The Issue Whether a civil penalty should be imposed upon the Petitioner for alleged violations of Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns an adult congregate living facility. On May 28, 1985, Jim Temkin, an employee of the Respondent, inspected the Petitioner's facility. As a result of this inspection, Mr. Temkin noted four violations of the rules and regulations governing the operation of Florida adult congregate living facilities. (Other deficiencies, not relevant to this proceeding, were also noted). The deficiencies noted in Mr. Temkin's May 28, 1985, inspection report were as follows: ACLF 1 Styrofoam plastic ceiling is used in the dining room, sleeping rooms, hallway, bathrooms and laundry, the kitchen has a particle board ceiling all of which appear to be combustible. . . . . ACLF 2 The kitchen has a gas range and an electrical range without exhausts or automatic extinguishing systems. . . . . ACLF 3 The outside chimney stark [sic] for the gas heater in the resident dining room does not extend above the roof. . . . . ACLF 5 Bed No. 1 & No. 2 have unprotected windows into the dining room. The deficiencies quoted in finding of fact 3 (hereinafter referred to as "ACLF 1, 2, 3 or 5"), were discussed with the Petitioner by Mr. Temkin at the conclusion of his inspection. The Petitioner was given the opportunity to select reasonable dates for correction of the problems noted by Mr. Temkin. The Petitioner accompanied Mr. Temkin during his inspection on May 28, 1985. The following dates were agreed upon by the Petitioner and Mr. Temkin for the correction of the deficiencies noted in finding of fact 3: ACLF 1: February 1, 1986. ACLF 2: September 28, 1985. ACLF 3: July 8, 1985. ACLF 5: July 8, 1985. On March 24, 1986, Mr. Temkin returned to the Petitioner's facility to determine if the deficiencies noted in his May 28, 1985, report had been corrected. Deficiencies ACLF 3 and 5 had not been corrected. Deficiencies ACLF 1 and 2 had only been partially corrected. Therefore, as of March 24, 1986, the Petitioner had failed to correct the deficiencies within the correction periods agreed upon by the Petitioner and the Respondent. ACLF 1 involved the use of materials for the roofs of the rooms noted by the Respondent in violation of Section 6-5.1.3 of the Life Safety Code, National Fire Prevention Association Codes and Standards. Use of these materials constituted an indirect hazard to residents of the facility. As of March 24, 1986, the hazardous material had been replaced with sheet rock in only the back bedrooms. ACLF 2 involved the use of a range without proper fire protection. Failure to have the proper protection constituted an indirect hazard to residents because fire could easily spread from the kitchen to other parts of the facility. The Petitioner could have chosen from at least two methods to correct this problem. The Petitioner chose to install fire doors on the two exists from the kitchen. As of March 24, 1986, only one door had been installed. ACLF 3 involved an outside exhaust from a gas heater. Mr. Temkin estimated that the exhaust extended only 9 inches above the roof. Mr. Temkin did not measure the exhaust. Instead, Mr. Temkin merely observed the exhaust from the ground. Mr. Temkin's estimate is insufficient to prove that the exhaust was less than 2 feet above the roof. ACLF 5 involved two windows between two bedrooms and the "dining room." In fact, the windows were between two bedrooms and a sitting room; not the dining room. These windows did not, however, provide sufficient protection from fire outside the bedrooms to meet Chapter 17 of the Life Safety Code, National Fire Prevention Association Codes and Standards. The windows constituted an indirect risk to residents because fire could easily spread from the sitting room into the bedrooms. On May 1, 1986, Mr. Temkin inspected the Petitioner's facility again. ACLF 1, 3 and 5 had still not been corrected. Therefore, a new date was agreed upon for the correction of these items: August 1, 1986. The new date was not an extension of time. The new date was given simply because the Petitioner had failed to meet the originally prescribed date and a completion date had to be re-established. At no time before or after the original completion dates for ACLF 1, 2, 3 and 5 did the Respondent agree to a different completion date in substitution of the original dates or extend the original extension dates. The Petitioner took steps to correct ACLF 1, 2, 3 and 5. The steps taken by the Petitioner were not, however, successful in insuring that the deficiencies were corrected by the completion date originally agreed to by the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner has not been charged at any other time with a violation of the law applicable to the operation of an adult congregate living facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be found guilty of, and a total civil penalty of $200.00 be imposed for, violating the Class III deficiencies identified by the Respondent as ACLF 1 and 2. It is further: RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be found not guilty of the Class III deficiencies identified by the Respondent as ACLF 3 and 5. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Narvel Armstrong, pro se Post Office Box 261 Vernon, Florida 32462 John R. Perry, Esquire Assistant District 2 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 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
