The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent’s participation in the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program (McKay Scholarships) and the Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program (CTC Scholarships) should have been suspended, and whether Respondent’s eligibility to participate in the programs should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact CHC is a private school located in Merritt Island, Florida. Lara Nichilo is the owner and head administrator of CHC. Ms. Nichilo was also the owner and head administrator of another private school located in Cocoa, Florida. For the purposes of this proceeding, the school located in Cocoa, Florida, will be referred to as CHC 2.2 CHC and CHC 2 had participated in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs. Section 1002.39, Florida Statutes, authorizes the McKay Scholarships program, which affords a disabled student an opportunity to receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. Section 220.187, Florida Statutes, authorizes the CTC Scholarships program, which enables taxpayers to make private, voluntary contributions so that students who qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches under the National School Lunch Act may receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. The Department of Education has the responsibility to annually verify the eligibility of a private school to participate in these scholarship programs. Private schools participating in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs are required to comply with Section 1002.421, Florida Statutes, and must meet applicable state and local health, safety, and welfare laws, codes, and rules, including laws, codes, and rules relating to firesafety and building safety. If a private school participating in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs desires to renew its participation in the programs, the school must file a signed, notarized Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit with the Department of Education by March 1 of each year for participation in the subsequent school year. The Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit contains a list of requirements to which the private school must certify that it meets or does not meet. If the school certifies that it does not meet a requirement, such certification constitutes an outstanding compliance issue, which must be resolved by the school prior to May 1 of each year for the school to remain eligible to participate in the scholarship programs. Specifically, the signature page of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit states in part: “I understand that in answering ‘No’ to any requirement in Section 9: School Facility, the provision of a reason for answering ‘No’ shall not make the school compliant with the reporting requirement and will be considered an outstanding compliance issue for resolution as described in State Board of Education Rules 6A-6.03315, 6A-6.0960, and 6A- 6.0970, Florida Administrative Code.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03315(2) requires that every third year a school applies for renewal of eligibility for the scholarship programs there must be a review of compliance documentation. This means that the school must submit documentation to support its eligibility along with the affidavit. For the renewal of eligibility for the 2009-2010 school year, CHC had to submit compliance documentation for review. On November 6, 2008, Ms. Nichilo executed and mailed the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for CHC for renewal of CHC’s eligibility to participate in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs for the 2009-2010 school year. Subsection 1 of Section 9 of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit requires the school to answer the following question: Does the school facility possess a current, violation free or satisfactory Fire Code Inspection and compliance report in accordance with Section 1002.421(2)(g)1., Florida Statutes, State Finance Services Rule 69A-58.004, Florida Administrative Code, and county and/or municipal ordinance? Ms. Nichilo answered “Yes” to the question. CHC submitted a fire inspection certificate for CHC with a date of February 22, 2008. At the time Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit in November 2008, CHC did not have a current Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. The last fire inspection certificate was dated February 22, 2006, and had expired on February 22, 2007. Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted a Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for the 2007-2008 school year, certifying that CHC had a current, violation-free fire inspection report. The certificate affidavit which Ms. Nichilo signed stated: I have read the applicable scholarship program rules and understand that by signing this form I am certifying that the school is currently in compliance and agrees [sic] to remain in compliance with all scholarship program rules and reporting requirements. If at any point, the school is not in compliance with scholarship rules, or if there is a change in the status of any reporting requirement, the school will have 15 days to notify the Department of Education and will provide all information necessary to document its continued compliance with program rules and requirements. At the time the certification was submitted on January 11, 2007, CHC did have a current, violation-free fire inspection report; however, CHC did not have a current, violation-free fire inspection report that was valid for the entire 2007-2008 school year. CHC did not notify the Department of Education that it was not in compliance with the fire safety inspections during the 2007-2008 school year. On December 5, 2007, Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted a Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for the 2008-2009 school year, certifying that CHC had a current, violation-free fire inspection report. At the time of submission of the affidavit, CHC did not have a current, violation-free fire inspection report, and, from the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year until December 23, 2008, CHC did not maintain a current, violation-free fire inspection report nor did CHC notify the Department of Education as late as December 11, 2008, that CHC was not in compliance with the fire inspection requirement. On November 19, 2008, Assistant Fire Marshall Doug Carter of Brevard County Fire Rescue (BCFR) received a complaint concerning CHC and CHC 2 from an anonymous caller. It is the policy of BCFR to follow up on all complaints. On November 20, 2008, Lead Fire Inspector William Morissette, following up on the anonymous complaint, went to CHC for the purpose of performing a fire inspection. On November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette performed a fire inspection on CHC and noted some violations. During the inspection on November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette noticed that the fire inspection certificate that was posted at CHC was partially obscured, and he could not see the school’s address. On November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette performed a fire inspection of CHC 2 and noted some violations. He observed the posted fire certificate at CHC 2 during his inspection. The fire certificate had an account number 23832 and was dated February 22, 2008. The font used in the printing of the certificate did not appear to be the same type as used by BCFR. While at CHC 2, Mr. Morrissette called Assistant Fire Marshall Carter and learned that account number 23832 was for CHC and not CHC 2 and that no fire certificate had been issued to CHC 2 on February 22, 2008. The last fire certificate that had been issued to CHC 2 was on December 15, 2005, and had expired on December 16, 2006. On November 6, 2008, CHC sent a copy of the fire inspection certificate dated February 22, 2008, to the Department of Education as part of the documentation supplied to verify CHC’s eligibility for renewal. The fire inspection certificate was a forgery. Ms. Nichilo testified that she did not send the forged certificate to the Department of Education and that some disgruntled former employee who had access to CHC’s files must have sent the certificate to the Department of Education or must have put the forged certificate in the envelope containing the renewal information that was sent to the Department of Education. Ms. Nichilo’s testimony is not credible. The certificate came in the same envelope as the other material which CHC submitted in November 2008. Ms. Nichilo signed and mailed the renewal information on November 6, 2008. Her testimony that the envelope must have been in the mail room a couple of days before it was mailed, thereby allowing the disgruntled employee an opportunity to slip the forged certificate in the envelope, is not credible. After the renewal package was sent to the Department of Education, Ms. Nichilo asked her secretary to contact BCFR to schedule a fire inspection. Ms. Nichilo knew that she needed a fire inspection because she knew that she did not have a current fire inspection certificate when she sent the renewal submittal to the Department of Education. Based on the clear and convincing evidence presented, it can only be concluded that Ms. Nichilo knew the fire inspection certificates, which she included with the renewal submittals, were forgeries. On or about December 5, 2008, Mr. Carter contacted the Department of Education and informed the Department of Education that he had concerns about CHC’s and CHC 2’s fire inspection certificates. Mr. Carter sent a memorandum dated December 9, 2008, to Riley Hyle with the Department of Education, explaining BCFR’s observations and concerns relating to the fire inspection certificates. After learning from Mr. Carter that CHC’s and CHC 2’s fire inspection certificates were in question, Mr. Hyle checked the Department of Education’s renewal files on CHC and CHC 2. Mr. Hyle found forged fire inspection certificates in both files. When CHC’s and CHC 2’s submittals arrived on November 10, 2008, in the same envelope, Mr. Hyle reviewed the submittals and verified that both submittals contained fire inspection certificates. He received no further documentation from CHC or CHC 2 from November 10, 2008, and the time he talked to Mr. Carter on December 5, 2008. On December 8, 2008, Mr. Morrissette returned to CHC 2 to do a follow-up inspection. CHC 2 had not corrected all its violations. Mr. Morrissette was advised by the principal at CHC 2 that CHC also had not corrected all of its violations. One of