The Issue In their Prehearing Stipulation the original parties described the background and general nature of the controversy as follows: In January, 1985, HCR filed an application for certificate of need to develop a new 120 bed nursing home in Collier County, Florida. By notice dated June 28, 1985, HRS stated its intention to deny HCR's application. HCR timely filed a request for formal administrative proceeding, and the proceeding was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By application supplement dated May 15, 1986, HCR has reduced this application to a 90-bed new nursing home. The nursing home will provide skilled nursing care to Alzheimer's patients and to patients discharged from hospitals in need of additional intensive nursing care, in addition to the typical nursing home patient. HRS has denied HCR's application because, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code there is insufficient need for the additional nursing home beds proposed by HCR. In the Prehearing Statement the Petitioner described its position as follows: HCR contends that there is an identifiable need for a nursing home in Collier County, Florida, to serve the needs of patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and similar disorders and patients who are discharged from hospitals with a continuing need for a high level of intensive care, often provided through sophisticated technical or mechanical means. Existing nursing homes in Collier County do not offer adequate facilities for such patients and refuse admission to such patients. These patients have experienced an inability to obtain such care in Collier County. HCR's proposed nursing home will provide needed care which is otherwise unavailable and inaccessible in Collier County. The application meets all criteria relevant to approval of a certificate of need. HCR further contends that the nursing home formula shows a need for additional nursing home beds in Collier County. Previously, in circumstances where a need for additional nursing home services has been identified, HRS has approved certificates of need even though the nursing home formula showed a need for zero additional beds or a small number of additional beds. In the Prehearing Statement the Respondent described its position as follows: HRS contends, pursuant to the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, that there is insufficient need in the January, 1988 planning horizon demonstrated for additional nursing home beds in Collier County to warrant approval of a-new nursing home. Therefore, HRS contends that the HCR application should be denied. Further in its original application, HCR did not identify services proposed specially for Alzheimer's disease patients or "sub-acute" patients. HCR did not and has not complied with provision of Chapter 10-5.11(21)(b 10., Florida Administrative Code, regarding mitigated circumstances. The Respondent also identified the following as an issue of fact to be litigated. "HRS contends that it should be determined whether HCR's supplement dated May 15, 1986, is a significant change in scope for which the application was originally submitted." Because of its late intervention into this case, the Intervenor's position is not described in the Prehearing Statement. In general, the Intervenor urges denial of the application on the same grounds as those advanced by the Respondent. The Intervenor did not attempt to become a party to this case until the morning of the second day of the formal hearing. Respondent had no objection to the Petition To Intervene. The original Petitioner objected on the grounds that the effort at intervention was untimely and that the Intervenor was without standing. The objection to intervention was overruled and the Intervenor was granted party status subject to taking the case as it found it. Accordingly, intervention having been granted at the conclusion of the evidentiary presentation of the other parties, the Intervenor was not permitted to call any witnesses or offer any exhibits. Intervenor's participation before the Division of Administrative Hearings was limited to an opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following the hearing a transcript of proceedings was filed on July 8, 1986. Thereafter, all parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders containing proposed findings of fact. Careful consideration has been given to all of the Proposed Recommended Orders in the formulation of this Recommended Order. A specific ruling on all proposed findings of fact proposed by all parties is contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order. The Petitioner also filed an unopposed post-hearing motion requesting that its name be corrected in the style of this case. The motion is granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on admitted facts The parties agree that HCR properly filed a letter of intent and application for certificate of need for a new nursing home to be located in Collier County. The application was reviewed by HRS in the ordinary course of its activities, and HRS initially denied the application. HRS continues to oppose issuance of a CON because (a) there is an insufficient need, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for additional nursing home beds to warrant approval of a new nursing home [Section 381.494(6)(c)1., Florida Statutes]; (b) the long term financial feasibility and economic impact of the proposal is questionable because of low occupancy being experienced by existing nursing homes "Section 381.494(6)(c)9., Florida Statutes]. HRS proposes no other basis for denial of the application. The parties agree that HCR meets all criteria for a certificate of need, with the exception of those two criteria listed in the immediately foregoing paragraph relating to need and financial feasibility/economic impact (relevant to low occupancy), which HRS contends have not been met. The parties agree that HCR would provide good quality care to patients, that the project would be financially feasible if the occupancy projections asserted by HCR were obtained, that the costs and methods of proposed construction are appropriate and reasonable, and that the proposed facility would be adequately available to underserved population groups. The rest of the findings In January 1985, HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to develop a new 120-bed nursing home facility in Collier County, Florida. The original application described a traditional approach to nursing home care. By notice dated June 28, 1985, HRS stated its intention to deny HCR's application. HCR timely filed a request for formal administrative proceedings and this proceeding ensued. By application supplement dated May 15, 1986, HCR made certain changes to its original application. These changes included reducing the size of the proposed nursing home from 120 to go beds and changing the-concept of the nursing home from a traditional nursing home to one specifically designed to address the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients and sub-acute care patients. The supplement specifically provided that 30 of the 90 proposed beds would be "set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alzheimer's or similar disorders." The project description in the original application contained no such provision. HCR's proposed facility would consist of 90 nursing home beds, 30 assisted living beds, and an adult day care facility located adjacent to the nursing home portion of the facility. Those portions of the facility relating to assisted living and adult day care do not require certificate of need review. The estimated cost of the portion of the project which requires certificate of need review is $3.5 million. HCR estimates that approximately 33 1/3 per cent of the patients in the facility will be Medicaid reimbursed. It is proposed that 30 of the 90 nursing home beds be designed and staffed specifically to provide care and treatment necessary to meet the special needs of certain patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and dementia and exhibit need for care different from that found in the typical nursing home. It is proposed that another 30-bed wing be staffed and equipped to provide sub-acute, high-tech services such as ventilator, I.V. therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation and other forms of care more intensive than those commonly found in a nursing home and necessary for the care of patients discharged from hospitals and patients in the last stages of Alzheimer's disease. The remaining 30-bed wing would be devoted to traditional nursing home care. HRS has adopted a rule which establishes a methodology for estimating the numeric need for additional nursing home beds within the Department's districts or subdistricts. This methodology is set out in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. This rule determines historic bed rates and projects those bed rates to a three-year planning horizon. Allocation to a subdistrict such as Collier County is adjusted by existing occupancy in the subdistrict and the subdistrict's percentage of beds in relationship to the total number of beds in the district. Additional beds normally are not authorized if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. HRS calculated need utilizing current population estimates for January 1986 and projected need for the population estimated for January 1988, arriving at a need of approximately 16 additional nursing home beds for the January 1988 planning horizon. HCR projected need to the January 1989 planning horizon and projected a numeric need of approximately 38 additional nursing home beds. There are no applicants for additional nursing home beds in the January 1989 planning horizon (batching cycle). Alzheimer's disease is a primary degenerative disease of the central nervous system which results in a breakdown of the nerve cells in the brain. The disease is progressive, in that it begins subtly, often with forgetfulness or simple personality changes, and ultimately results in death following a phase in which