The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of skilled nursing facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. At all times material hereto, Avante was licensed by Petitioner as a skilled nursing facility. Avante operates a 116-bed nursing home located in Leesburg, Florida. On or about March 28, 2002, AHCA conducted a complaint investigation at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. On or about May 13, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the May 13, 2002, survey, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. Resident E.S. was admitted to Avante on March 11, 2002, with diagnoses including e. coli sepsis, anemia, and schizophrenia with an order for serum albumin levels to be performed "now and yearly." Resident E.S.'s resident chart failed to reflect that a serum albumin test had been performed for Resident E.S. at any time from the date of his admission on March 11, 2002, until March 28, 2002. Avante failed to follow the orders of Resident E.S.'s physician due to its failure to perform a serum albumin test on Resident E.S. at any time between March 11, 2002, and March 28, 2002. Resident R.L. was admitted to Respondent's facility on May 6, 2002 with diagnoses including gastrointestinal hemorrhage, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, A-fib, pneumonia, diverticulitis, gout, fracture of right arm, and cancer of the prostate. Resident R.L.'s resident chart reflects that Resident R.L. was neither offered or administered Tylenol by Avante's staff at any time between May 9, 2002, and May 13, 2002. Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record The correction date given to Respondent for the deficiency cited, Tag F281(D), as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation was April 28, 2002. Respondent does not dispute the deficiency cited by AHCA as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation. Thus, facts and circumstances surrounding the May 13, 2002, survey visit to Avante is the source of this dispute. The purpose of the May 13, 2002 survey visit to Avante by AHCA was for annual certification or licensure. In an annual license survey, a group of surveyors goes to a facility to determine if the facility is in compliance with state and federal requirements and regulations. Part of the process is to tour the facility, meet residents, record reviews, and talk to families and friends of the residents. During the licensure visit on May 13, 2002, the records of 21 residents were reviewed. Stephen Burgin is a registered nurse and is employed by AHCA as a registered nurse specialist. He has been employed by AHCA for three years and has been licensed as a nurse for six years. He also has experience working in a hospital ER staging unit and in a hospital cardiology unit. Nurse Burgin has never worked in a nursing home. Nurse Burgin conducted the complaint investigation on March 28, 2002, and was team leader for the licensure survey visit on May 13, 2002, at Avante. He was accompanied on the May 13, 2002, visit by Selena Beckett, who is employed by AHCA as a social worker. Both Nurse Burgin and Ms. Beckett are Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT) certified. During the course of the May 13, 2002, licensure survey visit, Ms. Beckett interviewed Resident R.L. As a result of this interview, Ms. Beckett examined Resident R.L.'s medication administration record (MAR) to determine whether he was receiving pain medication for his injured left elbow. As a result of reviewing Resident R.L.'s record, Ms. Beckett became aware of a fax cover sheet which related to Resident R.L. The fax cover sheet was dated May 8, 2002, from Nancy Starke, who is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse, to Dr. Sarmiento, Resident R.L.'s attending physician. The box labeled "Please comment" was checked and the following was hand written in the section entitled "comments": "Pt refused Augmentin 500 mg BID today states it causes him to have hallucinations would like tyl for pain L elbow." According to Nurse Starke, the fax to Dr. Sarmiento addressed two concerns: Resident R.L.'s refusal to take Augmentin and a request for Tylenol for pain for Resident R.L.'s left elbow. She faxed the cover sheet to Dr. Sarmiento during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on May 8, 2002. Despite her fax to Dr. Sarmiento, which mentioned pain in R.L.'s left elbow, her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002, reflect that Resident R.L. was alert, easygoing, and happy. He was verbal on that day meaning that he was able to make his needs known to her. Her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002 contain the notation: "Pt refused augmentin today. Dr. Sarmiento faxed." According to Nurse Starke, she personally observed Resident R.L. and did not observe any expression of pain on May 8, 2002, nor did Resident R.L. request pain medication after she sent the fax to Dr. Sarmiento. The fax cover sheet also contained the hand written notation: "Document refused by PT. OK 5/9/02" with initials which was recognized by nurses at Avante as that of Dr. Sarmiento. The fax sheet has a transmission line which indicates that it was faxed back to Avante the evening of May 9, 2002. Nurse Starke also provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11, 2002. According to Nurse Starke, Resident R.L. did not complain of pain on May 11, 2002. Theresa Miller is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Miller provided care to Resident R.L. on May 9 and 10, 2002, during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Nurse Miller's nurses notes for May 9 and 10, 2002, reflect that she observed Resident R.L. to be alert, easygoing, and happy. Her notes also reflect that Resident R.L. was verbal on those dates, meaning that he was able to tell her if he needed anything. She did not observe Resident R.L. to have any expression of pain on those dates, nor did Resident R.L. express to her that he was in any pain. Vicki Cannon is a licensed practical nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Cannon has been a licensed practical nurse and has worked in nursing homes since 1998. Nurse Cannon provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11 and 12, 2002, on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Her nurse's notes for May 11, 2002 reflect that Resident R.L. was sullen but alert and verbal. Resident R.L. had blood in his urine and some discomfort. Nurse Cannon contacted Dr. Sarmiento by telephone on May 11, 2002, to inform him of Resident R.L.'s symptoms that day. Nurse Cannon noted on Resident R.L.'s physician order sheet that she received a telephone order from Dr. Sarmiento to give Resident R.L. Ultram PRN and Levaquin, discontinue Augmentin, order BMP and CBC blood work, and a urology consult. Ultram is an anti-inflammatory and a pain medication. Ultram is stronger than Tylenol. The notation "PRN" means as requested by the patient for pain. Levaquin is an antibiotic. Nurse Cannon faxed the order to the pharmacy at Leesburg Regional Medical Center. By the time Nurse Cannon left Avante for the day on May 11, 2002, the Ultram had not arrived from the pharmacy. On May 12, 2002, Resident R.L. had edema of the legs and blood in his urine. Nurse Cannon notified Dr. Sarmiento of Resident R.L.'s symptoms. Resident R.L. was sent to the emergency room for evaluation based on Dr. Sarmiento's orders. Additionally, Nurse Cannon called the pharmacy on May 12, 2002, to inquire about the Ultram as it had not yet arrived at the facility. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002. Alice Markham is a registered nurse and is the Director of Nursing at Avante. She has been a nurse for more than 20 years and has been employed at Avante for a little over two years. She also has worked in acute care at a hospital. Nurse Markham is familiar with Resident R.L. She described Resident R.L. as alert until the period of time before he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. She was not aware of any expressions of pain by Resident R.L. between May 9, 2002 until he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. Nurse Markham meets frequently with her nursing staff regarding the facility's residents. During the licensure survey, Nurse Markham became aware of Ms. Beckett's concerns regarding Resident R.L. and whether he had received Tylenol. She called Dr. Sarmiento to request an order for Tylenol for R.L. The physician order sheet for R.L. contains a notation for a telephone order for Tylenol "PRN" on May 14, 2002, for joint pain and the notation, "try Tylenol before Ultram." The medical administration record for R.L. indicates that Resident R.L. received Ultram on May 13 and and began receiving Tylenol on May 15, 2002. AHCA 's charge of failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement physician orders is based on the "OK" notation by Dr. Sarmiento on the above-described fax and what AHCA perceives to be Avante's failure to follow and implement that "order" for Tylenol for Resident R.L. AHCA nurse and surveyor Burgin acknowledged that the "OK" on the fax cover sheet was not an order as it did not specify dosage or frequency. He also acknowledged that the nursing home could not administer Tylenol based on Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" on the fax cover sheet, that it would not be appropriate to forward the "OK" to the pharmacy, that it should not have been placed on the resident's medication administration record, and that it should not have been administered to the resident. However, Nurse Burgin is of the opinion that the standard practice of nursing is to clarify such an "order" and once clarified, administer the medication as ordered. He was of the opinion that Avante should have clarified Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" for Tylenol on May 9, 2002, rather than on May 14, 2002. Nurse Burgin also was of the opinion that it should have been reflected on the resident's medication administration record and treatment record or TAR. In Nurse Markham's opinion, "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet does not constitute a physician's order for medication as it does not contain dosage or frequency of administration. Nurse Markham is also of the opinion that it should not have been forwarded to the pharmacy, transcribed to the medication administration record, or transcribed on the treatment administration record. According to Nurse Markham, doctor's orders are not recorded on the treatment administration record of a resident. Nurse Markham is of the opinion that the nursing staff at Avante did not deviate from the community standard for nursing in their care of Resident R.L. from May 8, 2002 to May 14, 2002. Nurse Cannon also is of the opinion that the "OK" by Dr. Sarmiento does not constitute a physician's order for medication. The Administrative Complaints cited Avante for failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement a physician's order. Having considered the opinions of Nurses Burgin, Markham, and Cannon, it is clear that the "OK" notation of Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet did not constitute a physician's order. Without Dr. Sarmiento's testimony, it is not entirely clear from a review of the fax cover sheet that the "OK" relates to the reference to Tylenol or the reference to Resident R.L.'s refusal of Augmentin. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to follow a physician's order in May 2002. As to AHCA's assertion that Avante failed to meet professional standards by not clarifying the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento, this constitutes a different reason or ground than stated in the Administrative Complaints. Failure to clarify an order is not the equivalent of failure to follow an order. There is insufficient nexus between the deficiency cited on March 28, 2002 and the deficiency cited on May 13, 2002. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to correct a Class III deficiency within the time established by the agency or commit a repeat Class III violation. Moreover, the evidence shows that the nursing staff responded to the needs of Resident R.L. Resident R.L. expressed pain in his left elbow to Nurse Starke on May 8, 2002. Resident R.L. was alert and could make his needs known. He did not express pain or a need for pain medication to Nurse Miller on May 9 or 10, 2002 or to Nurse Cannon on May 11 or 12, 2002. Rather, Nurse Cannon noted a change in his condition, notified Dr. Sarmiento which resulted in Resident R.L. being sent to the emergency room. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002, and received Ultram for pain on May 13, 2002, when the medication reached Avante from the pharmacy. The evidence presented does not establish that Avante deviated from the community standard for nursing in its actions surrounding the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento. In weighing the respective opinions of Nurses Burgin and Markham in relation to whether the community standard for nursing was met by the actions of Respondent, Nurse Markham's opinion is more persuasive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaints issued against Respondent, Avante at Leesburg. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jodi C. Page, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis 2180 Park Avenue North, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valinda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint concerning three nursing home residents, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty of $2,500 for each violation, whether Petitioner should change the status of Respondent's license from standard to conditional, and whether Petitioner should recover investigative costs.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida. Respondent is licensed to operate an 87-bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida (the facility). From February 9 through 11, 2004, Petitioner's staff inspected the facility pursuant to regulatory requirements for an annual survey of such facilities (the survey). At the conclusion of the survey, Petitioner issued a document identified in the record as CMS Form 2567L (the 2567 form). The 2567 form alleges violations of federal nursing home regulations that Petitioner has adopted by rule. The Administrative Complaint incorporates the factual allegations from the 2567 form and charges Respondent with committing four violations alleged to be Class II violations defined in Subsection 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). Counts I through III in the Administrative Complaint allege that facility staff committed acts involving residents identified in the record as Residents 14, 7, and 8. Count IV alleges that the allegations in Counts I through III show that Respondent administered the facility in a manner that violated relevant regulatory provisions. Counts I through IV propose an administrative fine of $2,500 for each alleged violation and the recovery of unspecified investigative costs. Count V alleges that the allegations in Counts I through III require Petitioner to change Respondent's license rating from standard to conditional while the alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected. Count I alleges that a staff nurse at the facility abused Resident 14, an elderly female. The substance of the allegation is that the nurse "intentionally caused pain" to Resident 14 by raising the resident's left hand above her head so the resident would open her mouth and allow the nurse to ensure the resident had swallowed her medication. Respondent admitted Resident 14 to the facility on January 31, 2000, with multiple health problems, including anxiety, paranoia, psychosis, delusions, and disorientation due to dementia. Resident 14 was not ambulatory and suffered poor wheel chair positioning for which she had been evaluated and received therapy. Resident 14 was non-verbal, angry, aggressive, combative with staff and other residents, displayed territorial aggression, and a tendency to strike out at others. Prior to admission, Resident 14 had suffered a fracture of the left arm resulting in a limited range of motion in her left shoulder of 60 degrees. At the time of the survey, Resident 14 was approximately 93 years old. Two surveyors observed a staff nurse administering medication to Resident 14 while the resident was sitting in her wheel chair in her room. Resident 14 did not respond to repeated cues from the nurse to open her mouth so the nurse could ensure the resident had swallowed her medication. The nurse continued to observe Resident 14 for some indication the resident had not swallowed her medication and offered pudding to the resident. Resident 14 remained unresponsive. The nurse directed a certified nurse assistant (CNA) to give Resident 14 breakfast and left to care for other residents. The surveyors asked the nurse to return to the room to ensure that Resident 14 had swallowed her medication. Resident 14 did not respond to additional cues from the staff nurse to open her mouth because the resident was distracted by the surveyors. The staff nurse attempted to redirect the attention of the resident to the nurse's cues to open her mouth by holding the resident's left hand and raising her hand and arm. Resident 14 opened her mouth, and the staff nurse observed no medication in the resident's mouth. The disputed factual issues call into question how quickly and how high the staff nurse raised the left hand of Resident 14, whether the resident suffered pain, and whether the staff nurse knew the action would cause pain. Although Resident 14 was non-verbal, Count I alleges, in relevant part, that Resident 14 cried "OW" when the staff nurse, without warning, raised the resident's hand over her head. A preponderance of evidence does not show that the staff nurse lifted the hand of Resident 14 in an abrupt manner. During cross-examination of the surveyor, counsel for Respondent conducted a reenactment of the alleged incident. The witness verified the manner in which the person acting as the staff nurse in the reenactment raised the left hand and arm of the person acting as Resident 14. The demonstration did not show the staff nurse acted abruptly. The reenactment showed that the description of the incident by the surveyor was less than persuasive. Petitioner admits in its PRO that a determination of whether the staff nurse raised the resident's hand gently or abruptly is a "matter of perspective." Petitioner argues unpersuasively at page 14 in its PRO that the surveyor's perception should be accepted because: Clearly, the surveyor would not have made comment if the resident had been treated in a gentle manner. Petitioner cites no evidence or law that precludes the written statement provided by the staff nurse during the facility's investigation of the incident from enjoying a presumption of credibility equivalent to that Petitioner claims for the report of the surveyor. The staff nurse had been a nurse at the facility for 19 years without any previous complaints or discipline and had ample experience with residents that suffered from dementia. The nurse had cared for Resident 14 for most of the four years that Resident 14 had been a resident at the facility. Irrespective of how fast and high the staff nurse raised the hand of Resident 14, a preponderance of evidence does not show that Resident 14 suffered an injury or harm that is essential to a finding of abuse. The surveyor asked Resident 14 if the resident had been in pain prior to the incident. Resident 14 was "unable to speak," according to the surveyor, but nodded affirmatively. Resident 14 did not indicate the source or location of any pain, and there is no evidence that the surveyor asked Resident 14 to indicate to the surveyor where the resident was experiencing pain. After the incident, the surveyors undertook no further inquiry or investigation, did not question the nurse or the resident further, and refused a request by facility administrators for a written statement describing the incident. The surveyors at the facility did not make a determination of whether the incident resulted in "harm" to Resident 14. Rather, the allegation of harm arises from Petitioner's employees who did not testify at the hearing. The determination of harm is uncorroborated hearsay, and the trier of fact has not relied on that determination for any finding of fact. Upon learning of the incident, Respondent's nursing staff immediately examined Resident 14 for injuries, had Resident 14 examined by her physician, and had Resident 14 x-rayed for possible injuries. No injury was found. Resident 14 did not complain of pain when her physician performed a range of motion examination on the suspect arm. Resident 14 was able to move