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lori Engelleiter, advertised in the Island Trader, a local shopper publication, and in the newspaper, holding herself out to provide regular care for the elderly, the handicapped and the retarded in her private home for unspecified monthly rates. In response to these advertisements, at least two individuals were taken into the Respondent's home for care, as arranged by relatives of these clients. The Respondent provided regular personal care for not more than three residents at a time. This personal care consisted of housing, meals, help with bathing, and with dressing and changing clothes. In the cases of the two clients of the Respondent whose stays at the facility were detailed at the hearing, the personal care was provided by the Respondent for a period of three weeks in one instance, and for more than four weeks in the other instance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent is guilty of operating an Adult congregate Living Facility without a license, and imposing a fine of $500 as penalty therefor. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 12 day of April, 1984. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 12th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas E. Whitney, Esquire 400 East Robinson Street Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Lori Engelleiter Post Office Box 24 Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner's facility meets the standards and qualifications to be eligible for licensure as an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner/operator of Old Cutler Retirement Home (Old Cutler) which is located at 19720 Old Cutler Road in Miami, Florida. Old Cutler has been functioning as an ACLF since at least 1981 and has been the subject of citations for violations of the fire and health safety codes which Respondent enforce. (Respondent's Dade County Health Report dated June 9, 1981.) On October 7, 1985, Respondent conducted a survey of Old Cutler and found the following deficiencies: the income and expense records for the facility were not available for review. services delivered for the facility by a third party contractor were not documented and placed in the residents' records. the facility did not have personnel policies and work assignments. the facility failed to provide assurances that (1) at least one staff member was on duty at all times who was certified in an approved first aid course; (2) staff that provided hygiene assistance was properly trained, and (3) staff was free of communicable disease. the facility did not have written job descriptions available for review. the employees were not furnished written policies governing conditions of employment. full bedside rails were observed in one resident's bed room. notations concerning drug disposition of a former resident's medication were not entered into the resident's file. the facility did not have policies and procedures to insure minimal leisure services for residents. the facility did not have procedures for assisting residents in making medical and related health appointments. residents' bedrooms did not have adequate space for hanging clothes. the facility did not have an adequate number of bathrooms for the residents. furniture at the facility was not kept in good repair. the facility smelled of a strong urine odor. the facility grounds were cluttered with debris and garden/construction equipment. the facility did not have a written main- tenance and housekeeping plan. Food Service irregularities (observed on October 7, 1985): the facility did not have food service procedures to provide for resident's nutri- tional care. the employee designated responsible for providing food service failed to demonstrate proper training of food service personnel purchasing sufficient food, (3) food service coordinated with other services, (4) duties were performed in a safe and sanitary manner, and (5) a knowledge of food that meets regular diets. the therapeutic diets did not meet the residents nutritional needs. there was no documentation of standardized recipes. menus were not planned, dated or posted as required. a week's supply of food was not on hand at the facility. food was not served at a safe, palatable temperature, as example, ambrosia fruit salad was kept and served at room temperature. food service was not properly carried out and the service was unsanitary in that spoiled and rotten food was stored in the refrigerator; the sinks and shelves were soiled, greasy and coated with debris; food was improperly thawed with standing hot water; hair restraints were not used; and at least one food service employee was observed smoking while preparing food. Additionally, on October 7, 1985, the laundry area did not provide the required one hour flame separation from the remainder of the facility. Also, the following fire safety irregularities were noted during the October 1985 survey: a manually operated fire alarm system with activating handles at each exit were not provided. smoke detectors powered by the electric current and interconnected to the fire alarm system was not provided. reports were not provided