The Issue Whether Emergency Rule 10CER89-21 and an amendment of Rule 10C-7.0482, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The Parties and The Petitioners' Standing. The Petitioners, Hillhaven, United, Diversicare, HCRA, Americare and Waverly, are providers of long-term care services to elderly and disabled persons including Medicaid recipients. (S.F. 1). Petitioners have standing to raise their respective claims in this matter. (S.F. 38). The Department is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. (S.F. 3). The Federal Medicaid Program. General. Title XIX of the Social Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1396-1396s, and commonly referred to as the Medicaid Act, is a cooperative federal-state program. Under the Medicaid program, the federal government provides matching funds to states to help them provide their needy residents with necessary medical services. (S.F. 1). State Participation in the Program. State participation in the Medicaid program is not mandatory. A state which opts to participate, however, must submit to the Health Care Financing Administration (hereinafter referred to as "HCFA") of the Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter referred to as "HHS") a "state plan for medical assistance" which meets all relevant federal requirements. 42 U.S.C. 1396a. (S.F. 2). Once HCFA approves a state's plan, that state is entitled to federal financial participation (hereinafter referred to as "FFP"), which means that HHS pays the state a certain percentage of amounts expended under the plan. 42 U.S.C. 1396b. The state must then administer the program in accordance with federal law, regulations and the approved state plan. 42 U.S.C. 1396c. (S.F. 2). Each state that participates in the Medicaid program must designate an agency to implement the Medicaid program in that state. 42 U.S.C. 1396(a)(5) and 42 C.F.R. 431.10. The state agency designated is not allowed to delegate its authority to administer or supervise the state plan. 42 C.F.R. 431.10(e). Amendment of a State Medicaid Plan. The mechanism for amending a state's Medicaid plan is set forth in 42 C.F.R. 447.256(c) and 430.20. (S.F. 10). In pertinent part, 42 C.F.R. 447.256(c), provides: A state plan amendment that is approved will become effective no earlier than the first day of the calendar quarter in which an approvable amendment is submitted in accordance with [42 C.F.R.] 430.20 and 447.253. In pertinent part, 42 C.F.R. 20(b)(2), provides that "[f]or a plan amendment that changes the State's payment method and standards, the [effective date] rules of [42 C.F.R.] 447.256 apply." The requirements for public notice of a proposed amendment to a state's Medicaid plan are set forth in 42 C.F.R. 447.205. (S.F. 11). The notice, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. 447.205(c), must include: Describe the proposed change in methods and standards; Give an estimate of any expected increase or decrease in annual aggregate expenditures; Explain why the agency is changing its methods and standards; Identify a local agency in each county (such as the social services agency or health department) where copies of the proposed changes are available for public review; Give an address where written comments may be sent and reviewed by the public; and If there are public hearings, give the location, date and time for hearings or tell how this information may be obtained. One of the requirements for federal approval of an amendment to a state plan is the requirement that the state provide payment rates in compliance with the "Boren Amendment", 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(13), and make findings and submit assurances to HCFA that: The Medicaid agency pays for . . . long-term care facility services through the use of rates that are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs that must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated providers to provide services in conformity with applicable State and Federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards. 42 C.F.R. 447.253(b)(1). The Medicaid Program in Florida. Florida's Participation. Florida participates in the Medicaid program pursuant to Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Florida Medicaid Plan"). (S.F. 3). The Department is the agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Plan. The Florida Medicaid Plan authorizes payments for nursing home services provided to eligible individuals in accordance with Medicaid regulations. (S.F. 3). Adoption and Approval of a Medicaid Plan. The Florida Medicaid Plan as revised January 1, 1988, was submitted by the Department to HCFA in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1396A. The Department provided assurances to HCFA that Medicaid reimbursement rates under the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan were reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities. See 42 U.S.C. 1396(a)(13)(A). (S.F. 4). HCFA approved the January 1, 1988, Florida Medicaid Plan effective January 1, 1988. (S.F. 4). The Florida Medicaid Plan. Under the January 1, 1988, Florida Medicaid Plan, long-term care providers such as the Petitioners are reimbursed under a prospective reimbursement methodology. Rates are set in advance of the rate semester based on historical cost data trended forward for inflation with no retroactive adjustment to account for actual costs for a cost reporting period (as opposed to actual reimbursement for the same period). (S.F. 5). Florida long-term care providers are divided into four classes based on geographic location and size. (S.F. 5). Each provider's rate consists of four components: (1) the property cost component; (2) the operating cost component; (3) the patient care cost component; and (4) a return on equity or use allowance. (S.F. 5). Reimbursement ceilings for patient care and operating cost components are established for each of the four classes. Ceilings are effective semiannually on January 1 and July 1. A statewide ceiling for the property cost component applies to providers who are reimbursed on the basis of depreciation and interest. Section 4B of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. (S.F. 6). Providers that do not receive depreciation and interest for their property costs are reimbursed under the Fair Rental Value Systems (hereinafter referred to as "FRVS"). Under FRVS, reimbursement is based on the acquisition costs of a capital asset including capital additions and improvements subsequent to acquisition. These acquisition costs are indexed forward to October 1, 1985 by a portion of the rate of increase in the Dodge Construction Index. Id. Subsection V.E.I.a. (S.F. 7). The January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan also requires that the FRVS component of a provider's rate be adjusted semiannually using the change in the Dodge Index for the most recent six month period published prior to the rate semester. Id. Subsection V.E.I.a. The January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan requires semiannual inflationary adjustments, to become effective on July 1 and January 1 of each year. (S.F. 8). The January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan established Petitioners' Medicaid rates during the period January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989. (S.F. 9). The Legislature's Appropriation of Funds for Medicaid. The appropriation for Florida's fiscal year 1989-1990 from the Florida Legislature included funds to reimburse Medicaid long-term care facility providers for the fiscal year July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 in accordance with the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. (S.F. 12). Florida's Budget Cuts and The Department's Response. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990, Florida experienced a shortfall in general revenue collections, and then-Governor Bob Martinez certified that a deficit would occur in the Florida state budget. (S.F. 13). In order to deal with the budget deficit, the Department was asked to provide cost containment alternatives to the Administration Commission (consisting of the Governor and the cabinet) which the Department did. (S.F. 13). Among the alternatives recommended by the Department was an amendment to the current Florida Medicaid Plan which would maintain Medicaid reimbursement rates for long-term care facilities at their December 31, 1989 level. This alternative was advocated by the Department as the most appropriate and fair of all the alternatives presented by the Department. (S.F. 13). In effect, the Department suggested that the Florida Medicaid Plan be amended to eliminate those provisions of the Florida Medicaid Plan providing for semiannual adjustments to the Medicaid reimbursement rate. Exhibit 2 is a true, correct and complete copy of an Impact Statement prepared by the Department and submitted to the Administration Commission concerning the proposed rate freeze that was accepted by the Administration Commission. This document was not submitted to HCFA. (S.F. 13). In the Impact Statement provided to the Administration Commission on November 21, 1989, the Department concluded that Florida nursing homes would receive 4% less than their anticipated costs due to the proposed freeze: Nursing Home Care ($13,131,931 GR) - This proposal will not allow nursing home per diem rates to increase based on their projected cost increases. The Medicaid Program will be reimbursing nursing homes 4.0% less than their anticipated costs. This price level reduction will impact on 489 participating nursing homes. There is no basis upon which to project the impact this will have on our clients [sic] ability to access those services of the quality of care received. This was the only analysis conducted by the Department prior to January 1, 1990, of Florida nursing home anticipated costs compared to the rates nursing homes would receive under the proposed rate freeze. On November 21, 1989, the Administration Commission, under the procedure outlined in Section 216.221, Florida Statutes, accepted the Department's proposal effective December 1, 1989 and reduced the Department's budget accordingly. (S.F. 13). The budget reductions ordered by the Administration Commission were taken from the Department's general revenue appropriation effective January 1, 1990, through mandatory reserves, or a holdback, of appropriations. The impact on the Department was that it had less authority to spend funds. The rate freeze approved by the Administration Commission allowed changes in rates due to licensure rating changes pursuant to Section V.D. of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. (S.F. 13). A letter from the Department to nursing home administrators in Florida, including the Petitioners, dated January 29, 1990, was sent to Florida facilities affected by the rate freeze. The Department stated in the January 29, 1990, letter (exhibit 5), that the rate freeze would remain in effect until monies were appropriated by the Florida Legislature to recalculate new rates and ceilings. (S.F. 17). Promulgation of Rules Implementing the Rate Freeze. In order to effectuate the freeze, the Department caused to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on December 22, 1989, notice of Emergency Rule 10CER89-21 (10C-7.0482) (hereinafter referred to as the "Emergency Rule"). See exhibit 3. (S.F. 14). The Emergency Rule amended the Department's rules by providing that Florida Medicaid reimbursement would be in accordance with the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan as revised January 1, 1990. See exhibit 4. (S.F. 14). The January 1, 1990 modifications to the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan were attached to the notice of the Emergency Rule and were incorporated therein. (S.F. 14). The effect of the Emergency Rule was to eliminate the provisions of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan providing for recalculation of reimbursement rates, which recalculation would have included an inflationary adjustment, for the Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990. The Emergency Rule had the effect of maintaining the Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates at the level in effect on December 31, 1989, excluding changes based on licensure rating reclassifications. The Emergency Rule did not limit the rate freeze to the period prior to June 30, 1990, and did not specify the date or approximate date on which the rate freeze would end. (S.F. 14). Emergency rules, however, are only effective for ninety days in Florida. Although the public notice of the Emergency Rule did not specify the anticipated increase or decrease in annual expenditures, notice of the general impact of the Emergency Rule was provided. On February 2, 1990, the Department caused to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly notice of an amendment to Rule 10C-7.0482, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Permanent Rule"). See exhibit 6. (S.F. 15). The Permanent Rule eliminated the recalculation of reimbursement rates, which recalculation would have included an inflationary adjustment for Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990. The Permanent Rule maintained the Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates at the level in effect on December 31, 1989, excluding changes based on licensure rating reclassifications. (S.F. 15). The Permanent Rule did not limit the rate freeze to the period prior to June 30, 1990 or specify the date or approximate date on which the rate freeze would end. The "purpose and effect" section of the Permanent Rule stated that the rate freeze would be in effect until sufficient funds were appropriated by the Legislature to recalculate rates and ceilings for Medicaid providers. (S.F. 15). By letter date March 15, 1990 (exhibit 8), a "Notice of Change" was filed by the Department with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. The Notice of Change modified the effective date of the Permanent Rule from March 22, 1990 to March 26, 1990. The Notice of Change was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 23, 1990. Exhibit 27. (S.F. 19). No other public notices, or emergency or permanent rules, were published by the Department subsequent to February 2, 1990, which would have affected the Petitioners' Medicaid rates for the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990. (S.F. 16). There are no documents which indicate