the patient is bedridden and totally dependent upon others for survival. The cause of the disease is not known. The disease is much more common in the older age groups and is very common in the southwest Florida area. (However, nothing in the evidence in this case suggests that Alzheimer's disease is more common in southwest Florida than in other parts of the state.) There is no known cure for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's disease patients are characterized by such symptoms as memory loss, communication problems, difficulty understanding, confusion, disorientation, inability to recognize care givers, waking at night, wandering, inability to socialize appropriately, and incontinence. The progress of the disease can be divided into stages. During the initial stage, the patients will display forgetfulness and subtle personality changes. As the disease progresses, the patients encounter increasing difficulty performing more than simple tasks, tend to be more emotional, become more confused, encounter difficulty with concentration and retaining thoughts, and often display poor judgment and a denial of the significance of their actions. In the next stage, the patients begin to require assistance to survive. Forgetfulness and disorientation increase and wandering patients are often unable to find their way. The patients become incontinent, experience sleep disturbances, become restless at night, and wander during the day, leading to considerable family distraction and difficulties for the care givers. The patients encounter difficulty recognizing family members and often become paranoid and fearful of those family members within the house. violence and aggressive outbursts may occur. Finally, the patients progress to a stage in which they are totally inattentive to their features physical needs, requiring total care. These Patients are totally incontinent, experience frequent falls, develop seizures, and eventually become bedridden, going into a fetal position and becoming totally unable to provide any care for themselves. Traditionally, most nursing homes offer no special programs for patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and mix these patients with other patients in the nursing home. There is no nursing home in Collier County which provides program specifically designed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients. The nearest nursing home where such care can be found is in Venice, some 92 miles from Naples. The total facility proposed by HCR is designed to provide a continum of care for Alzheimer's disease patients and their family care givers. The adult day care portion of the facility would enable family members to place Alzheimer's disease patients in day care for a portion of the day in order for the family care givers to maintain employment, perform normal household chores, and find relief from the extremely demanding task of constantly supervising and caring for an Alzheimer's disease victim. The adult day care portion of the facility would be designed and staffed to provide a therapeutic program for the Alzheimer's disease patient and the patient's family. The assisted living portion of the facility would allow an Alzheimer's disease patient in the early stages of the disease to live in an environment, with his or her spouse if desired, where immediate care and routine supervision at a level lower than that required by a nursing home patient would be provided. Thirty nursing home patient and who do not display those characteristics which are disruptive to non-Alzheimer's patients, such as wandering, combativeness, and incontinence. For those Alzheimer's patients who should not be mixed with other nursing home patients because of their disruptive routines and who require unique programs and facility design features to meet their specific needs, a 30-bed wing would be set aside. Finally, for Alzheimer's patients in the final stages of the disease who require total care and are bedridden, and for patients discharged from local hospitals who require high-tech services, a 30-bed wing designed, staffed and equipped to provide such services would be set aside. The facility would provide a high level of staffing to meet the demanding, personal care needs of Alzheimer's patients and would provide 24-hour nursing supervision in that portion of the facility dedicated to intensive services for the bedridden and high-tech patient. The design and equipment of the proposed facility are particularly addressed to the needs of Alzheimer's disease patients. Physically, the facility would allow patients freedom of movement both inside the facility and in an outside courtyard with porches, but the facility would be sufficiently secure to prevent the patient from wandering away from the facility. There would be amenities such as therapeutic kitchens which would allow patients still able to cook to do so. Fixtures in the facility would be designed so that the Alzheimer's disease patients could easily identify the functions of fixtures such as wastebaskets, toilets, and sinks. Features such as low frequency sound systems, lever door knobs, square instead of round tables, barrier-free doorways, special floor coverings, appropriate labeling, automatic bathroom lighting, and provisions for seating small groups of patients together would all provide the special care required by the Alzheimer's patient. The concept of a separate unit for Alzheimer's disease patients is a new one, growing out of increased medical awareness of the disease. The proposed unit would be a prototype for the Petitioner. There are four nursing homes in Collier County and 413 licensed nursing home beds. There are no approved but unlicensed nursing home beds in Collier County. At the time that HRS initially reviewed the HCR application, Collier County nursing homes were reporting an average occupancy of approximately 70 percent. At the time of the hearing, average occupancy of existing nursing home beds in Collier County was 83.5 per cent. Existing nursing home beds in Collier County are underutilized and there are a number of nursing home beds available to the public. Also there are available alternatives to nursing homes in Collier County. HCR has projected reaching 95 per cent occupancy within one year of opening. This projection seems overly optimistic and unwarranted by prior history, as only one existing facility has an occupancy rate that high. HCR's occupancy projections are based on assumptions that the future growth will be similar to that experienced between 7/1/85 and 12/1/85. But more recent data shows that growth has been decreasing and that there was no growth for the most recent period prior to the hearing. If projected occupancy is not met, projected revenues will not be realized, and projections of financial feasibility will not materialize. The record in this case does not contain evidence of patients' need for nursing home care documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by the staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. The local health plan (Policy 1, priority 4) requires an occupancy level of at least 90 per cent before new nursing homes can be approved. The local health plan (Policy 1, priority 6) also provides, "No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility."
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a Final Order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a certificate of need to construct either its original proposal or its supplemented proposal. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1986.
The Issue The issues under consideration concern the request by Petitioner, Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center (Brookwood) to be granted a certificate of need for dual certification of skilled and immediate care nursing home beds associated with the second review cycle in 1987. See Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1987 Brookwood filed an application with HRS seeking to expand its facility in Graceville, Jackson County, Florida, one with 120 licensed beds and 30 beds approved effective June 12, 1986, to one with 30 additional beds for a total of 180 beds. Beds being sought in this instance were upon dual certification as skilled and intermediate nursing home beds. The nursing home is located in Subdistrict A to District II which is constituted of Gadsden, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. This applicant is associated with Brookwood, Investments, a Georgia corporation qualified to do business and registered in the State of Florida and other states in the southeastern United States. That corporation has as its principal function the development and operation of nursing homes and other forms of residential placement of the elderly. The actual ownership of the applicant nursing home is through a general partnership. Kenneth Gummels is one of two partners who own the facility. The Brookwood group has a number of nursing home facilities which it operates in the southeastern United States. Florida facilities that it operates are found in DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida; Panama City, Bay County, Florida; Chipley, Washington County, Florida; Homestead, Dade County, Florida; Hialeah Gardens, Dade County, Florida, as well as the present applicant's facility. The applicant as to the beds which it now operates, serves Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Administration, private pay and other third party pay patients. The number of Medicaid patients in the 120 licensed beds is well in excess of 90 percent. The ratio of Medicaid patients with the advent of the 30 approved beds was diminished. As to those beds, 75 percent were attributed to Medicaid. If the 30 beds now sought were approved, the projection is for 87 percent private pay and 13 percent Medicaid for those new beds. The nursing home administration feels that the new beds must be vied for under those ratios in order for it to continue to be able to serve a high number of Medicaid patients, an observation which has not been refuted by the Respondent. Nonetheless, if