The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 64B9-8.005(2) and 64B9-8.005(12), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the regulatory and prosecutorial duties related to nursing practice in Florida. Respondent is a licensed practical nurse in Florida, holding license no. PN 0481631. From May 13, 1992, to April 11, 1997, she was employed by Southlake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Southlake). On April 9, 1997, Respondent worked as a nurse on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on Southlake's A wing. T.C. was a patient of another nurse on that wing. Around 7:00 p.m., Respondent began administering medications to her patients. Melody Perez, the ward clerk, informed Respondent that T.C. needed assistance because he was in respiratory distress. T.C. was sitting in the hall, six to eight feet from Respondent. Respondent went over to T.C., checked to make sure that there was oxygen in his tank and that his nasal cannula was in place. Respondent saw no outward symptoms of T.C. being in acute respiratory distress such as rapid breathing or anxiety. Respondent told Ms. Perez that she could not help T.C. because he was not her patient. She told T.C. that his nurse, who was on break and had the keys to the other medication cart, would be back in a few minutes. Respondent thought that T.C. just wanted his medications. She did not perform a nursing assessment, as that term is commonly understood in the practice of nursing. She did not take T.C.'s vital signs, count his respirations, or listen to his chest. After telling him to wait for his nurse, she just walked away. On April 10, 1997, T.C. and another resident complained to Southlake's administrative staff about Respondent's failure to help T.C. Southlake initiated an investigation based on these complaints. Conchita Griffin, Southlake's Assistant Director of Nursing, conducted the investigation. As was the custom and procedure at Southlake, Ms. Griffin interviewed T.C., the second complaining resident, Ms. Perez, and two certified nursing assistants (CNAs) who were on duty during the incident. Ms. Griffin then compiled a written report of the incident and submitted it to Southlake's administration. Based on her investigation, and after considering Respondent's disciplinary history at Southlake, Ms. Griffin recommended that Southlake terminate Respondent. Southlake had written policies requiring a nurse to attend to any resident who needed help. The policies require a nurse to assess a patient complaining of respiratory distress by taking the patient's vital signs, listening to respirations and to the chest for congestion. According to the policies, a nurse should attend to any patient in distress, calling the patient's assigned nurse, facility management, or 911 if needed. There are no circumstances where the nurse should do nothing. On April 11, 1997, Respondent was called in and asked about her side of the incident. She admitted that she looked at T.C. and that he did not appear to be in distress. She acknowledged that she did nothing except tell T.C. that his nurse would be back soon. When informed that she was being terminated, Respondent refused to sign the disciplinary form. She was asked to leave the premises immediately. Sharon Wards-Brown, Southlake's nursing supervisor for the evening shift in question, accompanied Respondent to A wing to retrieve her belongings. When Respondent arrived on the A wing, she went into the medication room, picked up T.C.'s chart, removed some pages from the chart, and went to the fax machine just outside the medication room. Ms. Wards-Brown and Beverly Burstell, the nurse manager who was on the floor checking some charts, saw Respondent remove the pages from T.C.'s chart and go to the fax machine. Both of them told Respondent that she could not remove or copy anything from the resident's chart. Respondent told Ms. Wards-Brown and Ms. Burstell not to touch her. Each page of nurses' notes in the patients' charts have a front and back side. Respondent stood at the fax machine for only a couple of seconds, not long enough to copy both sides of one page of nurses' notes. She certainly did not have time to copy both sides of all of the pages that she had removed from T.C.'s chart. Respondent's testimony that she had time to copy some of the nurses' notes from T.C.'s chart is not persuasive. Her testimony that she left all of the original pages in the fax machine is not credible. After being prevented from copying all of the pages that she had removed from T.C.'s chart, Respondent ran into the bathroom. A few seconds later she came out of the bathroom with papers and her purse in her hand. Ms. Wards-Brown called Clara Corcoran, Southlake's administrator, and Ms. Griffen for assistance. All three of them followed Respondent out of the building, demanding that she return the documents that she had removed from T.C.'s chart. Respondent repeatedly told them not to touch her. Ms. Corcoran and Ms. Griffen followed Respondent into the parking lot. Respondent got in her car but Ms. Corcoran and Ms. Griffen blocked Respondent from closing the car door and continued to demand the return of the papers. Respondent finally drove forward over the cement bumper and the grass in order to leave with the papers. Meanwhile, Ms. Wards-Brown returned to the A wing to examine T.C.'s chart. Ms. Griffen also examined the chart within two to three minutes after Respondent left the floor. The chart was still open on the desk. Ms. Wards-Brown and Ms. Griffen discovered that T.C.'s nurses' notes for April 9, 1997, were missing. They knew the notes were missing because both of them had seen the notes in the chart the day before when they reviewed the chart as part of the investigation. Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a copy of the front and back of one page of T.C.'s nurses' notes. The last note is dated March 27, 1997. It is not plausible that T.C.'s chart had no nurses' notes from that time until after April 10, 1997. Even if Respondent did not remove any of T.C.'s original nurses' notes from the premises, she violated the acceptable standards of nursing care by copying the front and back of one page and removing the copies from the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order fining Respondent $1,000 and suspending her license for one year, followed by two years of probation with appropriate conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Room 3231A Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Randy Rogers, Esquire Delegal & Merritt, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202-2837 Ruth R. Stiehl, Ph.D., R.N. Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4042 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact During early 1982, Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner in the category of Midwifery. Petitioner's application was reviewed by the Respondent, Board of Nursing, on July 21, 1982. By letter of that date, Petitioner was advised that her application for certification as an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner did not meet the criteria for certification as set forth and defined in Section 464.012(1), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioner was advised that: The midwifery training that she completed in 1962 in England was note post-basic. Enrollment as a midwife on the Central Midwife's Board has not been recognized as an "an appropriate" specialty board for certifi- cation as an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, and The master's degree preparation that Petitioner acquired is not from a program leading to a master's degree in a nursing clinical specialty area. (Petitioner holds a master's degree in Education) Petitioner was further advised that she had one other means of being certified. I.e., that "registered nurses who have received their midwifery training outside the United States may be certified if they have completed an American college of nurse midwifery approved refresher program and the registered nurse is deemed eligible to take the ACNM examination. [Rule 210-11.23(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code] (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3) Petitioner is a currently licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 30882-2, on January 1, 1964, by examination. Further, Petitioner was admitted to the Central Midwives' Board (London, England) after successfully completing a one year course of training undertaken by pupils who had previously qualified as state- registered general trained nurses. Petitioner took a three years' course of general nurse training at Bedford General Hospital from 1957 through 1960 and commenced midwifery training on August 1, 1961, as confirmed in the verification of her training and enrollment as a midwife. Debra Fitzgerald, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, on May 26, 1983, was previously employed by the Respondent, Board of Nursing, from July, 1980 to February, 1983, as a nursing consultant in the educational section dealing primarily with the certification of applicants in the field of ARNP. As part of her duties as an employee of the Respondent, Ms. Fitzgerald reviewed the application of the Petitioner for certification as an ARNP. Upon review of the Petitioner's application, it is determined that the program that the Petitioner attended in midwifery during 1961-1962 in England was not a formal post-basic program equivalent to the standards required of formal post-basic programs in this country. Rule 21D-11.24, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner was given credit for a total of one hundred four (104) didactic hours and the Board requires a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) didactic hours for proof of the equivalent of a post-basic course requirement in obstetrical nursing. (Testimony of Fitzgerald [by deposition]) Petitioner has not otherwise satisfied the criteria to be certified in keening with Rule 21D-11.23(2)(c)1 or 2, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for hearing based upon the petition of Jeanne Fried, R.N. filed with the State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, Board of Nursing, Respondent. This petition was received by the Respondent on October 4, 1978 and referred to the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is a Registered Nurse licensed to practice in Florida. The Respondent is an Agency of the State Of Florida which has among its responsibilities the licensure, certification and regulation of certain individuals who wish to practice nursing in the State of Florida, to include the Petitioner. In 1968, the Petitioner received a Baccalaureate degree from the Medical College of Georgia. Her degree was in nursing and she became a Registered Nurse at that time. Since 1968, the Petitioner has worked in the field of nursing. In addition, she has received a Masters of Education degree from the University of Florida with a minor in nursing. This latter degree was earned in December, 1975. Subsequent to receiving the Masters of Education degree, Ms. Fried attended a course entitled Studies for Nurse Practitioners for Adult Care, and was awarded a certificate of completion in that course. That certificate was received in March, 1976 and a copy of the certificate may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit Number One (1), admitted into evidence. After receiving that certificate, she worked in the capacity of an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner at the Lake Butler Reception and Medical Center, Lake Butler, Florida from April, 1976 through August, 1976. From August, 1976 to the present, the Petitioner has worked in a similar position in the Veterans Administration Hospital at Lake City, Florida. Until July 17, 1977, the Respondent had not recognized nor established guidelines for the position known as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. On that date, the Respondent enacted an item entitled Appendix to Chapter 210-11, Guidelines for Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner Programs of Study. This item appears as a rule set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. The authority for the passage of the rule is found in Subsection 