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
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Plantation was a licensed nursing home facility and participated in the Medicaid program. A nursing home that receives a superior rating is entitled to incentives based on the Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Plan. Plantation has met all the requirements for a superior rating that are enumerated in Rule lOD-29.128, Florida _Administrative Code. The only reason Plantation was not granted a superior rating was based on the Medicaid Inspection of Care, Team report. (stipulated facts) From August 21 through August 31, 1984, Plantation underwent a routine inspection by the HRS Medicaid Inspection of Care (IOC) Team. The purpose of the inspection was to review the care and treatment of Medicaid recipient patients in accordance with state and federal standards in order for the facility to receive Medicaid payment for those individuals. During the course of the inspection, several deficiencies were found by IOC Team. The deficiencies were summarized in the Medicaid Inspection of Care Team report, entitled Facility Evaluation Summary, prepared by Ms. Tranger. The report listed the deficiencies as follows: Fifteen skilled and two intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have medication revalidated by the attending physician within the proper time frame Four of forty-six records reviewed failed to have available documentation that laboratory tests were completed in accordance with doctors' orders and medication regimen, Fourteen skilled and thirteen intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have the Plan of Care reviewed within the proper time frame: Ten medical records were not certified within the proper time frames and fifteen medical records were not current for recertification. As to the first deficiency noted, the problem was not that the physician failed to revalidate medication, but that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician appropriately dated the revalidation. In almost all of the cases, the problem was that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician had personally entered the date because the date was written with a different color of ink than the doctor's signature or the handwriting appeared to be different. Ms. Tranger did not know whether the dates were written by someone in the physician's office or someone at the nursing home. It is very difficult for a nursing home to get a physician to sign and date orders properly. Plantation had a procedure for securing the doctor's signature and having records dated. When a record was received that was not properly signed and dated, Plantation returned the record to the doctor with a letter or note telling the doctor what needed to be done. When returned by the doctor to Plantation, the record would bear the later date, which caused some records to be out of' compliance with the required time frames. The return to the doctor of records that were not properly dated may also explain why some of he dates were written in a different color ink than the doctor's signature. In those few cases where the dates on the report were not within the proper time frame, the dates were only a few days off. In one case a 34 day period, from July 7, 1984 to August 10, 1984, elapsed before the medication was revalidated. In another case, there were 33 days between the dates. In both cases the medication should have been revalidated every 30 days. The problem with the revalidation dates was strictly a paperwork problem and not one that affected the care of the patients. As stated before, in the majority of the cases the medication was revalidated within the proper time frame. The problem was simply that it appeared that someone other than the doctor had written down the date. The second deficiency was a finding by the surveyors that 4 of the 46 medical records reviewed failed to have available documentation regarding laboratory tests being completed in accordance with doctors' orders. However, Jean Bosang, Administrator of Plantation, reviewed all of the records cited by the IOC Team as the basis for these deficiencies and could only find two instances in which laboratory tests were not performed. HRS did not present any evidence to establish the two other alleged instances. Dr. Lopez reviewed the medical records of the two residents in question and determined that there was no possibility of harm to the patient as a result of failure to perform these tests. One of the two residents is Dr. Lopez' patient, and he normally sees her every day. He stated that the test, an electrolyte examination, was a routine test, that the patient had had no previous problems, and if any problem had developed, she would have had symptoms which would have been observable to the nurses. The tests performed before and after the test that was missed were normal, and the failure to perform the one test had absolutely no effect on the patient. Dr. Lopez was familiar with the other resident upon whom a test was not performed and had reviewed her records. This resident was to have a fasting blood sugar test performed every third month. Although this test was not performed in April of 1984, it was performed timely in every other instance. All tests were normal, and the failure to perform this test did not have any effect on the resident. Had she been suffering from blood sugar problems, there would have been physical signs observable to the nurses. The fourth deficiency listed in the report was a paperwork problem similar to the first deficiency. Patients in a nursing home are classified by level of care and must be recertified from time to time. Certification does not affect the care of the resident. The recertification must be signed and dated by the physician. Again, there was a problem on the recertification because some of the dates were in a different color ink than the physician's signature. Again, the problem was primarily caused by difficulty in getting proper physician documentation. The deficiency did not affect the care of the residents. Mr. Maryanski, who made the decision not to give Plantation a superior rating, testified that of the four deficiencies cited in the IOC report, he believed that only the third deficiency listed, in and of itself, would have precluded a superior rating. An analysis of that deficiency, however, shows that it also was mainly a paperwork deficiency and had no impact on patient care. The third deficiency listed involved a purported failure to have the plans of care reviewed within the proper time frames. Patient care plans are to be reviewed every 60 days for "skilled" patients, those that need the most supervision, and every 90 days for "intermediate" patients, those that need less supervision. A patient's plan of care is a written plan establishing the manner in which each patient will be treated and setting forth certain goals to be reached. A discharge plan is also established, which is basically what the nursing home personnel believe will be the best outcome for the patient if and when he or she leaves the hospital. The patient plan of care is established at a patient care plan meeting. Patient care plan meetings are held by the various disciplines in the nursing home, such as nursing, dietary, social work and activities, to review resident records and discuss any problems with specific residents. The manner in which the problem is to be corrected is determined and then written down on the patient's plan of care record. The evidence revealed that the basis of the deficiency was not a failure to timely establish or review a plan of care, but a failure to timely write down and properly date the plan of care. During the time in question, care plan meetings were held every Wednesday, and all of the disciplines attended the meetings. However, all disciplines did not write their comments on the patients' records at the meeting; some wrote them later. Usually, when they were added later, the comments were dated on the day they were written, rather than on the day the meetings were held. The evidence presented did not show any case in which all disciplines were late in making notes, but revealed only that specific disciplines were tardy. Since all the disciplines attended one meeting, it is apparent that when the date for any discipline was timely, the later dates of other disciplines merely reflected a documentation or paperwork problem. In late 1984 or early 1985, Plantation changed its system to avoid the problem in the future. There appeared to be problems with some of the discharge plans being untimely. The discharge plan is not utilized in the day-to-day care of the resident. Discharge plans at Plantation were kept in two places, and Ms. Tranger recognized that she may have overlooked some plans if they had been written only on the separate discharge sheet. The four deficiencies cited all involved time frames. There are innumerable time frames that must be met by a nursing home. The great majority of the deficiencies involved a failure to properly document. None of the deficiencies affected the care of the patients. Indeed, Ms. Tranger indicated that the patients were all receiving proper nursing care. The decision to give Plantation a standard rating was made by Mr. Maryanski based solely on the IOC report. He relied upon section 400.23,(3) Florida Statutes, which states: "The department shall base its evaluation on the most recent annual inspection report, taking into consideration findings from other official reports, surveys, interviews, investigations and inspections." There are no regulations or written or oral policies implementing this provision. Mr. Maryanski looked solely at the face of the IOC report and did not do any independent investigation. He never visited the nursing home, and he never talked to the on-site surveyors to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the IOC Team were significant. He never saw the underlying documentation which formed the basis of the report. Mr. Maryanski has no background either in nursing or medicine and had no knowledge of purpose the tests that were allegedly not performed. On October 4, 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) conducted the annual survey of the facility. Mr. Maryanski did not determine whether the deficiencies found by the IOC Team had been corrected at the time of the annual survey. An IOC Team surveyor returned on November 21, 1984, and found that all of the deficiencies