Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent for Case No. 2012007833. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. The Respondent waived the right to receive an Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form for Case No. 2012010596. (Ex. 2) 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 4. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 5. The Respondent’s assisted living facility licenses for Northwest Care Center ] (License No. 7365) and Northwest Care Center III (License No. 8425) are relinquished and cancelled. 6. The Respondent and Ethelene B. Moore, individually, shall not seek licensure nor operate any facility licensed by the Agency for a period of 5 years from the date of execution of this Agreement. 7. Administrative fines and survey fees of $20,500.00 are imposed against the Respondent, but STAYED for purposes of collection as long the Respondent and Ms. Moore not seek any licensure from the Agency. In the event that the Respondent or Ms. Moore seeks licensure from the Agency after the period set forth above, the applicant shall pay $20,500.00 before any application for license can be considered. 1 Filed April 17, 2013 1:30 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 8. The Respondent is responsible for any refunds that may be due to any clients. 9. The Respondent shall remain responsible for retaining and appropriately distributing client records as prescribed by Florida law. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions as well as any other statute that may apply to health care practitioners regarding client records. 10. The Respondent is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity and is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Respondent is notified that the cancellation of an Agency license may have ramifications potentially affecting accrediting, third party billing including but not limited to the Florida Medicaid program, and private contracts. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this. 7D day of Mr . 2013. Elizabeth Duddk, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and tne oo ee of wis Final Order was re on the below-named persons by the method designated on this / potas “pe , 2013. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Facilities Intake Unit (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) Katrina Derico-Harris Medicaid Accounts Receivable Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Shaddrick Haston, Unit Manager Licensure Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Medicaid Contract Management Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Patricia Caufman, Field Office Manager Local Field Office Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Thomas J. Walsh II Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) George F. Indest UI, Esq. The Health Law Firm 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 (U.S. Mail) Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearing (Electronic Mail) NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity.-- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until 3 compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Maria C. Perez has been licensed as a pharmacist under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0018025. At all times material hereto, Respondent Perez has been the managing pharmacist at Respondent San Lazaro Pharmacy. At all times material hereto, Respondent San Lazaro Pharmacy has been the holder of a permit to operate a community pharmacy under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued permit number 0002864. At all times material hereto, Olegario Cepro (or Cepero) was employed at Respondent pharmacy. At no time material hereto was Cepro licensed as a pharmacist or registered as a pharmacy intern in the State of Florida. On March 1, 1983, Georgina Jorge, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, entered the Respondent pharmacy. Jorge asked Cepro for 30 Berocca tablets, 10 Librax capsules, and 5 Darvon Compound capsules. Cepro went into the dispensary department and thereafter delivered to Jorge 45 pills. At no time during this transaction did Jorge present Cepro with a prescription. On March 1, 1983, the pills received were taken to the Metropolitan Dade County Crime Laboratory. A subsequent chemical analysis of the pills revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as chlordiazepoxide, the active ingredient in Librax, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. Another sample which was analyzed revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as dextro propoxyphene, the active ingredient in Darvon Compound, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription to be dispensed. The suspected Berocca was not analyzed. On March 8, 1983, Jorge returned to the Respondent pharmacy. She asked Cepro for 10 penicillin tablets, 20 Valium tablets, and 10 Darvon Compound capsules. Cepro obtained from the pharmacy dispensary and gave to Jorge 10 tablets which appeared to be penicillin, 20 tablets which appeared to be Valium, and 20 capsules which appeared to be Darvon Compound. At that time, Respondent Perez was in the pharmacy dispensary. At no time during this transaction did Jorge present Cepro with a prescription. On March 8, 1983, the above substances were taken to the Metropolitan Dade County Crime Laboratory. A subsequent chemical analysis of the pills revealed in one sample the presence of penicillin, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. Analysis of another substance revealed the presence of the controlled substance diazepam, the active ingredient in Valium, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. On March 25, 1983, Jorge went to the Respondent pharmacy and asked Cepro for prices on bottles of Valium, Mebaral, Lomotil, Ritalin, Trofanil, and Lasix. Prices were quoted to Jorge by Cepro. Thereafter, Cepro delivered to Jorge 20 apparent Valium tablets, 36 apparent Ritalin tablets, 250 apparent Mebaral tablets, and 20 apparent Darvon Compound capsules. On this occasion, Jorge observed Respondent Perez, the licensed managing pharmacist, in the dispensary. At no time during this transaction did Jorge present Cepro with a prescription. On March 25, 1983, the substances which Jorge had received at the Respondent pharmacy were taken to the Metropolitan Dade County Crime Laboratory. A subsequent chemical analysis of the substances revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as