464.051(3), Florida Statutes and it implements Subsections 464.021(2)(a), 4 and 464.051(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. To receive the necessary certification to become an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, an applicant must comply with the guidelines set forth in the aforementioned appendix. The only aspect of the guidelines which is in dispute between the parties is found in that section of the appendix entitled, "Curriculum" and specifically (3) which reads: The program shall be at least one (1) academic year in length (nine months full time) which shall include a minimum of one (1) academic quarter of theory in the biological, behavioral, nursing and medical sciences relevant to the area of advanced practice, in addition to clinical experience with a qualified preceptor . . . The petitioner does not disagree with the fact that the course that she was certified in from the University of Florida in March, 1976 does not constitute an academic year within the meaning of the appendix; however, she is of the persuasion that she is entitled to certification as an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner because individuals who also attended the University of Florida course, Studies for Nurse Practitioner for Adult Care, have been certified by the Respondent as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners. (This certification for the other individuals has occurred notwithstanding their failure to complete a full academic year as prescribed in the guidelines for the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners found in the Appendix to Chapter 210-11, Florida Administrative Code.) The basis for the certification of these other unnamed individuals transpired through an apparatus of the Respondent, in which, by meeting of its governing board, it was determined that individuals who did not meet the academic requirements of the Appendix to Chapter 210-11, Florida Administrative Code, nonetheless would be given an opportunity for certification as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners. This special dispensation on behalf of these unnamed parties was granted in the face of the clear requirements of the established rule, which is the Appendix to 210-11, Florida Administrative Code. By that, it is meant that the rule was passed effective July 17, 1977, but its application to these unnamed individuals who received certification as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners without complying to the terms and conditions of the rule, was withheld. The technique for withholding it was to extend the period of enforcement of the guidelines to become effective March 31, 1978 as opposed to the prescribed date of July 17, 1977. Any applicants who applied prior to that date would be considered on a basis which did not require strict compliance with the academic requirements of the "Curriculum" guideline, which could be and was waived in the instances of some of the applicants, to include applicants in a similar factual circumstance to the Petitioner in that they had attended the University of Florida, College of Nursing course, Studies for Nurse Practitioner for Adult Care. The way prospective applicants were notified of the "grace period" allowing noncompliance with the academic requirement for certification in the subject field, was through the publication of that information in the newsletter of the Respondent which is forwarded to hospitals, public health clinics, colleges of nursing in Florida and the Florida Nurses Association. In addition, the Florida Nurses Association attempted to make its members aware of the "grace period." Also, it was the policy of the Respondent to advise the prospective applicants for certification as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners of the opportunity for consideration during the "grace period." This information sheet was typically mailed to the applicant with the application form, once an inquiry on the question of application had been received from the applicant. The Petitioner did not receive notice of the "grace period" through any published newsletter or bulletin and did not receive a copy of the information sheet which would have apprised her of the fact of the "grace period." She inquired about making application in February, 1978 and began to execute her application form on March 13, 1978 and completed the form on June 14, 1978. This can be seen by an examination of the Petitioner's Exhibit Number Five (5) admitted in evidence, which is a copy of the application for certification as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner filed by the Petitioner with the Respondent. Due to the fact that the application was received subsequent to March 31, 1978, and the fact that the Petitioner did not meet the academic requirements established in the Appendix of Chapter 210-11, Florida Administrative Code, her application to be an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner was denied through correspondence dated September 13, 1978.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application by the Petitioner, Jeanne Fried, R.N., be denied by the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, Board of Nursing. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ms. Jeanne Fried, R.N. Post Office Box 932 Alachua, Florida 32615 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ruthie Mae Owens Brooks (Brooks or respondent), was licensed as a practical nurse having been issued license number PN 0877941 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing (Board). She has been licensed as a practical nurse since 1987. There is no evidence that respondent has been the subject of disciplinary action prior to this occasion. When the events herein occurred, respondent was an agency nurse for Underhill Personnel Services, Inc., an agency that furnished nurses to various health care facilities, including Methodist Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida. She was employed at all times as a licensed practical nurse. On November 17, 1990, respondent was scheduled to work the 11 p.m. - 7 a.m. shift at Methodist Medical Center. Although her duty shift began at 11:00 p.m., respondent arrived a few minutes late and reported directly to the medical-surgical- orthopedic wing instead of signing in at the nursing office as required by hospital rules. After reporting to her work area, respondent went to the assignment board to review her assignment for that evening. Her specific duties that evening were to care for five patients in the medical-surgical-orthopedic wing. While respondent was at the assignment board, a registered nurse, Lynn Ivie, came to the board to ascertain her assignment. At that time, Ivie reported that she smelled a "strong odor of alcohol" on respondent's breath. However, Ivie said nothing at that time since she wanted to give respondent the benefit of the doubt. Around midnight, one of respondent's patients awoke in his room with severe chest pains. Both Ivie and respondent immediately went to the room. Although Ivie instructed Brooks to get a vital signs machine (also known as the Dynamap), Brooks ignored the instruction and "wiped the patient's face with a wet cloth". Ivie then brought the machine into the room and respondent was instructed by Ivie to take the patient's vital signs (blood pressure, temperature and pulse). This merely required her to place an attachment around the patient's arm and push a button to start the machine. The operation of the machine is considered a basic nursing skill. According to Ivie, respondent could not focus on the machine and did not seem to remember how to operate it. After waiting a few moments with no response from Brooks, Ivie finally took the patient's vital signs herself. During this encounter, Ivie again smelled alcohol on respondent's breath and concluded that her inability to assist in the care of the patient and to operate the machine was due to alcohol. Within a few moments, the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) on another floor. Before accompanying the patient to the ICU, Ivie instructed respondent to chart the incident and action taken in the nurse's notes and then meet her in the ICU with the completed notes. These notes should be completed in an expedited manner so that the nurses in the ICU wing can utilize them in providing follow-up care to the patient. However, respondent did not chart the incident nor bring the notes to the ICU. Indeed, she failed to chart the notes on any of the patients assigned to her that night. By failing to chart any notes that evening, respondent contravened the requirement that a nurse file a report or record (nursing notes). Around 1:30 a.m. on November 18, Ivie and Joyce Biddix, the nursing supervisor, went to the room of one of the patients assigned to respondent and found the patient, a confused elderly male, sitting nude in a chair with the bed stripped of all linens. He had previously been tied to the bed to prevent him from falling. The linens were soiled with urine and were lying in a heap on the floor. Although respondent had taken the patient out of the bed, disrobed him, and removed the linens, she had left him unattended in the room and had not returned. Biddix called down the hall for someone to bring fresh linens and observed respondent "floating" down the hall saying "I can't find the linens" in a "singsong" voice. When she got closer to respondent, Biddix smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. It may reasonably be inferred from the evidence that respondent's conduct with this patient was unprofessional and constituted a departure from acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. After being confronted by Biddix regarding the alcohol, respondent told her she had drunk one beer with her meal around 10:30 p.m., or just before reporting to duty that evening. However, she denied she was intoxicated or unable to perform her duties. Respondent was then told to leave work immediately. The incident was later reported to Underhill Personnel Services, Inc. and that agency contacted the Board. After an investigation was conducted by the Board, an administrative complaint was filed. At hearing, respondent did not contest or deny the assertion that by reporting to work with alcohol on her breath, she was acting in an unprofessional manner and deviated from the standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. In this regard, she acknowledged that she had drunk alcohol (which she claimed was only one tall beer) with her meal around 10:30 p.m., or just before reporting to duty. However, she contended that all of her previously scheduled shifts at the hospital had been cancel led and she assumed her shift that evening might also be cancelled. In response to the allegation that she could not operate the vital signs machine, respondent offered a different version of events and suggested that the machine in the patient's room was inoperative. Therefore, it was necessary for Ivie to bring a Dynamap into the room and Ivie took the vital signs without respondent's assistance. She justified leaving the elderly patient alone without clothes in his room on the grounds there was no clean gown, the patient was not combative, and she was only gone from the room for a few moments. Finally, she contended that she charted the notes for one of her patients but did not chart the others because the remaining patients were removed from her care by Ivie and Biddix when she was sent home at 1:30 a.m. However, these explanations are either deemed to be not credible or, if true, nonetheless do not justify her actions. Although there was no testimony concerning the specific issue of whether respondent is unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of use of alcohol, taken as a whole respondent's conduct on the evening of November 17, 1990, supports a finding that her capacity was impaired that evening by virtue of alcohol. Accordingly, it is found that respondent was unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of use of alcohol.