cited during the IOC inspection had been corrected. A resurvey of the facility was conducted on December 27, 1984, by OLC. All deficiencies noted in OLC's original inspection had been corrected. All nursing home facilities in Florida are rated by HRS as conditional, standard, or superior. In addition to its financial significance, the rating of a facility is important because it affects the facility's reputation in the community and in the industry. The rating for a facility goes into effect on· the day of the follow-up visit of OLC if all deficiencies have been corrected. Therefore, Plantation would have received a superior rating, effective December 27, 1984, had it not been for the IOC report Mr. Maryanski never tried to determine whether the deficiencies in the IOC report had been corrected subsequent to the report being issued. Under rule lOD-29.128, Florida Administrative Code, there are extensive regulatory and statutory requirements which must be met for a facility to be granted a superior rating. Plantation met all of the enumerated requirements, yet it received only a standard rating. Mr. Maryanski based his determination on the IOC report despite the fact that it was outdated and the deficiencies in that report were corrected by November, 1984, prior to the December, 1984, resurvey by the OLC. There was nothing in the annual survey report of the OLC to preclude a superior rating. This is the first time a facility has been denied a superior rating based upon a report other than the annual report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Plantation Nursing Home be given a superior rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, 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 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Braynon; Esquire District X Legal Counsel, 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Accepted as set forth in Finding of Fact 21. 5-6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22-23. 7-9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24-25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 15-16. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 20 and 24. 17-19. Accepted generally as set forth in Finding of Fact 26. In Background section. Cumulative. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-31. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-7. 32-43. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-10. 44. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 45-46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 48-49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 50-57. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13-16. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 1, 20, 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Finding of Fact 19 and Background. 5-8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13 except as to time frame for intermediate patients which should be 90 days. Accepted that the documentation showed a gap, but proposed finding rejected in that the evidence did not show that, in fact, the patient was not reviewed with the proper time frame. Accepted, without naming the patients, and explained in Finding of Fact 6.
Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
The Issue By its Administrative Complaint, dated October 14, 1980, Use Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00 upon the Y & S Partnership, Limited, d/b/a Manhattan Convalescent Center for alleged violations of Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the Petitioner charges the Respondent with allegedly failing to provide patients in its nursing home with adequate care consistent with their right to receive adequate health care in accordance with the established and recognized practice standards in the community and with rules promulgated by the Department pursuant to Section 400.022 (1)(g), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner charges also that the Respondent failed to maintain its premises and equipment and conduct its operations in a safe and sanitary manner as required by Section 400.141(4), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is concomitantly charged with violations of Rules 10D-29.33(4) and 10D-29.38(1), and Rule 10D-29.52(4) Table (36), Florida Administrative Code, in the area of patient health care. A violation of Rule 10D-29.49(1), Florida Administrative Code is alleged on the ground that no effective maintenance plan was promulgated or implemented by the Respondent. The charges at issue relate to an August 22, 1980 complaint investigation and surveillance visit conducted by personnel from the Tampa Office of Licensure and Certification of Petitioner's Department. On that visit it is charged that the Petitioner's personnel observed a patient and her bed linens soiled with fecal material and another patient who had soil accumulations on the right hand and was in need of hand care. Additionally, the Petitioner's personnel allegedly observed nurse paging cords missing or not attached to beds in approximately twelve rooms and observed various fixtures and equipment in need of repair. The issues are thus whether the acts or omissions charged occurred, and whether they constitute violations of the above-cited legal authority and concomitantly, whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to Section 400.102(c) and Section 400.121(2), Florida Statutes. Two witnesses were called by the petitioner and five by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were introduced into evidence. The Respondent moved to dismiss the Administrative Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss will be treated in the Conclusions of Law hereinbelow. The Respondent has filed 248 proposed findings of fact and has requested separate rulings upon each. In that regard, the Hearing Officer has considered all proposed findings of fact, conclusions and supporting arguments of the parties. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent that such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions have been omitted as not relevant, dispositive or as not necessary to a proper determination of the material issues presented. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses is not in accord with the findings and conclusions herein, it is not credited.
Findings Of Fact The Y & S Partnership, Limited, d/b/a Manhattan Convalescent Center, operates a nursing home facility in Tampa, Florida. The Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC), of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is responsible for the investigation of complaints about the operation of nursing facilities such as that of the Respondent, which are licensed by HRS. On August 22, 1980 a complaint investigation and surveillance of the Respondent's facility was conducted by O.L.C. employees Joel Montgomery and Muriel Holzberger. These individuals performed an inspection tour of the Respondent's facility accompanied by staff members of the Respondent to generally observe the level of health care accorded patients and the effectiveness of maintenance and repair operations carried out by the Respondent on its facilities and equipment. Ms. Holzberger, a registered nurse and accepted as an expert in the area of proper nursing care standards, personally observed at least 90 percent of the 176 patients resident at the Respondent's facility. In that connection, witness Holzberger observed patient A. W. who was bedridden at the time. This witness observed a brown stain approximately the size of a half dollar on the top sheet of patient A. W.`s bed. The witness described the stain as appearing to be the color of fecal material and it apparently was dry. She did not touch it, but made a determination by its visual appearance only. The stain only consisted of a brown coloration and no fecal material was observed adhering to the stained area. The sheet of this patient was raised by Nurse Holzberger who thereupon observed wet excrement on the patient's buttocks and on a waterproof pad that had been placed under the patient. Ms. Holzberger opined that at this point and time at least, the patient had not been cleaned. No dried excrement material was observed on the patient or on the waterproof pad however. Patient A. W. had a medical history of constant fecal incontinence and other bowel problems consisting generally of frequent impactions, coupled with constant oozing of fecal matter. Proper nursing care for such a patient was established to consist of changing sheets and washing the patient frequently to avoid the danger of skin breakdown in the anal and coccyx area which can be caused by frequent contact with fecal material. This witness, however, was unable to testify that patient A. W. had not been cleaned frequently inasmuch as she had a constant oozing of fecal material due to her inability to achieve sphincter control. The witness was similarly unable to establish that the wet excrement observed on the patient's buttocks and the waterproof pad beneath her had not been disposited there immediately before her observation of the patient. It was not shown that the patient had remained in a soiled condition for a significant period of time and indeed the witness acknowledged that allowing such a patient to remain in a soiled condition for a short period of time would not, on one or two occasions, affect that patient's health and safety. It is inferred that the soiling could just as likely have occurred immediately prior to Ms. Holzberger's observation inasmuch as it was described to be wet. Ms. Holzberger's observed no patients in the nursing home exhibiting skin breakdown or other ill effects caused by contact with excrement. Nurse Holzberger also observed patient C. M. who had severe contractures of the hands. Ms. Holzberger maintained that she observed soil accumulations in the right hand and the fingernails were in need of trimming. This witness described generally accepted hand care for contractured hands as consisting of washing or soaking in warm water at least daily and that if the contracture is severe, causing pain to open the hand, a washcloth should be wrapped on a tongue blade and inserted into the hand to clean it in that fashion. Drying is accomplished in a similar manner followed by insertion of a soft hand roll at least one inch in diameter to prevent indentation of the nails into the hand and to prevent build up of perspiration and to allow air to circulate. The nails should be trimmed as short as possible. Ms. Holzberger concluded, based primarily on the observance of the soil or stain in the hand, that it had been several days since hand care had been performed on this patient. Nurse Holzberger admitted that she knew nothing of the medical history of the patient C. M., a 97-year-old lady who suffers from severe degenerative arthritis and osteoporosis in both hands. The hand in question is so severely contractured as to be "in a ball." The witness acknowledged that no patient at the facility, including patient C. M., had any wounds caused by long nails, and that patient C. M. did have a gauze pad inserted into her hand. Witness Holzberger acknowledged that the brown stain on the patient's hand could have been due to the use of betadine which is a form of disinfectant medication and indeed Nurses Campanillo and Groves who testified for the Respondent, and were similarly accepted as experts, confirmed that the stain on patient C. M.