that the Department enacted the Emergency Rule or the Permanent Rule for reasons other than those stated in the public notices for the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule and the January 29, 1990, letter. (S.F. 18). The Department enacted the Emergency and Permanent Rules solely due to the budgetary cuts ordered by the Administration Commission. The preamble to the Emergency Rule stated "[b]ased on a recent decision made by the Governor and Florida Cabinet, Medicaid rates were frozen at the December 31, 1989 levels for all providers of these institutions." The preamble to the Emergency Rule also stated that "a shortfall in general revenue requires the state to reduce or eliminate payment for needed services to medicaid recipients." Neither the preamble to the Emergency Rule nor the Permanent Rule indicated that Florida nursing homes had received excess reimbursement in relation to their costs under the 1988 Medicaid Plan. There was, however, no Florida law which required any other reason for the Emergency Rule or the Permanent Rule be provided by the Department. In a previous filing in this matter, the Department stated: "[i]n response to a shortfall in general revenue collections. . . , the Administration Commission (composed of the Governor and the cabinet) ordered the Department to "freeze" rates at the December 31, 1989 level. The amendment was made effective by [the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule]." See also Florida Nursing Home Association v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR at 667 ("The Emergency Rule simply carries out the reductions ordered by the Administration Commission on November 21, 1989"). On January 29, 1990, Gary J. Clarke, Assistant Secretary for Medicaid of the Department, wrote to Nursing Home Administrators, including Petitioners, and stated that the rate freeze was enacted due to a decision made by the Administration Commission: Due to a projected general revenue deficit of $280 million for the State of Florida for fiscal year ending June 30, 1990, the Administration Commission met on November 21, 1989, to determine the appropriate budget reductions for all state programs. In order to reduce the Medicaid budget for its portion of the [DHRS] required reductions, yet avoid gross disruption of services, the Commission required that Medicaid reimbursement rates and ceilings for nursing home providers be frozen at their December 31, 1989 levels, beginning with the new rate Semester on January 1, 1990. . . There are no documents which include a representation contrary to the above quoted portion of the January 29, 1990 letter that the Department enacted the Emergency Rule or Permanent Rule for reasons other than the budgetary cuts ordered by the Administration Commission. The January 29, 1990 letter from the Department also indicated that the length of the rate freeze was indefinite: This policy shall remain in effect until such time that monies are appropriated by the Florida legislature to recalculate new rates and ceilings. Impact of the Emergency Rule and Permanent Rule on the Petitioners. The Petitioners received an inflationary adjustment in their Medicaid per diem rates on July 1, 1989 in accordance with the terms of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. The Petitioners did not receive an inflationary adjustment in their per diem rates which would have been due on January 1, 1990 under the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan for the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990. Instead, Petitioners' rates calculated effective January 1, 1990 used the same cost reports and inflation adjustment that had already been included in their July 1, 1989 rates. (S.F. 36). The fact that the Petitioners did not receive an inflationary adjustment in their per diem rates for the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990, was because the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule eliminated the rate increase provisions of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. Notification to HCFA of the Rate Freeze. On March 30, 1990, HCFA received a letter dated March 22, 1990, from the Secretary of the Department submitting for consideration "a Title XIX state plan amendment to our state plan." (S.F. 20). The Secretary of the Department stated the following in the letter: This amendment TN 90-8 revises the plan by freezing the reimbursement rates and ceilings of all nursing home providers at the rates of reimbursement for services rendered on December 31, 1989. . . . . The assurances required by 42 CFR 447.253 and proof of public notice are attached. Exhibit 9. Attached to the Secretary's March 22, 1990, letter was a letter dated March 29, 1990, which along with State Plan Amendment Transmittal Number ("TN") 90-08 and proof of public notice, constituted all the documentation submitted by the Department to HCFA prior to July 1, 1990 concerning the rate freeze. (S.F. 20). TN 90-08, as submitted by the Department to HCFA on March 29, 1990, proposed to modify the Florida Medicaid Plan, as the Department had provided for in the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule, to eliminate the recalculation of rates, which recalculation would have included an inflationary adjustment for Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990. TN 90-08 proposed to maintain the Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates at the level in effect on December 31, 1989, excluding changes based on licensure rating reclassifications. TN 90-08, as submitted on March 29, 1990, did 12not limit the rate freeze to the period prior to June 30, 1990. (S.F. 21). In the March 29, 1990 letter to HCFA, the Department referenced a telephone survey in which it had compared Florida Medicaid per diem rates to the per diem rates paid to long-term care facilities along the state borders between Florida and Georgia, and Florida and Alabama, under the Georgia and Alabama Medicaid programs. The Department estimated that this telephone survey was performed during the time period December, 1989 through February, 1990. In conducting the Georgia and Alabama telephone survey, the Department did not determine whether Georgia's or Alabama's long-term care facilities per diem rates were reasonable and adequate to cover the costs of efficiently and economically operating Georgia or Alabama facilities, and the Department did not determine whether Georgia or Alabama Medicaid programs covered the same or similar costs as the Florida Medicaid program. A copy of the survey materials was submitted as exhibit 10. Exhibit 10 was not provided to HCFA. (S.F. 22). In the March 29, 1990 letter, the Department referenced an analysis in which it stated that it had compared the increase in an inflationary index from 1989 to 1990 to the increase in the Medicaid rates paid to Florida long-term care facilities from 1989 to 1990. This analysis was performed during the period January, February, or March 1990. These materials were not submitted to HCFA. (S.F.23). The Georgia and Alabama telephone survey, the inflation analysis, and that portion of the data in Exhibit 15 generated prior to March 29, 1990 by the Department relating to Florida long-term care