The Issue Whether Respondent, Casselberry ALF, Inc., d/b/a Eastbrooke Gardens, violated Section 400.28(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A-5.0182, Florida Administrative Code, as cited in the four AHCA Administrative Complaints, based on four consecutive AHCA surveys of Respondent's assisted living facility (ALF), alleging failure to provide care and services appropriate to the needs of its residents. Whether the facts alleged constitute Class I or Class II deficiencies. Whether, if found guilty, a civil penalty in any amount or the imposition of a moratorium is warranted pursuant to the cited statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration. Petitioner is responsible for licensing and regulating adult living facilities pursuant to Section 400.401 et seq., Florida Statutes, and Chapter 58A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is Casselberry ALF, Inc., d/b/a Eastbrooke Gardens, an assisted living facility located at 201 North Sunset Drive, Casselberry, Florida, which is licensed and regulated pursuant to Section 400.401 et seq., Florida Statutes, and Chapter 58A-5, Florida Administrative Code. On June 1, 2001, Petitioner's employee, Vilma Pellot, whose duties include surveying ALFs for compliance with licensure statutes and rules, conducted a survey of Respondent's facility based on an abuse complaint received by Petitioner. That same day, Pellot discussed her findings with the facility administrator, and later prepared AHCA form 3020. In her report, Pellot found that the facility was not in compliance with Rule 58A-5.0182, Florida Administrative Code, which states, in pertinent part: Resident Care Standards. An assisted living facility shall provide care and services appropriate to the needs of residents accepted for admission to the facility. Pellot determined that the standard was not met because "the facility failed to take proactive measures to prevent patient to patient abuse and to minimize potential for falls resulting in injuries." The deficiency was classified as a Class II deficiency and a prospective $2,500 fine was imposed. At hearing, Petitioner did not produce the records that Pellot reviewed, nor did it present the testimony of any of the people with whom Pellot spoke. Other than Pellot's direct observations of the residents' bruises and dressings, the only other direct evidence offered by Petitioner regarding the June 1, 2001 survey was the AHCA form 3020, which Petitioner acknowledged was not being entered for proof of the facts stated therein. Pellot did not print or send the AHCA form 3020 to the facility and she does not know if the facility received the form 3020 when she made a subsequent visit to the facility. On July 16, 2001, Pellot conducted a follow-up visit to Petitioner's facility. She again observed residents with bruises or dressings and reviewed their records. She also observed two residents sleeping in the wrong beds. In addition, Pellot determined that based on an interview and incident reports review, the facility failed to submit to Petitioner a preliminary report of all adverse incidents within one business day after occurrence. Pellot discussed her findings with the new administrator and concluded that there was still patient wandering, resulting in injury, and patient-to-patient abuse. Following her visit, Pellot drafted another AHCA form 3020, finding a continued violation of Rule 58A-5.0182, Florida Administrative Code. The continued deficiencies of June 1, 2001, were upgraded to Class I and a prospective fine of $5,000 imposed. In addition, a Class III deficiency was found for the failure to report adverse incidents within one day. At hearing Petitioner did not introduce the records that Pellot reviewed on her second visit, nor did it present the testimony of any of the people with whom Pellot spoke. Other than Pellot's direct observations of the residents' bruises and dressings and her observation that two residents were in the wrong beds, the only other direct evidence offered by Petitioner regarding the July 17, 2001 survey was the AHCA form 3020, which contained hearsay statements. In regard to the Class III deficiency for failure to report adverse incidents within one day, there was no testimony or records presented by Petitioner to support the allegation set forth in the AHCA form 3020, dated July 16, 2001. Petitioner acknowledged, in its Order of Immediate Moratorium, that an incident report had been submitted regarding a kicking incident involving Resident number 6. Other incidents noted in the AHCA form 3020 did not require incident reports because they did not meet the definition of "major incident" as defined by rule. Following the surveys on June 1, 2001, and July 17, 2001, Petitioner made an administrative determination that "conditions in the facility present an immediate or direct threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents . . ." and issued an Order of Immediate Moratorium against Respondent's ALF. Respondent was not permitted to admit any new residents until the moratorium was lifted. On August 8, 2001, another follow-up survey to the ALF was made, and Pellot observed bruises on residents and one resident wandering into another resident's room. Another AHCA form 3020 was prepared finding a continued violation of the rule. The continued deficiencies of June 16, 2001, were classified as Class I and a prospective fine of $5,000 imposed. In addition, a Class III extended congregate care (ECC) deficiency was found for the alleged violation of not admitting a resident who required ECC services, total help with activities of daily living (ADL), or discharging her. At hearing, Petitioner did not produce the records reviewed by Pellot, nor did it present any of the people with whom she allegedly spoke. Other than Pellot's direct observations of the residents' bruises and dressings and her observation of a resident wandering into another resident's room, the only other direct evidence offered by Petitioner regarding the August 8, 2001 survey was the AHCA form 3020, which contained hearsay statements. On August 17, 2001, another follow-up survey of the ALF was conducted, and bruises on residents were observed and a band-aid was seen on one resident. Another AHCA form 3020 was prepared, finding a continued violation of the rules. The continued deficiencies were classified as Class I and a prospective fine of $5,000 imposed. In addition, the Class III ECC deficiency previously determined in the August 8, 2001 survey was found to have been corrected. At hearing, Petitioner did not produce the records reviewed by Pellot, nor did it present any of the people with whom she spoke. Other than Pellot's direct observations of the residents' bruises and dressings, the only other direct evidence offered by Petitioner regarding the August 17, 2001 survey was the AHCA form 3020, which contained hearsay statements. Pellot returned to the facility on September 27, 2001, for a monitoring visit and on September 28, 2001, for a follow- up survey. At that time she concluded that the alleged deficiencies had been corrected and recommended that the moratorium be lifted. Petitioner recognizes that ALF residents do fall. The rule does not require that a facility be "fall free." There is no rule or regulation concerning falls, and there are no guidelines set forth in AHCA complaint investigation guidelines. Lois Bosworth, a certified gerontological nurse, is Director of Operations for Homestead Health Management Group which operates Respondent's ALF. Homestead Health Management Group operates nine ALFs in Florida, all of which have ECC licenses. ECC stands for Extended Congregate Care which is a higher level of care than a standard ALF license. All of Respondent's ALF residents are memory impaired to some extent. Most are in their 60s or older, some have early Alzheimer's, others have dementia for other reasons. Because they suffer from dementia, the residents' physical abilities are declining. Some are not ambulatory and use wheelchairs, some are able to use walkers to some degree, most can still feed themselves. In the evening, ALF residents with dementia have to be cued over and over to perform the activities of daily living (ADLs) more often than in the daytime because while they're up during the day, they become very tired and their processes decline. Some residents have the same levels all day, but over the course of weeks, to months, to years, they will decline, needing more hands-on personal services as their disease progresses. ECC has established criteria and retention criteria which Respondent is required to follow. With the dementia clients, it is gauged on their ability to transfer with minimal assistance. They may need help becoming steady because sitting for any length of time makes them unsteady or off balance when they first stand up. Retention criteria is also based on how much cuing a resident needs in feeding themselves. With Alzheimer's patients, it is typical that feeding is one of the last of the physical needs that they can do themselves. When residents are no longer able to ambulate or feed themselves, they are more prone to physical ailments that require nursing home care. If there is a question concerning appropriate placement, Respondent will have the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) CARES team become involved. The CARES team consists of nurses that make the official determination of the appropriate level of care required for a resident. Many times it is necessary to involve the CARES team because the family is reluctant to have their loved one transferred from the ALF to a nursing home. In a facility such as Respondent's where there are many residents with dementia, it is not unusual for the residents to get into confrontations with one another. Often they will shout at each other before they touch each other. Alzheimer residents will sit next to each other touching each other, shoulder to shoulder, knee to knee. They'll even hold hands walking down the hallway. There are other times they need to have the comfort of someone touching them. But they have periods of time when they don't want people touching them at all and for no apparent reason. Of the residents identified in the June 6, 2001 survey, Resident number 1 was ambulatory. She would wander at night time up until midnight before she would settle down and go to sleep. This is typical Alzheimer's type activity. She was a lady who had very large bags under her eyes constituting soft tissue which can continue to bleed from a bruising into both eyes. Such an injury is typical of people with glasses, or people who get hit over the bridge of the nose, making it quite common to have two black eyes with one injury. A small bruise over the eye one day may be extremely massive the next because there will be continued leaking of blood under the skin and the tissues that cause the bruise. This resident was allegedly struck by another resident who was not known to be aggressive, but did not recognize people all the time. One of the defenses that Alzheimer's people have, if they can't process the thought and recognize someone, is to make someone the bad person because they don't remember what happened. Often they will respond verbally ordering the person to go away, even though the person may be a roommate. In the earlier stages of Alzheimer's, a person may recognize that he or she is forgetting things and have a tendency on some occasions to be more