`s hand was not caused by soil accumulation, but rather the betadine medication applied the day before in the course of regular hand care. Witness Holzberger testified that such hand care should be performed once a day and that she did not know whether it had been performed on the day of the inspection or not. The Respondent's witnesses confirmed that it had not been performed on that day at the time of her inspection shortly after 11:00 a.m., but that within the regular schedule of care for patients, it should be and was performed before 12:30 that day. Witness Holzberger admitted that there was no danger to the health and safety of the patient even if the hand was allowed to remain unclean for a reasonable period of time, which it was not. The Respondent thus demonstrated that the hand care was performed daily and that this patient could not tolerate a hand roll under her fingers to retard perspiration and indentation of the nails into the palm because it was extremely painful to even slide a tongue depresser with a washcloth under her fingers. Consequently, hand care was adequately accomplished on a daily basis by inserting a four inch gauze pad beneath her fingers and against her palm soaked with betadine solution and keeping her nails trimmed as short as possible. Witness Joel Montgomery was the hospital consultant on the Department's inspection team. Witness Montgomery observed a leaking air conditioner unit, a broken water closet tank cover, a leaking faucet in a janitor's closet, an inoperative water fountain and a missing baseboard in two of the rooms, as well as the allegation that nurse call cords were missing or not attached to the beds in approximately 12 rooms. The witness conceded that this is a large nursing home and such deficiencies are not unusual for a nursing home of this size and type, and that the staff of this nursing home had made sincere and continuing efforts to make repairs. He has seen improvements in maintenance over conditions existing at previous inspections. The witness was unable to state how many nurse paging cords were severed or missing, but that most of the 12 were simply not attached to the patients' beds. His testimony was not clear as to the existence of a requirement for attaching the paging cords to the beds, but the general tenor of his testimony was that that was the accepted procedure required by the Petitioner in regulating and overseeing patient care in nursing homes. The witness could not recall which, if any, beds were occupied in the rooms where he noticed the call cords were not attached to the beds. The witness also acknowledged that some of the cords were reattached to the beds in his presence, but he did not recall how many. The Respondent has a policy of detaching the cords from the beds when the patients are not in bed in order to change the linen, move the beds or to better allow ingress or egress by the patient from the bed. This witness did not establish that that policy conflicts with any Department policy or rule or constitutes an adverse influence on health care. The Respondent adduced evidence which established that only two call cords were actually inoperative during the inspection and that those were repaired during the inspection. The Respondent's witness to this effect Ann Killeen, the Administrator of the facility, made the inspection tour in the company of witness Montgomery for the Petitioner and corroborated the fact that the cords were clipped to the wall when patients are out of the beds or beds were being changed in order to prevent cords from breaking when the beds are moved, and that she was unaware that this violated any minimum standard promulgated by the Petitioner. The broken toilet tank cover was corrected while the inspector was on the premises, the leaking faucet in the janitor's closet sink was a slight drip causing no standing water inasmuch as the leaking water went down the drain. The leaking air conditioner drip pan was the only one of 89 air conditioners with such a problem. The testimony of this witness, as well as Respondent's witness Robert Cole, the employee of the facility in charge of maintenance, establishes that the inoperative call cords as well as the loose baseboards, the inoperative water fountain and broken water closet tank cover were repaired on the day of the inspection while the inspector was still on the premises with the exception of the air conditioner which was repaired within one week after the inspection and the baseboards which were repaired the day after the inspection. The water fountain was the subject of regular maintenance and had been repaired a number of times and the plumber was summoned to repair it once again after its deficiency was noted by Mr. Montgomery. None of the deficiencies with regard to the nurse call cords, the condensation dripping from the air conditioner, the broken water closet tank cover, the leaking faucet, the inoperative water fountain and the loose baseboards were shown to have been a recurring problem or problem existing for any significant period of time. The Petitioner did not show when these conditions occurred or how long they had been allowed to exist, nor did it show any resultant effect on the health or safety of the patients. The Respondent called Earnest H. Brown as an adverse witness. Mr. Brown is the Supervisor of the Tampa area Office of Licensure and Certification for the Petitioner. This witness admitted that he recommended a fine with regard to witness Holzberger's observance of patient A. W., who was fecally incontinent, because he believed fecal material had been found dried upon that patient's bed sheet. He relied on witness Holzberger's professional judgment in reporting to him. Witness Holzberger's testimony at the hearing, however, does not establish that any dried fecal material was found on patient A. W.`s bed sheet. With regard to his decision to recommend a fine concerning the deficient nurse calling cords, the witness admitted that this was predicated on the other observances of deficient call cords at the Respondent's facility on past inspections. The witness could not recall how many call cords, if any, had been observed to be inoperative or otherwise used improperly on past inspections. It should be noted parenthetically that the Administrative Complaint contains no allegation of such past deficiencies as a predicate to the charge regarding call cords in the Administrative Complaint stemming from the inspection of August 22, 1980 and in support of the fine which the Petitioner seeks to impose for this condition.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this cause should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia M. Park, Esquire District VI Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard A. Gilbert, Esquire de la Parte & Butler, P.A. 403 Morgan Street, Suite 102 Tampa, Florida 33602 Steven R. Reininger, Esquire Tew, Critchlow, Sonberg, Traum & Friedbauer 10th Floor Flagship Center 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether proposed Rules 10-5.002, 10-5.0025, 10-5.003, 10-5.004, 10-5.005, 10-5.008, 10-5.0085, 10-5.010, 10-5.0105, 10-5.020, and 10- 5.024, published in Volume 16, Number 13, Florida Administrative Weekly, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact 10-5.002(1) Proposed Rule 10-5.002(1) defines the term "acquisition" to mean "the act of possessing or controlling, in any manner or by any means, a health care facility, major medical equipment, an institutional health service or medical office building as one's own." The proposed rule is HRS's attempt to clarify the term's meaning as used in Section 381.706, Florida Statutes. It is based on dictionary definitions, primarily, Webster's Dictionary, Ninth Edition, but also Black's Law Dictionary. Armond Balsano, an expert in health planning, did not believe the definition to be reasonable and thought it was unclear, ambiguous, and open ended. However his opinion in this regard was not persuasive. Proposed Rule 10-5.002(1) is reasonable and sufficiently clear to withstand this challenge. 10-5.002(13) and 10-5.008(2)(d)--Skilled Nursing Issues Proposed Rule 10-5.002(13) defines "community nursing home beds" as relevant to this proceeding to include "acute care beds licensed pursuant to Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., but designated as skilled nursing beds, which are reviewable pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [the nursing home bed need methodology]." Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) relates to fixed need pools and states: (d) Skilled Nursing Units in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units which are a distinct part of a hospital will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as acute care beds. Essentially, proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) requires that skilled nursing beds in a distinct unit in a hospital be categorized as hospital "general" beds on the hospital license, but that they be carried at the same time on the inventory of community nursing home beds for purposes of projecting need under "pool" projections utilized by HRS for evaluating need for new beds. Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) attempts to codify what has been HRS's policy. This rule proposes that licensed acute care beds, which form a distinct part of a hospital-based skilled nursing unit, be counted in the nursing home bed inventory to project future need with respect to the nursing home bed need formula. Thus, these beds will no longer be counted or used in the acute care bed need formula to project the acute care bed need. From a health planning standpoint, several reasons exist for and against the inclusion of these hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. A hospital cannot use its acute care beds as skilled nursing beds without a certificate of need. However, pursuant to this rule, to obtain these distinct unit beds a hospital is forced to compete with nursing home applicants for those beds. Skilled nursing beds in hospitals are "general" beds set up in a special category for which there is no specialty hospital bed methodology. Applications are reviewed under the nursing home bed methodology. A skilled nursing unit in a hospital is a unit, certified under the Health Care Finance Administration program, to identify a distinct part of the hospital as being a service in which there is 24-hour nursing with an RN nurse on the day shift. There also must be skilled nursing multi-disciplinary treatments and therapy services provided. The Health Care Finance Administration categorizes such beds as hospital beds, a distinct part of a hospital. Skilled nursing facility (SNF) beds in a hospital are used to treat acutely ill patients with an average length of stay of 20 days, who are different from the extended care patients found in community nursing homes, who have lengths of stay of one year or longer. Hospital skilled nursing patients are overwhelmingly Medicare patients, whereas community nursing home patients are overwhelmingly Medicaid patients. In Florida, Medicaid does not reimburse for care provided in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. Hospital-based skilled nursing units are reimbursed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) on a cost-based method. This system of reimbursement is also used with respect to non-hospital-based skilled nursing facilities. Furthermore, this means that hospital-based units are no longer reimbursed under the DRG (Diagnosis Related Groups) system. Medicare limits the patient benefit period to 100 days, regardless of the patient setting. Except for hospitals having higher allowable costs, federal guidelines do not differentiate between hospital and non-hospital-based skilled nursing units. The level of staffing is higher in a hospital nursing unit than in any community nursing home. Specialized equipment and services are offered in the hospital skilled nursing unit which are not offered in the community nursing homes. There are different conceptual approaches to care in the skilled nursing unit in a hospital as compared to those provided in community nursing facilities. Acutely ill patients on intravenous feeding or hyperalimentation, and those with multiple diagnoses require the hospital level nursing care. These units are not intended to provide residential care. Hospital beds are licensed under Rule 10D-28, whereas nursing home beds are licensed under Rule 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Although the proposed rule requires skilled nursing beds in distinct units of hospitals to be comparatively and competitively reviewed with community nursing home applications, the two types of beds are not comparable. This creates an unfair comparison. As a matter of good health planning, these skilled units in hospitals should be reviewed differently and separately from regular community nursing home beds. By their nature, SNF beds in distinct units in hospitals are in fact "hospital" beds under Chapter 395 and not nursing home beds under Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Hospital-based skilled nursing units are not considered special care units as defined in Rule 10D-28, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, special care units deal with very specialized intensive care settings. However, pursuant to some federal guidelines and state licensing requirements, a skilled nursing unit is considered a custodial type setting. For example, special care units are surveyed about once every two years and skilled nursing facilities once every year. However, failure to conduct a survey is not a determinative factor for special care units continuing under the Medicaid/Medicare programs. Skilled nursing units are not as fortunate. In fact, failure to survey a skilled nursing unit leads to the expiration of its enrollment in the Medicaid/Medicare programs. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds and states that beds not covered under any specialty bed need methodology, which a skilled nursing unit is not, shall be considered general beds. This is why these hospital-based skilled nursing units are licensed as general acute care beds. The proposed rule amendments also present logistical problems. Hospitals and nursing homes are licensed under different chapters of the Florida Statues and the Florida Administrative Code, and those standards do not match. Their projects are in different planning cycles. HRS intends that hospitals apply for skilled nursing units on the nursing home application currently in use, but admits that the application does not really fit this type of project. The proposed rule amendments regarding skilled nursing units will be costly and burdensome. Although skilled nursing units offer valuable services and few currently exist, under the nursing home need rule it will be difficult to prove need for these projects. A hospital desiring to establish one will likely find itself having either to challenge the fixed need pool for nursing home beds or litigate the almost inevitable denial of its application for lack of need. Either course of action would involve time and expense over and above those usually encountered in the CON process, particularly because such an application would likely draw the opposition of existing nursing homes, even though their services are not really comparable. The proposed rule amendments do not comport with the basic health planning policy of reducing over-bedding by encouraging conversion to other services. It is unlikely a hospital could get a skilled nursing unit by showing a numeric need under the nursing home need methodology, and any attempt to show exceptional circumstances would be hampered by the lack of utilization data. Such beneficial conversions will probably also be chilled by the difficulty in converting a skilled nursing unit back to general acute care use, should it not be successful. Given the extreme acute care over-bedding which exists throughout the state, it is not anticipated that there will be any need for additional acute care beds for the foreseeable future. Since a skilled nursing unit would not be counted in the acute care bed inventory, the reconversion to acute care use would have to undergo CON review and would almost certainly be denied. 10-5.002(52) Proposed Rule 10-5.002(52) defines refinancing costs, which Rule 10- 5.004(2)(c) states are subject to expedited review under Section 381.706(2). The purpose of this definition is to provide guidance to applicants by identifying examples that are often encountered in either bond refunding or refinancing. The definition is straightforward in nature and encompasses the elements common in refinancing. Mr. Balsano, testifying for Adventist, readily acknowledged the preciseness of this definition, but faulted the definition for its absence of any discussion as to the potential benefit of refinancing. However, Mr. Balsano's concerns were misplaced. Distinctions exist between the benefits of refinancing and the meaning of refinancing. Indeed, the benefits of refinancing go to the merit of whether or not the certificate of need should be granted. Since every applicant is required to address the review criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, the proper forum for addressing the benefits of refinancing is in the CON application itself. Proposed Rule 10- 5.002(52) is simply a definition. 10-5.004(2)(g)--Projects Subject to Expedited Review: Capital Expenditure Projects This proposed rule allows applicants who propose a capital expenditure project to improve, repair, or correct their existing facility to apply for a certificate of need on an expedited basis. This proposed rule is conducive to encouraging existing facilities to make needed improvements by seeking approval of the expenditure expeditiously and without the delays associated with batching cycles. It is important for a provider to make and complete corrections or improvements quickly in order to minimize the disruption of patient care. Some of the more common capital expenditures include expansion of emergency departments or emergency rooms and the renovation or expansion of other patient care areas. An application to relocate a hospital is also considered a capital expenditure. Under extreme circumstances of pervasive physical plant deficiencies, coupled with a lack of practical renovation options to overcome plant deficiencies, an existing health care facility might apply for a replacement facility. Only when such replacement facility would (1) involve no new beds or changed bed use (e.g., from general acute care to comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds), (2) involve no substantial change in services, and (3) involve no substantial change in service area would HRS consider such an application to be solely reviewable as a capital expenditure and thus entitled to expedited review under the proposed rule. HRS reviews replacement facility applications by carefully assessing the applicants' claims of pervasive physical plant problems. HRS sends a team of experts, including architects, to the existing facilities to independently judge whether the physical plant is in such a condition as would warrant replacement and whether renovations could serve as a practical alternative from a physical standpoint. HRS also performs an economic assessment to compare the alternatives of replacement versus renovation in order to determine the most cost-effective alternative. Replacement facility applications typically involve a determination not of whether dollars will be spent, but rather, how they are best spent--by replacement or by renovation. As such, HRS helps to contain health care costs without participation by competitors in these institution- specific decisions. Pursuant to Section 381.709(5)(b), Florida Statutes, competitors do not have standing to challenge a proposed capital expenditure and, therefore, there is no adequate reason to defer review of these projects until a future application cycle. Further, when a capital expenditure approval is sought to replace or relocate an existing facility, no one other than the applicant/existing facility can apply to spend or make those expenditures. An unrelated entity cannot compete to replace another entity's existing facility. Conducting a comparative review with respect to a capital expenditure project for the replacement of a hospital is illogical, unworkable, and futile. 