Findings Of Fact On 22 June 1982 DHRS, Office of Licensure and Certification, conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility known as Regency Oaks at Gainesville, Florida. During this inspection the nurses' schedule was not produced and the inspector, with the assistance of Respondent's staff, attempted to reconstruct the nurses' schedule for the month of June, 1982, up to the date of the inspection. From the data received it was determined that on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift on June 5, 1982, Respondent was staffed with one registered nurse (RN) and three licensed practical nurses (LPN) on June 6 there were two RN's and two LPNs; on June 12 there were three RNs and one LPN; and on June 19 there were three RNs and one LPN. Staffing requirements for nursing homes are determined by the shift and census of the nursing home. All of the shortages here involved the day shift. On each of the days of 5, 6, 12, and 19 June the regulations required two RNs and three LPNs on the day shift. The regulations also permit the substitution of an RN for an LPN. Accordingly, from the evidence gathered bv Petitioner's evaluation at the June 22 inspection, Respondent was short one RN on June 5 and one LPN on June 6, 12, and 19. Respondent presented time cards for the periods here involved. These time cards, which were accepted in evidence as business records of Respondent, show that on June 12 Respondent had two RNs and three LPNs on duty on the day shift. Respondent's one witness admitted the nursing home was understaffed one RN on June 5 and one LPN on June 6 and 19.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a licensed practical nursing in Florida and was employed at the Lake Wales Convalescent Center. On the evening of December 29, 1983, Respondent was called into patient Allen's room by the nurses aide because Allen had refused to get into his pajamas as requested and was verbally abusing the aide. Respondent approached Allen, who began swearing at her, whereupon Respondent rolled up a towel and struck Allen several times on the left arm causing some bleeding and bruises which were visible to another witness two days later. Respondent does not deny striking Allen with the towel but contends Allen picked up a pitcher and called her a nigger before she picked up the towel. Respondent denies any intent to hurt the patient and testified she has worked as a licensed practical nurse for 15 years and has never before struck a patient. Allen is senile, often verbally abusive, but has never been violent while a patient at Lake Wales Convalescent Center. He does not bruise as easily as do many elderly patients. It is below the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice to strike a patient and, especially, a senile patient who is not violent.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Agency is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been since June 18, 1993, licensed as a practical nurse in the State of Florida. Her license number is PN 1113121. Respondent trained to be a practical nurse at the Sheridan Vocational School (hereinafter referred to as "Sheridan") in Hollywood, Florida. She graduated from Sheridan in January of 1993, the recipient of the Jeanette Lindsey Shirley Nursing Service Award. Respondent was employed by Aventura Hospital and Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as "Aventura") from approximately March of 1993, to January of 1994, when she was terminated as a result of the incident which led to the issuance of the Administrative Complaint that is the subject of the instant case. For the first three months of her employment at Aventura Respondent worked as a GPN (Graduate Practical Nurse). After receiving her nursing license in June of 1993, Respondent was promoted to an LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) position. She held this LPN position until her termination in January of 1994. Throughout the period of her employment, Respondent was assigned to the hospital's mental health unit. Respondent was a dedicated and loyal employee who, as general rule, got along well with the patients under her care, as well as her coworkers. Not infrequently, she would voluntarily remain on the unit after the end of her shift to make sure that her patients received the care and attention their physicians had ordered. Prior to the incident that resulted in the termination of her employment, Respondent had an unblemished employment record at Aventura. The incident in question occurred on or about January 17, 1994. On the day of the incident Respondent was working the 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift at the hospital. One of the patients under her care that day was B.H. B.H. was an elderly woman receiving treatment for depression. She required the nursing staff's assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), including dressing. B.H. was a "very difficult" patient. She was generally uncooperative and frequently resisted, with physical force and violence, the nursing staff's efforts to provide her the help and assistance she needed with her ADLs. On the day in question B.H. had a scheduled, early morning appointment to see her attending physician, Dr. Greener. Dr. Greener had given explicit instructions to the nursing staff that B.H. be awakened and dressed before the scheduled appointment. Toward the end of her shift, Respondent went into B.H.'s room to get her ready for Dr. Greener. Respondent was able to awaken B.H., but B.H. refused to get out of bed. Respondent decided to leave B.H. and take care of the other tasks she needed to complete before the end of her shift. When Respondent returned to B.H.'s room it was after 8:00 a.m. Although her shift had ended, Respondent felt an obligation to remain at the hospital and follow through with her efforts to fully comply with the instructions that Dr. Greener had given concerning B.H. Dr. Greener had already arrived at the hospital and was ready to see Respondent. Respondent pleaded with B.H. to cooperate with her. B.H., however, ignored Respondent's pleas and remained in bed. Dr. Greener was a demanding physician who expected the nursing staff to timely comply with his every instruction. He expressed, in no uncertain terms, his disappointment when these expectations were not met. Respondent did not want to disappoint Dr. Greener. She therefore attempted to dress B.H. even though B.H. would not get out of bed. B.H. responded to Respondent's efforts to dress her by kicking, swinging her arms and spitting at Respondent. Despite receiving such resistance, Respondent continued to try to dress B.H. She did call for assistance, however. Todd Sussman, who was employed as a Mental Health Technician at the hospital, was on the unit that morning and responded to Respondent's call for help. When Sussman discovered the nature of the assistance Respondent