methylphenidate, the active ingredient in Ritalin, which is a medicinal drug requiring a prescription to be dispensed. Methylphenidate is a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Laboratory analysis of additional substances received from the March 25, 1983, transaction revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as mephobarbital, the active ingredient in Mebaral, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. In addition, one of the 20 capsules received was analyzed and revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as propoxyphene, the active ingredient in Darvon Compound, which is a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. On March 28, 1903, Jorge went to the Respondent pharmacy once again. She asked Cepro for 20 Valium tablets and 20 Lomotil tablets. Jorge saw Respondent Perez in the prescription department. Cepro went into the prescription or dispensary department and returned with suspected controlled substances. At no time during this transaction did Jorge present Cepro or Respondent Perez with a prescription. On March 28, 1983, the suspected controlled substances were taken to the Metropolitan Dade County Crime Laboratory for analysis. A subsequent chemical analysis of the tablets revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as diazepam, the active ingredient in Valium, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. On March 28, 1983, an audit of the controlled substances was conducted at the Respondent pharmacy by Edward Bludworth, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation. That audit revealed that Respondents could not provide prescriptions or other documentation to show the dispensing of 41 Darvon Compound-65, 1,005 Valium 5 mg., 801 Valium 10 mg., 280 Tranxene 3.75 mg., 33,451 Talwin 50 mg., and 20 Talwin injectable vials. Darvon, Tranxene, Valium, and Talwin are all compounds containing controlled substances as defined in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the allegations of Count III [sic II; paragraphs 13, 14, 15, and 16] of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Perez in DOAH Case No. 83-2918.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count III of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Maria C. Perez, finding her guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and revoking her license to practice pharmacy in the State of Florida. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent San Lazaro Pharmacy guilty of each and every count in the Administrative Complaint filed against it and revoking its permit to operate a community pharmacy in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 27th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. M. Schwitalla, Esquire 135 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wanda Willis, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint1 and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's licensure and employment Respondent, Nury D. Soler, is now, and was at all times material hereto, licensed as a pharmacist by the State of Florida, having been issued license number PS 0014628. Pertinent to this case, Respondent was the prescription department manager for Westchester Pharmacy for a two-month period extending from some time in October 1996 and at least through December 13, 1996. Westchester Pharmacy is a community pharmacy licensed by Petitioner, pursuant to Section 465.018, Florida Statutes, and located at 7253 Southwest 24th Street, Miami, Florida. The pharmacy owner or permittee was Noriel Batista. The pharmacy inspection On December 14, 1996, a Saturday, Richard Castillo, an investigator employed by the State of Florida, entered the Westchester Pharmacy to conduct a routine community pharmacy inspection. Upon entry, Mr. Castillo observed only one person in the pharmacy, a man later identified as the permittee (Mr. Batista). At the time, Mr. Batista was observed in the vicinity of the prescription area, at the rear of the store. Mr. Castillo proceeded to the counter at the rear of the store, and was approached by Mr. Batista. Thereupon, Mr. Castillo feigned a toothache, and the following events transpired: . . . I put my hands on my face and I said I have some tooth pain, is there anything you can do about it. At which time, he said you really need to go see a dentist. I said that dentists cost a lot of money and that I believed that it was an infection. At which time he came back with a bottle of twenty Amoxicillin, 500 milligram capsules. He sold me the bottle for $10.00 and I gave him the $10.00. He then gave me some preliminary instructions, and went back into the prescription department area. He returned and said that as a gift I'm going to give you these medications; which was four capsules of Motrin 800 milligrams. Amoxicillin is a prescription drug, which Mr. Batista, who was not licensed as a pharmacist, sold without benefit of a prescription. Following the sale, Mr. Castillo identified himself as an investigator, told Mr. Batista he was present to conduct a routine inspection, and asked to speak with the pharmacist. When told the pharmacist was not available, Mr. Castillo asked Mr. Batista to telephone her and ask her to come to the store. Mr. Batista did so, and about an hour later Respondent arrived. Mr. Castillo inspected the pharmacy and completed a community pharmacy inspection report on which he noted a number of perceived deficiencies. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). First, with regard to Mr. Batista's sale of amoxicillin, Mr. Castillo noted three deficiencies or violations against the pharmacy business, to-wit: (1) there was no pharmacist on duty when the prescription department was open (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-28.109, Florida Administrative Code); (2) there was no pharmacist present to provide patient counseling, if requested (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-27.820, Florida Administrative Code); and, (3) since Mr. Batista did not document the sale, Mr. Castillo considered the pharmacy records of dispensing to be incomplete (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-28.140(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code). Other deficiencies noted by Mr. Castillo against the pharmacy business were as follows: (1) there was no sign displayed that the pharmacy was closed (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-28.109(1), Florida Administrative Code); (2) the