10.5.008(1)(c)3 and 10-5.008(3)(b)--Capitalized Costs Proposed Rule 10-5.008(1)(c) requires that a letter of intent describe the proposal with specificity. Subsection (1)(c)3 sets forth the following requirement: 3. A proposed capital expenditure must be rounded to the nearest dollar . . . . If no capital expenditure is proposed, the applicant must so indicate. If the actual capital expenditure has already been incurred, either wholly or in part, and the project will account for such expenditures as capitalized costs, regardless of the purpose, then the total capital expenditure of the project shall be indicated. As related to this same subject, proposed Rule 10-5.008(3)(b) states: (b) Capital expenditures incurred for projects not originally subject to Certificate of Need review must be identified as a proposed expenditure when such expenditure will be capitalized in a project for which a Certificate of Need is required. HRS asserts that this proposed rule codifies HRS's existing policy and that the purpose of this provision is to develop consistency in how applicants treat an already incurred capital expenditure. It is also allegedly intended that this proposed rule give uniformity concerning how project costs are calculated and allocated. For example, if an applicant is going to convert space from one use to another, the value of the space must be included in the applicant's capital expenditure estimate. While Ms. Gordon-Girvin, HRS's health planning expert, opined that this proposed rule is consistent with current practices in the health care market place concerning how capital expenditures are treated and that it forms a common basis of comparison for comparing the applicants' treatment of capitalized costs, the greater weight of the credible evidence does not support these opinions. Actually, the effect of these proposed rules is that a certificate of need applicant, who has previously made capital expenditures and later pursues a certificate of need project utilizing such prior capitalized costs, must identify and include those prior capital expenditures as a portion of the certificate of need project, even though no actual incremental funds will be necessary or spent in connection with the project. One of the problems with proposed Rules 10-5.008(1)(c)3 and (3)(b) is that they both ignore a distinction between fixed costs and variable costs which is fundamental to a financial evaluation of any project. Specifically, it is inappropriate to require an applicant who will have no incremental costs in implementing a project to allocate a portion of prior capital expenditures, where such an application is measured against a competing application in which the entire outlay for capital costs will be necessary. This distorts the evaluation due to inappropriately comparing prior fixed costs to future variable costs. An example of the illogical result of the proposed rules provides guidance. If a hospital has already spent one million dollars to add a CON- exempt outpatient cardiac cath lab, and later seeks to establish an inpatient cardiac cath program, under these proposed provisions, that hospital would have to represent a cost of one million dollars in its application to convert the outpatient cardiac cath lab to an inpatient project. From a health planning and financial standpoint, this is inappropriate. Having to include capital costs which have already been incurred and viewing those costs in the context of the decision to approve or reject a CON project is misleading. Ultimately, the purpose and objective of the CON process is to minimize duplication of health care resources. The proposed rules work in conflict with that goal. Conversion of underutilized resources to resources that could be more beneficially utilized is a policy that is encouraged by HRS. This policy is encouraged in the various need methodologies. One of the reasons to encourage a conversion is that often zero dollars are involved to convert a project from one CON-approved use to another CON-approved use. Proposed Rules 10-5.008(1)(c)3 and (3)(b) would eliminate consideration of the minimal cost involved in a conversion project and are therefore unreasonable. Moreover, the proposed rules could end up creating excess resources in the system simply because they would eliminate the preference for conversion as opposed to new construction. With respect to allocating prior capital expenditures, the proposed rules, as alleged by HRS, are intended to codify existing HRS policy as well as provide uniformity to the process of ascertaining project costs. These proposed rules do neither. In point of fact, HRS has accepted, within the last three years, conversion projects indicating a zero project cost in the application. The proposed rules are thus inconsistent with current HRS policy of accepting and evaluating these applications and are contrary to HRS's stated intention in this proceeding. However, with respect to providing uniformity to the process of ascertaining project costs, the proposed rules provide no methodology by which prior capital cost allocations are to be determined. Indeed, there is no uniformity proposed regarding how a health care facility or applicant accounts for capital expenditures. Generally, a capital expenditure is one that is "material" and the useful life of the item capitalized exceeds one year. What is material to one applicant may be entirely different from that which would be material to another applicant. Thus, the uniformity of presentation of prior capitalized costs contained in CON applications submitted to HRS for review will not and cannot exist as envisioned by HRS in its proposed rules. 10-5.005(2)(e) Proposed Rule 10-5.005 relates to exemption from CON review and Subsection (2)(e) states as follows: (e) Failure to initiate the exemption within twelve months after it appears in the Florida Administrative Weekly will result in the notice of exemption being void. The alleged basis for this proposed rule is to protect those persons pursuing an exemption by ensuring that they are still eligible for it under the same facts and circumstances. Additionally, HRS has encountered problems in the past when entities have received a determination of exemption for a project but have failed to implement the project. In one case, HRS gave a nursing home an exemption to replace a facility on site. After discharging the patients, the nursing home took no further action. However, these beds are still licensed and are included in the bed inventory. Such a situation artificially suppresses the need for nursing home beds in that district for the planning horizon. The proposed rule is an attempted response to this problem. The laws implemented by the proposed rules are Section 381.706 and 381.713(1). Pursuant to these sections, HRS must grant an exemption if the applicant meets the statutory definitions. Further, if a project is exempt, it is not subject to review. Exemption requests may be made at any time and are not subject to batching requirements. Once a project is deemed to be exempt and not subject to review, HRS ceases to have jurisdiction over the project and HRS, accordingly, has no jurisdiction to void an exemption. 10-5.008(2)(f) Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(f) establishes a procedure for HRS and applicants to follow when a departmental need methodology does not exist for a proposed project. The proposed rule attempts to clarify for applicants how best to present themselves when applying for a project for which no methodology has been adopted in an existing rule. This is particularly useful to applicants in addressing the need component required by statute. Policy utilized but not yet adopted by HRS will be provided to applicants in addressing the need component required by statute; however, applicants are not bound by that policy and may tender their need calculations. This proposed rule gives credence to the fact that there may be different methodologies and allows applicants the opportunity to make all the necessary arguments to demonstrate the nature and extent of entitlement to a certificate of need. 10-5.0085(4) Proposed Rule 10-5.008(4) describes shared service arrangements and delineates the procedures applicants must follow to initiate or terminate a shared service. The part of the proposed rule challenged by FHA and the area on which it focused concerned the termination of a shared service arrangement. Proposed Rule 10-5.008(4) provides in pertinent part: (4)(a) The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services where none of the applicants are currently authorized to provide the service: * * * Any of the parties providing a shared service may seek to dissolve the arrangement. This action is subject to review as a termination of service. If termination is approved by the department, all parties to the original shared service give up their rights to provide the service. Parties seeking to provide the service independently in the future must submit applications in the next applicable review cycle and compete for the service with all other applicants. * * * 6.b. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services when one of the applicants has the service: * * * e. Dissolution of a shared services contract is subject to review as a termination of service. * * * If termination is approved, the entity(ies) authorized to provide the service prior to the contract retains the right to continue the service. All other parties to the contract who seek to provide the service in their own right must request the service as a new health service and are subject to full Certificate of Need review as a new health service. (Emphasis added) The basis for requiring CON review for a termination of a shared service as delineated above is found in Section 381.706(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). If a shared service arrangement terminates, the party who originally had the service would retain the service. This is reasonable because the entity would have already been granted a certificate of need for the service, singularly offered. The party would be placed back in the same situation it was in prior to the shared service. Conversely, in situations where neither party originally had the service, the remaining parties would have to apply for the service in a batched review. This, too, is reasonable in that the service would no longer be shared and the ability to provide it singularly would be evaluated anew. Here, the party would also be placed back in the same situation it was in prior to the shared service. Additionally, a shared service arrangement (and approval of it) is based on certain benefits present within that arrangement. Upon termination the same benefits may not be present. The identity of the parties and their relationships to each other will have changed. Review at this point provides an applicant the opportunity to compete again to establish the service in its own right under a different set of circumstances, and it allows other providers to compete either for the service in their own right or through another shared arrangement. Such a policy is prudent because the very reason for the shared service was to produce benefits that were not otherwise obtainable singularly. Indeed, even FHA's own witness, Mr. Bebee, acknowledged that certain advantages to a shared services arrangement might not be present when such an arrangement terminates. 10-5.010(2) Proposed Rule 10-5.010(2) concerns what local health plan is to be used and addressed in a CON application, and it provides as follows: The applicable local health plan is the most current plan adopted by the appropriate local health council and which has been accepted and approved in writing by the Department at the time letters of intent are due or, if not accepted by the Department, as reviewed and commented on by the Department. The agency will provide to all prospective applicants those items of the local health plan which must be addressed in the application. HRS asserts that the purpose of this amendment to existing Rule 10- 5.010 is to assist applicants by identifying various components of the plan to which they should address their application and thereby maximize their time and effort and, ultimately, their chances for approval and that this proposed rule codifies current departmental practice of providing those items of the local health plan which must be addressed by the applicant. Contrary to HRS's assertion that this proposed rule is clarifying in nature, the rule in fact goes far beyond those parameters. "Reviewed and commented on by the Department" means that the local health council's adopted plan has been reviewed for consistency with existing need methodologies and has been commented on by HRS. HRS maintains that "commented on" does not mean verbal comments. The proposed rule does not, however, specify that only written comments were intended. Indeed, HRS admitted that the way the rule is drafted it takes into account oral as well as written comments. Statutorily, HRS is required to adopt as a rule the local health plans or portions thereof to be used in the CON review regulatory process. Local health plans generally contain allocation factors, preferences, and policies with respect to the particular district. Within the last several months, HRS has sought to adopt as a rule preferences and policies set forth in the various local health plans around the state of Florida. HRS withdrew those proposed rules. Proposed Rule 10-5.010(2) does not make reference to or account for the fact that the local health plans must be adopted as rules by HRS. HRS cannot circumvent statutory requirements by proposing that an applicant address "approved plans," nor can it require an applicant to address local health plans with which HRS is not in full agreement with the local health council as to whether the plan is consistent with statutory guidelines. Indeed, where HRS and the local health council are in disagreement, an applicant is pulled between HRS and the local council. This proposed rule allows HRS to simply reject the expressed wants of the local health council and to insert its own comments and views, thereby inserting itself into a province exclusively reserved to the local health councils. 10-5.020 Proposed Rule 10-5.020 involves addition of one sentence to the existing rule. The added language provides that HRS will issue a license to the CON holder in accordance with the CON and will not issue a license for fewer beds than the total on the CON. The proposed addition to this rule addresses a problem currently facing the Department, and it reflects a change in agency policy for HRS. Basically, the added language clarifies for an applicant or certificate of need holder that the Office of Licensure and Certification shall only issue a license consistent with the terms of the certificate of need. The proposed rule addition conforms to several health planning goals. First, it requires the implementation of a project in accordance with the certificate of need. Second, the language addresses HRS's current problem of need suppression by industry members. Third, it seeks to ensure uniform development of services. This proposed rule does not penalize hospitals who want to do phase-in type projects. On the contrary, the language seeks to ensure that needed beds and services will be implemented in the horizon year in accordance with the application and entitlement demonstrated by the applicant. Economic Impact Statement The Summary of the Estimate of the Economic Impact states in relevant part: The proposed amendments are expected to have no adverse impact either on existing and new applicants for certificate of need, or on small and minority businesses . . . . The Economic Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the cost to the agency of implementing the proposed rules, an estimate of the cost to persons directly affected by the proposed rules, an estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition, a statement of the date and method used in making those estimates, and an analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Specifically, the EIS states that the proposed rules "will have a minimal economic impact on current or future certificate of need applicants and the public at large." There is no competent, substantial evidence to establish with specificity the existence of any defects in the EIS which impaired the fairness of the rulemaking proceeding or the correctness of the agency actions related to the EIS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: 1. Proposed Rules 10-5.002(1) and (52), 10-5.004(2)(g), 10-5.008(2)(f), 10-5.0085(4), and 10-5.020 are valid. 2. Proposed Rules 10-5.002(13); 10-5.008(1)(c)3, (2)(d), and (3)(b); 10- 5.005(2)(e); and 10-5.010(2) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 10th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE FINAL ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in these cases. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners Venice Hospital and Adventist Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(3); 5(5); 6(6); 10(14); 12(15 and 16); 15-17(25-27); and 19(28). Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed finding of fact 2 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 14, 20, 23, and 26 are unsupported by the credible, competent, and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner FHA Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(7); 5(10); 6(11); 8-12(12- 16); and 13-17(19-23). Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, 18, 19, and 21-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order Proposed finding of fact 7 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 20 is unsupported by the credible, competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Humana Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(34, 35, and 38). Proposed findings of fact 2, 5, and 7-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, 4, and 14-19 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners NME and PIA Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2(34, 35, and 38); 3-6(39- 42); 8(53); and 9(54 and 55). Proposed findings of fact 1 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 10 and 11 are irrelevant because these Petitioners dismissed their challenge to the EIS in the Stipulation of the parties admitted as Joint Exhibit 2. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Sarasota Proposed findings of fact 1-4, 6, 7, and 13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed finding of fact 5 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 17, 18, and 20 are unsupported by the credible, competent, and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent HRS Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 and 2); 2(28); 3(46); 4(47-49); 5(51); 7(29); 8(32 and 33); 9(33); 11(8); 13(17); 14(18); 15(23); 16(23 and 24); 17(36); 19(37); 21(57); and 22(58). Proposed findings of fact unnumbered paragraph re: 10-5.005(2)(e); 10; 12; 18; 20; and unnumbered paragraph re: Economic Impact Statement are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1A and 6 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor HCA DOCTORS Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(30) and 7(31). Proposed findings of fact 2-5 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 9-11 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 8 is irrelevant. *NOTE: THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER'S EXHIBIT "A" [RULE 10-5.002, 10-5.004(2), 10-5.005(2), 10-2.008(1)(n), 10-5.008(5)(h), 10-5.010(2), 10-5.020] IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE DIVISION'S CLERK'S OFFICE. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffery A. Boone, Attorney at Law Robert P. Mudge, Attorney at Law 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, FL 34284 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Attorney at Law 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 James C. Hauser, Attorney at Law 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 C. Gary Williams, Attorney at Law Stephen C. Emmanuel, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Theodore C. Eastmoore, Attorney at Law 1550 Ringling Boulevard Post Office Box 3258 Sarasota, FL 34230 Robert A. Weiss, Attorney at Law John M. Knight, Attorney at Law The Perkins House, Suite 101 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Thomas R. Cooper, Attorney at Law Edward G. Labrador, Attorney at Law Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Radey, Attorney at Law Elizabeth W. McArthur, Attorney at Law Suite 1000, Monroe-Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, FitzGerald & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House--Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Liz Cloud, Chief Bureau of Administrative Code Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