required, he left B.H.'s room to obtain surgical gloves. Shortly thereafter, he returned to the room wearing such gloves. As Sussman walked back into the room, he saw Respondent, who was still struggling with B.H., slap B.H. in the face and pinch B.H.'s lips together in an effort to prevent B.H. from spitting at her. Sussman helped Respondent attempt to dress B.H. by holding B.H. by the arm. At one point, he let go of B.H. to allow Respondent to remove B.H.'s night shirt. Once her arm was free, B.H. swung it in Respondent's direction and hit Respondent in the face. Respondent reacted by slapping B.H. "fairly hard" on or slightly above the wrist, a reaction that was witnessed by Sussman, as well as another employee of the hospital, Barry Butler, an LPN who had entered the room shortly before B.H. had struck Respondent in the face. Both Sussman and Butler reported to their supervisor what they had observed take place in B.H.'s room that morning. Respondent's employment with the hospital was subsequently terminated based on the information Sussman and Butler had provided. At no time while struggling to dress B.H. on or about January 17, 1994, did Respondent intend to, nor did she actually, harm or injure B.H. Nonetheless, during the struggle (specifically when she purposefully slapped B.H. in the face and on or slightly above the wrist and pinched B.H.'s lips together), 2/ Respondent acted in an unprofessional manner that did not conform with the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. 3/ The use of such physical force against B.H. was unnecessary and therefore inappropriate. 4/ There were other, safer (and therefore more appropriate) options (of which Respondent should have been aware in light of her training) that were available to Respondent to deal with the difficult situation she faced.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation of subsection (1)(h) of Section 464.018, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining her for having committed this violation by fining her $250.00 and placing her on probation (of the type specified in subsection (1)(g) of Rule 59S-8.006, Florida Administrative Code: "[p]robation with specified continuing education courses in addition to the minimum conditions") for a period of eighteen months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of January, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 4th day of January, 1996.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the amended administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Susan Helen Tavares Benson, was a licensed practical nurse having been issued license number PN 0537171 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing (Board). Respondent has been licensed as a practical nurse since December 3, 1979. She currently resides in Naples, Florida. On February 12 and 13, 1989, respondent was employed as an independent contractor by Morning Star Nursing Home Service, a Naples firm that provided private in-home nursing care in the Naples area. On those particular dates, respondent was assigned to work the 4 p.m. - midnight shift at the home of C. S., an elderly female patient who was bedridden. Respondent relieved another nurse, Miriam Sheriff, who had worked the 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. shift. When respondent reported for duty on February 13, Sheriff observed respondent wearing street clothes, to be "hyper" and having what she perceived to be a very prominent smell of alcohol on her breath. Sheriff also recalled that when she left the premises there were no drinking glasses on the table in the area where the nurse normally sat. Although Sheriff was concerned with respondent's appearance and demeanor, she did not say anything when leaving the premises. Living in the patient's home at that time were the patient's husband and daughter. A few minutes after respondent reported for duty, the husband and daughter advised respondent they were leaving the home to run an errand and would return shortly. Although the husband spoke briefly with respondent before leaving and after returning, he did not detect any alcohol on respondent's breath. When the husband and daughter returned home about two hours later, the husband found the patient (wife) to be "quiet" and resting. However, the daughter spoke with her mother, and based on that conversation, approached respondent, smelled her breath, detected what she perceived to be alcohol, and asked respondent whether she had been drinking. Respondent denied drinking alcoholic beverages and contended it was Listerine mouth wash that the daughter smelled. At that point, the daughter told respondent to leave the premises. The daughter declined to accept respondent's suggestion that she call respondent's supervisor, have the supervisor come to the house, and confirm or dispel the claim that respondent was drinking. After respondent departed, the father and daughter found a glass partially filled with gin on an end table next to the couch where the nurse normally sat. It may be reasonably inferred that the drink had been prepared by respondent. After leaving the premises, respondent immediately telephoned her employer and reported the incident. A few hours later, respondent's supervisor telephoned respondent and advised her to take a breathalyzer test at a local law enforcement agency or obtain a blood alcohol test at a local hospital in order to prove she was not drinking on duty. Although respondent attempted to take a breathalyzer at the local sheriff's office, she was unable to do so since the law enforcement agency would not administer the test unless respondent had first been arrested. Respondent was also unable to obtain a blood alcohol test at a local hospital without a doctor's order and payment of a $250 fee. She reported this to her supervisor around 11:30 p.m. that evening. Respondent denied drinking any alcohol and contended the glass was on the end table when she reported for duty. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. There is no evidence that respondent's judgment or coordination were impaired by such consumption or that her conduct in any way threatened the health and welfare of the patient. According to the Board's expert, a nurse reporting to duty while under the influence of alcohol would be guilty of unprofessional conduct and such conduct would constitute a departure from the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. However, there was no evidence that respondent was under the influence of alcohol, i. e., her judgment was impaired, when she reported to duty on February 13. The expert further opined that if a nurse reported to duty after consuming any amount of alcohol, no matter how small a quantity and without regard to when the alcohol was consumed, and even if it did not impair her judgment or skills, the nurse's conduct would nonetheless be "unprofessional" because it would give the impression that the nurse's judgment was clouded. However, this opinion is not accepted as being logical, rationale or persuasive. Although not specifically addressed by the expert, it may be inferred that by having an alcoholic beverage in her possession while on duty, a nurse would not conform with the minimum standard of conduct. There is no evidence that respondent has ever been subject to disciplinary action at any other time during her eleven year tenure as a licensed practical nurse.