facility historical costs and prospective per diem rates were the only reports, surveys, analyses or studies performed by the Department (as of March 29, 1990) to support its assurances to HCFA that its rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990 were reasonable and adequate to cover the costs of efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards. (S.F.23). TN 90-08 was submitted to HCFA during the calendar quarter to which the Florida Medicaid Plan amendment was to be effective. TN 90-08 was reviewed by HCFA and a memorandum dated April 30, 1990, was written and circulated within HCFA concerning the proposed amendment. The memorandum indicates what the proposed amendment proposes, states that the review was conducted in accordance with Federal requirements and lists the assurances the State had given. The memorandum concludes, however, that "[a]fter review of the State's assurances and related information, HCFA does not yet have a reasonable basis upon which to accept the State's assurance that the proposed rates meet the 'reasonable and adequate' statutory standard of section 1902(a)(13)(A) of the Social Security Act " By letter dated May 9, 1990, HCFA notified the Department that: . . . we find that we cannot approve [the Plan amendment] as submitted. We are exercising our rights under section 1915(f) of the Social Security Act to request additional information and clarification as discussed below: . . . . Although HCFA did not deny or reject the Florida Medicaid Plan amendment submitted by the Department in the May 9, 1990, letter, HCFA did indicate that it could not approve the proposed amendment as submitted. It was recognized in the May 9, 1990, HCFA letter, as it was in the April 30, 1990, memorandum that a state may use budgetary considerations as one factor in establishing the rates to be paid providers as long as the rates are reasonable and adequate. It was also recognized in the May 9, 1990, HCFA letter that "the fact that rates in surrounding States are comparable to Florida's rates provides no justification whatsoever that its rates are reasonable and adequate. Rather, the HRS must compare its proposed rates with the costs that Florida facilities must incur in providing care and services." In the May 9, 1990, HCFA letter it is noted that the Department noted in its March 29, 1990, letter that rates are to be recalculated for the period beginning July 1, 1990, but that inconsistent language is included elsewhere in its proposal. Therefore, HCFA recommended that the Plan amendment be revised to limit the freeze to the six month period beginning January 1, 1990. The May 9, 1990, HCFA letter indicates that processing of the amendment would cease until the additional information and clarification were provided to HCFA. It is readily apparent from HCFA's April 30, 1990, memorandum and its letter of May 9, 1990, that HCFA was well aware of the requirements for amending a state Medicaid plan and the requirements that states must meet in setting Medicaid rates. The April 30, 1990, memorandum and the May 9, 1990, letter indicate that the original proposal submitted by the Department did not meet those requirements without further information being provided. HCFA did not, however, reject the Department's proposal or make any determination as to whether the proposed freeze was appropriate. HCFA merely indicated that more information was necessary and gave the Department an opportunity to provide it. On May 20, 1991, the Department submitted a letter to HCFA in response to the May 9, 1990, HCFA letter limiting the rate freeze to the six month period prior to July 1, 1990, and submitted a revised TN 90-08 to HCFA which included this change. Exhibit 18. (S.F. 30). In the May 20, 1991, Department letter the Department also referenced a second inflationary analysis. This inflationary analysis was performed by the Department in March or April, 1991. The inflationary analysis along with data generated by the Department relating to Florida long-term care facility historical costs and prospective per diem rates (exhibit 15) were the only reports, surveys, analyses or studies performed by the Department to support its May 20, 1991 assurances to HCFA that its rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990 were reasonable and adequate to cover the costs of efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable State and Federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards. Exhibit 19 is a true, correct and complete copy of the written materials prepared by the Department in performing the inflationary analysis referenced in the May 20, 1991 letter. These documents were not submitted to HCFA. (S.F. 31). HCFA'S Approval of the Plan Amendment. By letter dated July 2, 1991, HCFA notified the Department that the Florida Medicaid Plan amendment TN 90-08 was approved with an effective date of March 26, 1990. By letter dated September 16, 1991, the Department advised HCFA that, as stated in the March 29, 1990, letter, the originally requested effective date of March 26, 1990, was an inadvertent error. It was pointed out that the correct effective date was January 1, 1990. By letter dated October 3, 1991, HCFA notified the Department that HCFA had approved the amendment to the Florida Medicaid Plan effective January 1, 1990. Elimination of the Rate Freeze. Effective July 1, 1990 the Florida Medicaid Plan was amended to remove the language of the Emergency Rule and Permanent Rule added effective January 1, 1990 which froze rates to their December 31, 1989 level. (S.F. 37). On August 7, 1991, HCFA approved the subsequent amendment, TN 90-13, with an effective date of July 1, 1990. This subsequent Florida Medicaid Plan amendment calculated the July 1, 1990 long-term care facility Medicaid reimbursement rates using the same inflation adjustment which would have been used on July 1, 1990 had the January 1, 1990 amendment never been implemented. No reimbursement relative to the January 1, 1990 amendment, however, was made retroactively to long-term care facilities for the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990. (S.F. 37).
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a license as a Registered Pharmacy Technician should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On May 22, 2008, based on a plea of nolo contendere, Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the offense of Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor, a second-degree felony. She was placed on five years of Sexual Offender Probation. The special conditions of Petitioner’s probation included the following: a. Restitution to the victim in the amount of $425.00; b. No contact with the victim; and c. Attend parenting classes. The standard conditions of Sex Offender Probation were imposed upon Petitioner, including: (a) A mandatory curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.; (b) A prohibition on living within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, park, playground, or other place where children regularly congregate; (c) Participation in a sex offender treatment program; (d) No contact with any children under the age of 18, unless court approved; and (e) A prohibition on working for pay or as a volunteer