showing that the fire alarm system was tested quarterly. two means of egress are not provided for rooms 1 and 6. twenty-minute fire rated doors are not provided at all residents' doors. a commercial hood vented to the outside with an automatic extinguishing system is not provided. a key operated lock from the inside appears on the door of Room No. 13. there are obstructions in front of egress doors in room 3 and the dining area. the electric source supply to emergency lighting is provided by an extension cord. Petitioner has placed a mobile home immediately alongside the main facility at Old Cutler and the mobile home is situated closer than ten (10) feet from all sides of Old Cutler. The curtains, drapes, interior walls and ceilings of the mobile home do not provide either the requisite flame spread or are not flame proof as required. The mobile home is not equipped with approved smoke detectors in each room and the east/west end exits are either blocked or difficult to egress. Finally, there are no approved steps at the east exit of the mobile home. These conditions have existed in the mobile home since at least April 1981 and Petitioner has failed to take any corrective action to bring the above-noted irregularities into compliance (Respondent Exhibit 5). Respondent sent its staff along with members of the Ombudsman Council to again survey Petitioner's facility on March 9, 1987. As of that date, Petitioner has not shown any intent to correct the numerous deficiencies noted herein. Additionally, Petitioner advised Human Services Program Supervisor Alvin Delaney that she did not intend to bring her facility into compliance. As noted in the Appearances section of this Recommended Order, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as an Adult Congregate Living Facility and cancel the conditional license which was issued to Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April 1987.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Vinder Homes, Inc., d/b/a The White House of Vinder Homes, Palm Harbor, Florida, is an 8-bed licensed adult congregate living facility. The Petitioner was licensed on February 5, 1986. On January 29, 1986, the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, sent an inspection team to the Petitioner's facility to conduct the initial survey. Accompanying the team was Earl T. Wright, an employee of the Respondent. Present at the Petitioner's facility during the initial survey was Robert A. Jones, and James C. Vinson, the owner and applicant for the license. During the survey, the HRS survey team identified several violations of rules or statutes governing an adult congregate living facility. At the end of a survey conducted by HRS of adult congregate living facilities, HRS normally follows the procedure of orally describing and explaining the rule violations that have been found to those persons representing the facility who are present during the survey. The representative of the facility is then asked to sign an "exit letter." The "exit letter" is a form that is given to the facility representative to explain the procedures and deadlines that must be followed to correct the violations. HRS exhibit 1 is a copy of the "exit letter" given to the representatives of the Petitioner on January 29, 1986, at the conclusion of the survey. The letter was signed by Mr. Jones, who was expressly authorized by Mr. Vinson to sign the letter on that date on behalf of the Petitioner, and to receive a copy on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, through its duly authorized agent, was reminded by HRS exhibit 1 that it had been advised of the deficiencies and had been requested to write them down. It was further advised that a time frame had been established for correction of each deficiency and that it could request additional time, if needed. It was further advised that an unannounced revisit would be conducted after the date of correction to determine if the corrections had taken place. It was further advised by the exhibit that it was required to correct each deficiency by the date established, and that failure to do so might result in the assessment of an administrative fine. At the conclusion of the survey on January 29, 1986, Mr. Jones, the authorized representative of the Petitioner, was told by the HRS survey team the nature of each of the violations found, and was advised concerning the period of time established for correction of each asserted violation. Mr. Vinson had thee opportunity to learn about the violations as well, but it is unclear whether he availed himself of the opportunity. At some time after January 29, 1986, and before April 1, 1986, the Respondent mailed a copy of HRS exhibit 2 to the Petitioner. It was mailed to the Petitioner at the address of the facility. This was the address given to HRS in the license application by Mr. Vinson. HRS exhibit 3. Mr. Vinson had not requested that notices be sent by HRS to any other address. HRS exhibit 2 is a form used by the Respondent to give written follow-up notice to the adult congregate living facility of the violations and correction schedule. It is intended to give written notice of that which had already been orally discussed with the facility representative at the time of the survey. The violations listed on HRS exhibit 2 are the same