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1989), and that she be given a reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2516 Petitioner: 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 2-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 6. Rejected as being unnecessary. 7-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 10. Rejected as being hearsay. 11-16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 17. Rejected as being hearsay. 18-20. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 21-25. COPIES Partially adopted FURNISHED: in finding of fact 8. Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Susan H. T. Benson P. O. Box 143 Naples, FL 33939 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Alachua General Hospital, Inc., Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corporation and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., meet the requirements of law and should be approved based on application of the statutory review criteria or upon other considerations.
Findings Of Fact Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center is a community-based skilled nursing facility of 120 beds located in Ocala, Florida. Oakhurst has a history of high occupancy and is a superior rated facility. At hearing, Oakhurst acknowledged a number of inaccuracies in its application. Some staffing ratios were misstated. The data utilized to calculate financial ratios is different from the data set forth in the combined statement. The physical location of the facility was incorrectly identified. The application misstated the existing number of beds in the facility. Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health. As to the application of Oakhurst, utilization rates indicate that need exists for additional community nursing care services in Marion County. Oakhurst experiences full occupancy. Projected occupancy levels set forth in the Oakhurst application are reasonable. The evidence establishes that the need for additional beds exists and that the application of Oakhurst is consistent with the applicable district and state health plans. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. Approval of the Oakhurst application will increase the availability of community nursing care at a superior rated facility and will meet the projected need determined by the AHCA's determination of the fixed pool. Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's ability to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Oakhurst is a superior rated facility with a history of providing high quality care. There is no indication that the 60 bed unit addition will result in a decline in quality of care. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the Oakhurst application will result in probable economies and improvements in service from joint, cooperative, or shared health care operations. Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Since purchase by the current owners, Oakhurst's financial performance has been satisfactory. Losses experienced during the two years following the purchase are attributed to accelerated depreciation. The facility is currently profitable. Although there was evidence that insufficient funds are being generated to maintain the facility's physical plant, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Oakhurst is unable to maintain the facility. Projected occupancy rates are reasonable. Funds for capital and operating expenditures are available to Oakhurst. Notwithstanding current operation of the facility and availability of funds, Oakhurst's proposal is not financially feasible. Oakhurst's revenue projections are not reasonable. This finding is based on the credible testimony of expert Charles Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki opined that the Oakhurst application is not financially feasible in the short and long term and that the financial projections in the Oakhurst application are not reliable. Mr. Wysocki's testimony was credible and persuasive. Oakhurst's current Medicaid rate is $71.68. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicaid rates as follows: $77.41 during the construction year; $104.69 during operation year one; and $99.75 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicaid rates are unreasonable. Projected Medicaid rates are overstated and do not appear to account for Medicaid program rate ceilings. Medicaid program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates during years one and two. Oakhurst's current Medicare rate is $186.87. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicare rates as follows: $340 during the construction year; $361 during operation year one; and $328 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicare rates are overstated and unreasonable. Medicare program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates. Oakhurst's application overstated revenue projections related to private pay patients. Further, according to Mr. Wysocki, Oakhurst has underestimated expenses related to depreciation, amortization and property taxes. Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Approval of Oakhurst's application can be expected to have a positive competitive impact on the supply of services being proposed based on the fact that the addition of beds will increase the supply of appropriate placements. Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Although Oakhurst has historically participated in the Medicaid program, Oakhurst is currently not subject to Medicaid participation requirements. If the CON at issue in this proceeding is awarded, Oakhurst will be required to provide at least half of the expanded facility's 160 beds to Medicaid patients. Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. To the extent that such information is available, there is no evidence that these services are used inappropriately or inefficiently. Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the proposed new service. As to community nursing home beds, the AHCA has determined that a need exists for additional capacity in the planning area's nursing homes. It is likely that failure to meet projected need will result in difficulty in locating appropriate placements. The state health plan sets forth "preferences" which are considered in comparative evaluations of competing CON applications. Preference is given to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate is higher in the Alachua planning area than in the Marion planning area. Oakhurst is in the Marion planning area and has the highest occupancy in the planning area. Oakhurst meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds or propose the development of multi-level care systems. The Marion County Medicaid participation average is 72.93 percent. Oakhurst's application subjects the facility to a 50 percent Medicaid average. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Oakhurst intends to operate a separate 20 bed subunit specializing in skin and wound care. A distinct subacute care program targeted at a specific patient population is a specialized service. Oakhurst does not have specialized Alzheimer services. Oakhurst does not provide care to AIDS patients. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. The Oakhurst proposal does not address respite care or adult day care. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. These special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual room temperature controls, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. Oakhurst's application meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. No party proposes to offer any therapeutic programs which may credibly be identified as "innovative." Preference is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Oakhurst's projected rates exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, therefore Oakhurst does not meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states. HRS' evaluation of existing facilities shall consider, but not be limited to, current ratings of licensure facilities located in Florida. AHCA is the successor agency to HRS. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents than other applicants shall be given preference. Although FCC and Oakhurst propose reasonable staff levels, Alachua's hospital-based unit, by virtue of location, more closely meets this preference than FCC or Oakhurst. Preference is given to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants who document plans to will ensure residents' rights and privacy, to use resident councils, and to implement a well-designed quality-assurance and discharge-planning program. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst has higher administrative costs and lower resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. The district health plan sets forth preferences which are to be considered in comparative evaluations of CON applications. The first applicable district preference is directed toward providing geographic access to nursing home beds. None of the applications meet this preference. The second applicable district preference requires consideration of existing bed utilization. Based on the percentage of elderly population and utilization of existing beds in each area, relative priorities are established. Oakhurst is in a "high need" planning area. Existing nursing homes in the Marion planning area are experiencing occupancy levels between 80 and 90 percent placing Oakhurst in a "moderate occupancy" planning area. According to the preference matrix set forth in the district plan, Oakhurst is in a priority two planning area (high need and moderate occupancy.) The evidence establishes that Oakhurst meets this preference. The third preference relates to the conversion of acute care beds to skilled nursing use. Oakhurst does not intend to convert underutilized hospital beds into skilled nursing beds for step-down or subacute care. The fourth and fifth preferences apply to new facilities of at least 60 beds. No application meets these preferences. The sixth preference states that priority consideration should be given to facilities which propose to offer specialized services to meet the needs of the identified population. Oakhurst proposes to offer a subunit specializing in skin and wound care. Oakhurst meets this preference.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the application of Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center for Certificate of Need #7326 to be incomplete and withdrawn, GRANTING the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for Certificate of Need #7325 for the 60 remaining beds in the applicable fixed need pool and GRANTING the application of Alachua General Hospital for Certificate of Need #7320 to convert 30 existing acute care beds into a skilled nursing unit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 5th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6264 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Alachua General Hospital, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, irrelevant as to the AHCA's review of the proposals prior to notice of intended award. 16, 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 21-26. Rejected, subordinate. 30. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 32, 34. Rejected, subordinate. 42-50. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. The preferences set forth in the proposed finding are not those contained within Alachua's exhibit #1, which has been utilized in this Recommended Order. 52. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected, evidence fails to establish that therapy offered is "innovative." 62. Rejected, cumulative. 63-64. Rejected, subordinate. 72. Rejected as to SAAR, unnecessary. 73-76. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corp.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4,6, 8-51. Rejected, unnecessary, application rejected as incomplete and withdrawn from consideration. 52-54, 56-58. Rejected, irrelevant. Although it is true that the application contained the combined audited financial statements for the Harborside facilities, such statement fails to meet the requirement that the application contain an audited financial statement for the applicant. Harborside is not the applicant. 55. Rejected, irrelevant. The agency has cited no authority which would permit the waiver of the statutory requirement. 59. Rejected, immaterial. The document was admitted to demonstrate that the material required by law was not submitted with the CON application. Further consideration constitutes an impermissible amendment to the CON application and is rejected. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-91. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 93. Rejected, unnecessary. 102-143. References to Oakhurst application, rejected, unnecessary. Agency for Health Care Administration's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. 13-16. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 19. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, wherein the CON application sets forth such information. Rejected, unnecessary. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Comparison is inappropriate. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The CON application sets forth the information which the agency asserts was not provided. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence as related to applicable criteria for review set forth in the statute. 35. Rejected, not supported by credible evidence or the administrative rules cited in the proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Dean Bunton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald Sternstein, Esquire Frank Rainer, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH 215 South Monroe Street Barnett Bank Building, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Barbara Jiminez, is a licensed practical nurse (LPN) in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0812181. At the time of the incident involved in this case, Respondent was a LPN. In 1987, Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse by Holly Point Manor, a nursing home located in Orange Park, Florida. Respondent was also employed as a LPN by another nursing home in the area. She was scheduled to work the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift at Holly Point Manor. Holly Point Manor was a new facility and had opened in November, 1987. Only one wing of the facility was open and in December, 1987, Holly Point Manor serviced approximately 50 patients. On December 21, 1987, Respondent presented a letter of resignation to Tom Burrell, Director of Nursing at Holly Point Manor. The resignation was effective December 20, 1987. The resignation was precipitated by a verbal altercation with Liz McClain, a certified nursing assistant (CNA) at Holly Point Manor. The verbal exchange occurred on December 20, 1987. However, difficulties between Respondent and Ms. McClain had been brewing for a period of time prior to the verbal exchange of the 20th. After discussing the letter with Burrell, Respondent agreed to work on an as-needed basis at the facility. Burrell indicated that he needed Respondent to work until the beginning of the year, and therefore scheduled the Respondent for the remainder of December. Respondent was scheduled to work her usual shift on December 23, 24, and 25, 1987. She was scheduled to work with Virginia Anderson. Ms. Anderson is also a LPN. On December 23, 1987, Respondent clocked in for work at approximately 2:40 p.m. EST and clocked out the same day at 3:40 p.m. EST. On December 23, 1987, the Respondent and Virginia Anderson began work before the 3:00 p.m. change-of-shift. At shift change, both nurses went into the medication room to "take report" from Nurse Jan Sturgeon, the LPN who had worked the previous shift. A "report" at the change of shift consists of the previous shift's nurse going down the list of each resident/patient and reporting each patient's respective condition to the on-coming nurse. Part of the report includes counting the medications on the medication cart to ensure a correct count in the narcotic drawer of each cart. In this case, there were two medication carts, one for each of the on-coming nurses. These carts are locked and the nurse responsible for the cart maintains possession of the keys to that cart. Ms. Sturgeon "reported off" first to Ms. Anderson, and then to Respondent. Ms. Anderson began her rounds after receiving a report and keys to her cart from Ms. Sturgeon. Subsequently, Respondent received a report and keys to her cart from Ms. Sturgeon. At some time during Respondent's clocking in and taking report, a problem arose over the staffing assignments of the C.N.A.'s. Respondent was the nurse responsible for making the CNA assignments. However, Nurse Anderson had already created patient-care assignments for the CNAs after one C.N.A. had failed to report for work.1/ The Respondent was not satisfied with the assignments created by Anderson and either requested that they be changed or changed them herself. The request or change immediately caused a bad atmosphere between the employees on the wing. Around 3:30 p.m., Respondent telephoned Tom Burrell. Respondent told Burre11 that she couldn't take it anymore and that she was leaving. Burrell told Respondent that she was scheduled to work and if she left she would be reported for what was, in his opinion, a violation of the Nurse Practice Act. Burrell did not give Respondent permission to leave. Either before or after the call to Burrell, Nurse Eppert, the Assistant Director of Nursing, told the Respondent that in her opinion there was nothing wrong with the C.N.A. assignments. Respondent stated, "Here's my keys - - I'm leaving." Eppert informed Respondent that she had no replacement nurse and did not want her to leave. Respondent pointed out that Ms. Sturgeon was still present. Eppert reminded Respondent that Sturgeon was off duty. Eppert then told Respondent to give a report to Nurse Anderson. She refused and told Ms. Anderson to get the report from Ms. Sturgeon who had just given the report to Respondent. Since Respondent had not begun her rounds, Ms. Sturgeon's report was still valid and the narcotic count had not changed. Respondent left Holly Point Manor. The Respondent did not positively know at the time she left whether Nurse Sturgeon would remain to assist. The Respondent did not stay to determine whether Sturgeon would, in fact, cover the shift. However, the evidence did show that Ms. Sturgeon tacitly agreed to stay before Respondent left the facility. Nurse Sturgeon was not the type of person to decline to help when the need arose. After the Respondent left, Jan Sturgeon formally agreed to stay to assist with the 5 p.m. medication pass. She agreed because Ms. Eppert could not find anyone to work due to the closeness of the holidays. After the medication pass, Ms. Sturgeon left for the evening and Ms. Anderson handled the shift by herself. One nurse working the night shift alone was not an unusual event at Holly Point and occurred frequently. In fact, Ms. Anderson had worked the previous evening's shift by herself. One nurse to 50 patients meets HRS staffing requirements for nursing home facilities. However, the hardest part of the evening shift for a solo nurse was the 5:00 p.m. medication pass. Later, the facility was able to retain a replacement nurse for the 24th and 25th. It is not an acceptable nursing practice for a nurse to leave his or her employment until that nurse is sure that somebody else is going to take care of the patients the nurse is responsible for. In this case, Respondent failed to positively ensure someone would replace her. Reliance on tacit agreement by either of the other two nurses is not enough. Likewise, past practice of the facility is not enough. Reliance on tacit agreement or past practice is too amorphous to insure protection and the safety of the patients the nurse is responsible for. However, tacit agreement and past practice do go towards mitigation of any disciplinary penalty in this case. Respondent's actions by not ensuring her replacement or at least the need for such a replacement constitutes unprofessional conduct in the practice of nursing Likewise, it is not an acceptable nursing practice for an LPN to leave without giving another nurse a report on patients that that nurse would be assuming and before counting the medications on the medication cart. However, in this case, the evidence demonstrated that a replacement was there whose earlier report was still accurate and valid. Therefore, formal patient reporting and narcotics counting was not necessary or required. 