Petitioner: AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
Respondent: SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF SARASOTA
Judges: WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
Agency: Agency for Health Care Administration
Locations: Sarasota, Florida
Filed: Feb. 13, 2008
Status: Closed
Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Friday, February 22, 2008.
Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
STATE OF FLORIDA
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
STATE OF FLORIDA, D .
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE is 01): ©,
ADMINISTRATION,
Petifioner, Case No. 2007013432
2007013433
vs.
SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC.,
d/b/a DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF SARASOTA,
Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Agency For Health Care Administration (hereinafter Agency), by and
through the|undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint against SARASOTA
DOCTORS| HOSPITAL, INC., d/b/a DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF SARASOTA (hereinafter
Respondent), pursuant to Section 120.569, and 120.57, Florida Statutes, (2007), and alleges:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
Thig is an action to impose an administrative fine in the amount of two thousand dollars
($2,000.00)) pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57, 395.1042, 395.1055 and 395.1065, Florida
Statutes (2007).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The|Agency has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapters 395, Part I, and 408, Part II, Florida
Statutes (2007).
2. Venne lies pursuant to Section 120.57 Florida Statutes, and Chapter 28-106.207 Florida
Administrative Code.
EXHIBIT
“Ae
PARTIES
3. The| Agency is the regulatory authority with regard to hospital licensing and regulation
pursuant to|Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes (2007), Chapter 395, Part I, Florida Statutes
(2007), and| Chapter 59A-3, Florida Administrative Code, respectively.
4. Respondent is a hospital located at 5731 Bee Ridge Road, Sarasota, Florida 34233, and is
licensed under Chapter 395, Part I, Florida Statutes and Chapter 59A-3, Florida Administrative
Code, license number 4307.
5. Respondent was issued a license by the Agency to operate a 168-bed hospital (License
No. 4307) lbcated at 5731 Bee Ridge Road, Sarasota, Florida 34233, and was at all times
material required to comply with the applicable federal and state regulations, statutes and rules.
COUNT I
6. The/Agency re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs (1) through (5) as if fully set forth
herein.
7. That pursuant to Florida law, every hospital offering emergency services and care shall
provide emergency care available 24 hours a day within the hospital to patients presenting to the
hospital. Aft a minimum at least one physician shall be available within 30 minutes through a
medical staff call roster; initial consultation through two-way voice communication is acceptable
for physician presence. Rule 59A-3.255(6)(a)(2), Florida Administrative Code. See also,
Section 395).1041(3), Florida Statutes (2007).
8. That on January 10, 2007, the Petitioner Agency completed a complaint survey,
complaint number 2007000199, of the Respondent facility.
9. That based upon the review of records and interview, Respondent failed to ensure that
emergency ¢are was available and provided 24 hours a day within the hospital to patients
presenting to the hospital for one (1) patient, the same being contrary to law.
10. That the Petitioner’s representative reviewed Respondent’s records regarding patient
number twenty (20) during the survey and noted the following:
a.
That the patient was sent to the Respondent’s emergency room on November 11,
2006 for abdominal pain;
That the patient was a fifteen (15) year old who fell from a bike and hit the
abdomen;
That a CT scan was completed on the patient’s abdomen;
That the Respondent’s doctor annotated "there does appear to be low density at
the med-portion of the spleen. This raises the question of a splenic laceration.
Significant blood around the spleen, however, is not identified. A liver laceration
is not seen. However, there does appear to be a small amount of blood around the
inferior aspect of the liver;"
That the emergency room physician requested the on-call surgeon to evaluate the
patient and for possible surgery;
That the emergency room physician evaluated the patient, stabilized the patient,
and the patient was then transported to a hospital in Tampa.
11. That the Petitioner’s representative interviewed Respondent’s staff during the survey who
indicated as’
follows:
That Respondent’s emergency room physician was not able to treat this patient
and called the on-call physician for evaluation and to perform surgery on this
patient;
That the on-call physician stated that he was not on-call and to call a different
12.
f.
surgeon;
That the emergency room physician then called the second surgeon who stated he
also was not on-call;
That the emergency room physician then called a third surgeon who also stated he
was not on-call;
That the emergency room physician then called Tampa General who accepted this
patient;
That the patient was then transported to Tampa General by helicopter.