at any place that children regularly congregate, including but not limited to any school, day care center, park, playground, pet store, library, zoo, theme park or mall. On October 5, 2009, Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as a Registered Pharmacy Technician. On December 9, 2009, the Board voted to deny Petitioner’s application. A Notice of Intent to Deny reflecting the vote was filed on December 31, 2009. Petitioner testified that she has been a pharmacy technician since 1981. There was no evidence presented, however, indicating that Petitioner has been licensed in Florida as a Registered Pharmacy Technician. Petitioner is currently employed by Randolph Margrave, preparing intravenous medications (IVs) and supplies for administering to patients in their homes. She works in a clean room under a hood in an isolated barrier. She has no contact with the public, and she has no contacts with the patients. Although her position does not require Petitioner to review patient records, she has access to patient records. According to her current employer, Petitioner does an excellent job. Prior to her current position, Petitioner worked in a retail pharmacy from 1981 to 1989. From 1989 to 1999 she worked in the pharmacy department of a hospital. Petitioner’s current employment does not require her to have contact with the public. Petitioner described the circumstances that led to her arrest and subsequent conviction. She testified that she performed oral sex on her daughter’s seventeen-year-old boyfriend. In her testimony, Petitioner stated: My daughter’s boyfriend was very abusive. We got a restraining order against him, and they only granted it for two weeks, temporary. And he threatened me through her. And as it turned out, I made a bad decision. And it was an oral sex one time and . . . [h]e was 17 years old at the time. Petitioner testified that her daughter’s boyfriend was a very mature 17-year-old. Petitioner further testified: And I thought my daughter’s life was being threatened, and it was like making a deal with the devil. And it was a one-time thing and a very bad thing. In a typical retail pharmacy setting, a pharmacy technician is the first point of contact for patients that drop off or pick-up a prescription. A pharmacy technician in a retail setting gathers the patient’s information, enters it into the computer, prepares the label and counts and pours the medication. Pharmacy technicians have access to personal information of the patients that patronize the pharmacy. This information includes but is not limited to the patient’s name, gender, phone number (including cell number), address, allergy information and prescription medication history. Minors may purchase and pick-up medications from a pharmacy. A licensed Registered Pharmacy Technician may practice at any location without restriction.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Pharmacy enter a final order denying Celeste Donald’s application for licensure as a Registered Pharmacy Technician. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent for overpayments totaling $2,851.19 which Petitioner received from the Florida Medicaid Program during the period May 24, 1999 through January 26, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Agency is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. See Chapter 409, Florida Statutes. Among other responsibilities, the Agency is authorized "to recover overpayments . . . as appropriate . . . ." Section 409.913, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Meji, Inc., d/b/a 7th Avenue Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as "Meji"), was, at all times pertinent to this case, a duly authorized Medicaid provider, having entered into a Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Agency. Meji was assigned Medicaid Provider Number 0165076-00. Meji is also a licensed pharmacy in Florida, having been issued license number PH0016158. As a Medicaid provider, Meji is authorized to dispense drugs and supplies to Medicaid recipients, for which Meji is entitled to reimbursement from the Medicaid Program. In return, Meji has agreed to comply with all governing statutes, rules, and policies, including policies set forth in the Florida Medicaid Prescribed Drug Services Coverage Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook, incorporated by reference into Rule 59G- 4.250(2), Florida Administrative Code. On March 20, 2001, an audit was performed of payments from the Medicaid Program to Meji. On January 24, 2002, a Provisional Agency Audit Report was issued finding that Meji had received $40,062.52 in overpayments from the Medicaid Program and offering Meji an opportunity to respond to the Agency's provisional determination. When Meji failed to respond to the Provisional Agency Audit Report, the Agency issued a Final Agency Audit Report informing Meji that the Agency intended to seek reimbursement of the $40,062.52 in overpayments Meji had received for services provided during the period May 24, 1999 through January 26, 2001. The Final Agency Audit Report was issued March 8, 2002. Meji requested a hearing to contest the Agency's determination and provided documentation not previously provided to the Agency. On March 19, 2003, after reviewing the newly provided documentation, the Agency issued an Amended Final Agency Audit Report in which the Agency informed Meji that it had received overpayments of $2,851.19. In response to this notice, Meji requested a formal administrative hearing by letter dated March 20, 2003. The amount of the overpayments which the Agency seeks to recoup in this proceeding was determined by taking a statistically valid random sample of Meji's submitted Medicaid claims submitted during the audit period. The amount of the overpayments found in the random sample was then extended to the total of Meji's claims for the audit period based upon generally accepted statistical formulas and methods. By failing to respond to the Agency's Request for Admissions, Meji is deemed to have admitted the validity of the statistical formula utilized by the Agency. The Amended Final Agency Audit Report, along with the supporting work papers, were offered and accepted in evidence in this case. The Amended Final Agency Audit Report, in an attached Pharmacy Audit-Final Report, sets out the manner in which the overpayments were calculated. Those calculations are further described in proposed finding of fact P.