exhibit 8 was objected to on grounds of relevancy, and, since the relevance of this exhibit was never established, this objection is sustained. Exhibit 13 is the composite exhibit comprising 28 separate exhibits, some of which were objected to as not being relevant to the issues here considered, including whether or not HRS had taken final agency action in determining that Respondent received "grandfather" rights in 1973 and did not now need to obtain a certificate of need to build the proposed addition to the hospital. Although not relevant to the specific issue regarding the motion to dismiss, those exhibits lend background information and were all admitted into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
North Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hospital Corporation of America, Inc. (HCA). By deeds dated June 9, 1972 and July 27, 1972 HCA conveyed the property on which the hospital is located to NFRH (Exhibit 7). The construction plans for this hospital, which commenced operations in 1972 as a 170 bed general hospital, contemplated future expansion of the hospital by the addition of floors 5, 6, and 7. To accommodate this future expansion adequate foundation, larger sewer capacity, larger water and steam pipes, more boiler capacity, and greater electrical capacity were
installed than would have been required for the original 4 floors. Space was also provided for the additional mechanical equipment that would be required for the addition. These provisions increased the cost of construction by approximately $300,000.
Following receipt of notification on October 14, 1977 that NFRH was grandfathered in with respect to the certificate of need, NFRH employed architects to prepare the necessary final construction plans. Billing to date for these plans exceeds $25,000.
By letter dated January 19, 1972, HCA advised the North Florida Regional Planning Council that ultimate plans call for a 300 bed capacity at NFRH. (Exhibit 14).
By letter dated May 16, 1973, Gresham and Smith, architects for NFRH, forwarded what was designated as preliminary drawings for a 3 floor addition to NFRH to HRS Bureau of Health Facilities and Services.
By letter dated June 4, 1973 the Bureau of Health Facilities acknowledged receipt of these plans (Exhibit 1).
By letter dated June 5, 1973 (Exhibit 13 p.3) the Bureau of Health Facilities requested HCA to provide the cost of the proposed facility, current bed count, and projected bed count at the completion of construction. The letter further reminded HCA of the requirements to submit construction documents for final approval and to send copies of all plans to the Alachua County Health Department.
At the request of HRS Bureau of Community Medical Facilities Planning, the Bureau of Health Facilities on July 19, 1973 prepared and forwarded a list of those projects for which plans had been received prior to July 1, 1973 (Exhibit 2). NFRH was listed thereon as having filed preliminary plans.
The significance of the July 1, 1973 date stems from Section 381.497 Florida Statutes which exempts from the provisions of Sections 381.493-381.495 those health care facility projects for which land has been acquired and preliminary construction plans filed with HRS prior to July 1, 1973.
Section 381.494 Florida Statutes provides generally that a certificate of need is required for the addition of beds by new construction to a health care facility. NFRH is a health care facility as that term is defined in Section 381.493 Florida Statutes.
The plans submitted by NFRH on May 16, 1973 were architectural plans which were copied from, or at least very similar to, the plans for the existing patient floors of NFRH.
The regulations in effect in 1973 were contained in Rule 10D-28.32 Florida Administrative Code (Exhibit 4) which provided in part that preliminary sketch plans shall include architectural plans, mechanical plans, electrical plans, and outline specifications.
Lack of mechanical and electrical plans technically kept the plans submitted on May 16, 1973 from qualifying as preliminary plans as defined in Rule 10D-28.32 Florida Administrative Code. However, most architects would consider the plans submitted for NFRH to comply with the statutory requirement as preliminary plans. (Exhibit 3(a), Rosenvold deposition p. 16). Rosenvold
was the architect on the staff of the Bureau of Health Services and Facilities at the time the NFRH plans were received.
In Rosenvold's deposition (Exhibit 3(a) p. 31-32) the following colloquy occurred:
Q. Maybe you should define for us what kind of electrical you were looking for and what kind of mechanical you were looking for.
A. Generally our requirement has been fairly schematic in terms of the electrical requiring only a powerizing diagram, and in mechanical a single line, as you say in duct routing and location of outlets and that sort of thing.
Q. Let's go to these plans that HCA had on file.
A. Yes.
Q. Could you look at those plans for us and tell us whether the air conditioning system and the electrical system were designed to accommodate a larger hospital from the foundation?
A. No sir, I could not, not without a great deal of study, and I'm not an electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, or structural engineer.
Q. Do you have such people in here to evaluate that?
A. We have an electrical engineer, and at that time that's all we had.
Q. Did you not have a mechanical engineer?
A. No.
Q. If these plans showed the sizing and the routing and everything prepatory to an addition, three more floors, would that have been sufficient mechanical in formation for you?