violations which were orally described and explained to the authorized representative of the Petitioner on January 29, 1986. On April 1, 1986, Mr. Wright conducted an unannounced reinspection of the Petitioner's facility. A copy of HRS exhibit 2 was present at the facility on April 1, 1986, when Mr. Wright conducted his unannounced reinspection. By April 1, 1986, the Petitioner had corrected some of the rule violations listed on HRS exhibit 2. The Petitioner, through its authorized representatives present at the facility, in fact received a copy of HRS exhibit 2 before April 1, 1986. The Petitioner presented no evidence that HRS exhibit 2 was received by its authorized representative in an untimely manner, i.e., at some time after the deadline had passed for correction of violations. Mr. Vinson testified that he never received a copy of the exhibit, but his authorized representative, at the address he had given to HRS as the address of the licensed facility, did receive it. The following are the four violations contained in HRS exhibit 2 that are in dispute in this case. Each is alleged to have occurred on January 29, 1986, and to still to have not been corrected on April 1, 1986: A copy of the Resident Bill of Rights was not posted in the facility. A management person had not completed the Food Service Management Training Course given by the Respondent at the County Health Department. The facility did not have back-flow devices to prevent contamination from entering the water supply. The fire alarm system was not continuously maintained in reliable operating condition. A copy of the Resident Bill of Rights was not posted in the facility on January 29, 1986, or on April 1, 1986. Mr. Vinson's testimony that he "thought" it was posted is insufficient to overcome the proof presented by the Respondent. A management person had not completed the Food Service Management Training Course given by the Respondent at the County Health Department on either January 29, 1986, or April 1, 1986. Mr. Vinson's testimony that he thought Mr. Jones would have completed the course is not sufficient. Mr. Vinson did not produce Mr. Jones to testify, nor did he produce any record of completion of the course. The facility did have back-flow devices to prevent contamination from entering the water supply on January 29, 1986, or on April 1, 1986. The testimony of Mr. Vinson is credited over the contrary testimony of Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright did not explain how he conducted the inspection of the back-flow devices, and did not explain what he found and how that resulted in the conclusion that back-flow devices were not present. Mr. Vinson, on the other hand, stated that he built the building himself, that he installed back-flow devices, that such devices were required by his building permit, and that he obtained a certificate of occupancy following construction. The Department has not proved the point by a preponderance of the evidence. The proof that the facility did not have a fire alarm system that was continuously maintained in reliable operating condition on January 29, 1986, was not adequate to prove this fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Wright acknowledged that a fire inspector (who did not testify) accompanied him on the survey and conducted that portion of the initial survey. Although Mr. Wright testified that he heard the fire inspector attempting to work the fire alarm system, this second hand evidence is not sufficient to prove that the system was not in good and operable mechanical order on January 29, 1986. Moreover, the proof is not adequate that the system was not mechanically operable on April 1, 1986. Mr. Wright asked the young woman present during the revisit to work the system, and she was not able to do so because she did not know how to operate it. Mr. Wright did not try to work it either. Thus, no one conducted a test of the system, and there is, therefore, no evidence in the record to show that the deficiency that existed on January 29, 1986, had not been corrected. It must be remembered that the deficiency that existed on January 29, 1986, was not that the manager or administrator of the facility could not operate the fire alarm system, but that the system was mechanically inoperable. There were no elderly persons present in the Petitioner's facility during the initial survey on January 29, 1986, but on April 1, 1986, the young woman in charge of the facility was serving breakfast to four elderly persons. None of the violations discussed above were considered by HRS to be of sufficient gravity to deny issuance of the license.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order finding that Vinder Homes, Inc., d/b/a the White House of Vinder Homes, Palm Harbor, Florida, has failed to correct the first two violations described above in the time established by the Department, and assessing a total civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200). DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 21st day of July 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Warren A. Wilson, III, Esquire 2101 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 201 Palm Harbor, Florida 33563 John Brook, Esquire 695 Central Avenue Suite 213 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