That the Petitioner’s representative reviewed Respondent’s on-call roster for surgeons
covering O¢tober through December 2006 which reflected that the first doctor called by the
emergency department physician was the on-call specialist designated as on-call for November
11, 2006, the date in question.
That the Petitioner’s representative reviewed Respondent’s records during the survey and
13.
noted as fol
4.
b.
q
d.
lows:
That on December 6, 2006, a memorandum was authored by the chief of staff
regarding "EMTALA 'Duty to Respond;
That the memorandum reminded physicians to not fail to respond to an evaluation
request from the Emergency Department physician;
That the memorandum explained that this is an EMTALA violation;
That a memorandum dated November 13, 2006 from the Respondent’s Chief
Executive Officer to the on-call surgeon who failed to respond on November 11,
2006 indicated, inter alia, that "...regardless of whether he is on-call or not, if the
ER (emergency room) requests that he come in and consult on a patient, he should
do so;"
e. That another response from the Respondent’s medical director was made on
January 10, 2007 to the on-call surgeon, who did not respond, concerning this
issue and this correspondence was also placed in the physician's personnel record.
14. That the above reflects the Respondent’s failure to ensure that it provides emergency
services and care to patients presenting for emergency care twenty-four (24) hours daily in its
failure to ensure that necessary on-call services promptly responded to provide requisite care, the
same placing patients at risk.
15. That the Agency cited the Respondent facility for the above referenced deficiency.
16. That the above cited deficiency subjects the Respondent facility to the imposition of an
administrative penalty in a sum not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per violation. §
395.1041(5)(a) Florida Statutes (2007). .
WHEREFORE, the Agency intends to impose an administrative fine in the amount of
$1,000.00 against Respondent, a hospital in the State of Florida, pursuant to § 395.1041(5)(a)
Florida Statutes (2007).
COUNT II
17. The|Agency re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs (1) through (5) as if fully set forth
herein.
18. — That pursuant to Florida law, every hospital offering emergency services and care shall
provide emergency care available 24 hours a day within the hospital to patients presenting to the
hospital. At a minimum at least one physician shall be available within 30 minutes through a
medical staff call roster; initial consultation through two-way voice communication is acceptable
for physician presence. Rule 59A-3.255(6)(a)(2), Florida Administrative Code. See also,
Section 394.1041(3), Florida Statutes (2007).
19. That on July 23, 2007, the Petitioner Agency completed a complaint survey, complaint
number 207007851, of the Respondent facility.
20. That based upon the review of records and interview, Respondent failed to ensure that
emergency care was available and provided 24 hours a day within the hospital to patients
presenting to the hospital for one (1) of twenty (20) patient records reviewed, the same being
contrary to law.
21. That the Petitioner’s representative interviewed Respondent’s staff member on July 23,
2007 who indicated as follows:
4. That patient number twenty (20) presented to the Respondent’s emergency
department on September 23, 2006;
b. That the patient was a four year old and presented with severe abrasions to the
right hand;
q. That the patient required a plastic surgeon for surgery to the right hand;
d. That Respondent’s emergency room physician called the anesthesiologist to
prepare the patient for surgery;
4. That the anesthesiologist refused to respond to the call and come to the hospital as
the patient was four years old and would require post-surgical services that
Respondent does not provide;
f| That the Respondents emergency room physician then called a surgeon from
another hospital to treat the patient;
g. That the physician from the other hospital agreed to treat the patient;
h. That the Respondent hospital stabilized the patient and transferred the patient to
the other hospital;
|. That Respondent hospital recognized the above as a violation of law and reported
the incident to the Agency for Health Care Administration.
22. That the Petitioner’s representative was provided with information prepared by
Respondent to prevent reoccurrence of such an event which included as follows:
a. Staff meetings, physician meetings, reviews of the policy and procedures for
violations and in-services were conducted;
b. The anesthesiologist who had failed to respond to the emergency department’s
request for services wrote a letter to the hospital requesting a one year leave of
absence which was granted;
¢. That this correspondence predated the Respondent’s correcting this violation;
dl. The staff indicated that if the anesthesiologist returns he will be required to be
trained in the regulations as well.