the violations CHC had was a broken lockbox. On December 7, 2008, CHC had called BCFR and requested an application for a lockbox. Thus, on December 8, 2008, CHC would still have not corrected its lockbox violation. On December 11, 2008, Ms. Nichilo signed a revised version of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit3 for CHC for the 2009- 2010 school year. The question posed in the affidavit submitted in November 2008 concerning whether the facility had a current, violation-free fire code inspection remained the same in the revised affidavit. Again, CHC stated that it did have a current, violation-free Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. The revised affidavit also contained the same language as the November 2008 affidavit that answering a question in the negative in Section 9 would result in an out-of-compliance issue. Both the November affidavit and the revised affidavit contained the following language: I have read the applicable scholarship program rules and understand that by signing the form I am certifying that the school is currently in compliance and agrees [sic] to remain in compliance with all scholarship program rules and reporting requirements. If at any point, the school is not in compliance with the scholarship rules, or if there is a change in the status of any reporting requirement, the school shall have 15 days to notify the Department of Education and will provide all information necessary to document its continued compliance with program rules and requirements. The revised affidavit was submitted to the Department of Education, which received the affidavit on December 16, 2008. At the time CHC submitted the affidavit, it did not have a current, violation-free Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. On December 23, 2008, the BCFR re-inspected CHC and found that the violations had been corrected. After its inspection on December 23, 2008, BCFR issued a fire inspection certificate backdated to November 20, 2008, which was the date of the original inspection. On December 17, 2008, the Agency issued an Administrative Complaint, suspending CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs for failure to have a current fire inspection report. By letter dated December 23, 2008, and received by the Department of Education on December 29, 2008, CHC advised that the school had been re- inspected and now had a current fire code inspection certificate. On January 2, 2009, CHC sent a 12-page facsimile transmission to the Department of Education. One of the pages of the transmission was a copy of a facsimile transmission coversheet dated December 31, 2008, with the BCFR letterhead concerning inspection reports. The comments section of the coversheet read “Please read letter.” The second page of the transmission was an unsigned to-whom-it-may-concern letter dated December 30, 2008. At the top of the letter, printed in large, bold type was the following: “Brevard County Fire Rescue.” The letter stated: To whom it may concern, In reviewing and trying to figure out what happen with the 2007 inspection reports this is the conclusion we have come to. If you review the two reports on both CHC-1 and CHC-2 the visiting inspection times over lap each other making it seem like a 2007 inspection was done when in reality it was not. CHC-1 inspection has a date on it February 22, 2006 to February 2007. CHC-2 inspection shows January 12, 2006 (re-inspection) January 2007. I believe that this was just an over site on both our parts due to the fact that the fire department does come in regularly every year even without an appointment. Lara Nichilo did notify us to come in ASAP when the reports could not be found. But as of November 20, 2008 all her inspections were done and her follow up correction reports have been completed putting her in good standing with the fire and inspections department. CHC-1 and CHC-2 (inspection reports provided to you with this letter) For more information you may contact us at 321-455-6383 Thank you for your time, The telephone number given in the letter was the telephone number for CHC. The original letter submitted at the final hearing by CHC was written on stationary bearing the CHC watermark. The letter received by the Department of Education had no visible watermark. The facsimile transmission coversheet that accompanied the letter was a coversheet which BCFR had sent to CHC on December 31, 2008. The statements in the comments section that BCFR sent had been deleted and replaced with “Please read letter.” The following are the comments which BCFR had written: There are no reports or certificates for 690 Range Road for 2006 or 2007. There are no inspection reports or certificates for 55 McLeod for 2007. Certificates will be issued upon receipt of payment. Laura Harrison, the director of the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs at the Department of Education, transmitted a copy of the letter to BCFR and asked if the letter had originated from BCFR. Mr. Carter advised Ms. Harrison that the letter did not come from BCFR. Ms. Nichilo wrote the letter. A person reading the letter would be led to believe that the letter came from BCFR. The letter was accompanied by a facsimile transmission coversheet bearing the BCFR letterhead and the coversheet comments said “Please read letter.” The letter refers to Ms. Nichilo