(1) through (6) of the Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order and Incorporated Closing Argument. Those findings are hereby accepted and incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. The Amended Final Agency Audit Report and supporting work papers admitted in evidence in this case show that Meji received overpayments in the amount of $2,851.19. No evidence to the contrary was offered by Meji. The Agency incurred costs during the investigation of this matter. The amount of those costs was not known at the time the final hearing was conducted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Meji's to repay the Agency the principal amount of $2,851.19 plus interest as provided in Section 409.913, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 15th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Debora A. Fridie, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sola Gafaru, President Meji, Inc. 14812 Northwest 7th Avenue Miami, Florida 33168 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Alberto Calil was the owner of Farmacia La Familia, the holder of a permit to operate a pharmacy under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued permit number 0007056. At all times material hereto, Respondent Hildelisa M. Hernandez has been licensed as a pharmacist under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0016352. At all times material hereto, Hernandez has been the managing pharmacist at Farmacia La Familia and, specifically, has been the only pharmacist employed there. Prior to the events alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein, Respondent Nelson Torres had an ownership interest in Farmacia La Familia. In February 1982, he transferred his interest in the business, and his shares of stock in the corporation owning the business, to Respondent Calil. At the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Torres did not own or operate a pharmacy. The Miami office of the Department of Professional Regulation received an anonymous letter advising, essentially, that a number of pharmacies were being operated other than in compliance with the law. Georgina Auspitz, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, was instructed by her supervisor to visit each of the pharmacies named in that letter to investigate the allegation. On Friday, March 26, 1982, Auspitz entered the Farmacia La Familia. After a brief conversation with Respondent Hernandez and a customer of the pharmacy, Auspitz asked Hernandez for three dollars' worth of Tranxene 3.75 mg. Hernandez went into the dispensary part of the pharmacy and returned with a manila envelope containing 15 capsules. At no time during this transaction did Auspitz present Hernandez with a prescription. On Monday, March 29, 1982, Auspitz took the envelope and its contents to the Dade County Public Safety Department. A subsequent chemical analysis of the capsules revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as clorazepate, the active ingredient in Tranxene. On April 6, 1982, Auspitz returned to the Farmacia La Familia. She asked Manuel J. Diaz Garcia1 an employee of the pharmacy, for three dollars' worth of Tranxene 7.5 mg. Diaz went into the dispensary part of the pharmacy, had a discussion with an unidentified female, and returned to the main part of the pharmacy to wait on customers. After being advised that the order was ready, Diaz gave Auspitz a manila envelope containing 11 capsules. Auspitz paid Diaz, Diaz placed the money in the cash register, and Auspitz left the pharmacy. At no time during this transaction did Auspitz present to Diaz a prescription. Auspitz took the manila envelope and its contents to the Dade County Public Safety Department. A subsequent chemical analysis of the capsules revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as clorazepate, the active ingredient in Tranxene. After she had made her second "buy" at Farmacia La Familia, Auspitz contacted the City of Miami Police Department to ascertain if one of its narcotics detectives would accompany her on subsequent "buys." As a result of her request, Detective Noel Rojas was assigned to accompany her. On April 8, 1982, Auspitz and Rojas went to the Farmacia La Familia. Crus Caballero, an employee of the pharmacy, approached them. Auspitz told Caballero she wanted three dollars' worth of Ativan, and Rojas told Caballero he wanted five dollars' worth of Valium 5 mg. Caballero wrote something on a scrap piece of paper and went into the dispensary portion of the pharmacy, left the piece of paper, and returned to wait on other customers. Respondent Hernandez came to the door of the dispensary area, "looked over" Auspitz and Rojas, and returned to the dispensary. A few moments later, Caballero brought two manila envelopes to where Auspitz and Rojas were waiting. Although Auspitz had ordered three dollars' worth of Ativan, Caballero only brought her two dollars' worth. After Auspitz agreed to take the smaller quantity, Caballero placed both manila envelopes into one bag, and Auspitz and Rojas paid for their purchases and left the pharmacy. At no time during this transaction did Auspitz or Rojas present Caballero with a prescription. Upon leaving the pharmacy, Auspitz and Rojas separated their purchases. Auspitz took hers to the Dade County Public Safety Department, and Rojas took his to the City of Miami Police Department. The chemical analysis performed on the six tablets purchased by Auspitz revealed the presence of the controlled substance lorazepam, the active ingredient in Ativan. The chemical analysis performed on the 23 tablets purchased by Rojas revealed the presence of the controlled substance diazepam, the active ingredient in Valium. Neither Manuel J. Diaz Garcia nor Crus Caballero is licensed as a pharmacist or registered as a pharmacy intern in the State of Florida.
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 filed against Respondent Nelson Torres with prejudice; finding Respondents Farmacia La Familia, Alberto Calil and Hildelisa M. Hernandez guilty of each and every count in the Administrative Complaints filed against them; and revoking pharmacy permit number 0007056 issued to Respondents Farmacia La Familia and Alberto Calil, and further revoking pharmacist license number 0016352 issued to Respondent Hildelisa M. Hernandez DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1983, 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 5th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Esquire 119 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Raul A. Cossio, Esquire 1900 Coral Way, Suite 404 Miami, Florida 33145 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hinton F. Bevis, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 3230123
The Issue The issue is whether the Agency’s Lowest Charge Rule as identified in the petition filed in this matter is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented as prohibited by section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, AHCA, is the Florida agency responsible for the administration of the Medicaid program in Florida and is the agency responsible for the adoption, implementation and enforcement of the Lowest Charge Rule at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner, LabCorp, provides medical testing and clinical diagnostic services used by hospitals, physicians, and other medical providers to diagnose and treat patients in Florida and nationwide. LabCorp is a Florida Medicaid provider. Quest operates commercial reference laboratories in Florida and nationwide, providing a range of clinical laboratory services to assist health care providers in diagnosing and treating disease and other health conditions. Quest is a Florida Medicaid provider. As Florida Medicaid providers, LabCorp and Quest are subject to the rules adopted by AHCA to administer the Medicaid program in Florida, including the Lowest Charge Rule. The Lowest Charge Rule substantially affects the amounts LabCorp and Quest are entitled to charge and are paid for Medicaid services under chapter 409, Florida Statutes, and the applicable Florida regulations and handbooks. LabCorp and Quest are substantially affected by the Lowest Charge Rule and therefore have standing to seek an administrative determination of its invalidity. This action challenges the validity of the Lowest Charge Rule, which is included in both the first sentence of rule 59G- 5.110(2), and in the Provider General Handbook at page 1-4. 