both of her arms without pain. The medical records for Resident 14 and the testimony of her occupational therapist show that the resident had use of her left arm. Resident 14 frequently flailed both arms in an effort to strike others. Notes in the medical records show that Resident 14 "lashes out," "swings her arms," was "physically abusive to staff when attempting to provide care," and "refused to open mouth and became agitated and combative." The limited range of motion in the left shoulder of Resident 14 did not prevent Resident 14 from raising her left hand above her head while seated in a wheel chair. Resident 14 sat in a wheel chair with a forward pelvic thrust, causing her to slump with a lateral lean to the left. The wheel chair position effectively lowered the resident's head, reduced the distance between her head and left hand, and enabled the resident to raise her left hand above her head without pain. Count II alleges that Respondent failed to assist Resident 7 in "coping with changes in her living arrangements in a timely manner" after Resident 7 became upset that her guardian was selling her home. The allegation is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Respondent admitted Resident 7 to the facility in September of 2003. Prior to admission, the circuit court for Sarasota County, Florida, entered an order appointing a guardian for Resident 7. In relevant part, the court order authorized the guardian to determine residency of Resident 7 and to manage her property. Prior to December 28, 2003, Resident 7 was reasonably content. Social service's notes in October 2003, show that Resident 7 was "alert with no mood or behaviors." Nurses notes in November 2003, show Resident 7 to be "pleasant" with a "sense of humor." On December 28, 2003, Resident 7 became angry when her guardian revealed plans to sell the resident's home. Resident 7 continued to exhibit anger for several weeks. On January 6, 2004, Respondent conducted a care plan conference with the guardian for Resident 7, discussed Resident 7's emotional state, and obtained the guardian's consent for counseling. Pursuant to the care plan, Respondent's social services staff met with Resident 7 regularly and provided psychological counseling twice a week. Facility staff did not undertake discharge planning for Resident 7. Staff provided other assistance to the resident, but that assistance was minimal and consisted mainly of giving Resident 7 telephone numbers to contact the Long Term Care Ombudsman in the area and the attorney for the guardian. The sufficiency of the other assistance provided by Respondent is not material because the court convened a second hearing to consider the objections of Resident 7 to her guardian and to consider a competency examination by another physician. On February 6, 2004, the court entered an order denying the resident's suggestion of capacity and authorizing the guardian to sell the residence. The allegation that Respondent should have undertaken discharge planning is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Pursuant to two court orders, Resident 7 continued to be in need of a nursing home level of care, and her expectations for discharge to a lower level of care were unrealistic. Count III alleges that a facility staff nurse failed to administer analgesic medication to Resident 8 causing "continued pain and emotional stress to the resident." Resident 8 experienced chronic pain from a joint disorder. A care plan for pain management, in relevant part, authorized Tylenol as needed. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to provide Tylenol to Resident 8 in accordance with the care plan. During the survey, a surveyor observed staff at the facility reinserting a catheter into a vein of Resident 8. The witness for Petitioner testified that the procedure did not cause Resident 8 to experience pain. It is undisputed that Resident 8 did not request pain medication and that no pain medication was medically required prior to the procedure. Respondent did provide Resident 8 with a prescription medication to calm the resident. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to ensure that Resident 8 obtained optimal improvement or that Resident 8 deteriorated. Petitioner submitted no evidence that Resident 8 experienced any lack of improvement or decline in functioning or well-being. Count IV in the Administrative Complaint alleges that the allegations in Counts I through III show that Respondent failed to administer the facility in a manner that enabled the facility to use its resources effectively and efficiently to maintain the highest practical well-being of Residents 14, 7, and 8. For reasons previously stated, the preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent committed the acts alleged in Counts I through III. Without the violations charged in Counts I, II, or III, the charges in Count IV are moot. Assuming arguendo that the staff nurse abused Resident 14, a preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to take action that could have prevented such abuse. Petitioner's surveyor was unable to explain in her testimony how Respondent could have prevented the alleged abuse. The surveyor did not report the incident to management at the facility for approximately 1.5 hours. Management immediately suspended the staff nurse and undertook an investigation required by law. Petitioner's surveyors refused to provide written statements describing the incident. The staff nurse provided a written statement that Respondent included as part of its investigation and report to Petitioner. Respondent maintains adequate policies and procedures for background screening and regular training for its staff relating to abuse and neglect of residents. Respondent had accomplished all background screening and abuse training requirements for the staff nurse involved in the incident. Respondent had no information in the nurse's history that would have enabled the facility to predict any potential for this staff nurse to intentionally harm a resident. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to administer the facility in a manner that would ensure the highest practical well-being for Resident 7. Two court orders determined that Resident 7 was incompetent and authorized the guardian to sell the resident's real property. The opinion of a surveyor that Resident 7 was "clearly competent" does not eviscerate the findings of the court. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to administer the facility in a manner that would ensure the highest practical well-being for Resident 8. Respondent maintained an adequate pain management care plan for Resident 8 that included Tylenol as needed. It is undisputed that the care plan did not require Tylenol before or after the re-insertion of the catheter into the vein of Resident 8, that insertion of the catheter caused Resident 8 no pain, that Tylenol was not medically required before or after the procedure, and that Respondent provided Resident 8 with a stronger prescription medication for anxiety. Count V of the Administrative Complaint alleges that the allegations in Counts I through IV require Petitioner to change the status of Respondent's license from standard to conditional. In the absence of the violations charged in Counts I through IV, there is no factual basis to support the proposed change in the status of Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of committing the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0623 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: During the night shift on March 28, 1983, respondent had only one licensed nurse on duty. Two licensed nurses were required by the petitioner's rules governing nursing home facilities. These facts were admitted by the respondent's Administrator. On or about 4:30 A.M. on April 7, 1983, a male intruder entered the respondent's facility and sexually assaulted two female residents. The respondent's facility was inspected on April 8, 1983. It was discovered that an alarm on an exit door adjacent to the rooms of the victims was not functioning properly. The alarm is designed to visually and audibly alert persons at the nursing station. On April 8th, the alarm would not sound at the nurses station. As soon as the respondent became aware of the defective alarm, it was replaced temporarily by a local alarm, and then was repaired to function as designed. A door closer on another exit door was found to be defective in that the door would not latch properly. Respondent immediately adjusted this door to work properly upon notice of the defect.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of violating Rules 10D-29.108(4) and 10D- 29.122, Florida Administrative Code, and that an administrative fine in the total amount of $375.00 be imposed against the respondent. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia Park District VI Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Mr. Albert Shepard Administrator The Ambrosia Home 1709 Taliaferro Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Jay Kassack, Director Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Office of Licensure and Certification Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32231 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Plantation was a licensed nursing home facility and participated in the Medicaid program. A nursing home that receives a superior rating is entitled to incentives based on the Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Plan. Plantation has met all the requirements for a superior rating that are enumerated in Rule lOD-29.128, Florida _Administrative Code. The only reason Plantation was not granted a superior rating was based on the Medicaid Inspection of Care, Team report. (stipulated facts) From August 21 through August 31, 1984, Plantation underwent a routine inspection by the HRS Medicaid Inspection of Care (IOC) Team. The purpose of the inspection was to review the care and treatment of Medicaid recipient patients in accordance with state and federal standards in order for the facility to receive Medicaid payment for those individuals. During the course of the inspection, several deficiencies were found by IOC Team. The deficiencies were summarized in the Medicaid Inspection of Care Team report, entitled Facility Evaluation Summary, prepared by Ms. Tranger. The report listed the deficiencies as follows: Fifteen skilled and two intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have medication revalidated by the attending physician within the proper time frame Four of forty-six records reviewed failed to have available documentation that laboratory tests were completed in accordance with doctors' orders and medication regimen, Fourteen skilled and thirteen intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have the Plan of Care reviewed within the proper time frame: Ten medical records were not certified within the proper time frames and fifteen medical records were not current for recertification. As to the first deficiency noted, the problem was not that the physician failed to revalidate medication, but that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician appropriately dated the revalidation. In almost all of the cases, the problem was that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician had personally entered the date because the date was written with a different color of ink than the doctor's signature or the handwriting appeared to be different. Ms. Tranger did not know whether the dates were written by someone in the physician's office or someone at the nursing home. It is very difficult for a nursing home to get a physician to sign and date orders properly. Plantation had a procedure for securing the doctor's signature and having records dated. When a record was received that was not properly signed and dated, Plantation returned the record to the doctor with a letter or note telling the doctor what needed to be done. When returned by the doctor to Plantation, the record would bear the later date, which caused some records to be out of' compliance with the required time frames. The return to the doctor of records that were not properly dated may also explain why some of he dates were written in a different color ink than the doctor's signature. In those few cases where the dates on the report were not within the proper time frame, the dates were only a few days off. In one case a 34 day period, from July 7, 1984 to August 10, 1984, elapsed before the medication was revalidated. In another case, there were 33 days between the dates. In both cases the medication should have been revalidated every 30 days. The problem with the revalidation dates was strictly a paperwork problem and not one that affected the care of the patients. As stated before, in the majority of the cases the medication was revalidated within the proper time frame. The problem was simply that it appeared that someone other than the doctor had written down the date. The second deficiency was a finding by the surveyors that 4 of the 46 medical records reviewed failed to have available documentation regarding laboratory tests being completed in accordance with doctors' orders. However, Jean Bosang, Administrator of Plantation, reviewed all of the records cited by the IOC Team as the basis for these deficiencies and could only find two instances in which laboratory tests were not performed. HRS did not present any evidence to establish the two other alleged instances. Dr. Lopez reviewed the medical records of the two residents in question and determined that there was no possibility of harm to the patient as a result of failure to perform these tests. One of the two residents is Dr. Lopez' patient, and he normally sees her every day. He stated that the test, an electrolyte examination, was a routine test, that the patient had had no previous problems, and if any problem had developed, she would have had symptoms which would have been observable to the nurses. The tests performed before and after the test that was missed were normal, and the failure to perform the one test had absolutely no effect on the patient. Dr. Lopez was familiar with the other resident upon whom a test was not performed and had reviewed her records. This resident was to have a fasting blood sugar test performed every third month. Although this test was not performed in April of 1984, it was performed timely in every other instance. All tests were normal, and the failure to perform this test did not have any effect on the resident. Had she been suffering from blood sugar problems, there would have been physical signs observable to the nurses. The fourth deficiency listed in the report was a paperwork problem similar to the first deficiency. Patients in a nursing home are classified by level of care and must be recertified from time to time. Certification does not affect the care of the resident. The recertification must be signed and dated by the physician. Again, there was a problem on the recertification because some of the dates were in a different color ink than the physician's signature. Again, the problem was primarily caused by difficulty in getting proper physician documentation. The deficiency did not affect the care of the residents. Mr. Maryanski, who made the decision not to give Plantation a superior rating, testified that of the four deficiencies cited in the IOC report, he believed that only the third deficiency listed, in and of itself, would have precluded a superior rating. An analysis of that deficiency, however, shows that it also was mainly a paperwork deficiency and had no impact on patient care. The third deficiency listed involved a purported failure to have the plans of care reviewed within the proper time frames. Patient care plans are to be reviewed every 60 days for "skilled" patients, those that need the most supervision, and every 90 days for "intermediate" patients, those that need less supervision. A patient's plan of care is a written plan establishing the manner in which each patient will be treated and setting forth certain goals to be reached. A discharge plan is also established, which is basically what the nursing home personnel believe will be the best outcome for the patient if and when he or she leaves the hospital. The patient plan of care is established at a patient care plan meeting. Patient care plan meetings are held by the various disciplines in the nursing home, such as nursing, dietary, social work and activities, to review resident records and discuss any problems with specific residents. The manner in which the problem is to be corrected is determined and then written down on the patient's plan of care record. The evidence revealed that the basis of the deficiency was not a failure to timely establish or review a plan of care, but a failure to timely write down and properly date the plan of care. During the time in question, care plan meetings were held every Wednesday, and all of the disciplines attended the meetings. However, all disciplines did not write their comments on the patients' records at the meeting; some wrote them later. Usually, when they were added later, the comments were dated on the day they were written, rather than on the day the meetings were held. The evidence presented did not show any case in which all disciplines were late in making notes, but revealed only that specific disciplines were tardy. Since all the disciplines attended one meeting, it is apparent that when the date for any discipline was timely, the later dates of other disciplines merely reflected a documentation or paperwork problem. In late 1984 or early 1985, Plantation changed its system to avoid the problem in the future. There appeared to be problems with some of the discharge plans being untimely. The discharge plan is not utilized in the day-to-day care of the resident. Discharge plans at Plantation were kept in two places, and Ms. Tranger recognized that she may have overlooked some plans if they had been written only on the separate discharge sheet. The four deficiencies cited all involved time frames. There are innumerable time frames that must be met by a nursing home. The great majority of the deficiencies involved a failure to properly document. None of the deficiencies affected the care of the patients. Indeed, Ms. Tranger indicated that the patients were all receiving proper nursing care. The decision to give Plantation a standard rating was made by Mr. Maryanski based solely on the IOC report. He relied upon section 400.23,(3) Florida Statutes, which states: "The department shall base its evaluation on the most recent annual inspection report, taking into consideration findings from other official reports, surveys, interviews, investigations and inspections." There are no regulations or written or oral policies implementing this provision. Mr. Maryanski looked solely at the face of the IOC report and did not do any independent investigation. He never visited the nursing home, and he never talked to the on-site surveyors to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the IOC Team were significant. He never saw the underlying documentation which formed the basis of the report. Mr. Maryanski has no background either in nursing or medicine and had no knowledge of purpose the tests that were allegedly not performed. On October 4, 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) conducted the annual survey of the facility. Mr. Maryanski did not determine whether the deficiencies found by the IOC Team had been corrected at the time of the annual survey. An IOC Team surveyor returned on November 21, 1984, and found that all of the deficiencies cited during the IOC inspection had been corrected. A resurvey of the facility was conducted on December 27, 1984, by OLC. All deficiencies noted in OLC's original inspection had been corrected. All nursing home facilities in Florida are rated by HRS as conditional, standard, or superior. In addition to its financial significance, the rating of a facility is important because it affects the facility's reputation in the community and in the industry. The rating for a facility goes into effect on· the day of the follow-up visit of OLC if all deficiencies have been corrected. Therefore, Plantation would have received a superior rating, effective December 27, 1984, had it not been for the IOC report Mr. Maryanski never tried to determine whether the deficiencies in the IOC report had been corrected subsequent to the report being issued. Under rule lOD-29.128, Florida Administrative Code, there are extensive regulatory and statutory requirements which must be met for a facility to be granted a superior rating. Plantation met all of the enumerated requirements, yet it received only a standard rating. Mr. Maryanski based his determination on the IOC report despite the fact that it was outdated and the deficiencies in that report were corrected by November, 1984, prior to the December, 1984, resurvey by the OLC. There was nothing in the annual survey report of the OLC to preclude a superior rating. This is the first time a facility has been denied a superior rating based upon a report other than the annual report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Plantation Nursing Home be given a superior rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Braynon; Esquire District X Legal Counsel, 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Accepted as set forth in Finding of Fact 21. 