in the third person and uses first person plural pronouns to refer to BCFR. The letter purports to bear the letterhead of BCFR. It must be concluded that Ms. Nichilo intended the Department of Education to rely on the letter as a letter transmitted by BCFR to Ms. Nichilo to explain the situation. If Ms. Nichilo had intended the Department of Education to treat the letter as a letter written by her, she would have written the letter using CHC letterhead, signed the letter, not referred to herself in the third person, not referred to BCFR in the first person, and not used a transmission coversheet from BCFR in which the comments section had been altered. In a conversation on December 30, 2008, Ms. Nichilo advised Mr. Hyle that she was sending him a letter that would explain everything and would resolve the situation concerning the fire inspections. Ms. Nichilo testified that she told Mr. Hyle that she was writing the letter. Mr. Hyle did not recall whether Ms. Nichilo said that she was writing a letter. Jade Quinif, who was Ms. Nichilo’s administrative assistant on December 30, 2008, listened to the conversation between Mr. Hyle and Ms. Nichilo on speakerphone. She recalls Ms. Nichilo asking Mr. Hyle if he would like her to write a letter regarding Ms. Nichilo’s conversations with BCFR. Mr. Hyle said that would be fine. Ms. Nichilo typed a letter and asked Ms. Quinif to send it to the Department of Education. Ms. Quinif sent a letter to the Department of Education dated December 30, 2008. Based on the evidence presented, the letter that Ms. Quinif sent was a letter dated December 30, 2008, written on CHC letterhead and signed by Ms. Nichilo.4 It was not the letter dated December 30, 2008, which appeared to be from BCFR (purported BCFR letter). The only evidence of receipt of the purported BCFR letter by the Department of Education is in a 12-page facsimile transmittal, which was transmitted twice on January 2, 2009. Ms. Quinif credibly testified that she did not send a 12-page transmission and that she did not send the doctored transmission coversheet from BCFR. She also credibly testified that the letter that she sent was a few days after Christmas and was not more than a week after Christmas. Ms. Nichilo testified that Ms. Quinif did sent the transmittal coversheet from the BCFR on December 30, 2008; however, Ms. Nichilo’s testimony is not credible given that the transmittal coversheet from BCFR was dated December 31, 2008, and showed a transmission date of December 31, 2008, to CHC. The clear and convincing evidence is that Ms. Nichilo wrote and sent the purported letter from BCFR and the doctored transmittal coversheet from BCFR in an attempt to make it appear that BCFR was taking some of the blame for CHC not having maintained current fire inspection certificates. BCFR does not automatically do an annual inspection of schools. If a school desires to have a fire inspection, the school must notify BCFR and arrange for a fire inspection. The failure to have current, violation-free fire inspection reports rests with CHC and not with BCFR. The bogus letter was an effort by CHC to seek mitigation for its failure to adhere to the requirements for eligibility for the scholarships programs. After learning that the letter transmitted on January 2, 2009, was not from BCFR, the Agency issued an Amended Administrative Complaint on January 23, 2009, which superseded the December 17, 2008, Administrative Complaint. The Amended Administrative Complaint deleted the allegations concerning the failure to have a current, violation-free fire inspection report and added allegations involving fraud and failure to maintain current, violation-free fire inspection reports.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the suspension of CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs and revoking CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated July 23, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed an application for fire safety inspector certification on or about March 4, 1992. One of the questions on the application for fire safety inspector certification posed the following: Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude? Respondent answered the foregoing question by marking the space before "NO." On or about March 8, 1989, Respondent was charged by information issued through the State Attorney's Office in Lake County, Florida, with aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a felony. On or about June 2, 1989, the information referenced above was amended but continued to allege aggravated assault. On June 8, 1989, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated assault and was placed on probation for a period of three years. Adjudication of guilt was withheld at that time. Subsequently, the Respondent was discharged from probation and the proceedings in the criminal case were terminated. Respondent had completed his probation at the time his application for certification as a firesafety inspector was made. Respondent is currently certified as a firesafety inspector, certificate number FI-66318. Additionally, Respondent is employed as a firefighter with the Reedy Creek Fire Department. Subsequent to the receipt of Respondent's application for certification, the Department requested information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding Respondent's criminal record. The information received from those sources led to the discovery of the facts addressed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 above and the initiation of these proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order revoking Respondent's certification as a firesafety inspector. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 27th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4921 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Daniel T. Gross Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Hugenna D. Outar, operates a twelve-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) under the name of Moorehead House Retirement Center at 1405 Northeast Eighth Street, Homestead, Florida. The facility is licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and as such, is subject to that agency's regulatory jurisdiction. Outar serves as administrator of the facility. On or about August 15, 1987, Paul Grassi, an HRS fire inspector, conducted a routine annual inspection of respondent's facility. The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the facility was in compliance with the fire safety requirements of Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code (1987). The inspec- tion was made in the presence of Outar's mother since Outar was not at the facility that day. Grassi requested documentation showing that all facility fire alarms and smoke detectors had been checked by facility personnel on a quarterly basis. Also, he requested documentation to evidence that all employees had been given monthly training in procedures to be followed in the event of a fire. The former set of records is required by Department of Insurance Rule 4A-40.017, which has been adopted by reference by HRS. The latter requirement is imposed by Rule 10A-5.023(15)(b) and pertains to ACLF's having thirteen or more licensed beds. Because Outar's mother did not know where such documentation was kept, she was unable to comply with Grassi's request. Next, Grassi observed that Room D had a "pocket type" door with no hinges. According to Grassi, a state fire marshal regulation prohibits the use of this type of door in a resident's room and requires instead that a resident's room located by an exit have a door mounted on a hinge that swings outwardly to the corridor. The Classification of Deficiencies refers to the regulation imposing this requirement as "L.S.C. 85, 17-3.6.2" but the regulation itself is not of record or officially noticed. Finally, Grassi observed two residents' rooms with no door closures. According to Grassi, such closures are required on all residents' rooms, pursuant to a state fire marshal regulation, for the purpose of containing and confining a fire in the event of a fire in a room. The regulation was not identified at hearing nor made a part of the record but is referred to in the Classification of Deficiencies as "N.F.P.A. 101-85, 17.3.6.3." After noting these violations, Grassi explained them to the mother and gave her a brief explanation as to how they might be corrected. Each of the three deficiencies were categorized as Class III deficiencies. By letter dated September 24, 1987, HRS advised Outar in writing of the nature of the violations. Although the letter was not prepared until September 24, it instructed Outar to correct the deficiencies by September 14, 1987, or ten days earlier. Attached to the letter was a copy of the Classification of Deficiencies which identified the deficiencies, their class and the date by which they had to be corrected. On October 29, 1987 Grassi made a follow-up survey of respondent's facility. Since Outar was not at the facility that day, the survey was conducted in the presence of Outar's mother. Grassi found none of the deficiencies had been corrected. Accordingly, Outar was sent a letter by HRS on November 6, 1987 advising her that a second follow-up visit would be made. On December 14, 1987 Grassi returned for a third visit. This time Outar was present. Again, Grassi found none of the deficiencies corrected to his satisfaction. However, he conceded that the documentation pertaining to monthly fire drills and quarterly checks of fire alarms and smoke detectors was available for inspection but maintained it was unsatisfactory because all reports were identical and did not vary from month to month. He reasoned that this was contrary to the "intent" of the rule. During the inspection, Outar requested specific advice as to how to comply with the door regulations for which she had been cited. After receiving advice, these changes were made, and her doors now meet all fire safety requirements. Outar operates a small facility with only twelve beds. She pointed out that she had difficulty in installing closures on the two doors in question since two residents used walkers and had placed door "jams" on the doors to give them easy access through the doorway. As to the other door violation, the building was purchased with an archway leading into Room D which made it difficult to install a door mounted on hinges. Outar attempted to comply with Grassi's instructions but her carpenter was unable to make the necessary changes until Outar received specific advice from Grassi on December 14. Finally, Outar stated that the fire drill documentation was available for inspection on August 15 and October 29 but her mother did not know where it was. Outar did not learn it was filled out improperly until she personally spoke with Grassi on his third visit. She now has satisfactory records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against respondent be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 30th day of September, 1988.