A. Yes, if it had shown that.
Q. Would that have then accommodated all the information you needed for the preliminary filing?
A. Yes, probably.
Immediately prior to July 1, 1973 numerous health care facilities submitted plans for expansions and/or construction to meet this deadline. Those whose plans appeared sufficient were placed on the list prepared and forwarded to the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities Planning (Exhibit 2).
The Bureau of Community Medical Facilities Planning is the agency in HRS charged with determining those health care providers coming within the exemption provided by Section 381.497 Florida Statutes from the certificates of need requirement.
The list (Exhibit 2) provided to the Bureau of Community of Medical Facilities Planning was used to determine which health care providers were "grandfathered" and exempt from having to obtain a certificate of need.
Several other health care providers listed on Exhibit 2 had submitted only architectural drawings as had NFRH and subsequently made additions to their facility without having to obtain a certificate of need.
At least one of those health care providers submitting preliminary plans was advised by the Bureau of Health Facilities that the plans submitted were incomplete and did not comply with the requirements of preliminary plans as defined in Rule 10D-28.32 Florida Administrative Code.
There was no evidence that NFRH was advised prior to 1978 that the plans submitted on May 16, 1973 did not qualify as preliminary plans.
The only health care provider, listed on Exhibit 2 and treated as exempt from the certificate of need requirement whose exemption has ever been questioned, is NFRH.
By letter dated June 30, 1975 NFRH made application for a certificate of need to add the 5th, 6th, and 7th floors to NFRH but configuring only two of these floors for patients.
By letter dated September 30, 1975 the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities Planning denied the request for certificate of need. Testimony presented at the instant hearing was that this application was intended as an application for Section 1122, P.L. 92-603 review to cover federal payments for Medicare and not for a certificate of need.
By application dated August 8, 1975 NFRH requested from the Division of State Planning a binding letter of interpretation for a proposed 100 bed addition to the hospital. By letter dated October 8, 1975 the Division of State Planning found the proposed expansion to be a development of regional impact without stating the facts or law upon which this determination was based.
Apparently while preparing for a renewal of its application for a certificate of need and/or development of regional impact, counsel for NFRH became aware of the 1973 filing of plans and on September 23, 1977 submitted a request for written confirmation that NFRH was grandfathered under the Section of 381.497 Florida Statutes and did not need to apply for a certificate of need. (Exhibit 6).
After clarifying correspondence respecting the present number of beds at NFRH, by letter dated October 14, 1977,the HRS Office of Community Medical Facilities advised NFRH that "the proposed three story addition providing for additional 150 beds is not subject to review under the Certificate of Need statute as the land upon which the facility is located was acquired prior to July 1, 1973 and the preliminary construction plans for this three story addition were filed with the Office of Licensure and Certification prior to July 1, 1973." (Exhibit 5).
Subsequently NFRH requested the Division of State Planning for an opinion regarding whether an expansion of 96 beds to a hospital existing prior to July 1, 1973 is a development of regional impact. By letter dated November 16, 1977 NFRH was advised that Section 380.06(14) Florida Statutes exempted any new construction or expansion to an existing hospital with less than 100 beds from the DRI provisions of Section 380.06 Florida Statutes.
Thereafter, by letter dated November 30, 1977, the HRS Office of Community Medical Facilities advised NFRH that the proposed expansion was
grandfathered only if the construction complied strictly with the plans submitted May 16, 1973 for a 150 bed addition. (Exhibit 13 p. 38).
By letter dated December 12, 1977, NFRH retracted from the previously expressed intent to provide ancillary services on one of the expansion floors and confirmed that the project would proceed in accordance with the original plans for a 150 bed addition.
By this time Petitioner had commenced actively opposing any expansion at NFRH and had filed the initial petition to have the addition declared a development of regional impact. Shortly thereafter the second petition to HRS was filed.
By letter dated January 10, 1978 the Office of Community Medical Facilities requested the Office of Licensure and Certification, in view of the recent considerable discussion relative to the type of plans filed by NFRH prior to July 1, 1973, "to render a determination relative to the type of plans you had in your possession as of that date." (Exhibit 13 p. 48).
By letter dated January 25, 1979 Mr. Rosenvold, Medical Facilities architect supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, replied that since all the necessary components of a preliminary submittal had not been included the plans must be judged to be schematics in accordance with stage one submission requirements of 10D-28.32 Florida Administrative Code. This letter did, however, note that the patient room addition, as proposed, is for all intents and purposes a duplication of the floors below and the architects could have presumed that the construction documents previously approved would suffice for the additional requirement for a preliminary submittal.