5-6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22-23. 7-9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24-25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 15-16. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 20 and 24. 17-19. Accepted generally as set forth in Finding of Fact 26. In Background section. Cumulative. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-31. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-7. 32-43. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-10. 44. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 45-46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 48-49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 50-57. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13-16. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 1, 20, 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Finding of Fact 19 and Background. 5-8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13 except as to time frame for intermediate patients which should be 90 days. Accepted that the documentation showed a gap, but proposed finding rejected in that the evidence did not show that, in fact, the patient was not reviewed with the proper time frame. Accepted, without naming the patients, and explained in Finding of Fact 6.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a nursing home facility located at 1900 Mercy Drive, Orlando, Florida. It is licensed by Respondent and certified to participate in the Medicaid Program. Prior to the rating at issue in this case, Petitioner was rated a "superior" nursing home by Respondent. The "standard" rating at issue in this case was for the period November 30, 1984 to February 28, 1986. The most recent rating for Petitioner, for the period after February 28, 1986, is "superior." Petitioner was deprived of increased Medicaid reimbursement due to its "standard" rating during the period in question. Additionally, Petitioner was deprived of the ability to hold itself out to the public as a "superior" nursing home for the period in question. The parties stipulated that Petitioner was qualified for a "superior" rating for the period in question, except for the factors considered by Robert Maryanski, former Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification, when he made the decision to give Petitioner a "standard" rating, effective November 30, 1984 until February 28, 1986. The factors considered by Maryanski which formed the basis of his decision were: a rating sheet and results of a survey conducted of Petitioner's facility on November 5 through 7, 1984, as well as follow-up visits on January 15 and February 1, 1985: a report of a complaint or surveillance visit conducted on February 1, 1985; a memo dated March 14, 1985 from Robert W. Smith, Area Supervisor of the Office of Licensure and Certification: concerns of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council as expressed by letter dated November 15, 1984 and concerns of Paul Snead, Jr., Respondent's District Administrator as expressed by memo dated November 26, 1984. In conducting its annual survey of Petitioner's facility, Respondent's surveyors, George Farrar and June Monaghan, identified seven Class III deficiencies which were corrected by the time follow-up visits were conducted on January 15 and February l, 1985. However, in conjunction with the February 1, 1985 follow-up visit, Respondent's surveyors also conducted an unannounced complaint or surveillance visit which identified eight additional deficiencies. No exit interview was conducted following this complaint or surveillance visit, and Petitioner was not informed of these additional deficiencies, or the fact they could affect their annual rating, until approximately a week later. Neither Farrar nor Monaghan, the surveyors who conducted the February 1 complaint or surveillance visit and who are still employed by Respondent, testified at the hearing. The only witnesses testifying at the hearing who were present during all or a portion of the February 1 visit were Charlotte Uhrig, Administrator of Petitioner's facility, Kathleen Wingard, Director of Operations for Petitioner's management company, and Linda Anderson, a licensed practical nurse employed by Petitioner. Uhrig and Anderson offered credible testimony to explain the deficiencies found during the complaint or surveillance visit, and their unrebutted testimony precludes any finding that the deficiencies reported by Farrar and Monaghan actually existed. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented, it is specifically found that during this visit on February 1, 1985: Petitioner did not violate a patient's right to privacy in treatment since only the patient's heel and back of the leg were exposed at the request of the surveyor; Petitioner took prompt action in terminating a Director of Nursing who violated its policies by allowing aides to do and chart dressings and treatments; Anderson's actions in attempting to give a patient two pills were reasonable and in accordance with proper nursing practice. The fact that the patient did not swallow the pills and the surveyor found them in a glass of water does not indicate any failure on the part of Petitioner to adhere to required nursing home procedures; The lock on a treatment cart was only broken for a couple of hours and was repaired as soon as possible. During the time the lock was broken, the cart was in the nurse's station and observable by nurses on duty; Stains on the walls were fully explained as the result of roof leaks which had recently been repaired and Petitioner was simply waiting for a good rain to insure the leak was fixed before repainting; There was no dust or soap residue on chair lifts, but rather a small amount of powder used on patients was identified by the surveyors; In-service training was promptly given to all aides about washing their hands after treating each patient; An unidentified cart noticed in the new linen room was simply the cart used to carry new linen to the laundry for washing before use; An unidentified, undated bottle of liquid on the medication cart was apple juice given to patients to assist them in taking their medication; The door to the janitor's closet was not left open, but rather the door had been closed but the lock had not engaged; In service training was promptly given to aides concerning leaving unattended bottles of germicide and cups of liquid soap in patients' bathrooms. In his memo dated March 14, 1985, Robert W. Smith recommended that Petitioner be given a "superior" rating for the time in question. Smith supervised nursing home surveyors including Farrar and Monaghan. Robert Maryanski was Smith's superior and had the final authority on rating decisions. Yvonne Opfell, Vice Chairperson of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council, testified that one-fourth of all complaints in the Orlando area the Council received in 1984 involved Petitioner's facility. The Council investigates every complaint received and found most complaints against Petitioner to be "not substantiated." However, several were found to be "substantiated" including one which was substantiated by Adult Protective Services involving an incident in August, 1984 in which a patient was allegedly dropped and suffered a broken arm. Henry McLaulin investigated this incident for Adult Protective Services and testified that Petitioner was less than cooperative with him in this investigation. However, based on the evidence received, including the testimony of Uhrig and Karen Skadering, a physical therapist who worked with this patient in August, 1984, it has not been proven that aides dropped the patient causing a broken arm. The patient was very weak and dependent, with brittle bones, and according to David Parsons, M.D., a patient in this condition could break a bone simply by turning over in bed through no fault of Petitioner's staff. As District Administrator of Respondent, Paul Snead, Jr. expressed his concerns about Petitioner's rating in a memo dated November 26, 1984. Snead testified at the hearing about these concerns and his feeling that Petitioner-should not be given a "superior" rating. He also admitted he has never visited Petitioner's facility. In addition to the incident in August, 1984 involving a patient's broken bone discussed above in Finding of Fact 9, Snead reported complaints about scabies at Petitioner's facility during 1984. Based upon the testimony of Charlotte Uhrig, Petitioner's Administrator, Bob Duncan, a pharmacist, Ruth E. Laughlin, senior community health nurse, and David Parsons, M.D., it is found that scabies did exist on several occasions during 1984 at Petitioner's facility. However, scabies is frequently found in nursing homes, even those rated "superior". It is a highly communicable parasitic condition which can be introduced into a nursing home by patients, family and staff. When the condition was diagnosed, Petitioner took action to eradicate the problem, but due to the lengthy three to six week incubation period and highly contagious nature of this condition, it did take repeated efforts to remove it from the nursing home. Petitioner's efforts were successful, and there is no evidence that the condition continued to exist after November, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner a "superior" rating for the period November 30, 1984 to February 28, 1986. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Suite 500, Day Building 605 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Douglas Whitney, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 912 Orlando, Florida 32801 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 4, 5. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 9, 10, 11. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 9, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and also as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Board of Nursing should discipline the Respondent, Joyce Knowlton, on charges contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, DPR Case No. 0111292.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed practical nurse who was working as a nurse at Seminole Nursing Pavilion in Seminole, Florida, in January, 1989. She holds Florida license number PN13417. The evidence proved that the Respondent dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., on the evenings of January 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 18, 19, 22, 25 and 26, 1989. On the evenings of January 3, 4 and 28, 1989, another nurse dispensed Mellaril to the patient. On the other 15 evenings in January, 1989, the Respondent was not on duty, and Mellaril was not dispensed to the patient. The doctor's orders for the patient, L. W., were: "Mellaril concentrate 25 mg. give two (2) times daily as needed for agitation." The evidence proved that the Respondent dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., on at least one occasion--on January 5, 1989--when the patient was not agitated and showed no sign of becoming agitated. The patient was "calm to the point of being almost placid." The Respondent went in and roused the patient to give her the medication. The Respondent explained to other witnesses that she dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., without symptoms of agitation because the patient ate better and with less agitation at meal time after administration of Mellaril, and also because the patient's family favored this course. The evidence proved that it was below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of nursing for the Respondent to administer Mellaril to this particular patient, L. W., for the stated purpose. It is possible for a patient regularly to become agitated at about meal time. This is not uncommon with some nursing home patients; it is commonly referred to as "sundowner syndrome." In the case of "sundowner syndrome," administration of the medication just before meal time to prevent agitation, so that the patient would eat better and with less agitation, could be in compliance with the doctor's orders, as written, and not below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of nursing. But, in this case, the evidence proved that the patient did not have "sundowner syndrome." On only three of the 16 evenings in January, 1989, when the Respondent was not on duty did the on-duty nurse administer Mellaril for agitation. The Respondent has a history of recurring episodes of major depression. She was fired from her job at the Seminole Nursing Pavilion on or about January 27, 1989. She became angry and then deeply depressed. On or about February 28, 1989, the depression became so severe that the Respondent attempted to end her life, or at least made a suicidal gesture, by an overdose of valium and wine. Fortunately, she recovered and received treatment in various clinical settings through approximately April 24, 1989. She continued to receive therapy, particularly to deal with the stress of this proceeding. But by the time of the hearing, she was fairly stable, and her recurrent depression was in remission. She now is able to work and, in fact, has been working as a nurse without any apparent incapacity. The opinion testimony of the Department expert witness that the Respondent is now incapable, by reason of mental illness, to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients was not persuasive. The testimony was based solely on a review of the records in evidence as part of the Department's case in chief. The witness did not examine the Respondent and had no knowledge of the Respondent's employment history before about 1982 or after her employment at Seminole Pavilion ended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order placing the Respondent, Joyce Knowlton, on probation for one year, during which time the Respondent's current mental condition can be evaluated and her practice closely monitored to insure that she is rehabilated enough to be able to continue to practice nursing safely. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4. Rejected as not proven that agitation necessarily results in harm to the patient or others. Agitation could result only in what is called resistance to care. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 5.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. The Respondent believed that the patient ate better and with less agitation after being given Mellaril, not that the Mellaril "made the patient eat better" in the sense that it increased her appetite. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. The evidence suggested that the family approved of the use of Mellaril to counteract anticipated agitation; it did not prove that the family asked the Respondent to keep the patient sedated, as implied by this proposed finding. 17.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 21. Accepted and incorporated. 22.-25. Without testimony to explain the records on which these proposed findings are based, it is difficult to decipher what they say, and no findings are based solely on them except as may be found in the Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected. See 22-25, above. 29.-33. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. See 22-25, above. Accepted and incorporated. First clause, accepted. However, the same records indicate that the Respondent's major depression is in remission. The Respondent's history is that her major depression alternately recurs and goes into remission depending on what is happening in her life and what kind of treatment she gets. Therefore, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Findings, the rest is rejected as not proven. 38.-41. Generally accepted but unnecessary. These are vague generalities; no specifics were proven. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 42.-43. Rejected as not proven. 44.-46. The Respondent was not charged with untruthfulness. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 47.-50. The Respondent was not charged with breach of a contractual agreement. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. Proposed finding 50 is based strictly on inadmissible hearsay. 51.-52. Rejected as based strictly on inadmissible hearsay. 53.-57. Subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. 58.-60. The Respondent was charged with only one med pass error--dispensing Mellaril to the patient, L.W. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 61. Rejected as not proven. 62.-72. Rejected as not proven. Without testimony to explain the records on which these proposed findings are based, it is difficult to decipher what they say, and no findings are based solely on them except as may be found in the Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Nursing has some unique stresses. It has more stress than some jobs and less stress than other. Accepted but subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. As found, the evidence did not prove that the Respondent is now unable, by reason of her mental condition, to practice nursing safely. However, the Respondent's evidence on this point consisted only of medical records and progress notes created by the Respondent's therapist. Without any testimony to explain these records, the evidence did not prove that the Respondent was more than "fairly stable" at the time of the hearing. On the other hand, the evidence did prove that the Respondent has a history of recurrent major depression, a legitimate concern to the Board of Nursing after the February 28, 1989, suicide attempt. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christina M. Ippolito, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. 6 South Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional from June 13, 2001, through July 11, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 710 North Sun Drive, Lake Mary, Florida 32746 (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted a complaint investigation on June 13, 2001 (the "June survey"). Petitioner noted the results of the complaint investigation on the Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "tags"). Each tag of the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F314 is the only allegation at issue in this proceeding. Tag F314 generally provides that a facility must ensure that a resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless they were unavoidable; and the resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing. Tag F314, in relevant part, alleges that the facility: . . . did not insure the prevention of pressure sore development or provide that necessary treatment for pressure sores which had developed in the case of one of four residents. Applicable federal and state laws require Petitioner to assign a rating to the deficiency alleged in the 2567. The rating required by federal law is for scope and severity. Petitioner assigned a G rating to Tag F314. A G rating means that the alleged deficiency was "isolated." State law requires Petitioner to assign a class rating. Petitioner assigned a Class II rating to the deficiency alleged in Tag 314. A Class II rating is authorized in Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), for any deficiency that has "compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services." The Class II rating is the only rating at issue in this proceeding. (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.) When Petitioner alleges a Class II deficiency in the 2567, applicable rules require Petitioner to change the rating of the facility's license. Effective June 12, 2001, Petitioner changed to rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey on July 11, 2001 (the "July survey"). Petitioner determined that Respondent had corrected the deficiency alleged in Tag F 314 in June. Effective July 11, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from conditional to standard. The Class II rating from Petitioner rests on the allegations in Tag 314. The first allegation is that Respondent did not prevent the development of a pressure sore on the right buttock of Resident 1. The second allegation is that the facility failed to