2/ Respondent is not subject to discipline under this standard.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order reprimanding the Respondent's license, and requiring her to take courses in the Legal Aspects of Nursing and in Stress Management within a 6 month time period. DONE and ENTERED this 19 day of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 19 day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Stacey Health Care Centers, Inc., is licensed to operate Riverside Care Center, located at 899 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Florida, as a nursing home in compliance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. On July 9, 1986, James A. Bavetta, assistant area supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, made a visit of Riverside's facility and determined that Ralph Stacey, Jr., the administrator of record, was acting in the capacity of administrator for two facilities, the subject facility and another facility in Kentucky, without having a qualified assistant administrator to act in his absence. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ralph L. Stacey Jr., is a licensed nursing home administrator in the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. He has been licensed in Kentucky and Florida since 1974. At the time of Mr. Bavetta's visit and inspection during July, 1986, Ralph Stacey, Jr., was in Cincinnati, Ohio preparing the payroll for Stacey Health Care Centers. During this time period, Ralph Stacey, Jr., served as the administrator for the subject facility, Riverside Care Center, and another facility in Kentucky and did not have a qualified assistant administrator employed to act in his absence. However, once Mr. Bavetta issued his recommendation for sanctions, Petitioner, as part of its plan of correction, has employed a licensed administrator who is presently on staff and serves as Riverside's assistant administrator during the administrator's absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn it is RECOMMENDED: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) upon Stacey Health Care Centers- Inc., d/b/a Riverside Care Center, which amount shall be payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of Respondent's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3410 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard -Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent committed deficient practices as alleged in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b) and 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288; and if so, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 and issue a conditional license to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida under state and federal statutes. Petitioner is charged with evaluating nursing homes facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for concluding federally-mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." Respondent is a 98-bed nursing home located at 1024 Willow Springs Drive, Winter Springs, Florida, and is licensed as a skilled nursing facility. On May 30, 2003, Petitioner's staff conducted an inspection, also known as a survey, at Respondent's facility. Upon completion of the survey, Petitioner issued a document entitled, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS Form 2567L, also known as a "2567," which contains a statement of the alleged violations of regulatory requirements, also referred to as "deficiencies," titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The evaluation or survey of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of a record, reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on the 2567 Form, and if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. Petitioner's surveyors use the "State Operations Manual," a document prepared by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 C.F.R. Chapter 483. Count I In Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent's staff subjected three residents (Resident Nos. 6, 13, and 18) to verbal and mental abuse in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), which provides that a nursing home resident has the right to be free from verbal and mental abuse. As to Resident No. 6, Petitioner contends that this resident stated to a surveyor that the resident had "overheard" a certified nursing assistant (CNA) loudly tell another staff member that the resident was "going to the bathroom 25 times a day." Petitioner believes the CNA's statement, which was allegedly "overheard," occurred sometime during the month of March 2003, based upon nurses' notes which indicate Resident No. 6 had an episode of diarrhea during this time. However, the nurses notes also reveal that during this time Resident No. 6 was subject to confusion and nonsensical outbursts. Petitioner's belief that Resident No. 6 was a reliable historian is based on Petitioner's mistaken belief that Resident No. 6 was admitted about March 30, 2003, and was alert and oriented and not confused upon admission. Petitioner's staff exhibited a lack of understanding of the timing and significance of the Multiple Data Set (MDS) forms describing Resident No. 6's mental condition upon which they relied. In fact, Resident No. 6 was admitted in mid-February 2003 and exhibited confused and eccentric behavior. The "overheard" comment was not reported to Respondent until the survey. Therefore, the evidence that this incident occurred as described by Petitioner is unreliable hearsay. Surveyors reviewed Respondent's records, which contained a complaint from a family member of Resident No. 6 that the same CNA had noticed that the resident had a physical anomaly. The CNA called other CNAs to view this anomaly, which was located in Resident No. 6's genital area. Respondent learned of the allegations relating to Resident No. 6's physical anomaly on April 21, 2003, from a family member of Resident No. 6. Respondent immediately began an investigation, including an interview with and physical examination of Resident No. 6 and an interview with the CNA. The resident only stated that she did not want this CNA taking care of her any longer. The CNA denied the allegations. The CNA was suspended pending investigation and later terminated based upon directions from Respondent's corporate office based on additional, unrelated information. The incident was reported to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hot Line on April 22, 2003. Although Resident No. 6 and her family member had frequent contact and conversation with Respondent's director of nursing (DON), neither had ever complained about the CNA's conduct. Respondent's DON observed no mental distress on the part of Resident No. 6 after Respondent's DON learned of the allegations. Petitioner alleges that this CNA had observed the physical anomaly for the first time. If that is true, it would be expected that the CNA would consult other nursing staff to address potential nursing issues. As to Resident No. 13, Petitioner alleges verbal abuse based upon the allegation that Resident No. 13 reported to a surveyor that she found a male resident sitting on her bed in her room. When this was reported by Resident No. 13 to one of the Respondent's nurses, the resident alleged that the nurse "laughed at" the resident. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON shortly after it happened. Respondent's DON interviewed the resident and the two nurses who were on duty at the time. The nurses reported that they assured Resident No. 13 that everything was okay, escorted the male resident to his room, and Resident No. 13 went to bed with no complaint or distress. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON in a joking manner, as an event and not as a complaint. Although Respondent's DON was concerned that the nurses should respond appropriately and was also concerned that the wandering resident be identified, Respondent's DON did not believe that the incident constituted any form of abuse. Respondent's DON did not observe this incident to have any adverse impact on Resident No. 13. During the survey, Petitioner's surveyor advised Respondent that the incident should have been investigated and reported to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON completed a written report and called the DCF Abuse Hot Line and related the incident. The incident did not meet the DCF guidelines for the reporting of abuse. On or about March 30, 2003, two surveyors observed Resident No. 18 in her wheelchair as she approached the nurse's station. One of Respondent's nursing staff spoke in a "curt, loud voice" to Resident No. 18. The resident had approached the nurses' station to ask for her medication, to which the nurse replied: "I told you I will give you your medicine." Resident No. 18 was hearing-impaired and was documented in her medical record as one to whom staff "must speak loudly." This resident did not wear any hearing assistance devices. Respondent's staff credibly described this resident as one to whom staff had to speak loudly and in clipped words for the resident to understand. Petitioner's surveyors did not speak to this resident after the alleged incident. There is no evidence that this incident had any effect on the resident or even that the resident heard the staff member. The incident does not rise to the level of verbal abuse of the resident. Count II Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleges a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), which provides that a nursing home must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse; and that the nursing home must not employ individuals who have been found guilty of abuse or neglect or are listed in the state nursing aide registry with a finding of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Count II is based on the allegation that Respondent failed to report to Petitioner (the appropriate "state agency") the incidents involving Resident No. 13 and 18 and other allegations of abuse or neglect, which the surveyor allegedly identified in Respondent's log of grievances. Respondent has in place written policies and procedures regarding abuse and neglect and its staff receive regular training regarding these policies and procedures. Petitioner has offered no evidence that these written policies and procedures or the staff's knowledge of these policies and procedures is inadequate. With regard to Resident No. 13, when Respondent's DON learned of the incident from the resident, Respondent's DON made inquiries of nursing staff who were on duty at the time, in addition to interviewing the resident. Respondent's DON did not consider any aspect of the incident to constitute abuse or neglect. Later, after Petitioner alleged, during the survey, that the incident should have been reported to DCF, Respondent's DON prepared a written report of the incident and called and related the incident to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON was advised by DCF that the incident did not meet DCF's requirements for reporting. Respondent is required to report all allegations of abuse and neglect to the DCF's Abuse Hot Line. Petitioner does not dispute this fact. Instead, Petitioner contends that Respondent is also required to report allegations of abuse and neglect to the "state agency" and that Respondent failed to do so. The "state agency" for the purpose of federal regulations is Petitioner. Petitioner's allegations are based upon its review of Respondent's grievance log, which Petitioner's surveyors say allegedly records 18 incidents of alleged abuse, none of which was reported to the state agency. At the time of the survey, Respondent was a part of the Mariner Corporation. It has since disassociated from that corporation and changed its name to Tuskawilla Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, effective October 1, 2003. At the time of the survey, all reporting of abuse allegations were done by the corporate regional risk management department, and it is not known if they reported any of the incidents cited by the surveyors to Petitioner. However, the document received in evidence, which has many more than 18 entries in summary style, is almost completely illegible. Petitioner's witness was unable to identify any entries on this document which could be identified as alleged abuse and which had not been properly reported. Understanding this document requires substantial explanation, which was never provided. Standing alone, this document is not probative of any fact. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent employed any individuals who had been found guilty of or who had been listed on the nurse aide registry of abusing, neglecting, or mistreating residents. Even if it is assumed that Respondent should have reported but did not report to Petitioner the 18 alleged incidents or the incident regarding Resident No. 13, Petitioner offered no evidence that reporting this information to DCF, but not to Petitioner, had any impact on any resident or prevented a resident from maintaining or achieving the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being. Count III Since there is no proof of Class II deficiencies, there is no basis for imposing a conditional license status on Respondent for the period May 30, 2003, until July 8, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of March, 2004. 