these beds are approved the percentage of Medicaid patients would be reduced to the neighborhood of 80 percent within the facility which compares to the approximately 81 percent experience of Medicaid beds within the district at present and the approximately 88 percent of Medicaid beds within the subdistrict at present. The cost of the addition of the 30 beds in question would be $495,000. Financial feasibility of this project has been stipulated to by the parties assuming that need is found for the addition of those beds. The basic area within the Florida panhandle wherein the applicant facility may be found, together with other facilities in the Florida panhandle is depicted in a map found at page 101 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This map also shows that a second licensed nursing home facility is located in Jackson County in Marianna, Florida, known as Marianna Convalescent Center. The applicant facility is directly below the Alabama-Florida border, immediately south of Dothan, Alabama, a metropolitan community. The significance of the relative location of the applicant's facility to Dothan, Alabama concerns the fact that since 1984 roughly 50 percent of its nursing home patients have been from out-of-state, the majority of those out-of-state patients coming from Alabama. Alabama is a state which has had a moratorium on the approval of new nursing home beds for eight years. The proximity of one of that state's relatively high population areas, Dothan, Alabama, has caused its patients to seek nursing home care in other places such as the subject facility. The applicant has encouraged that arrangement by its business practices. Among the services provided by the nursing home facility are physical therapy, physical examination and treatment, dietary services, laundry, medical records, recreational activity programs and, by the use of third party consultants, occupational and social therapy and barber and beauty services, as well as sub-acute care. The facility is adjacent to the Campbellton-Graceville Hospital in Graceville, Florida. The nursing home was developed sometime in 1978 or 1979 with an original complement of 90 beds expanding to 120 beds around 1983 or 1984. The Chamber of Commerce of Marianna, Florida had held the certificate of need upon the expectation that grant funds might be available to conclude the project. When that did not materialize, the County Commissioners of Jackson County, Florida sought the assistance of Brookwood Investments and that organization took over the development of the 90 beds. The original certificate holder voluntarily terminated and the Brookwood partnership then took over after receiving a certificate of need for Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center. The nursing home in Marianna, Florida which is located about 16 miles from Graceville has 180 beds having undergone a 60 bed expansion several years ago. Concerning the Brookwood organization's nursing home beds in Florida, the Walton County Convalescent Center was a 100 bed facility that expanded to 120 beds at a later date and has received permission to expand by another 32 beds approved in the same review cycle associated with the present applicant. Gulf Coast Convalescent Center in Panama City, is a 120 bed facility of Brookwood. Brookwood also has the Washington County Convalescent Center in Washington County, in particular in Chipley, Florida which has 180 beds. That facility was expanded by 60 beds as licensed in October, 1987 and those additional beds have been occupied by patients. Brookwood has a 120 bed facility in Homestead and a 180 bed facility in Hialeah Gardens. With the exception of its two South Florida facilities in Homestead and Hialeah Gardens, recent acquisitions under joint ownership, the Brookwood group has earned a superior performance rating in its Florida facilities. No attempt has been made by this applicant to utilize the 30 beds which were approved, effective June 12, 1986. Its management prefers to await the outcome in this dispute before determining its next action concerning the 30 approved beds. The applicant asserted that the 30 beds that had been approved would be quickly occupied based upon experience in nursing home facilities within Subdistrict A to District II following the advent of nursing home bed approval. That surmise is much less valuable than the real life experience and does not lend effective support for the grant of the certificate of need in this instance. The waiting list for the 120 licensed beds in the facility has been reduced to five names. This was done in recognition of the fact that there is very limited patient turnover within the facility. Therefore, to maintain a significant number of people on the waiting list would tend to frustrate the sponsors for those patients and social workers who assist in placement if too many names were carried on the waiting list. At the point in time when the hearing was conducted, the facility was not in a position to accept any patients into its 120 licensed facility. This condition of virtually 100 percent occupancy has been present since about 1984 or 1985. The applicant has transfer agreements with Campbellton-Graceville Hospital and with two hospitals in Dothan, Alabama, they are Flower's Hospital and Southeast Alabama Medical Center. The applicant also has a transfer agreement with the Marianna Community Hospital in Marianna, Florida. The referral arrangements with the Alabama hospitals were made by the applicant in recognition of the proximity of those hospitals to the nursing home facility and the belief in the need to conduct its business, which is the provision of nursing home care, without regard for the patient origin. Early on in its history with the nursing home, Brookwood promised and attempted in some fashion to primarily serve the needs of Jackson County, Florida residents, but the explanation of its more recent activities in this regard does not portray any meaningful distinction between service to the Jackson County residents and to those from other places, especially Alabama. This reflects the concern expressed by Kenneth Gummels, owner and principal with the applicant nursing home, who believes that under federal law the nursing home may not discriminate between citizens in Florida and Alabama when considering placement in the nursing home. In this connection, during 1987 the experience within the applicant nursing home was to the effect that for every patient admitted from Florida five Florida patients were turned away. By contrast, to deal with the idea of priority of placing patients some effort was made by Gummels to explain how priority is still given to Jackson County residents in the placement for nursing home care. Again, in the end analysis, there does not seem to be any meaningful difference in approach and this is evidenced by the fact that the level of out-of-state patients in the facility has remained relatively constant after 1984. If there was some meaningful differentiation in the placement of Florida patients and those from out-of-state, one would expect to see a change in the number of patients from out-of-state reflecting a downward trend. As described, historically the experience which Brookwood has had with the facility occupancy rates is one of high utilization except for brief periods of time when additional beds were added at the facility or in the Marianna Nursing Home. At time of the application the primary service area for the applicant was Jackson County with a secondary service area basically described as a 25 mile radius outside of Graceville extending into Alabama and portions of Washington and Holmes Counties. As stated, at present the occupancy rate is as high as it has ever been, essentially 100 percent, with that percentage only decreasing on those occasions where beds come empty based upon transfers between nursing homes or between the nursing home and a hospital or related to the death of a resident. Those vacancies are filled through the waiting list described or through recommendations of physicians who have a referral association with the facility. The patients who are in the facility at the place of consideration of this application were 50 percent from Florida and 50 percent from out-of-state, of which 56 of the 60 out-of-state patients were formerly from Alabama, with one patient being from Ohio and three others from Georgia. More specifically, related to the history of out-of-state patients coming to reside in the nursing home, in 1984 basically 25 percent patients were from Alabama, moving from there into 1985 at 47 percent of the patient population from Alabama, in 1986 50 percent from Alabama, in 1987 48 percent from Alabama and in 1988 the point of consideration of the case at hearing the figure was 47 percent of Alabama patients, of the 50 percent patients described in the preceding paragraph. Of the patients who are in the facility from Florida, the majority of those are believed to be from Jackson County. Those patients who come to Florida from Alabama, by history of placement, seem to be put in the applicant's facility in Graceville as a first choice because it is closest to the Dothan, Alabama area. The next preference appears to be Chipley and the Brookwood nursing home facility in Chipley, and thence to Bonifay and then to other places in the Florida panhandle, in particular Panama City. In the Brookwood-Washington County facility at Chipley, Florida 35 percent of the patients are from Alabama which tends to correspond to the observation that the Alabama placements as they come into Florida are highest in Graceville and decrease in other places. This is further borne out by the experience in the Brookwood-Walton County facility at DeFuniak Springs, Florida which has an Alabama patient percentage of approximately 10 to 12 percent. When the nursing home facilities in Chipley and Bonifay received 60 additional beds each in October, 1987, they began to experience rapid occupancy in those beds as depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at pages 228 through 230. The