resistant, not necessarily aggressive. The resident who allegedly struck Resident number 1 was not known to be aggressive to other residents, even after this alleged incident. The alleged incident could not have been foreseen. Resident number 2 in the June 1, 2001 survey was receiving therapy for her falls. There was a recommendation that a different wheelchair with a seat which slightly tilts back be tried. After the June 1, 2001 survey, this resident was placed in a nursing home which could use restraints in a wheelchair. Resident number 5 in the June 1, 2001 survey would sit on the side of the bed to put her slippers on. She would pitch forward because she was short and the bed was too tall for her to sit on. Her mattress was placed on the floor to alleviate the problem which was resolved. Resident number 5 had a tendency to bruise easily. It was determined that she had a bleeding disorder, so that even a slight bump would cause her skin to bruise. She continued to have skin tears and bruising following June 1, 2001, which required her to go to the emergency room. When she returned her skin tear had not healed and she had very massive bruising from use of an IV in the emergency room. The patient eventually went back to the hospital and did not return to the facility. Resident number 4 in the June 1, 2001 survey was the resident who allegedly had an altercation with Resident number 1. She had no other problems such as this. Resident number 4 apparently alleged that Resident number 1 came into her room and grabbed her arm. Then she hit that resident for coming into her room, to defend herself. This is the only event that occurred with this resident. A person with dementia is usually not credible. It is not uncommon for people with dementia to blame something that happened to them on someone else. Due to memory impairment, they do not want people to think that something is wrong with them, so they blame someone else for something that happened to them. The material available, publications and educational offerings for Alzheimer's encourage allowances for wandering for Alzheimer's clients, because it is part of the disease process and part of their need. They are not able to sit quietly; in fact, the literature states that it's important that they be permitted to wander. At Respondent's ALF wandering is allowed throughout the facility, which is open. Respondent is barrier- free to permit the wandering, allowing a resident to pace up and down the hallways or common areas. The option to participate in activities is always the right of the resident. Alzheimer's clients can't always make that decision, and so they're encouraged to participate in activities to keep them distracted to a degree. They cannot be forced to participate if they choose to continue to walk up and down the halls. Respondent tries various techniques to deter wandering into the wrong room, from posting photographs on residents' doors to decorating rooms with personal items. Respondent tries hard to keep the residents in common areas when they wander and tries to keep doors to residents' rooms closed. But wandering is still a problem with Alzheimer's residents. There are no publications on how to prevent falls. Falls can be minimized in number and by the severity of injuries. The facility needs to be able to provide what the resident needs; if that means they need to go barefoot, then they should be allowed to go barefoot without neglect being alleged. While Respondent cannot prevent falls, it tries to minimize them by providing appropriate care and services to meet the residents' needs within the standards set by the state. Respondent has a procedure in place to minimize falls. Fall assessments were done by the therapy department. When someone had a first fall, therapy would do a screening and assessment to see if they had a need for therapy services to increase their functionality of ambulating. The administrative staff would also review the circumstances of the fall to see if it was preventable or non-preventable. The resident would be evaluated to determine if there was a medical condition that had arisen that was contributing to the fall. There would be a general assessment of the different environmental issues as well as clinical issues. The resident would be watched for any possible decline. Resident number 3 in the June 1, 2001 survey is a tall gentleman who walks around with a stuffed dog. He is friendly and takes direction easily. He is not aggressive, and he does not have a tendency to walk into other peoples' rooms. Other than the two residents seen napping in other residents' beds, the incidents cited in the July 16, 2001 survey, which led to the issuance of a repeat citation and a moratorium, consisted of the actions of one resident identified in that survey as Resident number 6. Resident number 6 was a 48-year-old lady who was brought to Respondent by DCF through an emergency placement under a court order to place her in an ALF for supervision of her care needs. She was a younger resident than normal for the facility because she had a diagnosis of Huntington's Chorea, which is a type of dementia which does not progress as quickly as Alzheimer's but strikes adults earlier in life. Respondent has an agreement with DCF which provides for emergency placements for persons who do not need to go into nursing homes, for those with memory impairment, including after-hour placement, and weekend placement. Respondent does not require that DCF bring with them a medical assessment. Regulations allow Respondent to have one completed within 30 days following the emergency placement. Resident number 6 was at a table and another resident reached for her purse. Resident number 6 picked up a cup of coffee that was sitting on the table and threw the coffee on the other resident's lap. The other resident involved was not injured because the coffee served was not hot coffee. Resident number 6 came to the facility in early June 2001. The coffee incident occurred on June 30th and was the first indication that there might be a problem. Respondent did not interpret the action of Resident number 6 to mean that Resident number 6 was going to hurt anyone. Resident number 6 did not come with a history of hurting anyone, and there was no documentation that she had tried to hurt anyone in the past. She calmed down after the incident and didn't seem to be a problem. Resident number 6 was quite settled in and was doing well. This was a DCF placement to see how she did and whether or not she would be able to return home or go to a different living arrangement. On July 11, 2001, the survey indicated that Resident number 6 had an altercation with Resident number 1 over a cigarette lighter and pushed him down and kicked him, requiring him to be admitted to the hospital with a fractured hip. On July 14, 2001, Resident number 6 allegedly grabbed the arm of Resident number 3 who was in her room and created a skin tear to Resident number 3 as she was pulling her down the hall to the nursing station. During the July 16, 2001 survey, Respondent was directed to remove Resident number 6 immediately from the facility. DCF declined to help. Respondent placed Resident number 6 on one-to-one supervision until the next day when DCF refused to remove her. Respondent could not Baker Act Resident number 6 to a mental facility because she did not meet the criteria. Respondent was finally able to get Resident number 6 to agree to a voluntary psychiatric placement. Resident number 4, a 98-year-old female, identified in the August 8, 2001 survey, apparently had been found on the floor of her room in April with no injuries. She appeared to fall because she was trying to dress herself and the blanket got wrapped up in her legs. In June, she fell into the soda machine with no injuries. And then on July 18th and 20th she fell in the evening. Evening is when some Alzheimer's residents have what is called "sundown syndrome," simply meaning that as the sun sets, they have become so tired they've exhausted all their physical resources and will have a decline. Resident number 4 was receiving physical therapy to keep her ambulating at the highest level possible. She reached her highest potential in therapy because she couldn't remember safety factors that she was taught. The purpose of physical therapy was to help Resident number 4 in her ability to ambulate and minimize her falls. The only way to actually prevent her from falling was to restrain her, which is not permitted at an ALF. On August 1st, Resident number 4 aparently stood up from a bench that was in the hallway and literally ran down the hallway, running to the point that a therapist and the nursing assistant could not catch her. Resident number 4 only stopped because she fell forward and hit her nose on the floor. She was in a dementia state, and did not reach her hands out to catch herself. There was no way anyone could have prevented such an accident, especially since Resident number 4 did not take off running all the time and she was under direct supervision when this happened. Resident number 3 in the August 8, 2001 survey, apparently fell in the TV room and the corner of her chin hit the table. While the injury did cause a massive bruise on her chest, there was no way of knowing the fall would occur since the resident did not have a history of falls. Resident number 6 identified in the August 8, 2001 survey, was non-verbal. During the survey she followed the staff and held hands with a staffer. She is a person who was always reaching for someone. She had a habit of patting another resident on the head, but she was not aggressive. She merely liked to touch, kiss, hold hands, or hug people. Respondent tried to keep her hands busy by giving her something to hold but that did not stop her need to touch people. During the surveyor's tour of the facility on August 8, 2001, a resident mistakenly walked up to a room and asked if it was hers. She was redirected before she entered the room. The resident who claimed to be missing glasses and spools of thread has a mild dementia. She was wearing glasses and the facility supplied her with spools of thread when she ran out. Resident number 2, in the August 17, 2001 survey, was totally ambulatory and did not have a history of falling. She was steady but very confused. She was walking to dinner in the dining room in an open area, no barriers, and apparently when she made a step, she stepped on the shoe of her other foot and fell down, striking her head on the piano. She had a tendency when she sat down to constantly shake her leg or cross her legs back and forth. She was in continuous motion, which is not unusual with Alzheimer's type of dementia. Apparently when she first came back from the hospital, she was able to stand up, help herself to bed with some assistance. Through the night she was having more difficulty and returned to the emergency room where they discovered that she in fact had a fractured hip from the fall. Resident number 1, in the August 17, 2001 survey, was approximately 97 years old, very frail and very thin. He had a recent diagnosis of cancer that was a progressive non-Hodgkins type lymphoma. He had good days and he had bad days, as far as his physical health, which is typical of the disease process. He also had confusion from memory impairment disorder that may or may not have been Alzheimer's. There were days when Resident number 1 could walk using a cane, on other days he could walk with a walker, and