The Issue The issue presented for determination herein is whether or not F.A.C. Health Care, Inc., d/b/a Spring Hill Health Facility (Petitioner) is entitled to a Certificate of Need to establish a 60-bed nursing home to serve Hernando County.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing, including the pre-hearing stipulation, the following relevant facts are found. F.A.C. Health Care, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of First American Corporation. First American Corporation has owned, operated and developed approximately 75 long-term care and retirement facilities over the past 15 years. These operations are primarily located in the southeastern United States. At present, First American Corporation operates 20 facilities and has seven Certificates of Need in the developmental stages. (TR. 35, Fulmer) On January 14, 1984, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate a community nursing home in the City of Spring Hill in Hernando County, at a total cost of $3,180,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The letter of denial accompanying the state agency action report dated April 30, 1984, noted the basis for denial as follows: Existing and approved bed capacity in Citrus/Hernando Counties is sufficient to satisfy projected need for 1986. There are 60 nursing home beds that have been approved but have not been constructed at the present time, which, when added to the existing nursing home bed supply in Citrus/Hernando Counties, will serve to satisfy a portion of the projected need for skilled nursing home beds in the sub-district through 1986. The proposed 120 beds are in excess of the 37 beds needed to reduce the prospective base utilization rate to a reasonable level by 1986. (TR. 36, Fulmer; Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On September 26, 1984, Petitioner amended its original application to reflect a reduction from 120 to 60 nursing home beds. Documents reflecting the corresponding reduction in project costs from 53,180,000 to 51,780,000 were submitted with the amended proposal. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED SPRING HILL FACILITY The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of a project is one criteria considered during the Certificate of Need review process. Section 381.494(6)(c)9., Florida Statutes. The total cost of the project of 51,780,000 appears reasonable and in line with similar projects. Funds for full 100 per cent financing of the project are available through industrial revenue bonds at 14 per cent interest over 30 years. In order to acquire an industrial revenue bond application, Petitioner would maintain a $150.000 debt service reserve fund. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Other methods of financing available to finance the subject project include conventional financing, syndicated equity programs and insurance investment programs. (Testimony of Fulmer at TR. 39-40) Due to the largely rural setting, projected utilization for the first year would be 81 per cent Medicaid, 5 per cent Medicare and 14 per cent private pay. Occupancy is projected to reach 97 per cent by the fifth full month of operation and would be supported in part by the increased utilization of nursing home beds as a direct result of the implementation of diagnostic related groupings. Pro forma statements for the first and second years of operation show a net operating profit beginning in the ninth month and continuing through the second year. The equipment costs, staffing patterns and personnel budget also appear reasonable for this type of project. METHODS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Another issue in this proceeding was whether Spring Hill satisfied the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c)13., Florida Statutes, regarding the cost and methods of construction. Spring Hill's proposed facility will provide 11,981 square feet devoted to patient care and 9,710 square feet for administrative and common service areas at a construction cost of $41.50 per square foot. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Proposed construction costs and methods of construction efficiently minimize square footage space requirements and related construction costs and will permit the most efficient operation of the facility at a low per diem cost. The construction cost appears reasonable and is also supportive of a primarily Medicaid based facility. Finally, Respondent offered no evidence to controvert the reasonableness of construction costs and methods proposed by Petitioner. IMPACT ON HEALTH CARE COSTS Section 381.494(6)(c)12., Florida Statutes provides that as part of the Certificate of Need review, probable impact of the proposed project on the cost of providing health care services be considered. Petitioner's expert, Fulmer, urges that there would either be no impact on the cost of care or due to the availability of additional Medicaid beds, costs would be reduced since the private pay demands of family and relatives having to pay for the care of an individual rather than participating in the Medicaid program would reduce the costs of health care to the community rather than increase the financial burden. In this regard, Petitioner offered no evidence to substantiate the claim that the demand for Medicaid beds exceeded the supply, or that Medicaid patients had been refused health services by the available Medicaid health care providers. AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF EXISTING SERVICES Hernando County lies within HRS District III which is composed of 16 counties in north-central Florida, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico north of Tampa to the Georgia border. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The District is further divided into sub-districts. Hernando County represents a separate sub-district. Petitioner's facility is proposed to be located in the City of Spring Hill, located in the fastest growing area of Hernando County. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) The latest bulletin (No. 69) from the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, shows a 90 per cent projected growth between 1980 and 1990. Much of the population in the Spring Hill area falls in the 65 and older age bracket. County age group projections released by HRS on September 24, 1984, reveal that the elderly population of 65 and over in Hernando County in 1985 is projected as 17,616, or approximately 27 per cent of total population. By 1990, those projections will grow to 24,887 or approximately 29 per cent of total population. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) The growth trend in Hernando County is an extension of the rapid coastline development occurring in the New Port Richey- Clearwater areas and the counties to the south of Hernando. Previously, the only major development in Hernando County was centered in Brooksville, the middle of the county. Consequently, the existing community nursing home services in Hernando County are concentrated in the Brooksville area. Although Petitioner, through its expert (Konrad) testified that there is a mal-distribution of existing beds and community nursing home services which renders them neither available nor accessible to the rapidly growing elderly population in the southwestern Hernando County corridor and that high occupancy rates in existing community nursing homes in the area and the existence of waiting lists corroborates the lack of availability and accessibility of community nursing home services in the area, the evidence introduced herein failed to establish either the existence of waiting lists or that the existing community nursing homes in the area were overcrowded. SHELTERED VERSUS COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS Petitioner contends that certain nursing home beds associated with the adult congregate living facility at Evergreen Woods in the Spring Hill area are not actually available and accessible to the general public but instead are functioning as sheltered nursing home beds. Respondent, on the other hand, considers the 60 nursing home beds associated with Evergreen Woods to be available and accessible to the general public. A review of the entire record compiled herein failed to substantiate Petitioner's claim that those beds at Evergreen Woods are unavailable and/or inaccessible to the general public. DETERMINATION OF NEED, SECTION 381.494(6)(c)1., FLORIDA STATUTES. In determining need for nursing home beds, a Certificate of Need project is reviewed on a 3-year planning horizon. In this case, predicted need for nursing home beds in District III and the sub-district of Hernando County is calculated through 1987. Hernando County is a single county sub-district located within in HRS planning District III in north central Florida. HRS has determined the overall nursing home bed need for District III as well as sub-district allocations by applying the uniform nursing home bed need methodology for community nursing home services contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.11(21). (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) Respondent provided a step-by-step application of the community nursing home bed need rule and introduced their exhibits supporting the calculation period (Testimony of expert medical facilities consultant, R. Jaffe and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2). Briefly stated, application of the pertinent rules reveals an extrapolated need for 31 beds which are available for CON approval based on data available to Respondent on June 29, 1984 and that 36 beds are available based on later data released on September 24, 1984. (TR. 91, Conrad; TR. 130, Jaffe and Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The census report applicable herein reflects that there were 360 licensed beds in the Hernando sub-districts and no approved beds for a total of 360 beds. 2/ Application of the nursing home bed need methodology is not the sole factor used in determining whether a CON application should be granted. Other factors, such as access, high occupancy rates, chronically underserved population and high Medicaid utilization are definite factors in approval of additional beds in cases where the rule shows either no need or only slight need. Respondent has, on several occasions, granted 60-bed applications where accessibility issues justified the grant of a minimum-sized facility in spite of the lesser numerical need indicated under the rules. 