23. That the Petitioner’s representative reviewed Respondent’s records regarding patient
number twenty (20) and noted as follows:
a. That the patient was sent to the Respondent’s emergency department on
September 23, 2006;
b. That the patient presented with an open hand wound;
¢. That X-rays were completed with no fracture, however, surgery was required;
d. That transfer papers reflected that the patient required a pediatric anesthesiologist
which was not available at this facility.
24. — That the Petitioner’s representative reviewed Respondent’s records regarding on-call
professionals and noted that the identified anesthesiologist was on the Respondent’s on-call list
for September 23, 2006.
25. That the above reflects the Respondent’s failure to ensure that it provides emergency
services and care to patients presenting for emergency care twenty-four (24) hours daily in its
failure to ensure that necessary on-call services promptly responded to provide requisite care, the
same placing patients at risk.
26. That the Agency cited the Respondent facility for the above referenced deficiency.
27. That the above cited deficiency subjects the Respondent facility to the imposition of an
administrative penalty in a sum not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per violation. §
395.1041(5)(a) Florida Statutes (2007).
WHIEREFORE, the Agency intends to impose an administrative fine in the amount of
$1,000.00 against Respondent, a hospital in the State of Florida, pursuant to § 395.1041(5)(a)
Florida Statutes (2007).
Respectfully submitted this a day of January, 2008.
/
4)
Thérhds J. Walsh, II
Fla. Bar. No. 566365
Counsel for Petitioner
Agency for Health Care Administration
525 Mirror Lake Drive, 330G
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
727.552.1525 (office)
727.552.1440 (fax)
Respondent lis notified that it has a right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section
120.569, Florida Statutes. Respondent has the right to retain, and be represented by an attorney
in this matter. Specific options for administrative action are set out in the attached Election of
Rights.
All requests|for hearing shall be made to the Agency for Health Care Administration, and
delivered to Agency Clerk, Agency for Health Care Administration, 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg
#3,MS #3, Tallahassee, FL 32308;Telephone (850) 922-5873.
RESPONDENT IS FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT THE FAILURE TO REQUEST A HEARING
ll DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THIS COMPLAINT WILL RESULT IN AN
IN OF THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND THE ENTRY OF A
FINAL ORDER BY THE AGENCY.
WITHIN 2
ADMISSIq
IH
USS. Certi
33324 and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
REBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by
ed Mail, Return Receipt No. 7007 0710 0004 0428 90270n January
CT se pore
Road, Sarasota, FL 34239.
Copies furnished to:
CT Corpor
2295 Victo:
Ft. Myers,
(U.S. Mail)
Registered Agent
Field Office Manager
tion System
ia Ave., Room 340
lorida 33901-3884
, 2008 to
tion System, Registered Agent, 1200 South Pine Island Rd., Plantation, Florida
y U.S. Mail to Robert Meade, CEO, Doctors Hospital of Sarasota, 5731 Bee Ridge
4
Ny,
Thorhas ¥, Walsh II, Esquire
Robert Meade, CEO
Doctors Hospital of Sarasota
5731 Bee Ridge Road
Sarasota, FL 34239
-S. Mail
Thomas J. Walsh, II, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Admin.
525 Mirror Lake Drive, 330G
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
(Interoffice)
COMPLETE THIS SECTi@aL ON DELIVERY
A Signature
x =
B. Received by ( Printad Name)
& Complete items 1, 2, and 3, Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
@ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
™@ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
CT Co poration System
Reg.
[abe é Ane Te land Ra
Plan tatron, FL
D. is delivery address different from item Yes
It YES, enter delivery address below: C1 No
3.. Service Type
C1 Certified Mail 1) Express Mail
j CO Registered © Return Receipt for Merchandise
_ 7 33 at O Insured Mail = C.0.D.
4, Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) O Yes
ACOTO 1343 2-
2. Article a ’
2EO70 13433
(Trans
———————— EO It
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt Maeda ¢ tp o Gere se ego
Docket for Case No: 08-000726