provide the treatment necessary to treat the pressure sore. The facility admitted Resident 1 on October 19, 2000. Between the date of admission and June 4, 2001, Resident 1 did not develop any pressure sores. However, on June 4, 2001, a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") noticed an open area on the resident’s right buttock while showering the resident. The CNA notified the attending nurse. A threshold issue is whether the area of concern on Resident 1 was a pressure sore or a blister caused by incontinence and chafing from the resident's diaper. The nursing staff described the identified area on a document in the resident’s medical chart called a "pressure ulcer report." Petitioner contends that the use of a "pressure ulcer report" by Respondent is an admission by Respondent and that Respondent has the burden to prove that the area was not a pressure sore. However, the burden of proof is on Petitioner to show that the area of concern is a pressure sore. Petitioner promulgates a written definition of a pressure sore in the guidelines that Petitioner requires its surveyors to use in interpreting the regulatory standard of Tag F314. Petitioner defines a pressure sore as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer. Section 120.68(7)(e)3 prohibits Petitioner from deviating from its officially stated policy unless Petitioner explains the deviation. Petitioner failed to provide any evidence for deviating from its written definition of a pressure sore. Ischemic ulceration or necrosis of tissue that has been subjected to pressure, friction, or sheer is not a pressure sore, as defined by Petitioner, if the area does not overlie a bony prominence. The parties disagree as to the location of the area of concern on Resident 1. Petitioner's surveyor is an expert in nursing practices and procedures. She observed the area of concern on Resident 1 during the June survey. The surveyor testified at the hearing that the area of concern was located over the resident’s ischial tuberosity; i.e., the bone on which the resident placed her weight when she sat. The facility's director of nurses is also an expert in nursing practices and procedures. The director observed the area immediately after the survey and testified that it was located in the fleshy part of the resident’s buttocks and was not over any bony prominence. The preponderance of evidence did not show that the area of concern on Resident 1 was located over a bony prominence. The area of concern was located in the same location as the elastic band of the diaper that the resident wore for her incontinence. The area of concern was likely caused by the combination of the resident’s incontinence and chafing from the diaper. The pressure ulcer report prepared by the nursing staff contains the outline of a human body on which the nursing staff marked the location of the area of concern on Resident 1 when staff first identified the area. The report shows that the area of concern is located in the fleshy part of the resident’s right buttock. The report did not indicate that the area of concern was located in the area on which the resident would have placed her weight when she was seated or prone. Even if the area of concern were located at the ischial tuberosity other factors belie a diagnosis of pressure sore. Pressure sores typically involve deep tissue damage, have drainage and odor, and require a long time to heal. The pressure ulcer report indicated that the area identified on the resident was small in size, had scant odor and no drainage, and healed by July 3, 2001. All of the surrounding facts and circumstances indicate that the area of concern on Resident 1 was not a pressure sore but was a blister caused by chafing from the diaper the resident wore for her incontinence. The "pressure ulcer report" for Resident 1 classified the area of concern as a stage II. A stage II involves a partial thickness loss of skin layers either dermis or epidermis that presents clinically as an abrasion, blister or shallow crater. The area was further described in the report as being 0.7 by 0.7 centimeters in size with scant serous drainage, no odor, and pink in appearance. The director of nurses testified that the area presented as a "dry blister." Assuming arguendo that the area of concern on Resident 1 was a pressure sore, there are two additional issues to be determined. One issue is whether development of the alleged pressure sore was unavoidable due to the resident’s clinical conditions. The other issue is whether the facility failed to provide the treatment and services necessary to promote healing after the alleged pressure sore developed. Petitioner promulgates guidelines for Tag F324 for use by surveyors in determining whether a pressure sore is unavoidable. The guidelines state in relevant part: . . . a determination that development of a pressure sore was unavoidable may be made only if routine preventative and daily care was provided [by the nursing home]. The guidelines define routine preventative care as: . . . turning and proper positioning, application of pressure reduction or relief devices, providing good skin care, providing clean and dry bed linens, and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration as possible. The guidelines instruct surveyors to determine whether a facility complies with the foregoing standards "consistently" rather than one hundred per cent of the time. When the facility admitted Resident 1 in October, 2000, she was immobile and had several compromising diagnoses. They included atrial fibrillation; chronic ischemic heart disease and coronary atherosclerosis (diseases of the heart and arteries); abnormal loss of weight; angina pectoris; senile dementia; a kidney infection; and incontinence of both bowel and bladder. The clinical conditions placed Resident 1 at high risk for the development of pressure sores. The surveyor guidelines for Tag F314 state that a resident who is immobile, has continuous urinary incontinence, chronic bowel incontinence, and chronic heart disease is at high risk for the development of pressure sores. At the time of admission, the nursing staff at the facility assessed Resident 1 as being at risk for the development of pressure sores due to her incontinence and immobility. They designed a care plan to prevent the development of pressure sores. The care plan included frequent turning and repositioning of the resident, weekly skin assessments by a nurse, skin checks during care and bathing, and prompt incontinence care. The parties agree that the interventions in the care plan met the regulatory requirements for preventative care under Tag F314. With one exception, Petitioner does not allege that the facility failed to provide routine preventative care to the resident. Respondent does not dispute that the facility did not perform weekly skin checks for three weeks in May preceding the identification of the area of concern on Resident 1. However, the failure to perform those skin checks did not cause Resident 1 to develop a pressure sore. A weekly skin check is a head-to-toe assessment of a resident’s skin by a nurse. Since a nurse can only observe a pressure sore after it has appeared on a resident, this assessment is not preventative in nature. Instead, it is designed to assure that appropriate and immediate treatment can be provided to the area after a reddened area develops. Even if weekly examinations of a resident’s skin were an integral part of a plan intended to prevent the development of pressure sores on Resident 1, the facility necessarily exceeded this standard with regard to the resident’s right buttock where the area of concern actually occurred. Facility staff observed the resident’s buttock more than once a day when the resident received incontinence care, bath, or showers. Consistently through May and June, the resident’s chart shows that the resident was incontinent at least three times a day and that she received a partial bath or full shower at least once a day. On June 4, 2001, facility staff in fact observed a reddened area during the resident's shower. Petitioner submitted no evidence that the facility could or should have been observing the resident’s buttock more frequently than its staff actually did or that the area could have been identified any earlier. The preponderance of evidence shows that the facility consistently implemented the component of its care plan that required monitoring of the resident’s buttock. The care plan for Resident 1 included two other primary components to prevent pressure sores. One component was prompt incontinence care. The other was turning and repositioning of the resident every two hours to relieve pressure over areas susceptible to breakdown. Petitioner alleges that the facility failed to comply with these components during the June survey. Proving that a facility consistently turns and repositions a resident and provides prompt incontinence care is problematic for a facility. Those interventions are routine care. There is no regulation or standard that requires nurses to chart routine care. Because these interventions are not typically charted, a nursing home will not typically have documentary evidence to demonstrate that the interventions were provided to a resident. The facility provided sufficient evidence to show that the interventions of repositioning and prompt incontinence care were provided to Resident 1 during the June survey. The facility provided incontinence care to the resident at least three times a day. With regard to turning and repositioning the resident, the director of nursing testified that she saw staff turning and repositioning the resident prior to the survey. Resident 1 was at high risk of developing pressure sores. If staff had not consistently turned and repositioned the resident and provided prompt incontinence care, it is more likely than not that the resident would have developed serious pressure ulcers on most or all of her weight bearing surfaces. The appearance of one small area on the resident and the absence of any other areas over any bony prominence is persuasive evidence that the facility consistently turned and repositioned the resident and consistently provided her with prompt incontinence care. The final issue is whether the facility provided the treatment to Resident 1 that is necessary for healing of the alleged pressure sore. Petitioner agrees that the facility developed