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 464.018(1)(f), (h), and (j), Florida Statutes (1989), and that her nursing license be suspended for six months but that such suspension be stayed upon respondent's entry into and successful completion of the Intervention Program for Nurses. Respondent's failure to remain in or successfully complete the program will result in the immediate lifting of the stay and imposition of the six-month suspension. Thereafter, said license shall not be reinstated until such time as respondent appears before the Board and can demonstrate that she can engage in the safe practice of nursing. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-5033 Petitioner: Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 7-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 11-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 15-16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 17-18. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Roberta L. Fenner, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ruthie Mae Owens Brooks 1604 S.W. 40th Terrace, #A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cindy Louise Jirak, was licensed as a Registered Nurse pursuant to Florida law on May 14, 1979. Her license was last actively renewed to May 30, 1983, and now is in a lapsed status. P. Ex. 1. The Respondent was employed as a licensed Registered Nurse at the Central Florida Regional Hospital in Sanford, Florida, during the six month period up to and including October, 1986. On July 8, 1986, the Respondent was on duty as a licensed Registered Nurse and improperly set up intravenous fluids for a patient. The Respondent set up a previously ordered fluid, stating that the currently ordered fluid was not available. The correct procedure when a currently ordered fluid is not available is to hang a normal saline solution. By hanging the previously ordered solution, the Respondent's procedure was below minimally acceptable nursing practice. On October 6, 1986, the Respondent failed to turn on an intravenous solution pump after hanging an intravenous solution. The patient, therefore, did not receive the fluid that had been hung. The Respondent's action in failing to turn on the pump on October 6, 1986, was below minimally acceptable nursing practice. On August 23, 1986, the Respondent signed out 10 milligrams of morphine (one ampule) to be administered to a patient. Only 6 milligrams had been ordered for that patient. The procedure is to waste the excess before the narcotic is administered, and to have that act of wasting witnessed. The "waste and/or destroyed narcotic disposition record" shows that 4 milligrams were properly wasted since only 6 milligrams had been ordered for this patient. The records show that the 6 milligrams were then refused by the patient, but there is no subsequent entry to show that the 6 milligrams of morphine were properly wasted by the Respondent. The Respondent's failure to record the wasting of the 6 milligrams of morphine on August 23, 1986, was below minimally acceptable nursing practice. On August 22, 1986, the Respondent left two doses of Bumax in her cart with no explanation as to why the medication was not given. She was responsible for administration of that medication to a patient under her care, and the medication had been ordered for the patient. The medication was not given to that patient as ordered on that evening, and the Respondent did not make an entry in the records that the medication had not been administered. The Respondent's failure to administer the prescribed medication, or to chart that failure to do so, is below minimally acceptable nursing practice.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing, enter its final order suspending the registered nursing license of Cindy Louise Jirak for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 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 31st day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 John Namey, Esquire 22 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Cindy Jirak 2718 Dellwood Drive Eustis, Florida 32726 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In October 1978 Bonnie Ray Solomon Crawford, LPN was employed at the West Pasco Hospital, New Port Richey, Florida as a licensed practical nurse provided by Upjohn Company's rent-a-nurse program. On 7 October 1978 Respondent signed out at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and on 8 October 1973 at 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for Demerol 75 mg for patient Kleinschmidt (Exhibit 2). Doctor's orders contained in Exhibit 4 shows that Demerol 50 mg was ordered by the doctor to be administered to patient Kleinschmidt as needed. Nurses Notes in Exhibit 4 for October 7, 1978 contains no entry of administration of Demerol at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00 p.m. shows administration of 50 mg. and Phenergan 25 mg. Exhibit 3, Narcotic Record for Demerol 50 mg contains two entries at 8:15 a.m. on October 7, 1978 and one entry at 12:30 p.m. where Respondent signed out for Demerol 50 mg. for patients King, Zobrist and King in chronological order. Nurses Notes for King, Exhibit 6, and Zobrist, Exhibit 5, contain no entry that Demerol was administered to patient Zobrist at 8:15 a.m. or to patient King at 12:30 p.m. on 7 October 1978. In fact, the record for Zobrist shows that Zobrist was discharged from the hospital on October 5, 1978. Failure to chart the administration of narcotics constitutes a gross error in patient care and is not acceptable nursing practice. Similarly it is not acceptable nursing practice to withdraw narcotics not contained in doctors orders or administer medication not in doctors orders. When confronted by the Nursing Administrator at West Pasco Hospital with these discrepancies in the handling of Demerol, Respondent stated that she failed to check the identity of the patient before administering medication and that she didn't feel she should be giving medications any more. Following this confrontation with the hospital authorities, Respondent was fired for incompetency. No evidence was submitted regarding Respondent's 1975 disciplinary proceedings.