3/ Petitioner referred to instances wherein Respondent had granted approval for CON's in other districts where there were unusual circumstances such as accessibility issues as referred to herein above. A review of those cases reveals that a departure from the usual bed-need methodology is warranted in cases of extremely high occupancy rates (95 per cent or higher) or the facilities with lower occupancy rates, e.g. 85.7 per cent for homes in Sarasota County, which were located in inaccessible distances away from the population concentration. Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficient basis herein to warrant a departure from the usual bed need rule methodology. The instances wherein a departure from the usual bed need rule methodology has occurred are distinguishable, inasmuch as in the instant case, there are three existing facilities presently in Hernando County offering 360 nursing home beds. Current occupancy rate has been shown to be reasonable and is standing at or below average for District III. Additionally, Respondent introduced a "Stipulation of Settlement" dated September 28, 1984 which was entered into by and between Evergreen Woods Health Care Center and Respondent. The substance of that stipulation reveals that during October of 1983, Evergreen Woods Health Care Center (EWHCC) as Petitioner, filed an application with Respondent for a Certificate of Need to add 60 beds to its existing 60-bed nursing home located in Spring Hill, Hernando County, Florida. The application sought 45 community beds and 15 sheltered beds. As a means of amicably resolving that proceeding and based on available need data based on applicable quarterly census reports and application of the need criteria, EWHCC, as Petitioner in that proceeding, amended its Certificate of Need application filed October, 1983, to add a total of 60 beds to its existing facility; 31 beds to be designated as community beds and 29 to be designated as sheltered beds. A review of the public records reveal that the Certificate of Need has been issued (amended CON No. 2959 issued early October, 1984) pursuant to that stipulation of settlement. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The application of First American Corporation d/b/a Spring Hill Health Facility for establishment of a 60-bed nursing home facility in Hernando County, Florida, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 14th day of February, 1985.
The Issue As stated in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the "issue to be litigated is whether Petitioner is entitled to a Superior or Standard rating on its license for the period September 1, 1986 through August 31, 1987"?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, The Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, is a 210-bed nursing home located in a four-story building in Pensacola, Florida. It is licensed as a nursing home by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Howard Bennett and his wife have been the owners of the Petitioner since it was built in 1978. On April 28-30, 1986, and May 1-2, 1986, the Department conducted an annual Licensure and Certification survey (hereinafter referred to as the "Annual Survey") of the Petitioner's nursing home as required by Section 400.23, Florida Statutes. Based upon the Annual Survey conducted by the Department, the Department determined that the Petitioner's facility failed to meet nursing home licensure requirement numbers (NH) 100 and 102, as identified on the Department's Nursing Home Licensure Survey Report, DHRS exhibit 2. The deficiencies found by the Department and which in fact existed during the Annual Survey relating to NH 100 and 102 were as follows: The charge nurse for each shift on each of the four floors of the facility is responsible, under direction from Director of Nursing, for the total nursing activities in the facility during each tour of duty. The charge nurses are thus responsible for ensuring that nursing personnel carry out the direct nursing care needs of specific patients and assist in carrying out these nursing care needs. This responsibility is not always met in that: On the day of the survey, there were urine odors noted on the halls, rooms of fourth and third floors, indicating lack of attention by nursing. Other instances of lack of personal attention by nursing on the above mentioned floor in that: One patient required oral hygiene. Fourteen residents required fingernail care, one resident's fingernails were long, thick, and black indicating a need for attention. Two residents had redden buttocks, three residents were wet, three residents needed shaving, three residents needed hair cuts. One resident needed colostomy bag changed. One resident had a small amount of feces on backside, and was not properly cleaned around the rectum and scrotum. Several residents had on clothing that was too tight, zippers open, buttons not fasten, soil wrinkled and threads hanging around the bottom. It is also noted, that there are 116 total care, and 17 self care residents in the facility indicating a need for constant intensive nursing care to the residents. Ref. 10D-29.108(3)(d)(1) Based upon the totality of these deficiencies, it was concluded that the Petitioner failed to comply with the standard of care to be provided by the charge nurse. The deficiencies cited by the Department during the Annual Survey were classified as Class III deficiencies. The Annual Survey was conducted by Christine Denson. Ms. Denson had conducted nine to ten annual surveys of the Petitioner prior to the survey which is the subject of this proceeding. During Ms. Denson's inspection of the Petitioner's nursing home, Ms. Denson pointed out the deficiencies which are noted above to the director of nursing who accompanied Ms. Denson during her inspection. Ms. Denson normally records in some manner the identity of a resident to whom a deficiency relates; by noting the room number or bed number. Ms. Denson did not follow this procedure during the Annual Survey. Ms. Denson met with Howard Bennett, the owner of the Petitioner, at the conclusion of the Annual Survey. After Ms. Denson had explained the deficiencies she had found during her inspection, Judge Bennett stated to Ms. Denson: "I know the place is going down hill. We are letting it slide. Judge Bennett did not ask Ms. Denson for any information concerning the identity of the residents to which deficiencies related. The Petitioner had policies in effect at the time of the Annual Survey which addressed each of the deficiencies cited by the Department. Those policies were not, however, followed. Ms. Denson did not know when the residents to which the deficiencies she found related had been admitted to the Petitioner, their medical condition, how long the fingernail problems had existed or how long the residents had resided at the Petitioner. Ms. Denson did not speak to the residents about the problems she noted, review their medical or dental records or talk to any residents' physician. Finally, Ms. Denson did not remember whether any of the residents were continent or incontinent. On August 13, 1986, a letter was issued by the Department informing the Petitioner that its license rating was being converted from a superior rating to a standard rating. The August 13, 1986, letter from the Department also indicated that the deficiencies noted in the Annual Survey had been corrected based upon a July 31, 1986, follow-up inspection conducted by the Department. The Petitioner requested an administrative hearing challenging the proposed rating of its license by letter dated September 24, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued assigning a standard rating on the Petitioner's license for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4182 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Accentance or Reason for Rejection 1-3, 6-7, 81 These are matters included in the Prehearing Stipulation. They are hereby accepted. 4-5 Statement of the issue in this case 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Denson testified at pages 48-49 of the transcript that whether a nursing home was considered to be out of compliance depended on the totality of the deficiencies and that she considered all of the deficiencies she found at the Petitioner's facility. 9 12. 10-11 10. 12-13 7. 14 Irrelevant. 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29-31 10. 17 Hearsay. 18, 28, 33-34, 36-37, 39, 41-43, 45 Hereby accepted. 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 48, 54-66, 71, 73-77 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They all involve, however, possible explanations for the deficiencies found at the Petitioner's facility. In order for these proposed findings of fact to be relevant it would have to be concluded that the Department had the burden of dispelling any and all possible explanations for the deficiencies. Such a conclusion would not be reasonable in this case. The Department presented testimony that the deficiencies cited existed and that, taken as a whole, they supported a conclusion that the Petitioner was not providing minimum nursing care. This evidence was credible and sufficient to meet the Department's burden of proof and to shift the burden to the Petitioner to provide proof of any explanations for the deficiencies. 35 9. 38, 40, 49-51, 53, 82-83, 86-87 Irrelevant and/or argument. 43-44 1. 46-47, 51, 56, 66-67, 71-71 These proposed findings of fact are true. They are not relevant to this proceeding, however, because they involve situations at the Petitioner's facility which may explain the deficiencies. The Petitioner failed to prove that they actually were the cause of any of the deficiencies. 70, 78-80, 84-85 Conclusions of law. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2-3. 2 11-12. 3 4 and 6. 4 4. 5-7 Irrelevant, summary of testimony, conclusion of law. 8 9. 9 8. 10 Irrelevant. 11 8. 12 Summary of testimony and facts relating to the weight of Ms. Mayo's testimony. 13-14 Hereby accepted. 15 Argument. 16-17 Conclusions of law. 18 4. 19-20 Conclusions of law, argument and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael O. Mathis Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