10. Rule 59G-5.110(2), states: Charges for services or goods billed to the Medicaid program shall not exceed the provider’s lowest charge to any other third party payment source for the same or equivalent medical and allied care, goods, or services provided to person [sic] who are not Medicaid recipients. Any services or goods customarily provided free of charge to patients may not be billed to Medicaid when provided to Medicaid recipients. Any payment made by Medicaid for services or goods not furnished in accordance with these provisions is subject to recoupment and the agency may, in such instances, initiate other appropriate administrative or legal action. The Provider General Handbook, adopted pursuant to rule 59G-5.020, repeats the Lowest Charge Rule at page 1-4: What the Provider May Charge for Services The provider’s charges for services billed to Medicaid must not exceed the provider’s lowest charge to any other third party source for the same or equivalent medical and allied care, goods, or services provided to individuals who are not Medicaid recipients.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent is guilty of violating Sections 943.1395(5) and (6) and Section 943.13(7) F.S. and Rule 11B-27.0011(4) (a) F.A.C. so as to subject his certification to discipline by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on March 26, 1976 and holds Certificate No. 02-16273. At all times material hereto, he has been a certified law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. At the request of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) conducted an independent investigation into suspicions and allegations that Respondent, a Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, had knowingly and unlawfully as a public servant requested, solicited, accepted, or agreed to accept pecuniary or other benefits not authorized by law, for performance or non- performance or an act or omission of an act within Respondent's discretion as a law enforcement officer or in violation of his public duty. Specifically, the Sheriff had a tip or a rumor to the effect that the Respondent had failed to enforce Chapter 893, "The Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act," for pecuniary compensation or other benefit and that the Respondent did unlawfully agree, conspire, combine or confederate with Franklin Kaymore and others to commit the crime of "unlawful sale or delivery of, or unlawful possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine" at some unspecified time or times between May 1, 1985 and December 20, 1985. The FDLE investigation was spearheaded by Special Agent Jimmie Collins and focused on Franklin Kaymore, a dealer in narcotics in Palatka, Putnam County. When approached by Collins' confidential informer (CI), Kaymore told the CI to get away from him. Investigator Collins made two cognitive leaps of faith based on this reaction of Kaymore's: First, that Kaymore knew the CI was associated with law enforcement, and second, that Respondent or another "leak" in the Putnam County Sheriff's Department had tipped off Kaymore to the drug investigation and to the CI's true identity as a "narc." However, there is no direct evidence to support either of Collins' inferences. The initial tipster concerning both Kaymore and Respondent as conspiring to sell or deliver drugs and concerning Kaymore paying Respondent not to enforce Florida drug laws was one Waddell Johnson, and Collins conceded that Waddell Johnson had admitted at their initial interview that it had been Respondent who had arrested him and Kaymore had given evidence to convict him or at least had not been prosecuted for Johnson's and Kaymore's joint offense. (See Finding of Fact 9, infra.) Collins further conceded that Waddell Johnson, two members of the Putnam County Sheriff's Office, and Collins' Palatka Police Department contact could have "leaked" information on his investigation as easily or more easily than Respondent. Collins' investigation revealed nothing to involve Respondent with Kaymore's drug dealing money, and Collins never recovered any unlawful contraband or money or specific benefits that could be shown to have flowed from Kaymore to Respondent. Kaymore testified that he actually got his information concerning drug enforcement from some of his own street salesmen of drugs who were doubling as police "snitches." Franklin Kaymore, the admitted drug dealer, now incarcerated on fraud and forgery charges, had been a neighborhood acquaintance of Respondent in Palatka, Florida, for approximately 20 years. Throughout this period of time, Kaymore was one of those community characters without visible steady employment but who always had money to spend or to loan to others. Many people borrowed money from him over the years, including Respondent. For years, Kaymore's employments were transient and unsteady but existed sporadically, and he was known in the community to be a proficient and extraordinarily successful dog track gambler, pool hustler and crap shooter. Presumably, he also collected interest on his various loans. Occasional legitimate jobs in demolition, electronics installation, and migrant labor and in the foregoing borderline activities camouflaged Kaymore's true income sources, but he was also widely rumored to be dealing in illicit drugs. At some point in 1984 or 1985, Kaymore "took up" with Celestine Cross a/k/a Lisa Cross, the Respondent's goddaughter. This brought Kaymore and Respondent into a much closer relationship than before. On one occasion, the Respondent and his wife visited Kaymore because their goddaughter had moved in with him, and in Respondent's presence, Kaymore denied a point-blank question from Respondent's wife as to whether or not he was dealing drugs. By the time in 1985 that the whole of Kaymore's income was derived from drug dealing, he and Respondent's goddaughter were openly living together in a new house, rented from Respondent's cousin. Respondent and his wife helped them move and settle in, and Respondent then often visited in their home. Kaymore testified that he warned his drug customers and street salesmen not to come to his house when they saw the Sheriff's car which Respondent drove or Respondent's wife's car in his driveway; that he "always have had respect for [Respondent about] doing my business" and did his drug sales out of Respondent's sight; and that he often sent potential drug customers to his street operatives just to keep them away from his house. On the other hand, Kaymore assumed that although Respondent never saw money or "boosted," i.e., stolen, goods exchanged to Kaymore for drugs, Respondent "must have known" Kaymore was selling and trading for drugs. Therefore, after he was "busted" in 1986, in his quest for a "deal," Kaymore expressed this latter opinion to law enforcement