The Issue The issues in dispute in this case result from an administrative complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent accusing Respondent of inappropriate conduct by placing a controlled substance, within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in the possession of a fellow nurse practitioner, which controlled substance had not been prescribed for the benefit of the other nurse. Respondent is also accused of misappropriating an amount of that controlled substance for her personal use. Purportedly, these actions violate Subsection 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct departing from the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice and in violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by engaging or attempting to engage in the possession, sale, or distribution of controlled substances within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, other than for legitimate purposes.
Findings Of Fact On August 18, 1982, the Secretary, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, filed the Administrative Complaint which is the subject of this hearing. This case is being prosecuted by that Department pursuant to Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent disputed factual allegations within the Administrative Complaint, which led to the formal hearing on February 11, 1983. Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida, Board of Nursing, in the category of licensed practical nurse and at all times pertinent to this case held License No. 39013-1. On April 29, 1982, Respondent was working in the capacity of a licensed nurse at the University Hospital, Jacksonville, Florida. She was serving as a floor nurse at that time. A patient who had been admitted to the hospital, was discharged and 30 Tylenol Number 3 tablets, a scheduled substance within Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, which had been dispensed for the benefit of that patient, were left in the hospital following the patient's discharge. Tylenol Number 3 contains Codeine phosphate, 30 mg. Respondent retrieved those tablets on the date in question and approached another nurse practitioner who was working on the same floor on that evening. This nurse is Bonnie Booth who is licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida. While in Booth's presence, Respondent stated, "these were left by a patient who probably doesn't want them anyway and, you know, the patient is gone. So, what's the difference if they go back to the pharmacy or not?" Respondent additionally mentioned having a problem with her knee and taking one of the Tylenols for that difficulty. Booth told Respondent that the tablets should be locked in the medication security area and gave the keys to Respondent that would unlock that narcotics cabinet. Respondent walked away and while standing by a medication cart, Respondent counted the tablets, walked back to Booth, and placed 16 of those tablets in Booth's laboratory coat pocket. While standing there, Respondent told Booth that Booth and Respondent should split the pills "50/50", meaning an equal share of the controlled substance. Respondent then left the area, taking with her the remainder of the Tylenol tablets. Booth subsequently turned in the tablets in her possession by giving them to hospital officials. Those items were introduced in the hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Later on that same evening, following Booth's provision of the tablets which she had received to officials within the hospital, Respondent spoke to Booth. Respondent asked Booth why she had told the hospital officials and was answered, to the effect, that Booth did not involve herself with drugs. Respondent then asked Booth to return the tablets which Respondent had given her and was told that it was too late to do that. According to Debra Fitzgerald, Advanced Nurse Practitioner, certified by the State of Florida, the actions by Respondent involving the Tylenol were not in keeping with minimal and acceptable standards of nursing practices in the State of Florida. This opinion is correct.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice nursing in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Teresa Iva Smith Lobato (Lobato) was licensed as a Registered Nurse in the state of Florida, holding license number RN-1655102, and was employed by the Bayfront Medical Center (Bayfront) located in St. Petersburg, Florida as a Registered Nurse. On May 13, 1990 Lobato was to work the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, and upon arriving for work was told that she was being "floated" from the Coronary Care Unit (CCU) where she regularly worked to the Progressive Care Unit (PCU) where she had never worked. Bayfront had a policy whereby nurses were "floated" from one unit to another, and at the time Lobato was employed by Bayfront she was made aware of this "floating" policy. Floating means that a nurse is assigned temporarily to a unit other than the nurse's regularly assigned unit. On May 12, 1990 Lobato was aware that she was to be "floated" on May 13, 1990, but had informed the Acting Director of CCU that she would rather cancel her work assignment than be "floated". However, upon arriving for work on May 13, 1990, and being told that she was being "floated" to PCU she accepted the assignment on PCU although she was not pleased about the situation. Bayfront has a policy that requires the outgoing nurse to audiotape a report for the oncoming nurse regarding the condition of the patients and any events occurring during the outgoing nurse's shift or if no tape is made to give report verbally to oncoming nurse. Upon arriving at PCU Lobato, along with PCU Charge Nurse (CN), listened to the audiotaped reports from the outgoing nurse on the following patients D. L. L., A. S., E. H., C. L. S., and H. K. As the morning progressed, Lobato became more and more displeased with her assignment, and let her displeasure be known to the PCU Charge Nurse. However, Lobato did not ask to be relieved from her assignment, although there was testimony that she indicated to the CN that she wanted to go home. Although the record is not clear as to the time the following events occurred, the sequence of those events are as follows: Around 9:00 