there were days when he was so tired he used a wheelchair. With his demented state he wasn't always sure which appliance to use for the day and had to be reminded. Resident number 1 was a smoker, so he would go out on the patio frequently. Sometimes he would reach for things and, being frail, would fall. He was in end stage with his cancerous process and one of his goals was to stay out of a nursing home. Resident number 1 did have a series of falls which created skin tears because his skin was very thin, but nothing that was more of a serious nature than that, and he was adamant that he stay at the ALF. He was able to be maintained at Respondent's ALF and did not have any fractures while he was there. Toward the end of his life, he determined that he did not want to be involved with the hospice group that came to visit. He did eventually go to a different level of care. Resident number 3, identified in the August 17, 2001 survey, fell in the shower when she was being assisted in May of 2001. She apparently fell and hit the back of her head on a shower stall, but she was receiving assistance at the time. This was an unusual occurrence, Resident number 3 was not a resident who fell frequently or had a great history of falls. On August 12 the survey notes that she had redness under both her eyes and a cut or scratch on her nose. This was another resident who had very large bags under her eyes and rubbed her eyes frequently. There was no documentation that this resident had received an injury or a fall that would create this redness around her eyes or the yellowish, purplish hematomas. There was no indication that this resident had had a fall and she was not prone to falls. Resident number 6, identified in the August 17, 2001 survey, was a resident who was required to wear shoes because it is considered inappropriate for our elders to walk around barefoot. She would take her shoes off frequently. When she did wear them, she had a difficult time picking her feet up high enough to walk without someone with her. Resident number 6 apparently tripped with no apparent injuries, but later that day her right hand showed bruising and swelling. There was no indication as to the cause of the swelling and an X-ray indicated no fracture. Resident number 6 apparently tripped again while walking, tried to catch herself and held onto a chair; she had a skin tear on her shin. Resident number 6 although ambulatory, would often catch herself from falling. Resident number 4, identified in the August 17, 2001 survey, scratched his arm because he has dry skin. It began bleeding and an aide administered a bandage. There was no need for documentation. The facts alleged in the four surveys at issue do not indicate any conditions or occurrences relating to the operation and maintenance of this facility, or the personal care of the residents which directly threatened the physical or emotional health, safety or security of the facility residents. At no time during any of her surveys that are at issue in this proceeding did Pellot find Respondent's ALF to be short-staffed. The facts alleged in the four surveys at issue do not indicate any conditions or occurrences relating to the operation and maintenance of the facility or the personal care of the residents which would have been an imminent danger to the residents or guests of the facility, or a substantial probability that death or serious physical or emotional harm could result therefrom. Respondent was providing appropriate care for the needs of the residents that were identified in the statements of deficiencies at issue in this proceeding. None of the patients who were involved in these incidents cited in the four surveys had the mental capacity to form a willful intent to harm someone. Nor could the patient's actions be interpreted, under the facts, to be anything more than defensive reactions or touching incidents of persons with mental impairments. The relevant facts showed that Respondent took appropriate steps to address wandering problems and protect residents in its facility. The events surrounding Resident number 6, in the July 16 survey were an anomaly and could not have been foreseen by the staff at the facility. Respondent had a right to rely on the assertion by DCF that Resident number 6 was appropriate for placement in an ALF. The incident with the coffee was not significant enough to precipitate the resident's removal from the facility. When it became apparent that the resident was aggressive at times, Respondent took appropriate steps to have her placed elsewhere. In addition, this isolated incident was not similar to those for which Respondent was cited in the first survey of June 1, 2001. This was a problem created by a particular patient and not incidents of falls or wandering. As such, it should not have triggered a repeat offense nor a moratorium. The evidence produced by Petitioner was primarily hearsay in nature without corroboration. Respondent presented none of the patients, staff or other witness to the incidents referred to, and none of the records referred to or relied on by the surveyor were produced. Under these circumstances, Petitioner failed to meet its burden to produce clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Petitioner's form 3020s, the Administrative Complaints, or the Order of Immediate Moratorium. Respondent's witness was credible and its explanation surrounding each incident was plausible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order determining that: The deficiencies in the AHCA form 3020s are unfounded and must be withdrawn; The Administrative Complaints be dismissed against Respondent; and The Order of Immediate Moratorium be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell & Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 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 3rd day of September, 2002. Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Suite 310-G St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether prison inmates' television viewing privileges are a legal interest of which the Administrative Procedure Act takes cognizance?
Findings Of Fact Until the memorandum and institutional operating pro- cedure here challenged were implemented, petitioners and other inmates at Union Correctional Institution were permitted (when not required to be doing something else) to watch television in common areas between three o'clock and eleven o'clock weekday evenings, and on holidays, between eight o'clock in the morning and two or three o'clock the following morning. After somebody donated equipment for cable television at Union Correctional Institution, and after inmates, including Lionel E. Chase, had installed the cable, James D. Stephens, recreation director at Union Correctional Institution, met with six other members of a committee which included Colonel D. E. Jackson, Jim Reddish, Assistant Superintendent for Prisoners, Lieutenant Rothman (phonetic) and an inmate representative who had no say in developing policy. As a result of the meeting, a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, was addressed to the inmate population, stating: T.V. programs including sporting events beginning at 10:00 p.m. or before, shall be viewed to completion. Any program starting after 10:00 p.m. shall be terminated at 11:30 p.m., unless authorized in advance by the T.V. Policy Committee. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3. Earlier, on January 3, 1984, Superintendent Massey signed Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 83-30, "Institutional T.V. Policy" (IOP 83- 30) Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. This document specified "selection and viewing procedures....[for] each respective housing area." With respect to every housing area in Union Correctional Institution, IOP 83-30 provides: On Monday through Friday, sets will be turned on at 3:00 P.M.; on weekends and holidays, sets will be turned on at 8:00 A.M. All t.v.'s shall be turned off exactly at 11:30 P.M. Sports programming and special events that air past the time limit shall be viewed to completion. IOP 83-30.5(D)(4). Although signed by Superintendent Massey on January 3, 1984, IOP 83-30 is dated December 30, 1983. The memorandum and IOP 83-30.5(D)(4) have been enforced against petitioners. In enforcing the new policy, correctional staff have not only turned the television sets off earlier on weekends, they have also closed the dayrooms earlier. The guards now padlock the dayroom doors when they turn off the television sets. In the past, the dayrooms remained open even after television viewing stopped, and inmates were allowed to read, paint, write letters and so forth. The inmates filed a grievance petition protesting this change in practice. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1. Rule Rationale Before installation of the cable, inmates had a choice of two or three programs, but they now have a much wider choice, at least when the cable is in good repair. A person or persons unknown have slashed the cable some half dozen times. There are inmates who believe the guards, some of whom reportedly do not feel inmates should watch television at all, have sabotaged the cable. According to some prison officials, it is the inmates who have slashed the cables, which, they say, is an indication of how high feeling runs between the inmate faction that prefers sports programs and the faction that does not. In any event, according to respondent's witnesses, it was for fear of inmates' quarrelling in choosing among the larger number of options cable television has brought that viewing hours on weekends and holidays were shortened. This does not, of course, explain why they were lengthened on weekdays. Nor was there any evidence that the greater range of television programs has caused any dissension among the inmates. The hearing officer has had the benefit of the parties' posthearing submissions, including petitioners' proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and final order. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, subordinate or cumulative.
