3-1)-O3 STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AT “a, LIFEPATH, INC., d/b/a LIFEPATH ae! HOSPICE, 4 Petitioner, . TS DOAH CASE NO. 00-3203CON Li) 14 l) ~C (pe vs. AHCA CON NO. 9311 ~ MD AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION and HERNANDO PASCO HOSPICE, INC., Respondent. HERNANDO-PASCO HOSPICE, INC., Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 00-3205CON vs. AHCA CON NO. 9311 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION and LIFEPATH, INC., d/b/a LIFEPATH HOSPICE, Respondents. FINAL ORDER These causes were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and consolidated for a formal administrative hearing and the entry of a Recommended Order. The Recommended Order of March 17, 2003, is attached to this Final Order and incorporated herein by reference except as noted. “necessary statutory and case requirements. See Heifetz v. Dept. of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d” RULING ON EXCEPTIONS Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, filed one exception to the Recommended Order to that part of finding of fact 79, which states that “Evidence related to accreditation of Lifepath by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations is not relevant to this issue and has not be considered.” Finding of fact 79 is apparently based on Section 408.043(4), Fla. Stat., which states that such accreditation may not be a requirement for the issuance or maintenance of a certificate of need. The Agency does not dispute this, but finds that the ALJ’s conclusion from this statute, that such accreditation is not relevant to quality of care is, in reality, a conclusion of law. Further, it is a conclusion of law over which the Agency has substantive jurisdiction pursuant to Section 408.035(3), Fla. Stat., which directs the Agency to evaluate the quality of care provided and to be provided by applicants. The Agency finds that such accreditation can be relevant in assessing quality of care. The Agency, of course, realizes that no ultimate decision to grant or deny a certificate of need can be based on the presence or absence of such accreditation. Therefore, the Agency rejects that part of finding of fact 79 set out above because it is 2 conclusion of law and the Agency makes a substituted conclusion of law that such accreditation can be relevant to the Agency in carrying out its statutory mandate to evaluate the quality of care of certificate of need applicants. The Agency finds that its substituted conclusion of law is as or more reasonable than that made by the ALJ. In making this finding and substituted conclusion of law, the Agency is aware that it may not re-classify a finding of fact as a conclusion of law without basis so as to alter a finding of fact without meeting the 2 a ree | 1277(Fla. 1° DCA 1985). However, the Agency is significantly more empowered in evaluating conclusions of law. See Humana, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 492 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4° DCA 1986). This is particularly true when the Agency is interpreting statutes within its area of administration. See Williams y. Department_of Management Services, Diy. of Retirement, 647 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1" DCA 1994), rev granted 658 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1995), decision approved 678 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1996). See Section 120.57(1)(J, Fla. Stat. Moreover, even if that portion of finding of fact 79 which states that “Evidence related to accreditation of Lifepath by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations is not relevant to this issue and has not be considered.” is viewed as a finding of fact, it must still be rejected by the Agency because, based on review of the entire record, it is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. This determination by the Agency is based on the plain language of Section 408.043(4), Fla..Stat.which only states that that such accreditation is not required for the issuance or maintenance of a certificate of need. It clearly does not state that such accreditation is not relevant to the Agency’s assessment of quality of care. See Section 120.57(1)(J, Fla. Stat. Hernando-Pasco Hospice, Inc. (Hernando) filed exceptions to findings of fact 26, 28, 33, 55, 56, 64, 76, and 100. Hemando filed exceptions to conclusions of law 117, 119, 122, and 123. Hernando’s exceptions to the above findings of fact are rejected because these findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence and comply with the te ' 3 AM, ' of fact. See Heifetz v. Dept. of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277(Fla. 1" DCA 1985). See also Section 120.57(1)(D, Fla. Stat. Hernando’s exceptions to the above conclusions of law are rejected because they flow logically and inevitably from the findings of fact and the Agency finds that it is unable to make substituted conclusions of law that are as or more persuasive than those made by the ALJ. See Section 120.57(1)(), Fla. Stat. FINDINGS OF FACT The Agency adopts the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order except as noted. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Agency adopts the conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order. IT iS THEREFORE ADJUDGED THAT: In accordance with the Recommended Order, Hernando’s CON application 9311 is denied. 7 DONE and ORDERED this _! day of sedge , 2003, in Tallahassee,-Flozida. . A fo Chores RHONDA M. MED S, MD., SECRETARY Agency for Health Care Administration NOTICE OF RIGHT lo JUDICIAL REVIEW A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A COPY, ALONG WITH THE FILING FEE PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. i by 4 We il he 1h? i REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I houecky CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been ighed by U.S. or interoffice mail to the persons named below on this 7] day of " stn ___, 2003. Chote Ue Se Lealand L. McCharen, years Crank Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 3 Tallahassee, FL 32308 COPIES FURNISHED TO: David M. Maloney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 3 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Robert D. Newell, Esquire Newell & Terry, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32303-6313 Frank Rainer, Esquire Sternstein, Rainer & Clarke, P.A. 101 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-7606 H. Darrell White, Esquire McFailain & Cassedy, P.A- 305 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, FL 32316-2174 Elizabeth Dudek Deputy Secretary Wendy Adams Facilities Intake Pa 6 a eA nant? j '

Docket for Case No: 00-003205CON

Orders for Case No: 00-003205CON