officers in the course of negotiating his and "Lisa's" plea bargain. In 1985, Respondent had borrowed approximately $300-$400 from Kaymore, and Respondent's wife accepted some dresses as a gift from Kaymore. The details of the loan or its repayment, if any, are not in evidence, but there is also no evidence that Respondent did anything or refrained from doing anything either personally or in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer in order to get the loan from Kaymore. Kaymore had also previously loaned Respondent money before Respondent entered law enforcement and before Kaymore began to deal drugs for a living. Kaymore categorically denied that Respondent ever offered him protection or threatened prosecution in exchange for the loan in 1985. The only inference possible from all the evidence is that the dresses were "boosted" by one of Kaymore's drug customers, were accepted by Kaymore in exchange for drugs, and were then passed off by Kaymore to Respondent's wife because the dresses were not "Lisa's" size. However, there is insufficient credible evidence to show that either Respondent or his wife could be certain of the origin of these dresses. On one occasion, Kaymore bought a stolen cassette player from Waddell Johnson. Kaymore assumed the cassette player was stolen because Johnson delivered it to Kaymore in the original Sears box with all its original paperwork. When Respondent came to Kaymore's house and viewed the cassette player, he told Kaymore that it was stolen and later returned with a detective. After questioning Kaymore, Respondent and the detective impounded the stolen cassette player and told Kaymore he would have to be a witness against Johnson. Apparently, Kaymore admitted he knew the cassette player was stolen, and the detective, not Respondent, made a deal for his testimony against Waddell Johnson. Kaymore was not charged or prosecuted, and he did not have to testify, but there is no evidence Respondent had anything to do with that result. Willie Johnson, a former runner and drug customer of Kaymore's during the period of time material to these proceedings, also was once arrested by Respondent. In Willie Johnson's view, the arrest was "for something I didn't do," and he was in fact released after seven days. Nonetheless, Willie Johnson presented no evidence to clearly show Respondent had knowledge of any drug dealing. According to Johnson, he had bought drugs in Kaymore's house while the Respondent was there, but he did not fear arrest by Respondent since the drug transaction occurred out of Respondent's sight in another part of the house. Elbert Grant knew Kaymore sold "reefer and cocaine" from his house but Respondent was never present when Grant was buying drugs at Kaymore's house, and Grant had no knowledge of whether Respondent ever saw any outside drug transactions. The testimony of Princess Robinson, a convicted felon with a long history of retail theft convictions, was not directed to the charges within the four corners of the Administrative Complaint. It was also not credible. The testimony of Connie Hodges was internally unreasonable and not credible upon the application of simple logic and further was not credible because of Ms. Hodges' clear bias against Respondent due to prior arrests he had participated in either directly or peripherally. The external credibility of Hodges' testimony was utterly destroyed by her observable lack of candor and demeanor on the stand, which demeanor clearly demonstrated Hodges' current substance abuse. Moreover, Hodges, who maintained she is currently "clean", acknowledged that her former drug ingestion had affected her reason and judgment and that her memory as of the date of formal hearing was unclear. The criminal charges filed against Respondent in connection with all events material hereto have been heard before the Circuit Court in Putnam County and have been either dismissed or tried by jury trial with a verdict of "not guilty".
Recommendation Upon 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 13th day November, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE DAVIS, 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 13th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Rosner Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 628 Alachua, Florida 32615 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's license and employment Respondent, Patrick O. Ojo, is now, and was at all times material hereto, licensed as a pharmacist by the State of Florida, having been issued license number PS 0032023. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was under contract with Healthcare Consultants of Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Healthcare Consultants Pharmacy Staffing (Healthcare Consultants) , a corporation engaged in "the business of placing licensed pharmacists on a temporary and permanent basis" with businesses in need of their services. Pursuant to the agreement, Healthcare Consultants would "from time to time during the term of . . . [the] agreement offer [the] pharmacist the right to perform pharmaceutical services at the location of various clients, " which the pharmacist had the option to accept or reject. If accepted, for temporary services provided under the agreement, Healthcare Consultants would pay the pharmacist $25.50 per hour, except for legal holidays when the rate would be $41.25 per hour. Pursuant to a referral from Healthcare Consultants, Respondent accepted a position, on a temporary basis, as pharmacy manager for A & N Discount Pharmacy on June 2, 1997. A & N Discount Pharmacy is a community pharmacy licensed by Petitioner pursuant to Section 465.018, Florida Statutes, and located at 900 Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida. The pharmacy inspection On June 24, 1997, Harold Gluck, a senior pharmacist employed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), entered A & N Discount Pharmacy to conduct a routine community pharmacy inspection. Pertinent to this case, that inspection noted three deficiencies or violations against the pharmacy business, to wit: (1) there was a 2:1 technician to pharmacist ratio, without prior approval of the Board of Pharmacy (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-27.410, Florida Administrative Code); (2) the two technicians were not wearing identification badges ( a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-27.410, Florida Administrative Code); and (3) the prescription department was only open 24 hours per week, as opposed to 40 hours per week (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-28.404, Florida Administrative Code). Mr. Gluck's visual observations are supported by compelling proof, and are credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which dismisses Counts I and IV of the Administrative Complaint; finds Respondent guilty of violating Section 465.016(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with Rule 64B16-27.410, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint; and, which imposes, as a penalty for such violations, the issuance of a letter of guidance. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 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 15th day of September, 1998.