The Issue This case arises out of a challenge by the Petitioners to the validity of Rule 33-3.02(6), Florida Administrative Code; Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13, and Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-82. The Petitioners specifically challenge the validity of those portions of the above- provisions relating to the issue of clothing to the inmates. At the final hearing, Petitioners, Joseph Redman, Nyadzi D. Rufu and Jimmy L. Rogers, testified on their own behalf and also called as witnesses Charles Connors and Paul Gunning. Petitioners offered and had admitted into evidence five exhibits. Respondents called no witnesses and offered no exhibits into evidence. The Petitioner S. B. Ridley, did not appear at the formal hearing. The Hearing Officer was informed by one of the other Petitioners at the formal hearing that Mr. Ridley had been transferred to Polk Correctional Institution. Mr. Ridley was given due notice of the hearing held on February 17, 1984, and has filed no pleading or motion with the undersigned Hearing Officer seeking either a continuance or other relief. The Petitioners and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Joseph Redman, Nyadzi D. Rufu and Jimmy L. Rogers are inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, Florida. On November 5, 1982, as Petitioner Rogers was being released from disciplinary confinement, he entered the laundry to obtain another pair of state issued pants, socks and underwear. The name tag was coming off of his jacket and because of this it was confiscated. He asked for another jacket and was told he could not be issued one. He was eventually issued another jacket which was also confiscated. For a period of time, Petitioner Rogers had no jacket for those times when he was required to walk and be outside in the cold. The laundry manager at Union Correctional Institution is responsible for the issue of all clothing to the prisoners. The manager follows Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 81-82 in issuing clothing an Union Correctional Institution. That operating procedure provides in relevant part: 81-82.1 Purpose This memorandum is published as a guide in the issuance of inmate clothing, and the providing of laundry facilities for the inmate population. 81-82.2 Authority Florida Statutes 945.21, 944.09 section 20.315 Department of Corrections Administrative Rules, Chapter 33-3.02(6). 81-82.3 Clothing Issue Each inmate shall be issued the following clothing items: 3 each Blue Shirts 3 pairs Blue Trousers 1 each Web Belt 1 pair Boxer Shorts 1 pair Socks 1 pair Shoes, High Top. Inmates assigned to the Food Service Departments and Canteens shall be issued one additional suit of clothing because of their having to work on Sundays, enabling them to change clothing daily. 81-82.6 Special Issue Inmate Jackets are issued in October of each year and picked up for storage in April. An inmate may have his jacket laundered on any Friday. Hats, caps, and other special clothing items are issued to the Department Supervisor for distribution to the work squad. The Supervisor is responsible for those items of issue. 81-82.7 Miscellaneous Information The Laundry Manager/Clothing Officer shall maintain a record of the various clothing items issued to each inmate. If clothing issue is abused, either through neglect or by intent, the officer will initiate appropriate action. The official inmate uniform throughout the institution is issue blue shirt and trousers. Inmates assigned to the following areas are issued white shirts and trousers in lieu of the regular blue uniform: Food Service Administration Building Workers Main Gate Workers Utility Man on each Close Supervision Squad (For Identification) Canteen Workers. Each inmate who turns in a jacket (at the end of winter) shall be issued a pair of hemmed walking shorts for wearing on the athletic field or after hours in the housing area. The manager was not aware of and has not utilized Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13, in issuing clothing at Union Correctional Institution. That policy and procedure directive provides in relevant part: AUTHORITY: Section 20.315, 944.09 and 945.21, Florida Statutes Department of Corrections, Administrative Rules, Chapter 33-3.02(6) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Directive is to establish a uniform procedure for issuing inmate clothing and linens. This will enable the Department to control the costs of clothing and linens in a more economical manner. GENERAL: Appropriate internal measures will be taken by each operating location to implement the provisions of this Directive. It is the Department's expressed intent that all inmate clothing be appropriately fitted and suited for the environment and that Departmental facilities provide sufficient laundering facilities to ensure that appropriate health standards are maintained. The clothing and linen will be exchanged on a one for one basis after the initial issue. Should an inmate intentionally damage or destroy his/her uniforms, appropriate action should be taken by the Superintendent to reimburse the State, if possible. It is imperative that the custodial staff be well informed of the provisions of this Directive and any exceptions or deviations from this Policy set forth will have to be approved by the Regional Director. STANDARD CLOTHING ISSUE (MALE): Each male inmate may be issued the items of clothing and linen specified below. The phrase "Maximum Clothing Issue" is used in this Directive to permit the substitution of personal clothing or to permit the issuance of less than maximum quantities where appropriate. Unless otherwise designated, the inmate will not have excess clothing and linens in his possession. Each inmate will be responsible for the clothing and linen issued to him. Maximum Clothing Issue - Blues and Whites Items Quantity Shirts 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post Maximum Clothing Issue - Other Items Items Quantity Undershorts 3 pairs Undershirts/T shirts 3 Socks 2 pairs (changed daily) Belt with Buckle 1 Shoes 1 pair Jacket (winter only) 1 Long underwear (winter only for outside detail) 2 Regions III, IV and V may substitute two sweatshirts for two pairs of long underwear for winter use. E. Clothing - Special Items such as food service linens, coverall's aprons, cooks' caps, gloves, rubber boots, raincoats, athletic uniforms, barber and butcher jackets, straw hats and safety helmets shall be considered tools of the trade and will be issued directly to the department requiring them. The superintendent will, on recommendation and justification by department head, determine what items are to be purchased and issued to inmate. All items issued on a departmental basis that can be appropriately marked shall have the standardized department initials stenciled on the item. It will be the responsibility of the superintendent to establish a laundry schedule for these items. Only those inmates who work outside for eight hours each day are issued long underwear during the winter months. The inmates do not go outside when the temperature is below 40 degrees. The laundry does not issue raincoats to the inmates. The raincoats are under industry inventory and each department can draw raincoats out of that inventory. The raincoats are paid for by the department drawing them out and the work supervisor from that department issues them to the inmates. Raincoats are sold in the canteen at Union Correctional Institution. The laundry stocks long underwear but no longer stocks T-shirts. The laundry does not stock sweatshirts. There are two types of blue uniforms. The laundry issues coveralls to special jobs but no coveralls are issued to inmates personally. It is within the laundry manager's discretion as to when he issues new clothing as opposed to used clothing. It is the laundry manager's responsibility to remain within his budget for the year. T-shirts are not included in the list of clothing issue items in Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 81-82. This may be due in part to budget restrictions. T-shirts are included in the "maximum clothing issue" list in Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13. Practically every inmate in Union Correctional Institution is required to go outside in order to go to work or to school. The inmates must also go outside in order to go to the chow hall or the clinic. The west unit is approximately a 4 or 5 minute walk from the chow hall. Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-82 is signed and issued by the Superintendent of UCI and cites as its authority Florida Statutes 945.21, 944.09, Section 20.315, and Rule 3303.02(6), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent has not contested the fact that the operating procedure was not promulgated in accordance with the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. There was no evidence presented as to the procedures followed in adopting the Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William F. Reid, is currently and has been at all times pertinent to the issues herein, an inmate at UCI, having been committed to the custody of the DOC for an offense committed prior to July 1, 1978. At the time of filing of the Petition, he was in administrative confinement at UCI but, at the time of the hearing, had been released and was not in that status. Petitioner concedes that even during the period of his administrative confinement, he was awarded basic gain time as provided for since he was committed prior to July 1, 1978. However, due to the fact that he was unable to work while in administrative confinement, he did not receive any incentive gain time during that period. Work opportunities for inmates in administrative confinement status are extremely limited. This is because of the security and manpower problems involved in providing adequate supervision of this category of inmate during a work detail. Rule 33-3.081, Florida Administrative Code, allows the placing of an inmate in administrative confinement then disciplinary or criminal charges are pending against him and his presence in the general prison population would present a danger to himself, to others, or to the security and order of the institution. It is also authorized when an investigation is pending and the inmate's presence in the prison population might tend to interfere with that investigation. If, for medical reasons, an inmate's remaining in the prison population would create a health or safety risk, administrative confinement is also authorized. Another reason justifying administrative confinement is when the inmate is alleged to have committed misconduct and there is concern that because of that, his safety is at risk. The rule does not provide any maximum length of time for administrative confinement and the reason for this is that the investigations supporting it are of varying complexity and take differing lengths of time. Petitioner and the other inmates who testified on his behalf all of whom have been in administrative confinement in the past, all denied that they had received the required informal hearing called for under the rule. At best, they were told by the officer placing them in administrative confinement generally why this action was being taken. However, they contend they were never given any opportunity to submit anything to a senior official or a classification officer and they are of the opinion that at no time was there an emergency situation involved. The impression that the inmates have is that a corrections officer can have an inmate confined or released for any reason whether there is adequate justification or basis for the action. Clifford Towbridge has been an inmate at UCI since December, 1983. When he was placed in administrative confinement he was advised of this fact by a corrections officer who told him to pack his things and who put him in administrative confinement status without telling him why. He contends he got no hearing but was ultimately told he was being confined because a confidential informant advised that his life was in danger. Approximately two to three weeks later, he was released when he signed a paper indicating that his life was not in danger. At no time was he told who had made the allegation against him and he was not given a hearing either before confinement or before release. Curtis Mangram had an experience with administrative confinement at his prior incarceration at Belle Glade Correctional Institution. At that time he was given no hearing nor was he brought before a review board. When he left administrative confinement at Belle Glade he was assigned to UCI and remained clean until August 4, 1984 when he was placed in administrative confinement there. It appears that his name was mentioned in connection with the rape of a