a.m. Lobato was offered help by the CN but declined; Around 9:30 Lobato went on break, and again was offered help but declined; While on break Lobato talked to the Assis- tant Director of Nursing (ADON) about her under- standing of not being required to "float", and became upset with the ADON's response; After returning from break Lobato was again offered help by the CN which she accepted. The CN brought Michelle Nance, Medical Surgical Technician, and two RNs whose first names were Jessica and Melinda to the unit to assist Lobato. Around 10:30 a.m. Lobato and the CN dis- cussed Lobato's patient assignments, and Lobato advised the CN that everything was done, in- cluding all a.m. medication, other than the missing vasotec doses, and that she had some charting to do. Also, the patient's baths had been completed. Shortly after Lobato and the CN discussed her patients' assignments, the ADON came to the unit to determine what was troubling Lobato. The ADON and Lobato met and there was a confrontation wherein Lobato advised the ADON that she was quitting and the ADON advised Lobato that she was fired. After Lobato's confrontation with the ADON, Lobato left the unit and Bayfront without completing the balance of charting her patients' notes, and without giving the CN a report of the patients even though the CN requested her to do so. Lobato's reasons for not giving the CN a report was that she had discussed the patients with the CN throughout the morning, and that the CN knew as much about the patients as did Lobato at that time, and therefore, she had made a verbal report. Lobato's reasons for not completing the charting of her patients' notes was that when the ADON fired her on the spot the ADON accepted full responsibility for the patients, and Lobato's responsibility to both Bayfront and to the patients assigned to her ceased at that time, notwithstanding her understanding of the importance of charting so that appropriate care could be given to the patients on the next shift. By her own admission, Lobato left Bayfront around 10:30 a.m. on May 13, 1991 before the end of her shift without completing the balance of charting her patients' notes and without giving a report to the CN, other than the ongoing report given during the morning. Earlier while Lobato was still on the unit working the CN had obtained two registered nurses (RN) and a medical surgical technician to assist Lobato. One of the nurses whose first name was Jessica (last name not given) was the RN assigned to Lobato's patients by the ADON when Lobato left and she received a report on the patients from Janice Ritchie, CN. (See Respondent's exhibit 1, and Petitioner's exhibit 1 and Janice Ritchies' rebuttal testimony.) Although Lobato's failure to chart the balance of her patients' notes and make a report to the CN before she left may have caused some problems, there was no showing that any patient failed to receive proper care or suffered any harm as a result of Lobato leaving. While some of the patients may not have received all their medication before Lobato left, the record is not clear as to whether the medication was made available to Lobato to administer or that she was shown where the medication was located in the floor stock. The patient is the nurse's primary responsibility, and the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice requires the nurse, even if fired (unless prevented by the employer from performing her duties), to perform those duties that will assure the patient adequate care provided for after her absence. In this case, the failure of Lobato to compete the charting of her patients' notes and the failure to make a report to the CN, notwithstanding her comments to the CN upon leaving, was unprofessional conduct in that such conduct was a departure from and a failure to conform to minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and that she be given a reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7828 The following contributes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. 3.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4, respectively. 5.-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 and 5. 7.-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 11.-12. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but even if this testimony was credible it is not material or relevant to the conclusion reached. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but even if this testimony was credible it is not material or relevant to the conclusion reached. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 18.-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 and 12, as modified. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See Findings of Fact 10, 11, 13 and 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 25.-27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 15 and 15, respectively. Paragraph 28 is ambiguous and, therefore, no response. Rejected as not being Finding of Fact but what weight is to be given to that testimony. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Rejected as being argument rather than a Finding of Fact, but if considered a Finding of Fact since there was other evidence presented by other witnesses. The first sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence. The balance of paragraph 3 is neither material nor relevant. Neither material nor relevant, but see Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but see Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8. Neither material nor relevant since the Respondent assisted in selecting those items to be included in Respondent's exhibit 1. First sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 8. The balance of paragraph 7 is argument more so than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 12 and 14. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 7(c), 12 and 14. 9.-11. More of an argument as to the credibility of a witness rather than a Finding of Fact. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 7(d) and 13. More of a restatement of testimony than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 8 and 9. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Finding of Fact 10. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 7(e) and 9. Not necessary to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order. 17.-19. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but see Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 20. More of an argument as to the credibility of a witness rather than a Finding of Fact. 21.-23. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Teresa Iva Smith Lobato 6870 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastliinne Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code, for administering medications or treatments in a negligent manner and subject to discipline for unprofessional conduct under Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes. If so, another issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact In June 1994 Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse, holding license number RN 2740932. Respondent had been licensed as a registered nurse since 1993 and as a licensed practical nurse since 1987. Respondent's license as a registered nurse became inactive June 21, 1995 after she failed to renew it. In the fall of 1993 East Pointe Hospital hired Respondent as a charge nurse in the transitional care unit, which had recently been started. Although Respondent had only recently become licensed as a registered nurse, the hospital hired her based partly on her current licensing and partly on her previous experience as a licensed practical nurse and respiratory therapist. During the weekend of June 24-26, 1994 Respondent worked the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift. As a charge nurse Respondent supervised several other nurses, typically licensed practical nurses. The charge nurse and nurses whom the charge nurse supervised sometimes divided up the patients in the unit, but the charge nurse retained supervisory authority over the other nurses and always remained directly responsible for patients with more complex problems. Patient C. P. had recently been transferred to the transitional care unit from the acute care unit. On the evenings in question, C.P. was among the patients for whom Respondent was directly responsible. Several IVs were being administered the evening of June 24 and early morning of June 25. One patient was having problems with an IV pump and his veins. Respondent asked another nurse, who was under Respondent's supervision, to do the accuchecks on the other patients, including C. P. Accuchecks are finger stick glucose monitors. As was the case with C. P., physicians typically order accuchecks every six hours for patients receiving their total nutrition intravenously. The purpose of the accucheck is to ensure that the patient receiving all his nutrition intravenously does not develop low or high blood sugar, which could have very serious implications. The other nurse failed to perform the accuchecks for midnight at the start of June 25 and 6:00 am on June 25. Respondent failed to follow up to ensure that they were done. Respondent's failure to perform the required accuchecks or to check to make sure that the other nurse performed them constitutes the negligent treatment of a patient. A physician had also ordered that C. P. receive antibiotics intravenously every eight hours, at about 6:00 am, 2:00 pm, and 10:00 pm. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to administer two consecutive doses. However, nothing in the nurses' notes documents what would have been a material omission, and no one on the nursing staff bothered to contact the physician who had ordered the antibiotics. There is also a reasonable possibility that IV bags bearing dates and times were mixed up so as to preclude a determination of which registered nurse failed to administer IV medication, if in fact two doses of antibiotics were missed. Respondent later admitted not performing the accuchecks, but never admitted failing to administer the IV antibiotics. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent failed to administer the IV medications as ordered. The hospital terminated Respondent's employment shortly after the incidents involving C. P. Respondent has since held two temporary nursing jobs and has applied unsuccessfully for 12 other nursing jobs. She now lives with her mother in Virginia where she earns $100-$200 weekly in employment unrelated to nursing. C. P. suffered no injury as a result of the failure to conduct ordered accuchecks and the failure, if any, to administer the prescribed IV. Respondent has not previously been disciplined as a licensed practical nurse or registered nurse.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, for her failure to perform two accuchecks or make sure that another nurse had performed them and issuing a reprimand to Respondent. ENTERED on December 21, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 21st day of December, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as irrelevant. 6-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (second sentence): rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 13-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 17-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19-21: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 22-23: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 24: rejected as subordinate. 25: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 26-28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29: rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 3 (first sentence)-4: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 5-6: adopted or adopted in substance, although not as to the identify of the other nurse. 7: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the failure either to perform the accuchecks or ensure that the other nurse did is negligence. 8-14: rejected as subordinate. 15-18: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel's Office Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert E. Tardif, Jr. Duncan & Tardif, P.A. P.O. Drawer 249 Ft. Myers, FL 33902 Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