other facility in Jackson County, namely Jackson County Convalescent Center, within the last six months has shown an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent, thereby being unavailable to attend the needs of additional Jackson County patients who need placement and other patients within the subdistrict. This same basic circumstance has existed in other facilities within Subdistrict A to District II. When the applicant is unable to place patients in its facility it then attempts placement in Chipley, Bonifay, DeFuniak Springs, and Panama City, Florida, and from there to other places as nearby as possible. The proximity of the patient to family members and friends is important for therapeutic reasons in that the more remote the patient placement from family and friends, the more difficult it is for the family and friends to provide support which is a vital part of the therapy. Consequently, this is a significant issue. Notwithstanding problems in achieving a more desirable placement for some patients who must find space in outlying locales, there was no showing of the inability to place a patient who needed nursing home care. Most of the Alabama referrals are Medicaid referrals. Those patient referrals are treated like any other resident within the nursing home related to that payment class for services. Effectively, they are treated in the same way as patients who have come from locations within Florida to reside in the nursing home. Notwithstanding the management choice to delay its use of the 30 approved beds dating from June 12, 1986, which were challenged and which challenge was resolved in the fall, 1987, those beds may not be ignored in terms of their significance. They must be seen as available for patient placement. The fact that the experience in this service area has been such that beds fill up rapidly following construction does not change this reality. This circumstance becomes more significant when realizing that use of the needs formula for the project at issue reveals a surplus of 19 beds in Subdistrict A to District II for the planning horizon associated with July, 1990. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The 19 bed surplus takes into account the 30 approved beds just described. Having recognized the inability to demonstrate need by resort to the formula which is found within the rule's provision referenced in the previous paragraph, the applicant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to a certificate through reference to what it calls "special circumstances." Those circumstances are variously described as: Patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. Lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds. High rate of poverty, Medicaid utilization and occupancy. Jackson County Convalescent Center utilization by out-of- state patients. The applicant in asking for special relief relies upon the recommendation of the Big Bend Health Council, District II in its health plan and the Statewide Health Council remarks, whose suggestions would modify the basis for calculation of need found in the HRS rule with more emphasis being placed on the adjustment for poverty. Those suggestions for health planning are not controlling. The HRS rule takes precedence. Consequently, those suggestions not being available to substitute for the HRS rule, Petitioner is left to demonstrate the "special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" in the context of the HRS rule and Section 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1985). Compliance per se with local and statewide planning ideas is required in the remaining instances where those precepts do not conflict with the HRS rule and statute concerning the need calculations by formula. Turning to the claim for an exception to the rule on need, the first argument is associated with the patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. This would be preferable but is not mandated. On the topic of this second reason for exceptions to the need formula, the matter is not so much a lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds as it is an argument which is to the effect that there are no beds available be they licensed or approved. This theory is not convincing for reasons to be discussed, infra. Next, there is an extremely high rate of poverty in District II. It has the highest rate of poverty in the state. Moreover Subdistrict A to District II has an even greater degree of poverty and this equates to high Medicaid use and contributes to high occupancy. This coincides with the observation by the Big Bend Health Council when it takes issue with the HRS methodology rule concerning recognition of the significance of poverty within the HRS rule and the belief by the local health council that given the high poverty rates in District II some adjustments should be made to the need formula in the HRS rule. Under its theory, 161 additional beds would be needed at the planning horizon for July 1990 in Subdistrict A. Concerning the attempt by the applicant to make this rationalization its own, the record does not reflect reason to defer to the Big Bend Health Council theory as an exception to the normal poverty adjustment set forth in the HRS rule. When the applicant describes the effects of the out-of-state patients, in particularly those from Alabama in what some have described as in-migration, it argues that Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code makes no allowance for those influences. The applicant chooses to describe these beds, the beds used by out-of-state residents, as unavailable or Inaccessible. This concept of inaccessibility is one which departs from the definition of inaccessibility set forth at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. The specific exception to the requirement for compliance with the numeric need methodology in demonstration of a net need is set forth in that reference, and the proof presented did not show entitlement to the benefits of that exception. That leaves the applicant arguing in favor of recognition of its entitlement to a certificate of need premised upon a theory not specifically announced in that reference. This is the in-migration idea. It ties in the basic idea of poverty but does not depend on rigid adherence to the Big Bend Health Council idea of a substitute element in the HRS needs formula related to poverty. It also promotes the significance of problems which a number of physicians, who testified by deposition in this case, observed when attempting to place patients in the subject nursing home and other nursing homes in the surrounding area. They found high occupancy rates in the present facility and others within Subdistrict A to District II. These problems with placement as described by the physicians can have short term adverse effects on the patient and the family members, but they are not sufficient reason to grant the certification. In considering the formula for deriving need as promulgated by HRS, the proof does not seem to suggest that the nursing home residents themselves who came from out-of-state are excluded from the population census for Florida. On the other hand, unlike the situation in Florida in which the population at large is considered in trying to anticipate future nursing home bed needs, it make no assumptions concerning the Alabama population at large. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether this unknown factor, given the history of migration of patients from Alabama into Florida and in particular into the subject nursing home, together with other relevant considerations, may properly form the basis for granting the certificate of need to the applicant. It is concluded that there is a fundamental difference in the situation found within this application compared to other planning areas within Florida which do not have to contend with the level of poverty, the proximity to Alabama and the advent of Alabama placements in this nursing home, the high occupancy rates in the subdistrict and the resulting difficulty in placement of patients near their homes. Posed against this troublesome circumstance is the fact that the applicant has failed to use its 30 approved beds or to make a decision for such use, that it had invited and continues to invite the placement of Alabama residents through the referral arrangements with the two Dothan, Alabama hospitals, realizing that such an arrangement tends to exclude opportunities for Florida residents to some extent, and the recognition that patients are being placed; that is patients are not going without nursing home care. The two Alabama hospitals with whom the applicant has referral agreements provide a substantial number of the patients who are admitted. This recount acknowledges what the ownership considers to be their obligation in law and morally to serve the interest of all patients without regard for their home of origin; however, the thrust of the certificate of need licensing process in Florida is to develop the apparatus necessary to service the needs of Florida residents, not Alabama residents. This does not include the necessity of trying to redress the circumstance which appears to exist in Alabama in which the government in that state is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of its citizens. On balance, the applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient reason to depart from the normal requirements of statute and rule, which departure would have as much benefit for Alabama residents as it would for Florida Residents. Contrary to the applicant's assertions it could legitimately de-emphasize its association with Alabama. It has chosen not to and should not be indulged In this choice in an enterprise which is not sufficiently related to the needs of Florida residents to condone the licensure of the beds sought, even when other factors described are taken into account. The applicant has also alluded to a certificate of need request made by Walton County Convalescent Center, a Brookwood facility in District I which sought a certificate of need in the same batch which pertains to the present applicant. The application and the review and comment by HRS may be found within Composite Exhibit 2 by the Petitioner admitted as evidence. Petitioner asserts that the Walton County experience in which 32 beds were granted is so similar to the present case that it would be inappropriate for the agency to act inconsistently in denying the present applicant after having granted a certificate of need to the Walton County applicant. Without making a line-by- line comparison, it suffices to say that in many respects these projects are similar. In other respects they are not. On the whole, it cannot be found that the agency is acting unfairly in denying the present applicant while granting a certificate to the applicant in the Walton County case. The differences are substantial enough to allow the agency to come to the conclusion that the present applicant should be denied and the applicant in Walton County should have its certificate granted. Likewise, no procedural impropriety on the part of HRS in its review function has been shown.