prisoner and he was placed in administrative confinement for several weeks pending investigation of that incident. One day after his release he was again placed in administrative confinement for possession of contraband wine. He was given no hearing prior to being placed into administrative confinement nor was he initially given a reason for this action. However, he wrote several letters to officials within the DOC to determine why this action was taken. The first response he got indicated he was being placed in for evaluation but regardless of the reason, he is sure he was not given a hearing. On neither occasion of his being placed in administrative confinement, in his opinion, was there any emergency reason for precipitous action. From first hand and from what he has seen and heard, it is his opinion that prisoners are placed in administrative confinement solely on the uncorroborated allegations of other prisoners and when this happens, there is no hearing prior to she placement nor within a timely period thereafter. As was stated previously, the witness was placed in administrative confinement on August 4 and was released on August 28. At that time he was told the reason for him having been placed in administrative confinement (the alleged rape) was resolved. The following day, August 29, he was placed back in administrative confinement and was told by a corrections officer that the action was being taken because Lt. Dixon, an investigator, wanted him back in. Later on, Officer Ward, Dixon's assistant, read him his rights and asked him some questions after which the witness was returned to administrative confinement. The witness admits that he had the wine which he subsequently found out was the basis for his second administrative confinement but he was never punished for the wine nor was he ever charged with the rape. He was in administrative confinement for a total of four months at UCI and had he been punished for the unlawful possession of the wine, it is his opinion he would have been placed in disciplinary confinement for fifteen or thirty days, a period much shorter than the entire period of his administrative confinement. Inmate Edwin Paul has been placed in administrative confinement for investigative reasons twelve or thirteen times during the two and a half years he has been an inmate at UCI. He relates that when he is placed there, the corrections officer comes up to him and tells him to pack his things but never gives him a reason for this action. The response to his inquiry is always that someone will tell him. It is his experience that at UCI, regardless of what the rule requires, no review is done and the inmate is not told anything until he files a grievance. That generally takes approximately ninety days to resolve and during this time, the inmate is in administrative confinement earning no incentive gain time. According to Paul, his requests for information as to the reason for his status are met with various answers such as "you're a menace," "none of your business," or "I don't know." It is his opinion that administrative confinement can be imposed on an inmate at the whim of a correctional officer. He contends that in all of his periods of administrative confinement either no charges were preferred against him, or he was found not guilty of the allegation that was laid, but during all that period, he has not received any gain time that he would have earned had he not been placed in administrative confinement. This has affected his status in that had he not been placed in administrative confinement, his sentence would have been up after forty months confinement. Because of his inability to earn gain time, he is not serving the fiftieth month of his period of confinement. Petitioner was placed in administrative confinement on March 17, 1985. He was not then nor has he since that time been given an informal hearing by a correctional officer, he states. He claims he was placed in administrative confinement by a corrections officer - and was not given an opportunity to sign anything regarding this action. On this occasion he was in for two and a half months. In a prior period of administrative confinement, he claims he was not told why he was there officially. Only through the information given him by a friendly corrections officer two weeks after the fact was he advised why he was incarcerated. Never has a senior corrections officer ever held a hearing with him, he states, nor has he ever been told how long the investigation on which his administrative confinement status is based will take. He has not seen any investigative report nor has he even been given any assistance in finding out the reason for his status. Even a personal interview with the superintendent of UCI has not changed this process, he says. Reid and the other inmates who testified on his behalf all contend that the implementation of the rule regarding administrative confinement creates great stress for them because of, (1) the loss of incentive gain time, (2) the inability to get appropriate exercise, and (3) the impact that the status has on the ability to receive visitors, and all agree that being afforded a hearing or being told why the administrative confinement action was being taken would tend to reduce that stress. Petitioner admitted that he does not have much of a problem with the rule except for the fact that it does not put any time limit on the length of the investigation. His complaint is primarily with the way the rule is followed by UCI. Mr. Tabah, the classification specialist at UCI, related that there is no formal board hearing when inmates are placed in administrative confinement. The inmates' case is reviewed by the chief correctional officer and this review is termed a hearing. This action, however, is itself reviewed by the classification team within 72 hours of the hearing. At the inmates' hearing, a form DC4-318 is prepared by the chief correctional officer on which the reason for the administrative confinement action is listed. The bottom half of this form is subsequently filled out by the classification team during its review as to its concurrence or non-concurrence and the team's recommendation for action. The inmate is given a copy of this review and has an opportunity to make comment thereon. Both the recommendation of the team and the comments of the inmate, if any, are referred to the superintendent. Every inmate in administrative confinement is reviewed weekly. Each inmate is usually advised of the reason for his being placed in administrative confinement either at the time or immediately thereafter. Only in emergency cases can the inmate be placed in administrative confinement without review/hearing by the chief correctional officer. In that case, the hearing is held within forty-eight hours. Review of the files on both Mangram and Towbridge reveal that, as to Towbridge, the inmate was advised by the corrections officer placing him in administrative confinement on February 13, 1985 as to the reason therefor. The chief corrections officer approved the actions of the corrections officer thereafter and the following day, the classification team reviewed the action and furnished the inmate with a copy of their recommendation. As to Mangram, the records reflect that he was placed in administrative confinement on August 18, 1984. An informal hearing was held that same day and the action was reviewed by senior corrections officer Bryant at 4:00 P.M. the same day. Mr. Mangram was retained in administrative confinement because of the belief that the safety of the institution required it. It was felt that Mangram was a potentially violent inmate who posed a clear danger to others. As to Mr. Paul, the file reflects that the two times he was in administrative confinement he was advised of the reasons and given a hearing. As to Petitioner, the record reflects that on January 24, 1985 he was placed in administrative confinement and given the reasons therefor by corrections officer Brown. The reviewing corrections officer supervisor Bryant concurred.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Healey Center was a 198- bed skilled nursing facility operating at 1200 45th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, and was licensed under Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On April 17, 2006, AHCA conducted a complaint survey of Healey Center. AHCA's surveyor was Nina Ashton. At the time of the survey, Healey Center's licensure status was standard. As a result of her survey on April 17, 2007, Ms. Ashton determined that an isolated Class III deficiency had been committed by Healey Center, citing Tag N201, a violation of Section 400.022(1)(l), Florida Statutes, failure to adequately identify residents whose history render them at risk for abusing other residents. Healey Center was given until May 17, 2006, to correct the deficiency. By letter dated May 4, 2006, Healey Center was notified, among other things, that the allegation that Healey Center "failed to properly meet the needs of a resident who acts inappropriately" was confirmed and that Healey Center had to achieve substantial compliance by May 17, 2006. A follow-up survey was conducted on June 12, 2006. By letter dated July 10, 2006, AHCA notified Healey Center, among other things, that the deficiency had been corrected. Subsequently, AHCA determined that the deficiency was an isolated Class II deficiency. By letter dated August 8, 2006, AHCA notified Healey Center, among other things, that its (Healey Center's) license status was being changed to conditional, effective for the period April 17, 2006 through September 30, 2006, attaching the license thereto. Also, by separate letter of the same date, AHCA notified Healey Center, among other things, that its (Healey Center's) license status was being changed to standard, effective for the period June 8, 2006 through September 30, 2006, attaching the license thereto. As a result of AHCA’s determination that an isolated Class II deficiency had been committed, it filed an Administrative Complaint against Healey Center. Ms. Ashton's survey focused on Resident No. 1, involving incidents documented in the Nurses Notes from March 10, 2006 through April 17, 2006. Also, she met with the Director of Nursing (DON), Ingrid Kerindongo, because the administrator of Healey Center was on vacation; with Healey Center's social worker, Jackie Loving; and with the unit manager, Edgar Francois. Further, Ms. Ashton reviewed the medication administration record (MAR). On October 20, 2005, Resident No. 1 was admitted to Healey Center from St. Mary's Medical Center. He was suffering from traumatic brain injury and had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. He was prescribed medication for his bipolar disorder. Resident No. 1 was homeless and had no family members who were willing or able to take care of him. He had resided in an assisted living facility but the facility refused to re-admit him. Resident No. 1 was placed in an all male unit, Held 3 unit, in a semi-private room. Healey Center has two other units, Held 1 and 2 units, wherein both male and female residents are housed. Healey Center was unable to provide Resident No. 1 with 24-hour male nursing staff but used its best efforts to assign male staff to Resident No. 1. Healey Center employs 35- 40 licensed practical nurses (LPNs) of which one is male and 75- 78 certified nursing assistants (CNAs) of which two are male. On or about March 10, 2006, Resident