Although the Respondent, NFRH, objected to the admissibility of some of the documents referred to above on the grounds of relevancy to the consideration of the Motion to Dismiss they are factual and are included to complete the pictorial background and to place the issues in proper perspective.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 380.06 Florida Statutes provides various criteria for developments of regional impact. Subsection 380.06 (14) thereof which became effective October 1, 1975 provides:
Any proposed hospital which has a design capacity of not more than 100 beds is exempt from the provisions of this section.
NFRH's application for a binding letter of interpretation for a 100 bed addition was dated August 8, 1975 and, by letter dated October 8, 1975, the Division of State Planning determined that the proposed addition would be required to comply with the provisions of Section 380.06 Florida Statutes. This determination appears to conflict directly with the provisions of the statute above quoted. This position appears to have been abandoned by State Planning in their letter of November 16, 1977 above referred to in which they advised NFRH that an expansion of less than 100 beds was exempt from the DRI requirements.
At all times relevant to the filing of the plans by NFRH Rule 10D-
Florida Administrative Code provides in pertinent part:
First Stage - Program and schematic plans.
Schematic Plans.
Single line drawings of each floor shall show the relationship of the various departments or services to each other and the room arrangement in each department. The name of each room shall be noted. The proposed roads and walks, service and entrance courts, parking, prevailing breeze and orientation may be shown on either a small plot plan or the first floor plan. A simple cross section diagram shall be submitted at this stage.
If the proposed project is an addition, or is otherwise related to existing buildings on the site, the plans shall show the facilities and general arrangement of those buildings.
Second Stage - Preliminaries. Preliminary sketch plans shall include the following:
Architectural plans.
Mechanical plans.
Electrical plans.
Outline Specifications - A general description of the construction, including interior finishes, types and locations of acoustical materials and special floor coverings.
Although the architectural plans submitted May 16, 1973 by NFRH were subsequently, in the letter of January 25, 1978, judged to be "schematics" rather than preliminaries, it is difficult to understand how they fit into the description of schematics above quoted. They certainly met the requirements of preliminary architectural plans, and by reference to the construction plans on file for existing floors, probably provided all the information needed to comply with the electrical and mechanical plans submissions.
Nor is it insignificant that other providers submitted incomplete preliminary plans, had them accepted as did NFRH, and later completed the construction without having to be concerned with applying for a certificate of need because they had preliminary plans on file prior to July 1, 1973. of North Miami General Hospital, Inc. v. HRS (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) Case HH-61, filed March 17, 1978.
A quick perusal of Exhibit 2 would indicate that more plans submitted were designated schematics than preliminaries. While this has little positive probative value, it negates any assumption that no effort was made to properly classify the plans when Exhibit 2 was prepared. Although the testimony was not explicit in this regard, a fair assumption can be made that, at the time the list attached to Exhibit 2 was prepared, those responsible for its preparation knew that its intended use was to determine those projects that were exempt from the certificate of need requirements and intended the list to be so used.
This list became a document upon which NFRH could rely in proceeding with its plans for expansion. The fact that NFRH subsequently proposed to increase the bed capacity by only the number of beds (100) that could be accommodated on two floors does not constitute an abandonment of their original plan on file prior to July 1, 1973.
"Abandonment", in its general sense, means the act of intentionally relinquishing a known right absolutely and without reference to any particular person or for any particular purpose. 1 Fla. Jur. 2d 1 Abandoned Prop. Abandonment requires both a specific intent to abandon and an affirmative act to carry out that intent. No such intent or act was here shown to indicate NFRH ever intended to give up whatever grandfather rights it acquired by the pre-July 1, 1973 filing of plans.
It would appear a reasonable business practice and a practical solution to provide only the number of additional beds for which need was anticipated in the immediate future, leave one floor unfinished, and add those
50 beds when the need arose. Proposing such a project is not an abandonment of the original project for which plans were filed May 16, 1973.
Respondents argue that the letter of October 14, 1977 (Exhibit 5) is a declaratory statement pursuant to 120.565 Florida Statutes and therefore final agency action. Petitioner on the other hand would have this "declaratory statement" held invalid because notice of the petition and its disposition were not published in the Florida Administrative Weekly as required by 120.565 Florida Statutes. Lack of such publication is acknowledged.