Findings Of Fact At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Margaret Ann Morris Martin, held registered nurse license number 1076252 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing. She presently resides at 3101 Buena Vista Lane, Naples, Florida. Martin has been a registered nurse since 1963, and holds licenses in Florida and Pennsylvania. She has worked in a variety of positions at various institutions since 1963, including head nurse, assistant director of nurses, director of nurses, research nurse supervisor, assistant supervisor medical review team, assistant administrator of a nursing home, and administrator of a nursing home. She has received outstanding evaluations concerning the quality of her work, and has never been subjected to prior disciplinary action. Martin also holds a nursing home administrator's license. Using that license she held the position of nursing home administrator at Heritage Healthcare Center, Inc. (HHHC) in Naples, Florida from January, 1979 until October, 1984. HHHC is a 97 bed skilled nursing facility providing medical and nursing services to Medicare, Medicaid and private pay patients. Martin was hired by HHHC as a nursing home administrator, and did not perform nursing duties while employed at the facility. Clarence Berlyoung was a 78 year old private pay patient admitted to HHHC on July 21, 1983. He remained a patient at HHHC until his discharge on January 23, 1984. According to his patient records, Berlyoung required an intermediate level of nursing care, which included observation, monitoring of his condition, and a daily note by the nurses. The notes indicated that Berlyoung was "weak", that he had some "drooping" on one side of his face, and that his gait was unsteady. The records also indicated Berlyoung had suffered a stroke and had an additional diagnosis of organic brain syndrome. During his stay at HHHC, Berlyoung and Martin developed what she called a "close relationship" and one which was similar to that of father and daughter. Among other things, she talked with the patient whenever he visited her office, and took him outside the facility for recreational or shopping purposes, or an occasional meal. She also made sure that Berlyoung was provided with personal necessities, such as cigarettes and his daily ration of two cans of beer. On an undisclosed date, but apparently in late 1983, Martin carried Berlyoung at his request to an attorney's office in Naples so that he could take care of some needed legal matters. Without Martin's prior knowledge, Berlyoung signed a "power of attorney" which designated Martin to handle his financial affairs. He also had Martin named a beneficiary in his will. When these documents were executed, Berlyoung was mentally alert and competent to make these decisions. There is no evidence that Martin influenced Berlyoung to execute these documents, or to choose her as a beneficiary. In January, 1984 Berlyoung became dissatisfied with living in a nursing home, and left HHHC on his own accord. Since he had no other place to go at that time, he approached Martin and asked if he could stay in her home temporarily. Martin agreed and allowed Berlyoung to move into her home. There is no evidence that Martin encouraged Berlyoung to leave the nursing home, or to choose her home as a place to live. Once the move was made, she prepared his meals, did his laundry and helped bathe him. Berlyoung was capable of taking his own medication and did not need Martin's assistance in this respect. Berlyoung's physical condition and medical requirements after his discharge from HHHC on January 23, 1984, were not disclosed. He stayed at Martin's home for several months until he moved to a motel for a few days, and then to an apartment. He died on a later undisclosed date. While the power of attorney was in effect, Martin helped Berlyoung transfer between $25,000 and $30,000 from an Ohio bank to a Naples area bank. She, or her husband, also sold a Volkswagen automobile and a "trailer" which Berlyoung owned. This is no evidence that she misused the funds, or performed any act which Berlyoung had not instructed her to do. When Berlyoung departed HHHC, he left an outstanding bill of $1,389.90. On May 7, 1984, Berlyoung's bill was written off by HHHC. This was a routine function after an account had aged for ninety days. A write-off slip is not generally considered to be a "medical record," but is more akin to a business record of the facility. On Berlyoung's writeoff slip was the notation "Present address unknown." The slip was prepared by someone other than Martin. However, as nursing home administrator Martin signed and approved the slip. This was a routine duty of the administrator, and the Berlyoung slip was one Of some fifteen or twenty that she signed that same day. The record is unclear as to whether Berlyoung still resided with Martin in early May, 1984 or had moved elsewhere by that time. However, Martin knew where Berlyoung resided, for she testified she assisted him in finding an apartment, and kept in touch with him until he died.. Therefore, it is found that Martin knew the address of Berlyoung when she signed the slip, but for some reason, she still approved the write off of his account on the ground his address was unknown. There is no evidence that she did so for fraudulent purposes as alleged in the administrative complaint. Martin did not know that DPR apparently viewed the holding of a patient's power of attorney by a nursing licensee to be improper until she read a DPR newsletter in the spring of 1984 which indicated a nurse had been reprimanded for doing this. By this time, she stated she had already torn the document up, and no longer exercised the authority. Two registered nurses and the owner of a skilled nursing facility offered opinion testimony as to Martin's conduct. The agency witness, who was accepted as an expert in the field of nursing and in the review of medical records, gave opinions concerning the minimal standards of prevailing nursing practice, and whether respondent's activities constituted a deviation from said standards. She also gave testimony on the issue of whether respondent was acting in the capacity of a nurse in her relationship with Berlyoung. Respondent's first witness, a registered nurse, gave opinion testimony on the issue of whether Martin was acting as a nurse, whether the write off slip was a medical record, and whether the allegations against Martin related to the nursing profession. A second witness, who owned a nursing home, also gave testimony on whether the allegations against Martin related to the nursing profession. As might be expected, the conclusions reached by the two sets of witnesses differed in material respects. The difference in opinion stems primarily from whether Martin was acting in the role of a registered nurse when the events herein occurred. According to uncontroverted testimony, a minimal standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice is "a trust relationship which is necessary to provide quality care to a patient." Accordingly, a nurse should not manage a patient's money in the absence of a court order, and should not accept a patient in her home. A second minimal standard is "anything that a nurse signs is (a) true and accurate record of what she knows to be the truth." This standard prohibits a nurse from signing a record she knows to be false. These two standards were not disputed by respondent. By violating either or both of the standards, a nurse is engaged in "unprofessional conduct." A matter requiring resolution is whether Martin was acting as a registered nurse during Berlyoung's stay at HHHC and at her home. When Berlyoung was at HHHC from July 1983 until January 1984, Martin did not sign his medical records, administer medication, or otherwise engage in what are normally considered to be nursing duties associated with caring for the patient. Indeed, she performed only administrative duties consistent with her position as nursing home administrator. The fact that she talked to the patient, ran errands for him, and joined him for an occasional meal did not constitute what are generally considered to be the functions of a registered nurse. Therefore, she was not acting as a nurse at that time. When Berlyoung was allowed to temporarily stay at Martin's home, he was not accepted as a patient, nor was it the outgrowth of a nurse patient relationship. Indeed, it was based upon their friendship and the "close relationship" which had developed between the two at HHHC. Even though she prepared his meals, bathed him and did his laundry, these functions required no "substantial knowledge, judgment, and nursing skill," and could have been performed by a friend, relative or acquaintance. Therefore, it is found Martin did not accept a "patient" into her home as a "nurse," and was not acting as a registered nurse when she performed these duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That Manor Care be issued a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Palm Bay Care Center be awarded a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Forum Group be awarded a CON for a 40 bed nursing home and Courtenay Springs be awarded a CON for 36 nursing home beds. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-99675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas B. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 180 Orlando, Florida 32802 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Suite 100 Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan G. Tuttle, Esquire 402 South Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Suite B 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties herein. 1-13 Accepted. 14 & 15 Accepted. 16-18 Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. 19-23 Accepted. 24 Accepted. 25-29 Accepted. 30 & 31 Accepted. 32 Irrelevant. 33-34 Accepted. 35-37 Accepted. 38-46 Accepted. 47 & 48 Accepted. 49 & 50 Accepted. 51 Discussion, not Finding of Fact. 52-56 Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted to the fact that there were no sheltered beds in existence. Irrelevant. 61-63 Accepted but not of substantial positive value. 64 & 65 Accepted. Opinion not Finding of Fact. Accepted. 68-75 Accepted. 76-80 Irrelevant based on part operation and evidence shows facility is to be sold. 81-85 Irrelevant - see next 86-90 Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a Finding of Fact. 91 Not a Finding of Fact. 92-94 Accepted. 95 Irrelevant as to local district. 96-103 Accepted. 104-105 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman supported. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman indicated. 108-110 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact. 114-118 Accepted. 119&120 Not a Finding of Fact. 121&122 Accepted. 123 Accepted as to the one facility currently operated. 124-127 Accepted. Speculation insufficient to support a Finding of Fact. Argument, not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 131-133 Accepted. 134 Not a Finding of Fact. 135-137 Accepted. 138 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 139-147 Accepted. 148&149 Not a Finding of Fact. 150-164 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony, not a Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. 167-176 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence Rejected as a summary of testimony. Accepted. 180&181 Accepted. 182 Irrelevant. 183&184 Accepted. 185 Rejected as a conclusion. 186&187 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. As to Manor Care 1 Accepted. 2&3 Rejected as not a part of the case. 4 Accepted. 5-7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 10-11 Accepted. 12 Accepted. 13-19 Accepted. 20-22 Accepted. As to Forum 1-13 Accepted. 14-16 Accepted. 17-22 Accepted. 23&24 Accepted. 25-27 Accepted. 28-31 Accepted. 32 Accepted. 33-35 Accepted. 36 Rejected as speculation. 37-42 Accepted. 43 Accepted. 44-47 Accepted. 48&49 Accepted. 50-55 Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion not consistent with the evidence. Accepted. 58&59 Accepted. 60-64 Accepted. 65-69 Accepted. 70&71 Irrelevant. 72&73 Accepted. 74-76 Accepted. Accepted as to the first sentence. Second sentence is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. As to PBCC 1&2 Accepted. 3 Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. 46 Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. 10-12 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence except for the first sentence which is accepted. Rejected. 15-20 Accepted. 21-27 Accepted. 28 Rejected as an overstatement and not supported by the evidence. 29&30 Accepted. 31 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 32-38 Accepted. 39-43 Accepted. 44-50 Accepted. 51-57 Accepted. Accepted except for the first sentence which is unsupported by credible evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. As to Courtenay This party failed to number or otherwise identify its Findings of Fact individually. Therefore, no specific ruling as to each Finding of Fact is hereby made. In light of the ultimate recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the party's CON be approved, no prejudice to this party can be said to have occurred. As to DHRS 1-4 Accepted 5 Summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 6-1 Is an argument of the party's position, not a Finding of Fact. 12-14 Rejected as matters not a part of the party's position at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 19-22 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 25-28 Accepted. 29-31 Accepted.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s license as a registered nurse in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Board of Nursing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of nurses and the regulation of the nursing profession in Florida. Respondent, Drema G. M. Servoss, was licensed as a registered nurse holding license number 1918522. Ms. Servoss holds both an Associate and a Bachelor’s degree in Nursing from the University of Tampa, and is currently completing work on a Master’s degree in family nurse practice, also from the University of Tampa. For several years, she worked weekends at University General Hospital (University), in Tampa, in special care nursing. When she started back to school to earn her Master’s degree, in September 1995, she transferred to the home care unit at University, then identified as Community Home Care Professionals, (CHCP). For the one year leading up to the job change that led to the incident in question, Ms. Servoss worked at CHCP as the weekend scheduler of home health personnel, but made no home visits herself. Finally, because she had worked every weekend for the preceding five years, and wanted to spend more time with her family, and since the remaining classes she needed for her Master’s degree were offered primarily at night, she applied for a weekday field nurse position. She was selected for the position. Though the normal orientation period for new home health nurses normally lasted for approximately two weeks, depending on staffing needs, a part of which included a preceptorship, Ms. Servoss was provided with only four days of orientation, of which two days consisted of following another nurse around. On the Friday before Labor Day, 1996, she was given an assignment of six patients to see starting on Monday, September 2, 1996, which was Labor Day. However, on the Sunday evening preceding Labor Day, when she returned from a weekend trip, Respondent found a message waiting on her answering machine advising her of three more patients to be added to her list. Feeling that nine patients were too many for a new home health nurse, she attempted to contact Ms. Tisdale, her supervisor, to inform her of that and to also advise that Respondent’s husband, Christopher, also a registered nurse and a part-time home health nurse for CHCP, might see some of the nine patients on Labor Day. Ms. Servoss also tried to reach Ms. Watkins, the weekend scheduler, but neither could be reached. Respondent left word for Ms. Watkins to please call her back, but she did not do so, and Watkins did not have a pager through which she could be reached. Respondent’s first patient on September 2, 1997, was P.W., who was to receive medication through an IV medport three times a day. Respondent’s visit was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and the visit included changing the needle in the medport. She did not know how to do this, so she called her husband at home. He worked as a nurse on an intensive care unit and had all the skills required to see the patient received the care she needed. When he arrived at P.W.’s home, Christopher showed Respondent how to do the medport access, which she did, and while she performed the treatment required, he filled out the nursing notes. It was not unusual for this division of labor to take place. Respondent had done it before during her orientation when following Ms. Tisdale. After completing the required treatment on P.W., Respondent assigned her husband several other of her patients to see. She then went to the company office to talk with the supervisor on duty, but it was closed for the holiday. This was a change from previous practice prior to the buyout of the company by Columbia Health Care System. Prior to that, it was company policy to have the office open on holidays. Finding the office closed, she thought about what to do for a while. Mindful of the warning she had received to stay within the boundaries permitted a field nurse and not to act as a supervisor, she decided to visit those patients on her list which she had assigned to her husband. At each of the three patients’ homes, Respondent explained that she was the regular nurse who should have come to see them that day, and that the male nurse who had previously been there, though a nurse, was not the assigned nurse. She assured each patient that they would not be double-billed, but did not leave a second copy of the nursing clinical notes signed by her as required. Aside from B.K., who objected to being seen by a male nurse because of the nature of her problem, none complained about being seen by Christopher or that Respondent made a second visit that day. Petitioner contends that Respondent did not make the visits as she claims, and in support of that position, presented the testimony of B.K. who did not recall Respondent’s being at her home that day. None of the other three patients in issue were present to testify nor were they deposed. In addition, the record of client/family teaching, left with each patient and reflecting the date and subject of each visit, and by whom it was made, which was left with B.K. for the period August 31 through October 14, 1996, fails to reflect a visit by Respondent or any other nurse. By the same token, however, it does not reflect a visit each day, and there is an extended and unexplained hiatus between September 25, 1996 and October 14, 1996. For this reason, it is not given much probative weight. In addition, Respondent described what she said were the residences of each of the patients