No. 1's behavior began to escalate. Resident No. 1 was involved in numerous incidents with staff wherein he displayed sexually aggressive behavior -- using sexually inappropriate words, making sexually inappropriate propositions, and inappropriately touching them. One particular incident occurred on March 22, 2006, involving a female on the laundry staff. While placing clothes in the closet, she turned around to find Resident No. 1 too close in proximity to her and blocking the exit door with his wheelchair.2 Resident No. 1 indicated to the staff person that he wanted to touch her hands. The staff person managed to exit the room and reported the incident. Resident No. 1 was counseled not to be so close to the staff, not to talk to the staff, and not to make sexual offers to the staff. Further, Resident No. 1's physician and psychiatrist were notified of his behavior. Approximately a week later, on March 30, 2006, Resident No. 1 was acting in an aggressive and threatening manner towards staff, resulting in law enforcement being contacted. He approached a CNA in his wheelchair and was making biting actions at the CNA, acting as if he were going to bite her. Also, Resident No. 1 was being verbally abusive and sexually aggressive towards another staff member, who notified security, who removed Resident No. 1 from the unit and secured him. Law Enforcement was summoned, and the officers determined that the incident did not constitute a crime but was a matter for Healey Center to address. Resident No. 1's physician was notified, who, the night before, had prescribed Zyprexa to address Resident No. 1's escalated aggressive behavior. Furthermore, on March 30, 2006, the physician ordered Ms. Loving, the social worker, to discharge Resident No. 1 to the 45th Mental Health Center. Ms. Loving discussed the discharge with Resident No. 1, and he refused to go to the Mental Health Center. She contacted the Mental Health Center to come to Healey Center to assess Resident No. 1, but the Mental Health Center refused to do so. Resident No. 1 remained at Healey Center. As to the incidents in which Resident No. 1 was verbally abusive, aggressive, and sexually aggressive towards staff, Ms. Ashton determined that Healey Center had addressed the incidents appropriately and used appropriate interventions, where necessary. Additionally, Resident No. 1 became verbally abusive towards other residents. One particular incident occurred on March 15, 2006 and involved his roommate in which Resident No. 1 was upset because his roommate would not turn-off the television. The supervisor was notified and the staff counseled both, Resident No. 1 and his roommate. Afterwards, Resident No. 1 went to sleep in his room. In another incident occurring on March 22, 2006, Resident No. 1 was arguing with another resident in a loud voice and in a threatening manner, using threatening words. The staff talked with Resident No. 1 to determine why he was upset. After determining the reason for Resident No. 1 being upset and calming both residents, the staff counseled Resident No. 1 and the other resident and re-directed them. As to the incidents in which Resident No. 1 was verbally abusive to other residents, and in particular the two incidents previously mentioned, Ms. Ashton determined that Healey Center appropriately addressed the incidents and was effective in resolving them, and that the interventions were effective. Further, Resident No. 1 engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior towards and inappropriate touching of staff. In particular, on April 15, 2006, while answering Resident No. 1's call bell, a CNA found him naked, waiting for her. Also, on April 16, 2006, Resident No. 1 attempted to grab a nurse's buttocks. Furthermore, Resident No. 1 engaged in several incidents involving inappropriate touching of other residents. Two incidents occurred on April 16, 2006, the day before AHCA's survey. One incident involved Resident No. 1 being in another unit, during lunch time, and the staff observing him touching the breast of a female resident, who was ambulating to the dining room, under the pretense of assisting the female resident to the dining room. The supervisor was immediately notified and, upon hearing the notification to the supervisor, Resident No. 1 left the unit. The other incident on April 16, 2006, involved the staff observing Resident No. 1 kissing another resident on the forehead. This incident was also reported. Another incident, involving inappropriate touching of another resident, occurred on April 17, 2007, the day of the survey. Resident No. 1 was observed rubbing the shoulders of another resident, as if massaging the shoulders. The staff advised him not to touch the other residents, and he left. However, he soon returned, rubbing his own shoulders. The staff again advised Resident No. 1 not to touch the other residents at which time he laughed and walked away. This incident was also reported. Resident No. 1 had been refusing to take his medication which was prescribed to control his behavior and included Zyprexa, Seroquel, and Effexor. Numerous entries were made on the MAR indicating his refusal, including March 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and April 11, 12, 13, and 14, 2006. The evidence did not demonstrate that Resident No. 1's Care Plan was not appropriate, was not appropriately revised and did not contain appropriate interventions or that the interventions were not appropriately implemented by Healey Center. Furthermore, the evidence did not demonstrate that the behavior of Resident No. 1 was not addressed in accordance with his Care Plan. Resident No. 1's physician and psychiatrist were kept informed of all the incidents involving staff and other residents and of Resident No. 1's refusal to take his medication. Resident No. 1's psychiatrist discussed with him his refusal to take medication and, at times, obtained compliance and partial compliance. Resident No. 1's Care Plan contained interventions to obtain his compliance to take medication, and Ms. Ashton found the interventions to be appropriate. The evidence demonstrates that a resident has a right to refuse medication and cannot be compelled to take medication. From April 1 through 6, 2006, Resident No. 1 refused to take his medication. On April 6, 2006, the necessary documentation to Baker Act Resident No. 1 was completed by the doctor, and Resident No. 1 was Baker Acted. On April 11, 2006, Resident No. 1 was returned to Healey Center, and he began to take his medication again. On April 17, 2006, the day of the survey, Resident No. 1 had agreed, after having a discussion with the psychologist, to submit himself for assessment at a psychiatric facility for voluntary admission. On the day of the survey, Ms. Ashton informed Healey Center that it should not accept Resident No. 1 back. She was very concerned that his aggressive and sexually inappropriate behavior had escalated and had moved from being directed at the staff to the residents. Ms. Ashton determined and testified at hearing that Healey Center should have discharged Resident No. 1. Her testimony is found to be credible. She also determined and testified that, when Resident No. 1 was Baker Acted on April 6, 2006, Healey Center should not have re-accepted Resident No. 1 but should have discharged him. Her testimony is again found credible. Ms. Ashton testified that she determined that Healey Center had committed an isolated Class III deficiency. Her supervisor, Maryanne Salerni, has final approval for the classifications of deficiencies. Ms. Salerni agreed and testified at hearing that the violation was an isolated Class III deficiency. As to Healey Center committing an isolated Class III deficiency, the testimony of Ms. Ashton and Ms. Salerni is found to be credible. On May 15, 2006, Resident No. 1 was Baker Acted. On May 16, 2006, Resident No. 1 was discharged to a mental health facility. At hearing, Ms. Ashton testified that the deficiency had been corrected by May 17, 2006, because Resident No. 1 had been discharged from Healey Center on May 16, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Health Care District of Palm Beach County, d/b/a Edward J. Healey Rehabilitation and Nursing Center did not commit an isolated Class II deficiency and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 1st day of May, 2007.
The Issue Whether Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l), 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioners, William Van Poyck, Mike Ramadanovic and Kenneth Boudreaux, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioners are subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rules challenged in these cases, Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l), 33-3.0083(9)(i), and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rules"). Petitioner Van Poyck is on death row, which is considered administrative confinement. All exercise privileges for Petitioner Van Poyck have been suspended for almost three years. Petitioner Ramadanovic at the time of the final hearing was in close management confinement. All exercise privileges for Petitioner Ramadanovic have been suspended for almost one year. Petitioner Bourdreaux at the time of the final hearing was in close management confinement. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. The Challenged Rules. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "administrative confinement". Administrative confinement is the removal of an inmate from the general inmate population for one or more specified reasons. Rule 33-3.0081(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (l) Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a 24-hour basis excluding showers and clinic trips may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a 30-day period, an exercise schedule shall be implemented to ensure a minimum of two hours per week of exercise out of doors. Such exercise periods shall be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted. The superintendent or assistant superintendent may restrict exercise for an individual inmate when the inmate continues to pose a serious threat to the safety, security and order of the institution by recent demonstrations of violence, by continuing threats of physical harm, written and spoken, toward staff and other inmates; by involvement in acts which seriously interfere with the staff's daily security functions, or by actions demonstrating an extreme escape risk. Inmates shall be notified in writing of this decision and may appeal through the grievance procedure. The denial of exercise shall be for the shortest length of time to accomplish the goal of safety, security and order within the institution and shall be documented on Form DC4-814. Medical restrictions may also place limitations on the exercise periods. Recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period provided such equipment does not compromise the safety or security of the institution. Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "close management". Close management is the "long-term single cell confinement of an inmate apart from the general inmate population, where the inmate, through his own behavior, has demonstrated an inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of other inmates or disturbing the security, order or operation of the institution." Rule 33-3.0083(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a 24-hour basis, excluding showers and clinic trips, may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a 30-day period, an exercise schedule should be implemented to ensure a minimum of 2 hours per week of exercise outside of cell. Such exercise periods will be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted. Medical restrictions may also place limitations on the exercise periods. Recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period provided such equipment does not threaten the safety or security of the institution. Rule 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "disciplinary confinement". Rule 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (n) Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a twenty- four hour basis (excluding showers and clinic trips) may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a thirty-day period, an exercise schedule should be implemented to ensure a minimum of two hours per week of exercise outside of the cell. Such exercise periods should be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts show that such exercise periods should not be granted. Restrictions may also be placed on the exercise periods by medical staff. The reason for any exercise restrictions shall be documented. Period of Outdoor Exercise. The Challenged Rules all provide that inmates may exercise in their cells and that "a minimum of two hours per week of exercise outside of the cell" should be provided to inmates in administrative confinement, close management and disciplinary confinement. Unless specified otherwise, all references to "inmates" in this Final Order are to an inmate in administrative confinement, close management or disciplinary confinement. At Florida State Prison, non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules are given an opportunity to attend one, two-hour exercise session a week. If an inmate misses a session for medical or attorney "call out", a holiday or inclement weather, the session is not made up. The Challenged Rules do not specifically require that missed sessions be made up. On their face, the Challenged Rules provide that two hours of exercise should be provided without indicating any exceptions. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, is mandatory: two-hours of exercise must be provided each week. The amount of time inmates are allowed to exercise is affected by the budget and staff of the Respondent. Because of lack of funds and staff, the Respondent is not able to provide more exercise time to non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules. At Florida State Prison, a maximum security prison, there are thirteen wings housing inmates. Ten wings house inmates (including four housing inmates on death row) in various types of confinement status. Nine of the ten wings have a separate area, referred to as a "yard", in which inmates may exercise outdoors. There are two correctional officers on duty at each of the yards during the outdoor exercise period for non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules. One sergeant also rotates between the yards. Four to five correctional officers are required to take inmates in and out of the yards. Each inmate must be strip searched, handcuffed with his hands behind his back and then escorted into the yard. Exercise Yards. The Challenged Rules do not specify the size of the area in which outdoor exercise to be provided to inmates. The Challenged Rules also do not specify the number of inmates that may be placed in an area for outdoor exercise. Yards at Florida State Prison consist of a fenced concrete slab. The yards for non-death row inmates are approximately 24' by 33', or 792 square feet. Usually 17 inmates are placed in the yard next to the inmates' wing at a time. The number of inmates in the yard on occasion may be 20 to 25. This is the exception, rather than the rule. Recreational Equipment. The Challenged Rules do not require that recreational equipment be provided to non-death row inmates. Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, provide that recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period if it does not compromise the safety or security of the institution Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, is silent concerning recreational equipment. Recreational equipment is not provided to inmates during exercise at Florida State Prison. Inmates tend to fight over recreational equipment and to abuse it when it is provided. In light of the findings of fact, infra, concerning death row inmates, the evidence failed to prove that the failure to provide non-death row inmates with recreational equipment is arbitrary or capricious. Although there is a rational and reasonable reason for not providing recreational equipment to inmates who have proven to be a disciplinary problem (including some death row inmates) the Respondent is evidently prohibited from withholding recreational equipment for death row inmates by court decree. No such decree applies to non- death row inmates. Yard Suspension. The Challenged Rules provide that exceptions to the provision for outdoor exercise may be made "only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted." Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, contain very similar language. Rules 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, do not specify who may decide who is to be denied exercise in the yard, referred to as being placed on the "yard suspension list", or the specific reasons for placing an inmate on such a list. The various institutions are given discretion to decide who will place an inmate on the yard suspension list and the reasons for such suspensions. Rules 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, also do not specify the procedures for placing an inmate on the yard suspension list, do not require periodic review of the list, do not specify a maximum period of time an inmate may be on the list and do not specify the conditions which must be met for an inmate to be removed from the yard suspension list. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, provides who may restrict exercise, requires that there be a "serious threat to the safety, security and order of the institution by recent demonstrations of violence, by continuing threats of physical harm, written and spoken, toward staff and other inmates" and other acts, requires that inmates be notified in writing and provides that denial of exercise be for the shortest length of time possible. There is a list of inmates at Florida State Prison who have been denied yard exercise. Inmates are placed on the yard suspension list because of security problems similar to those specified in Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, caused by an inmate. The procedure for placing an inmate on the yard suspension list is as follows: The chief security officer recommends that an inmate be placed on the list. The recommendation of the chief security officer is reviewed by a team of senior correctional officers and the superintendent. The superintendent makes the final decision of whether an inmate is placed on the yard suspension list. Any inmate placed on the list is notified in writing and may appeal the decision through the grievance procedure. Chapter 33-29, Florida Administrative Code. The following procedure is followed to determine whether an inmate is removed from the yard suspension list: The list is reviewed monthly by the team of senior correctional officers that recommends the placement of an inmate on the list. If an inmate's behavior demonstrates that he has adapted to the institution and is no longer acting out in such a manner to create a security problem, a recommendation is made to the superintendent to remove the inmate's name from the list. The superintendent makes the final decision of whether an inmate's name is removed. Inmates are placed on the yard suspension list for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the goal of changing the inmate's behavior and to eliminate the threat to security caused by the inmate. Inmates on the yard suspension list are still allowed to exercise in their cells. Although cells are small and exercise is not necessarily easy in the cells, inmates may do elevated push-ups, step-ups, and jog in place. There are at any given time approximately 100 inmates at Florida State Prison on the yard suspension list. Inmates may be kept on the yard suspension list for years. Inmate Jimmy Stephens has been on the yard suspension list since February, 1990, and was previously on the yard suspension list for over fifteen years. Petitioner Van Poyck was placed on the yard suspension list upon his arrival at Florida State Prison on December 28, 1988, and remained on the list until January 7, 1992. Death Row Inmates. Inmates on death row are in administrative confinement and are, therefore, subject to Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Inmates on death row are provided two, two-hour exercise sessions each week. A total of four hours of exercise. If an exercise session is missed by a death-row inmate, the session is made up. The yards provided to death row inmates are larger than the yards provided to non-death row inmates. The yards for death row inmates at Florida State Prison are 71' by 69' (4,899 square feet), 80' by 64' (5,120 square feet), 62' by 91' (5,642 square feet) and 74' by 80' (5,920 square feet). Approximately 24 to 30 death row inmates are placed in the yard next to the inmates' wing at a time. Death row inmates are provided with a variety of recreational equipment. The amount of exercise time, the size of the yards and the amount of recreational equipment provided to death row inmates was agreed to in a consent decree in a federal court proceeding involving the Department of Corrections.
The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked pursuant to Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, as set forth in petition, dated November 8, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert Marshall Stabler holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 306751, Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1981, covering the area of elementary education. He was so licensed on May 9, 1979. (Stipulation.) Respondent was employed in the public schools of Brevard County at Pineda Elementary School, Cocoa, Florida, as a teacher from 1971 to May 1979. Respondent was also employed by Brevard Community College to instruct inmates at the Brevard Correctional Institution at Sharpes, Florida, for several years prior to May 9, 1979. (Testimony of Fisher, Brock, Curtis.) In late April 1979 a correctional officer at the Brevard Correctional Institution received information from a confidential informant, who was an inmate, that Respondent would bring marijuana into the institution on May 9, 1979. On that date, at approximately 6:15 p.m., Respondent entered the correctional facility and was advised by a correctional officer that college instructors were going to be searched that evening. Respondent was asked to submit to such a search and he consented to the same. Respondent was thereupon directed to the nearby "shakedown" room where his briefcase was opened and three packages wrapped in white paper were discovered. At this time, Respondent stated "That's just for my own use." A white envelope containing thirteen five dollar bills was also found in the briefcase. A narcotics officer of the Brevard County Sheriff's Department thereupon weighed and made a standard field test of the material contained in the packages and determined that it was cannabis in excess of 100 grams. The officer then placed Respondent under arrest for introducing contraband upon the grounds of a correctional institution. The packages were thereafter submitted to the Sanford Crime Laboratory for analysis and it was determined that they contained a total of 106.6 grams of cannabis and that two of these packages contained more than five grams of cannabis leaf material. (Testimony of Fisher, Pierce, Steger, Thomas, Boling, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4.) The regulations of the Brevard Correctional Institution authorize a search of visitors which is normally conducted on a random basis. If consent to search is not given, the non-consenting individual is not permitted to enter the institution. (Testimony of Thomas.) Respondent received outstanding teacher performance evaluations at Pineda Elementary School during prior years and is considered by his principal to be an above-average teacher. Another faculty member at the school characterized him as an "excellent" teacher. He excelled in dealing with students with disciplinary problems and had excellent relations with both students and faculty personnel. He was also considered by his supervisor and a fellow instructor to be the most outstanding teacher at the Brevard Correctional Institution who was highly successful in motivating his students. (Testimony of Curtis, Brock, Walker, Weimer, Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1.)