an appropriate care plan for the identified area immediately upon its discovery. An order in the care plan developed after discovery of the alleged pressure sore called for application of a duoderm patch to the wound. Petitioner alleges that the facility did not follow the order because the surveyor observed no patch on the resident during the survey. It is more likely than not that the duoderm patch came off of Resident 1 during an episode of incontinence prior to the time that the surveyor observed the resident. Duoderm patches commonly come off when a resident has an incontinent episode. Regardless of why the patch was not on Resident 1 during the survey, the absence of the patch one time during the survey does not demonstrate that staff consistently failed to comply with the order calling for the patch. The instance observed by Petitioner's surveyor was the only instance identified by the surveyor as a failure to follow the resident's care plan. The resident’s medication administration records demonstrate that facility staff applied the duoderm patch in all other instances in compliance with the doctor’s order. Furthermore, the facility continued to provide the routine preventative care called for by the care plan. Petitioner did not show that the facility consistently failed to follow the care plan for Resident 1 as alleged in Tag F314. The area of concern on Resident 1 healed quickly and progressively after it was discovered. Petitioner offered no evidence that the alleged pressure sore did not heal or that the resident was otherwise harmed as a result of the failure to place a duoderm patch on the resident on June 13, 2001. The pressure ulcer report and nurse’s notes indicate that the wound healed by July 3, 2001. The records noted with each successive entry after June 4, 2001, that the area was smaller in size. The area demonstrated characteristics of healing, including the absence of any odor or drainage, and pink granulating tissue. Resident 1 was at high risk for pressure sores, and pressure sores do not typically heal quickly. The progressive pattern of healing indicates that the facility provided the necessary and effective treatment for the area of concern on Resident 1.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order finding that there was no basis upon which the agency could have issued a Conditional rating to Respondent on June 13, 2001, deleting the deficiency described under Tag F314, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Eileen O'Hara Garcia Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North Sebring Building, Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue As stated in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the "issue to be litigated is whether Petitioner is entitled to a Superior or Standard rating on its license for the period September 1, 1986 through August 31, 1987"?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, The Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, is a 210-bed nursing home located in a four-story building in Pensacola, Florida. It is licensed as a nursing home by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Howard Bennett and his wife have been the owners of the Petitioner since it was built in 1978. On April 28-30, 1986, and May 1-2, 1986, the Department conducted an annual Licensure and Certification survey (hereinafter referred to as the "Annual Survey") of the Petitioner's nursing home as required by Section 400.23, Florida Statutes. Based upon the Annual Survey conducted by the Department, the Department determined that the Petitioner's facility failed to meet nursing home licensure requirement numbers (NH) 100 and 102, as identified on the Department's Nursing Home Licensure Survey Report, DHRS exhibit 2. The deficiencies found by the Department and which in fact existed during the Annual Survey relating to NH 100 and 102 were as follows: The charge nurse for each shift on each of the four floors of the facility is responsible, under direction from Director of Nursing, for the total nursing activities in the facility during each tour of duty. The charge nurses are thus responsible for ensuring that nursing personnel carry out the direct nursing care needs of specific patients and assist in carrying out these nursing care needs. This responsibility is not always met in that: On the day of the survey, there were urine odors noted on the halls, rooms of fourth and third floors, indicating lack of attention by nursing. Other instances of lack of personal attention by nursing on the above mentioned floor in that: One patient required oral hygiene. Fourteen residents required fingernail care, one resident's fingernails were long, thick, and black indicating a need for attention. Two residents had redden buttocks, three residents were wet, three residents needed shaving, three residents needed hair cuts. One resident needed colostomy bag changed. One resident had a small amount of feces on backside, and was not properly cleaned around the rectum and scrotum. Several residents had on clothing that was too tight, zippers open, buttons not fasten, soil wrinkled and threads hanging around the bottom. It is also noted, that there are 116 total care, and 17 self care residents in the facility indicating a need for constant intensive nursing care to the residents. Ref. 10D-29.108(3)(d)(1) Based upon the totality of these deficiencies, it was concluded that the Petitioner failed to comply with the standard of care to be provided by the charge nurse. The deficiencies cited by the Department during the Annual Survey were classified as Class III deficiencies. The Annual Survey was conducted by Christine Denson. Ms. Denson had conducted nine to ten annual surveys of the Petitioner prior to the survey which is the subject of this proceeding. During Ms. Denson's inspection of the Petitioner's nursing home, Ms. Denson pointed out the deficiencies which are noted above to the director of nursing who accompanied Ms. Denson during her inspection. Ms. Denson normally records in some manner the identity of a resident to whom a deficiency relates; by noting the room number or bed number. Ms. Denson did not follow this procedure during the Annual Survey. Ms. Denson met with Howard Bennett, the owner of the Petitioner, at the conclusion of the Annual Survey. After Ms. Denson had explained the deficiencies she had found during her inspection, Judge Bennett stated to Ms. Denson: "I know the place is going down hill. We are letting it slide. Judge Bennett did not ask Ms. Denson for any information concerning the identity of the residents to which deficiencies related. The Petitioner had policies in effect at the time of the Annual Survey which addressed each of the deficiencies cited by the Department. Those policies were not, however, followed. Ms. Denson did not know when the residents to which the deficiencies she found related had been admitted to the Petitioner, their medical condition, how long the fingernail problems had existed or how long the residents had resided at the Petitioner. Ms. Denson did not speak to the residents about the problems she noted, review their medical or dental records or talk to any residents' physician. Finally, Ms. Denson did not remember whether any of the residents were continent or incontinent. On August 13, 1986, a letter was issued by the Department informing the Petitioner that its license rating was being converted from a superior rating to a standard rating. The August 13, 1986, letter from the Department also indicated that the deficiencies noted in the Annual Survey had been corrected based upon a July 31, 1986, follow-up inspection conducted by the Department. The Petitioner requested an administrative hearing challenging the proposed rating of its license by letter dated September 24, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued assigning a standard rating on the Petitioner's license for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4182 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Accentance or Reason for Rejection 1-3, 6-7, 81 These are matters included in the Prehearing Stipulation. They are hereby accepted. 4-5 Statement of the issue in this case 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Denson testified at pages 48-49 of the transcript that whether a nursing home was considered to be out of compliance depended on the totality of the deficiencies and that she considered all of the deficiencies she found at the Petitioner's facility. 9 12. 10-11 10. 12-13 7. 14 Irrelevant. 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29-31 10. 17 Hearsay. 18, 28, 33-34, 36-37, 39, 41-43, 45 Hereby accepted. 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 48, 54-66, 71, 73-77 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They all involve, however, possible explanations for the deficiencies found at the Petitioner's facility. In order for these proposed findings of fact to be relevant it would have to be concluded that the Department had the burden of dispelling any and all possible explanations for the deficiencies. Such a conclusion would not be reasonable in this case. The Department presented testimony that the deficiencies cited existed and that, taken as a whole, they supported a conclusion that the Petitioner was not providing minimum nursing care. This evidence was credible and sufficient to meet the Department's burden of proof and to shift the burden to the Petitioner to provide proof of any explanations for the deficiencies. 35 9. 38, 40, 49-51, 53, 82-83, 86-87 Irrelevant and/or argument. 43-44 1. 46-47, 51, 56, 66-67, 71-71 These proposed findings of fact are true. They are not relevant to this proceeding, however, because they involve situations at the Petitioner's facility which may explain the deficiencies. The Petitioner failed to prove that they actually were the cause of any of the deficiencies. 70, 78-80, 84-85 Conclusions of law. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2-3. 2 11-12. 3 4 and 6. 4 4. 5-7 Irrelevant, summary of testimony, conclusion of law. 8 9. 9 8. 10 Irrelevant. 11 8. 12 Summary of testimony and facts relating to the weight of Ms. Mayo's testimony. 13-14 Hereby accepted. 15 Argument. 16-17 Conclusions of law. 18 4. 19-20 Conclusions of law, argument and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael O. Mathis Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