pharmacist's (Ms. Soler's) license was not displayed (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-27.100(1), Florida Administrative Code); and, (3) there was no sign displayed which stated the hours the prescription department was open each day (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-28.404, Florida Administrative Code). No further deficiencies were observed and, apart from those noted deficiencies, the prescription department appeared appropriately maintained and operated. Following Respondent's arrival at the pharmacy, Mr. Castillo discussed with her the various deficiencies he had found and had noted on his report. Then, as the "Pharmacist," Respondent signed the report. By signing the report, she acknowledged that "I have read and have had this inspection report and the laws and regulations concerned herein explained, and do affirm that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge." Among the information provided on the inspection report was the name of the prescription department manager, which was stated to be the Respondent. Respondent's employment status with Westchester Pharmacy on the date of the inspection Notwithstanding her appearance at Westchester Pharmacy on Saturday, December 14, 1996, and her signing of the inspection report as the Pharmacist for Westchester Pharmacy, Respondent averred, at hearing, that by December 14, 1996, she was no longer affiliated with the pharmacy or responsible for the deficiencies noted. According to Respondent, by December 12, 1996, she had agreed with another pharmacy, Coral Way Pharmacy, Inc., (Coral Way Pharmacy) to serve as its pharmacist effective December 16, 1996, at its pharmacy located at 6965 Southwest 24th Street, Miami, Florida, and that her last date of employment with Westchester Pharmacy was December 13, 1996. While perhaps not entirely free from doubt (given the facial inconsistency between Respondent's contention at hearing and the conclusion one could reasonably draw regarding her association with Westchester Pharmacy, as evidenced by her activities on the date of inspection), the proof demonstrates, more likely than not, that, as Respondent averred, she was no longer employed by Westchester Pharmacy on the day of inspection, her presence on the day of inspection was a matter of accommodation to Mr. Batista, and her signing of the report was a matter of misunderstanding. In so concluding, it is observed that, while the pharmacy was open Monday through Saturday, the prescription department was not open on Saturday, or, stated differently, under the terms of Respondent's employment with Weschester Pharmacy she did not work week-ends. Given that Respondent and Coral Way Pharmacy, reached an agreement on December 12, 1996, for her to begin work at Coral Way Pharmacy on December 16, 1996, it is reasonable to conclude, given the nature of her work-week at Westchester Pharmacy, that her last day of employment with Westchester Pharmacy was Friday, December 13, 1996. Moreover, consistent with the conclusion that Respondent's association with Weschester Pharmacy terminated on December 13, 1996, is the absence of Respondent's wall certificate and license on the date of inspection. Notably, Respondent had not suffered prior disciplinary action in 19 years of practice, and presumably knew that, if employed, she was required to display her wall certificate and license in or near the prescription department. Conversely, she also knew, presumably, that she could not lawfully display them, if she was no longer employed by Westchester Pharmacy. Rule 64B16-27.100, Florida Administrative Code. Since it is presumed that persons will observe the law, the absence of Respondent's wall certificate and license on the date of inspection is consistent with her assertion that, by that date, she was no longer employed by Westchester Pharmacy. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mach, 57 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1952). Finally, also consistent with the conclusion that Respondent's employment with Westchester Pharmacy terminated before the date of the inspection is a statement Respondent made to the inspector. According to the investigator, when asked about the infractions, Respondent stated the following: . . . She said that things needed to change. She asked if she were to leave the pharmacy whether that would change anything, and I said, no, it doesn't matter because you're the pharmacist of record at this point of time. Such statement, when considered in context with other proof of record, discussed supra, is consistent with Respondent having resolved, previously, to terminate her employment with Weschester Pharmacy and, since she did not specifically tell the investigator of her decision, his response evidenced a misunderstanding that resulted in Respondent's execution of the report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Sammie Rayner, Respondent, was employed by the City of Clearwater as a customer service representative in the utility department. On February 11, 1992, Respondent needed to take her daughter to Seminole High School for a test and mentioned this to Joyce Griesel, Senior Customer Service Representative. The only city employees in the customer service section with authority to grant Respondent permission to leave the building on February 11, 1992, were John Scott, Utility Consumer Response Manager and Tim Bissonnette, Customer Service Supervisor. On the afternoon of February 11, 1992, Bissonnette was out of the office attending a conference; however, Scott was available. Bissonnette was Respondent's immediate supervisor, and Scott was over Bissonnette. Prior to October 1991, the Senior Customer Service Representative had authority to allow customer service representatives to leave the building for short periods. However, because of an incident in October 1991, this authority was removed from the Senior Customer Service Representative, and all employees were advised of the changed policy. Although Respondent denies that she was told that only Scott and Bissonnette could grant permission to leave the building, she did ask if Bissonnette was available before she departed the office around 3 p.m., on February 11, 1992. Respondent also contends that she asked Giesel for permission to leave, but Giesel denies that she gave such authorization, knowing full well that she had no such authority. Respondent was not given permission to leave the building on February 11 by Giesel.