Recommendation That Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of four years. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh Ingram, Administrator Professional Practices Council Room 3, 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. V. Richards, Esquire 1526 South Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida 32780
Findings Of Fact By their petition, as further defined at hearing, petitioners attack the provisions of Baker Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 78-G-13 relating to the requirement that all inmates be clean-shaven; several alleged unwritten enforcement procedures such as tear-gassing or the withholding of food when inmates violate the clean-shaven requirement; and Department Rule 33- 3.02(6), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes the clean-shaven requirement for inmates at all correctional facilities. The parties stipulated that Department Rule 33-3.02(6), invalidated in a prior rule-challenge proceeding, is not in force, and that the Department would not appeal the order invalidating that rule. As to Baker Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 78-0-13, it was agreed that the Department would withdraw, in writing and within a specified time frame, all provisions relating to the clean-shaven requirement. Finally, the Department adamantly denied that the clean-shaven requirement had been enforced by tear-gassing or withholding food from inmates. However, for the purpose of disposing of this case by stipulation, it agreed that no such enforcement procedures would be used to enforce the clean-shaven requirement at Baker Correctional Institution. On November 16, 1983, W. Marion Ellis, Superintendent of Baker Correctional Institution--by written directive--withdrew and ordered deletion of all provisions of Operating Procedure No. 78-0-13 relating to the clean-shaven requirement.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive No. 2.02.13 and Baker Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 78-G-14 are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. This action was initiated by the filing of a petition to determine the invalidity of a rule with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 2, 1983. By order of assignment dated December 12, 1983, the undersigned Hearing Officer was assigned to hold a formal hearing upon the issues raised by the petition. The formal hearing was held in this matter on January 5, 1984. At the formal hearing, the Petitioners called as witnesses W. Ellis, G. L. Martin, and Michael L. Odom. Petitioner Richard Chadock testified on his own behalf. Petitioners offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits and were permitted to file a late filed exhibit which was the most recent copy of the Baker Institutional Operating Procedure No. 78-G-14. The Respondent presented no evidence. Petitioners and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained in this order, they were rejected as not supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are inmates who at the time of hearing were Incarcerated in Baker Correctional Institution, Olustee, Florida. Baker Correctional Institution is a prison facility operated by the Florida Department of Corrections. The Superintendent of Baker Correctional Institution has issued an Institutional Operating Procedure No. 78-G-14, titled, "Inmate Clothing & Laundry Procedures." This operating procedure was originally issued on August 1, 1978, and last revised December 21, 1983. That operating procedure provides in relevant part: III. STANDARD CLOTHING ISSUE D. Winter Clothing Issue Winter clothing will be issued during the period of October 15th through April 15th and will be turned in on April 15th. The maximum amount of winter clothing Is as follows: 1 denim jacket, standard issue for all inmates. 1 gray sweatshirt issued to inmates assigned to the maintenance department and warehouse. 2 suits of thermal weave under- wear to inmates assigned to outside work details. XIII. MEDICAL RELATED CLOTHING NEEDS Inmate clothing related to special medical needs will be issued only upon receipt of a medical prescription issued by the Chief Medical Officer. The authority relied upon by the superintendent in issuing Operating Procedure 78-G-14 is set forth in the reference portion of that operating procedure as: Florida Statutes, Chapter 20.315, 944.09, and 945.21 Department of Corrections Rules, Chapter 33-3.02(6) Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive No. 2.02.13 and 4.07.20, VIII(B) The operating procedure is reviewed annually by the superintendent. The operating procedure was not promulgated as a rule in accordance with the requirements of Florida Statute 120.54. The Department of Corrections has issued a Policy and Procedure Directive No. 2.02.13 titled, "Inmate Clothing and Linen Policy." That directive was issued on January 25, 1979, and revised on January 18, 1983. That directive provides in relevant part: IV. STANDARD CLOTHING ISSUE (MALE): Each male inmate may be issued the items of clothing and linen specified below. The phrase "Maximum Clothing Issue" is used in this Directive to permit the substitution of personal clothing or to permit the issuance of less than maximum quantities where appropriate. Unless otherwise designated, the inmate will not have excess clothing and linens in his possession. Each inmate will be responsible for the clothing end linen issued to him. Maximum Clothing Issue - Blues and Whites ITEMS QUANTITY Shirts 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post Pants 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post Maximum Clothing Issue - Other Items ITEMS QUANTITY Undershorts 3 pairs Undershirts/T shirts 3 Socks 2 pairs (changed daily) Belt with Buckle 1 Shoes 1 pair Jacket (winter only) 1 Long underwear (winter only for outside detail) 2 pairs Regions III, IV and V may substitute two sweatshirts for two pairs of long under- wear for winter use. E. Clothing Special Items such as food service linens, coveralls aprons, cooks' caps, gloves, rubber boots, raincoats, athletic uniforms, barber and butcher jackets, straw hats and safety helmets shall be considered tools of the trade and will be issued directly to the department requiring them. The superintendent will, on recommendation and justification by department head, determine what items are to be purchased and issued to inmate. All items issued on a departmental basis that can be appropriately marked shall have the standardized department initials stenciled on the item. It will be the responsibility of the superintendent to establish a laundry schedule for these items. This policy and procedure directive has not been promulgated as a rule. It is not published in the Florida Administrative Code and does not bear a numerical designation that accords with the rules of the Department of State. Both Operating Procedure 78-G-14 and the Policy and Procedure Directive No. 2.02.13 cite Rule 33-3.02(6), Florida Administrative Code, as one of the authorities authorizing their issuance. That rule provides in relevant part: Inmates shall be issued sufficient clothing, including outer clothing, underwear, socks and shoes. Inmates shall be furnished sufficient clothing during cold weather to insure adequate warmth. Under Rule 33-3.045, Florida Administrative Code, the "Package Permit Form for Male Institutions," form DC3-302M, is incorporated by reference. An inmate may receive a package from someone outside the facility only by obtaining a package permit. The package permit does not allow the prisoner to receive thermal weave underwear. Inmates possessing thermal weave underwear when transferred to Baker Correctional are not allowed to keep them. If it is not inclement weather, inmates are required to go outside from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Inmates do not go out on outside work assignment if the temperature is below 40 degrees or if it is raining. Clothing such as thermal weave underwear and sweatshirts are issued by the laundry. Only those inmates assigned to permanent outside details are issued thermal weave underwear. Inmates assigned to the warehouse and maintenance are issued sweatshirts. No other inmates are issued thermal weave underwear or sweatshirts. Prisoners can receive sweatshirts pursuant to a package permit. Inmates are not issued raincoats. Raincoats can be received by the inmates through a package permit. Prior to a complaint being filed by Petitioner Joe Richardson, the manager of the laundry issued thermal weave underwear to the inmates assigned to the laundry. These individuals are required to go back and forth from the laundry to the dorms throughout the day. The laundry manager considered this an outside detail. After being informed by his supervisor, Mr. Townsend, that this was not considered an outside detail the laundry manager confiscated the thermal weave underwear from the laundry workers. The manager of the laundry is allowed to deviate from the Operating Procedure 78-G-14 only if he first obtains permission from his supervisors. If the medical department states that an inmate is ill and needs additional clothing, the additional clothing such as thermal weave underwear will be issued to the inmate. The superintendent did not recall any instance where additional clothing had been issued under this unwritten policy. Because of the length of the line and the lack of a large enough shelter outside the entrance to the dining hall, inmates are required on occasion to stand in the rain and cold weather outside the dining hall. The dormitories are released at different times in order to avoid this problem. However, this does not totally eliminate the occurrence of long lines waiting outside the dining hall. Petitioners Joe Richardson and Richard Chadock have requested thermal weave underwear because of the cold weather. These requests were denied.