Section 120.565 Florida Statutes entitled, Declaratory Statement by agencies, provides:
Each agency shall provide by rule the procedure for the filing and prompt disposition of petitions for declaratory statements as to the applicability of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of the agency. The agency shall give notice of such petition and its disposition in the Florida Administrative Weekly and transmit copies of each petition to the committee.
Agency disposition of petitions shall be final agency action."
Rules for filing petitions for Declaratory Statement are contained in Chapter 28-4 Florida Administrative Code. The letter of September 23, 1977 to HRS asking for written confirmation that NFRH was grandfathered was not in the format provided for requests for a declaratory statement and it is obvious that neither NFRH nor HRS considered it, at the time, to be a request for a declaratory statement. This is so despite the obvious conclusion that the request covers exactly the type situation envisioned by 120.565 above quoted and Rule 28-4.05 Florida Administrative Code which provides in part:
A declaratory statement is a means for determining the rights of parties when a controversy, or when doubt concerning the applicability of any statutory provision, rule or order has arisen before any wrong has actually been committed.
Petitioner contends that since neither the petition nor the "declaratory statement" was published in the Administrative Weekly or transmitted to the committee the action of the agency did not become final agency action.
On the other hand 120.52(2) and (9) Florida Statutes respectively define "Agency Action" to mean "the whole or part of a rule or order, or the equivalent, or the denial of a petition to adopt a rule or issue an order" and "Order" to mean "a final agency decision which does not have the effect of a rule and which is not excepted from the definition of a rule, whether affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form."
The statute further provides an agency decision shall be final when reduced to writing.
Applying the above definitions to the agency letter of October 14, 1977 this is clearly an agency decision which does not have the effect of a rule and became final when reduced to writing. It did not interpret a statutory provision or rule, nor determine future rights in the event a given factual situation existed. This was a decision that found certain facts existed and on the basis of those facts concluded, as a matter of law, that NFRH was exempt from the provisions of 381.493 - 381.495 Florida Statutes.
It appears to comply with the requirement of an order issued following informal proceedings pursuant to Section 120.57(2) Florida Statutes. The determination made in the October 14, 1977 letter was "stated sufficiently to be recognized as a precedent in its own records and to support meaningful judicial review." General Development Corp. v. Division of State Planning 353 So.2d 1199, 1210 (Fla. 1 DCA 1977).
The October 14, 1977 order was derived from the information supplied in Exhibit 2 on July 19, 1973 and clearly elucidated the reasons for its action. McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance 346 So.2d 569, 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). It was therefore an agency decision issued by the office charged with the responsibility of making decisions of this nature.
Petitioner contends that the July 19, 1973 determination that NFRH had filed preliminary plans and the October 14, 1977 letter holding NFRH was exempt from the requirements of Section 381.494 Florida Statutes, if orders, are invalid because Petitioner, as an interested party, was not given notice of the proposed action and an opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the order. As authority for this position it cites Sections 120.57(2)(a) 1 and 2 Florida Statutes which generally provide that in informal proceedings the agency shall give notice to affected persons or parties of the agency's action or proposed action and an opportunity to present to the agency written or oral evidence in opposition to the agency's action.
Initially it is to be noted that Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in which the above determinations were made. "Party" is defined in Section 120.52(10) Florida Statutes as:
Specifically named persons whose substantial interests are being determined in the proceeding.
Any other person who, as a matter of constitutional right, provision of statute, or provision of agency regulation, is entitled to participate in whole, or in part, in the proceeding, or whose substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action, and who makes an appearance as a party.
Any other persons including an agency staff member, allowed by the agency to intervene or participate in the proceedings as a party. An agency may by rule authorize limited forms of participation in agency proceedings for persons who are not eligible to become parties.
Petitioner was not named in the proceedings, but since Petitioner's substantial interests may have been affected by the agency action it would have been allowed to participate if it had made an appearance. The conjunction "and" requires those with constitutional, statutory, or interested party rights to enter an appearance to receive the rights of a party which included notice. Admittedly Petitioner entered no appearance in the proceedings involving NFRH's negotiations with HRS leading to the determination that NFRH had filed preliminary plans prior to July 1, 1973.
However for the purpose of resolving the issues it is not necessary to hold final agency action was taken when the October 14, 1977 letter was issued or when the July 19, 1973 (Exhibit 2) letter and enclosed list of health care providers was promulgated. HRS, by publishing the July 19, 1973 list showing NFRH to have filed preliminary plans, and giving no information to NFRH in correspondence shortly thereafter that the filing of electrical and mechanical plans were required to comply with the regulations, is now estopped to deny that NFRH filed preliminary plans on May 16, 1973.