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 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license to practice nursing should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct, in violation of Section 464.018(1)(h),Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Department of Health (Petitioner) is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Chapters 20, 120, 455 and 464, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Bonnie Fay Baker Palmer (Respondent), is now and was at all times material hereto a Licensed Practical Nurse (L.P.N.) in the State of Florida having been issued license no. PN 0448611 in accordance with Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent was employed at Imperial Village Care Center as a L.P.N. for approximately three and one-half years prior to February 21, 1996. Sometime in December 1995 or January 1996, while working the day shift as the floor nurse on Canterbury Hall of the Care Center, Respondent was assigned to care for patient, G. C. Patient, G. C., was an elderly patient who suffered from dementia and other ailments and was not ambulatory. G. C. had contractions of her left leg and left arm and any movement of those extremities caused her pain. G. C. was transported in a wheelchair and screamed, kicked, yelled, hit,and pinched anyone who tried to move her or give her treatment. On the date of the alleged incident, Respondent was ordered to medicate G. C., because she suffered from decubites (bed sores) on the heel of her foot. Respondent was assisted by a C.N.A. who picked up G. C. and placed her on her bed. G. C. became very agitated and began to scream, yell, scratch, hit and pinch Respondent and the C.N.A. Respondent attempted to apply medication to the affected area. While doing so, Respondent wore a protective mitten, used to protect staff from aggressive patients. During this time, the mitten was seen by the C.N.A. in the patient's mouth. The testimony is unclear if Respondent was wiping the saliva from patient's mouth with it, or if Respondent stuffed it in her mouth. The hearsay statement signed by Respondent, but prepared by the Director of Nursing, who did not testify, is not helpful in clarifying what happened. The statement was prepared approximately two months after the alleged incident by a person not present during the incident, and contained matters extraneous to this matter. Respondent has no prior criminal or disciplinary history and denies that she abused the patient in any way. No qualified testimony was offered to prove that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standard of acceptable nursing practice in the treatment of patient, G. C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing find the Respondent not guilty of the charge in the Administrative Complaint, dated September 20, 1996, and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Boyd, Lindsey, Williams, & Branch, P.A. 1407 Piedmont Drive East Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Bonnie Fay Baker Palmer Route 2, Box 810 Waynesville, Georgia 31566 Pete Peterson Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 136 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marilyn Bloss, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated April 17, 1990, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of nursing in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse, having been issued license number PN 0914071. On October 27, 1988, the Board of Nursing (Board) issued a license to practice to Respondent and placed him on probation subject to specific terms and conditions for a period of two years. One of the conditions of Respondent's first year of probation required that he be directly supervised by a registered nurse when administering a narcotic. During the period July 15-16, 1989, Respondent worked two shifts in the oncology ward at Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) in Orlando, Florida. During these shifts, Respondent administered approximately seventeen narcotic doses without being directly supervised by a registered nurse. The administration of narcotics described above were performed during Respondent's first year of probation. Policies in effect at ORMC during the period July 15-16, 1989, did not require that a licensed practical nurse be directly supervised when administering narcotics. Respondent's supervising head nurse at ORMC was unaware of the probationary condition requiring that Respondent be directly supervised during the administration of narcotics. A further condition of Respondent's probation required that he notify the Board's probation supervisor of any changes in his telephone number and/or employment within ten days of such change. On or about April 26, 1989, the Respondent notified the Board that he had been employed for Health Care of Orlando since approximately January, 1989, and for St. Cloud Hospital since approximately January 9, 1989. Such notification was not made within ten days of the change in employment. In July, 1989, the Respondent notified the Board of additional changes in employment and with his telephone number. This notification also was not made within ten days of the change. On or about May 11, 1989, the Respondent filled out an employment application with Allied Health Card Consultants, Inc. One of the questions posed on that application asked: "Have any of your professional licenses ever been under investigation?" Respondent answered the foregoing question: "no". Another question posed on the application asked: "Is there any reason you would be unable to perform the duties of your position?" In response, Respondent again answered: "no". On or about August 11, 1989, Respondent gave a copy of the final order setting forth his conditions of probation to Allied Health Care. At all times material to the allegations of this case it was the policy of ORMC not to hire any agency staffed nurse who was on probation status with the Board since all such staff are required to perform all duties without restrictions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of having violated a term of his probation set forth in the prior final order enter by the Board, contrary to Section 464.018(1)(1), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and suspending the Respondent's license for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-8047 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's findings of fact begin with the paragraph numbered 9 Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the height of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 C. Michael Magruder The Monument Building 22 W. Monument Avenue Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