in issue, and no evidence was submitted by Petitioner to dispute this, save the testimony of B.K. Based on the state of the evidence, it is found that she made the repeat visits as claimed. That evening, after completing all nine visits, Respondent completed the paperwork for the visits she had made on Labor Day, including those patients previously seen by Christopher. In doing so, she utilized the information contained on Christopher’s copies of the unsigned nursing clinical notes, the yellow copies of which he had, as required, left at the house. She supplemented that information with her own memory. Two days later, on September 4, 1996, as Respondent was getting ready to leave for the day, she was paged by Joyce Kovacs, the clinical home care supervisor, who took her to the office of the director of professional services, Ms. Bilgutay. There, Respondent was accused of assigning patients to her husband, which was out of her area of authority. She was also accused of not making any of those visits, and was informed right away that she was fired. Because she was afraid her husband would leave his job in protest over her treatment, she initially did not indicate she had also made the visits. She was humiliated by the way she was treated, and in order to get out of the room as quickly as possible, she did not strenuously contest what her accusers said. During that encounter, nothing was said to her about her signing the nursing notes allegedly prepared by her husband. Later, however, she was again called in and asked to reimburse the company for the tuition assistance she had previously received because, it was alleged, she had fraudulently signed the notes. She was also threatened that the matter might be referred to the Board of Nursing. It was. Several months later Respondent was interviewed by David Berry, an investigator for the Agency for Health Care Administration. During this interview, the investigator would not release to Respondent the names and addresses of the patients in issue. She, therefore, requested he visit the patients and refresh their memories regarding her subsequent visit. During the course of his investigation, on February 21, 1997, in excess of five months after the date in issue, Mr. Berry spoke with three of the four patients to whom the allegations herein relate. All are elderly. Though two of them, including B.W., professed to remember that only a male nurse came to see them on September 2, 1996, neither could identify Christopher from the photograph presented. The third could remember very little of the incident. Only B.W. was present to testify. D.D. could not remember much of the incident, and S.W. declined to appear voluntarily at the hearing. He claimed he was too elderly, and, besides, the day was scheduled for his golfing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the misconduct alleged and dismissing the Administrative Complaint in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Cynthia A. Mikos, Esquire A. S. Weekley, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight 510 Vonderburg Drive Brandon, Florida 33511 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 1317 Winewod Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marylin Bloss Executive Director Board of Nursing 4080 Woodcock Drive Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly changed Petitioner's licensure status to conditional on June 23, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a nursing home in Venice, Florida. Respondent conducted a relicensure survey of Petitioner's nursing home on June 12, 1997. On June 23, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a new license, effective June 12, 1997, through October 31, 1997, for a skilled nursing facility. However, as a result of the deficiencies found in this survey, Respondent rated the renewal license as conditional. A resurvey on August 6, 1997, revealed that Petitioner had corrected all of the cited deficiencies, so Respondent issued a standard license, effective August 6. There are three ratings for a license: superior, standard, and conditional. Prior to the June 12 renewal, Petitioner's license was rated superior. The issuance of a conditional license adversely affects a licensee in one and possibly two ways. First, the conditional license hinders marketing and employee recruiting and retention. Second, the conditional license may affect Medicaid reimbursement levels. Even though Respondent rerated the nursing home as standard, the earlier conditional rating remains meaningful because it means that Petitioner cannot gain a superior rating for the next licensing period. Another factor militating against a determination that the present proceeding is moot is Respondent's procedure by which it does not provide licensees with an opportunity for a hearing prior to changing the rating of their nursing home licenses. As an incidental complaint to the issuance of a conditional license, Petitioner also complains of the procedure by which this Respondent issues this conditional license. Without having given Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing based on a proposed or tentative decision to change Petitioner's rating, Respondent simply issued the conditional license and gave Petitioner an opportunity to challenge this action, after the fact, in a formal administrative hearing. A mootness determination on these facts would insulate Respondent's initial action from effective challenge, despite the obvious economic impacts of the initial action. The June 12 survey reports cites three sets of Class II deficiencies, which were identified as Tags F 225, F 309, and F 314. These three tags were the sole bases for the issuance of a Conditional license. Tag F 225 concerns the investigation and documentation of an alleged incident of abuse of a resident by one of Petitioner's employees. The survey report asserts that Petitioner did not satisfy applicable legal requirements by failing, in violation of its own policies, to document in the resident's file the results of an abuse investigation report. Tag F 225 and the testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing are vague as to whether the issue under Tag F 225 is that Petitioner failed to conduct an appropriate investigation or failed to document adequately that it had conducted an investigation. When pressed, Respondent's witnesses chose failure to document, perhaps in deference to the fact that Petitioner's employees clearly conducted an investigation. The alleged incident underlying this issue did not constitute abuse. A staffperson grabbed a resident's arm for an appropriate purpose and did not injure or harm the resident. Petitioner's investigation properly concluded that there was no abuse. As discussed under the conclusions of law, the subsubsubparagraph of the federal regulation allegedly violated under this tag requires only that Petitioner report to appropriate authorities any knowledge of actions by a "court of law" against an employee suggestive of unfitness to serve as facility staff. There is no proof of action by a court of law; this missing fact alone ends the inquiry under this tag. Additionally, Petitioner nonetheless reported the unfounded allegations to the state agency charged with investigating allegations of abuse, and the state agency concluded that the charge was unfounded. Tag F 309 concerns the quality of care received by six residents. As to Resident Number 6, who was in the final stages of a terminal illness, the survey report asserts that Petitioner kept him in isolation and did not offer him opportunities for socialization. Testimony at the hearing revealed that the resident was dying and did not want to socialize, but Respondent's witness opined that this was not an appropriate option. No evidence suggested that the dying resident suffered any diminution of ability to eat or use language. Respondent's witness labored under the misconception that the cited federal regulation addresses socialization (as opposed perhaps to the role of socialization in facilitating the more specific activities actually mentioned by the regulation, which is discussed in the conclusions of law). Even if the federal regulation were so broad, which it is not, the evidence certainly suggests that any diminution in socialization was unavoidable due to the resident's terminal clinical condition. The evidence reveals that Resident Number 6, who had had a gangrenous foot, suffered a staph infection of his gangrenous right foot. He was depressed, fatigued, and in pain; however, he was freely visited by staff and family. As to Resident Number 8, who had had a stroke, the survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide him his restorative therapy of walking and failed to document this therapy. At the time of the survey, Petitioner was short of restorative staff due to a scheduled vacation and an unscheduled bereavement absence due to the suicide of an employee's brother. When a restorative aide, who was on vacation, appeared at the nursing home and attempted to provide Respondent's surveyor with documentation concerning the therapy administered to Resident Number 8, the surveyor rejected the documentation on the grounds that it did not sufficiently identify the resident or therapist. Resident Number 8 suffered some loss of functioning--i.e., the ability to walk 400 feet--but the record does not link this loss of functioning to any brief interruption in his restorative therapy. As to Resident Number 9, the survey report states that, during the two days that surveyors were at the facility, she did not ambulate, even though her restorative nursing plan called for daily ambulation. However, she suffered no harm during this insignificant interruption in her program, from which she was successfully discharged a couple of weeks after the survey. As to Resident Number 13, who was 102 years old, the survey report notes that he was supposed to ambulate in a wheelchair. One of Respondent's surveyors noticed that a staffperson was pushing this resident's wheelchair. However, staff had assumed the responsibility of pushing