Furthermore from the evidence presented it is clear that when HRS accepted the plans submitted on May 16, 1973 as preliminary plans, under the Administrative Procedure Act at that time, Chapter 120, Part II Florida Statutes, proper agency action had been completed. The office of Community Medical Facilities cannot, to the prejudice of health care facilities, be permitted to revoke its determination as to whether NFRH filed preliminary plans prior to July 1, 1973 simply because this agency newly discovers information which if known earlier might have produced another result or because the agency comes to believe that prior determination was ill-advised. cf. General Development Corp. supra, at p. 1206.
From the foregoing it is concluded that the plans submitted by NFRH on May 16, 1973 were accepted when filed as preliminary plans and not schematics, that the list submitted with Exhibit 2 on July 19, 1973 was a determination that Respondent, NFRH, had complied with the requirements for exemption from certificate of need proceedings, that the letter of October 14, 1977 (Exhibit 5) was an agency order confirming that NFRH met the requirements for exemption contained in Section 381.497 Florida Statutes, and that this determination was a final order. It is further concluded that NFRH never abandoned its exempt status and it does not require a certificate of need to construct the three floors addition to this hospital.
No arguments or evidence was presented regarding the petition in Case No. 77-2223 for a determination that the project to expand NFRH by 150 beds is a development of regional impact. Absent an opportunity by the parties to submit arguments of this issue, it would be premature to express an opinion. It is therefore,
RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss the Petition in Case No. 78-054 be granted and that case closed.
DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.
K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1978.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Philip DeLaney, Esquire 1133 Northwest 23rd Blvd. Gainesville, Florida 32601
George H. Nickerson, Jr., Esquire County Attorney
Post Office Drawer "CC" Gainesville, Florida 32602
Jon C. Moyle, Esquire and Daniel H. Jones, Esquire Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida
Henry Dean, Esquire Division of State Planning IBM Building
Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 1, Room 310
1323 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
ALACHUA GENERAL HOSPITAL,
Petitioner,
and
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ALACHUA COUNTY,
Intervenor,
vs. CASE NO. 78-054
NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, and DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING,
Respondents.
/
FINAL ORDER
Upon review of the record and transcript in the above-styled proceeding and the Exceptions and Request for Oral Argument filed by the Petitioner and finding the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order to be correct as to the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated therein, with the following exceptions:
The instant case was not consolidated with Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 77-2223.
The pre-hearing conference Order of March 21, 978 contained no finding that a determination of the factual issues regarding the submission of plans by North Florida Regional Hospital to HRS prior to July 1, 1973 could be dispositive of the instant case and Division of Administrative Hearings
Case No. 77-2223, although this may have been informally established. In any event, this has no bearing on the decision in the instant case.
HRS Architect Rosenvold testified that in the (architecture) professional the
plans submitted by North Florida Regional Hospital would be considered as preliminary drawings, and did not specifically testify that most
architects would consider the plans submitted to comply with the statutory requirement as preliminary plans. See Exhibit 3(a), Rosenvold deposition at page 16.
While North Florida Regional Hospital was not specifically and unequivocally advised prior to 1978 that the plans submitted on May 16, 1973 did not qualify as preliminary plans, Mr. Rosenvold did characterize those plans as schematics
in a September 11, 1973 letter to North Florida Regional Hospital's architects. See Transcript, pages 137-140.
IT IS ORDERED that the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the above noted exceptions are adopted by the Respondent as its own pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)9, F.S., and that said Recommended Order is hereby declared to be and by this Order becomes the Final Order of the Respondent. The request for oral argument is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July 1978.
WILLIAM J. PAGE, JR.
Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
COPIES FURNISHED:
Philip DeLaney, Esquire
1133 Northwest 23rd Boulevard Gainesville, Florida 32601
George H. Nickenson, Jr., Esquire County Attorney
Post Office Drawer "CC" Gainesville, Florida 32602
Jon C. Moyle, Esquire and Daniel H. Jones, Esquire Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida
Henry Dean, Esquire Division of State Planning IBM Building
Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304
K. N. Ayers, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Art W. Forehand, Administrator Office of Community Medical
Facilities, Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Richard C. Rosenvold
Office of Health Facilities and Services
Department of HRS
320 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida
Docket for Case No: 78-000054
Orders for Case No: 78-000054
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Jul. 11, 1978 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
Apr. 13, 1978 |
Recommended Order
|
Respondent never abandoned its exempt status and does not require a certificate of need.
|