this resident's wheelchair for him after he had developed pressure sores on his heels. The evidence fails to show that Petitioner's care for the treatment of Resident Number 13 had anything to do with his loss of function. As to Resident Number 26, the survey report asserts that his physician had ordered an increase in dosage of Prilosec, which aids digestion by treating the acidity associated with peptic ulcers. Three weeks passed before Petitioner's staff noticed that the change, which was on the resident's chart, had not yet been implemented. They implemented the change prior to the survey, and notified the resident's physician of the error in medication administration a couple of days later. The survey report states that Petitioner's staff documented, on May 30, 1997, that Resident Number 26 had lost 4.8 pounds, or 5.7 percent of his body weight, in one week. This weight loss occurred during the latter part of the period during which Resident Number 26 was receiving less than his prescribed amount of medication. Two of Petitioner's witnesses testified, without elaboration, that the medication error did not cause the weight loss. The survey report implies otherwise, although Respondent's witnesses were not as pronounced as Petitioner's witnesses in dealing with any link between the medication error and the weight loss. Absent the weight loss, the medication error-- consisting of a failure to raise a digestive medication--would have been insignificant and insufficient grounds for a Class II deficiency on the cited basis. However, there was a serious weight loss while the resident was undermedicated. The lack of evidence in the record proving that there was or was not a causal link between the weight loss and undermedication means that the party bearing the risk of nonpersuasion loses on this issue. As discussed in the conclusions of law, Respondent has the burden of proof; thus, for this reason alone, Petitioner prevails on this issue. As to the last resident under Tag F 309, who was not identified, the survey asserts that a restorative aide commented that he used to walk 440 feet, but does not anymore because he thinks that he does not have to. This scanty allegation provides no basis for citing Petitioner with a deficiency, even if it applies to Resident Number 8, as appears probable. Tag F 314 also concerns a quality-of-care issue-- specifically, the development and treatment of pressure sores in three residents. As to Resident Number 1, who had been in the nursing home for three years, the survey report states that, on May 12, 1997, he had developed a Stage II pressure sore on his right outer ankle. The survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient care to prevent the development of this pressure sore, that Resident Number 1 had suffered pressure sores in 1995, and that Petitioner should have known and treated Resident Number 1 on the basis of his being at risk for developing pressure sores. Despite a failure to document, Petitioner's staff adequately treated Resident Number 1 once the pressure sore developed. Nursing assistants required that he wear silicone pressure booties and that lotion be rubbed on the irritated skin. In addition, Petitioner has shown that the clinical condition of Resident Number 1 made pressure sores unavoidable. One of Petitioner's Assistant Directors of Nursing testified that Resident Number 1 had poor pedal pulses, indicative of poor circulation, and a history of peripheral neuropathy. The resulting decreased sensation in his feet would prevent him from feeling increased pressure and thus the need to move his feet. Despite preventative measures, Resident Number 1 developed pressure sores due to these clinical conditions. As to Resident Number 7, who had been in the nursing home for six years, the survey report asserts that she had a Stage II pressure sore--meaning that the skin was broken--but was allowed to remained seated in the same position for two hours in a position in which the pressure on the sore on her buttock was not relieved. The survey report does not allege that this pressure sore developed while Resident Number 7 resided in the nursing home. Resident Number 7 had severe dementia and was a total-care patient. She could not move independently. In fact, she sat, unmoved, in a chair for at least 4 and 3/4 hours on one of the days of the survey. The failure to move Resident Number 7 raises serious questions about the adequacy of Petitioner's treatment. However, Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing answered these questions when she testified that the one- centimeter pressure sore healed five days after the survey. Thus, Petitioner provided Resident Number 7 with the necessary treatment and services to promote healing. As to Resident Number 13, who had been in the nursing home for less than three months, the survey report alleges that he had developed pressure sores while in the nursing home. Resident Number 13 was the 102-year-old resident who is also discussed in Tag F 309. The survey report alleges that, on April 24, 1997, Resident Number 13 had a red left heel, red right foot, and pink right heel; on May 1, 1997, he had soft and red heels; on May 7 and 14, 1997, his pressure sores could not be staged due to dead tissue surrounding the sores; on May 20, 1997, his left heel was documented as a Stage II pressure sore, but the right heel could not be staged due to dead tissue; and Petitioner's staff did not implement any treatment until May 12, 1997. Respondent proved the allegations cited in the preceding paragraph except for the last concerning a failure to implement any treatment until May 12. Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing testified that Patient Number 13 was frail and debilitated. If this is a clinical condition, it is the only statement of Patient Number 13's clinical condition contained in the record. The Assistant Director of Nursing testified that the pressure sore on the left heel healed by June 3 after the usual treatment measures of turning and repositioning and heel protectors. She testified that the pressure sore on the right heel improved somewhat, but had not healed by the time of his death in January 1998 of presumably unrelated causes. The testimony of the Assistant Director of Nursing rebuts any evidence concerning inadequate treatment of Resident Number 13, but does not establish that the development of his pressure sores was clinically unavoidable. Her testimony as to Resident Number 1 identified clinical conditions that, when coupled with the early implementation of preventative measures, established that Resident Number 1's pressure sore was unavoidable. As to Resident Number 13, the Assistant Director of Nursing also testified of early implementation of preventative measures, but, in contrast to her testimony concerning Resident Number 1, she described little, if anything, of any clinical condition making the pressure sores unavoidable. If the intent of the Assistant Director of Nursing was to imply that old age coupled with frailty and debilitation provide the necessary clinical justification, she failed to establish the necessary causal relationships among pressure sores, advanced age, and frailty and debilitation-- even if the frailty and debilitation were relative to other 102-year-olds, which the record does not reveal, as opposed to the frailty and debilitation, relative to the general population, that one might expect in a 102-year-old. Without more detailed evidence concerning Resident Number 13's clinical condition, Petitioner effectively invites the creation of a safe harbor from liability for the development of pressure sores in 102-year-olds or even 102-year-olds who are frail and debilitated for their age, and the administrative law judge declines either invitation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Petitioner and rating Petitioner's license as conditional for the relevant period. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson Broad and Cassell Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Karel Baarslag Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Stacey Health Care Centers, Inc., is licensed to operate Riverside Care Center, located at 899 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Florida, as a nursing home in compliance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. On July 9, 1986, James A. Bavetta, assistant area supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, made a visit of Riverside's facility and determined that Ralph Stacey, Jr., the administrator of record, was acting in the capacity of administrator for two facilities, the subject facility and another facility in Kentucky, without having a qualified assistant administrator to act in his absence. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ralph L. Stacey Jr., is a licensed nursing home administrator in the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. He has been licensed in Kentucky and Florida since 1974. At the time of Mr. Bavetta's visit and inspection during July, 1986, Ralph Stacey, Jr., was in Cincinnati, Ohio preparing the payroll for Stacey Health Care Centers. During this time period, Ralph Stacey, Jr., served as the administrator for the subject facility, Riverside Care Center, and another facility in Kentucky and did not have a qualified assistant administrator employed to act in his absence. However, once Mr. Bavetta issued his recommendation for sanctions, Petitioner, as part of its plan of correction, has employed a licensed administrator who is presently on staff and serves as Riverside's assistant administrator during the administrator's absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn it is RECOMMENDED: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) upon Stacey Health Care Centers- Inc., d/b/a Riverside Care Center, which amount shall be payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of Respondent's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3410 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard -Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