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the application for an initial license to operate an Adult Family Care Home ("AFCH") should be denied because the applicant submitted fraudulent or inaccurate information in the application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is owned by Ms. Marvell Lawton, R.N. (the "applicant"). On June 3, 1996, the applicant applied for a license to operate an AFCH at 550 East Division Street, Deland, Florida (the "facility"). Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing AFCHs. Respondent requires several documents to be submitted with the application including: a Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Community Residential Homes Sponsor Certification Form (the "HRS Form"); a statement by the local zoning office that the facility is properly zoned (the "zoning approval"); and a fire inspection report. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report to indicate that the facility was approved for a maximum capacity of five residents. Respondent initially denied the license application solely on the basis of the fire inspection report. However, the basis of denial was amended to include the HRS Form and the zoning approval pursuant to an order entered by Judge Stephen F. Dean on October 16, 1996. By letter dated July 11, 1996, Respondent notified the applicant that her application was denied. The letter stated, in relevant part, that the specific basis for denial was: . . . Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency. The fire safety inspection report submitted with the application package was altered to indicate approval for five residents when the fire marshal's office had only approved three residents. The local fire marshal's office has verified that the original approval was for three residents because Ms. Lawton did not want to install a manual alarm system which is required for four or five residents. Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency is grounds for denial of the AFCH application, s. 400.619(11)(e),F.S. On April 2, 1996, the applicant obtained a fire inspection report from the City of Deland Fire Department (the "Fire Department"). The fire inspection report limited the maximum capacity of the facility to three residents because the applicant did not have the manual alarm system required for four or five residents and did not wish to install such a system. The applicant altered the fire inspection report that she submitted with her application. She changed the number "3" to a "5" so that the fire inspection report appeared to approve the facility for a maximum capacity of five residents. As part of its review of the application, Respondent attempted to verify the fire inspection report included in the application by calling the Fire Department. When the Fire Department did not verify that the maximum capacity was five residents, Respondent obtained a copy of the original fire inspection report from the Fire Department. On March 22, 1996, the applicant obtained a zoning approval from the City of DeLand stating that the maximum capacity of the facility is three residents. The applicant added the phrase "to 5" after the number "3" in the zoning approval so that the zoning approval authorized a maximum capacity of "3 to 5" residents. On June 3, 1996, the applicant submitted the HRS Form to Respondent. The applicant amended the portion of the HRS Form requiring a designation of capacity for facilities with six or fewer residents as well as that for facilities with 7-14 residents. The latter category does not apply to Petitioner. The applicant did not submit fraudulent information to Respondent. The applicant did not intend to defraud Respondent. She misunderstood the application process. The facility has space for only three residents. It is physically impossible to house more than three residents in the facility. The applicant would have gained nothing from an authorized capacity of more than three residents. The applicant's refusal to add the manual alarm system required for four or five residents is consistent with the facility's limit of three residents. The applicant assumed that Respondent's minimum license category is for a license of 1-5 residents. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report under the mistaken belief that the capacity designation in each document should conform to the maximum capacity in Respondent's license category. In the HRS Form, the applicant even altered the licensed capacity for facilities with 7-14 residents. The applicant mistakenly submitted inaccurate information to Respondent within the meaning of Section 400.619(11)(e), Florida Statutes.1 The maximum licensed capacity of the facility must be consistent with fire safety requirements for the welfare of the residents. The licensed capacity of the facility must also conform to applicable zoning laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and thereinGRANT a license to operate an AFCH for three residents. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact By addition to Section 633.081(2), Florida Statutes, in 1981, the Florida Legislature required the State Fire Marshal to renew, on a triennial basis, the certification of fire inspectors in the State of Florida and to, by January 1, 1982, establish procedures to do so by rule. This statute and the 1979 edition thereof stipulated that all required fire inspections be conducted by a person certified as having met the inspection training requirements set by the State Fire Marshal and charged that individual with maintaining current files on all certified inspectors. Consistent with that mandate, on October 16, 1981, a representative of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training of the State Fire Marshal, by memorandum to all "Incumbent Fire Safety Inspectors," forwarded the procedures established by the Bureau to initiate the required certification process. The memorandum clearly indicated the test to be given during December, 1981, at various locations throughout the state would be to any "qualified' inspector. The term "qualified" was defined in the attachment to the memo as being: ndividuals who are currently functioning as fire inspectors provided they meet the requirements specified below. Have a minimum of one year of experience as a full-time fire safety inspector as of January 1, 1982, and have successfully completed a 40 hour course of instruction in Codes and Standards; or Have a minimum of five years experience as a full-time fire safety inspector as of January 1, 1982. This incumbent test was an open-book examination in all sections, and was not to be used to test new inspectors who had not been serving in that job. The test for new inspectors is open book in only one of five sections. On November 9, 1981, Respondent, John M. McCarthy, then serving as Fire Chief for the Fort Myers Beach (Florida) Fire Control District (FMBFCD), submitted his request to take the Incumbent Fire Safety Inspector examination. The application form Respondent submitted, verifying he had served as a full- time fire inspector for four years beginning September 11, 1977, to the date the application was signed by Respondent, as fire chief, as the certifying agent. Respondent contends he was advised to do just that by a representative of Petitioner in a phone call to Petitioner's Ocala office prior to the application. Mr. Stark, currently the bureau chief, was not serving in that capacity at that time. The then-incumbent is no longer at that office and did not testify. On the basis of Respondent's application and the verification of status appearing thereon, he was permitted to take the incumbent exam, which he passed, and was subsequently certified as a fire safety inspector. In early April, 1983, John Dahlgren, Jr., Vice Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners, FMBFCD, in the company of Mr. Robert J. Weatherbee, then lieutenant in the Fort Myers Beach Fire Department, came to Mr. Frederick C. Stark, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, Office of the State Fire Marshal, and presented a letter to him to the effect that it was the majority opinion of the members of the Board, FMBFCD, that Respondent was not qualified to take the incumbents' fire inspector examination when he did because he had not had the required one year experience as a full-time fire inspector and, therefore, his certification as such was in error. A letter to that effect, dated April 7, 1983, was also delivered. The following day, April 8, 1983, Mr. Stark wrote to Respondent, informing him of this allegation and offering him the opportunity to refute the allegation. Apparently, that same date, Mr. Stark sent a similar letter to Mr. Keith Hiatt, Chairman of the FMBFCD; and on April 12, 1983, Mr. Hiatt responded by letter, indicating that Respondent was, at the time of taking the exam, the full-time paid inspector, as well as full-time paid fire chief, citing the training that Respondent and another fire official gave to Mr. Weatherbee to qualify him for the position of fire marshal. Similar sentiments were contained in a letter, same date, from Mr. Frederick Bruchner, member of the Board, to Mr. Stark. Also on April 12, 1983, Respondent responded by letter to Mr. Stark, outlining his experience in fire prevention and detailing that his position as fire chief gives him final review and decision-making authority on the operation of the department's fire inspector, Mr. Weatherbee. Shortly thereafter, on April 29, 1983, Mr. Weatherbee and Charles Mulac, former Fire Marshal and acting Fire Chief, signed affidavits which subsequently got to Mr. Stark on May 2, 1983, which indicated that during their tenure in their respective offices, going back to June, 1979, Respondent had not served that department as a full-time inspector. Prior to signing his affidavit, Mr. Weatherbee personally went through all the inspection files, including approximately 180 residentials, 100 Businesses, 100 mercantiles, 5 schools, and some industrials. He recalls that Respondent was with him on some of his inspections, but does not recall any cases where Respondent did the inspection alone. During this period, Respondent called Mr. Stark and told him there were documents in the department files which showed he had done fire inspections, so on May 2, 1983, Mr. Stark wrote to Mr. Mulac, as acting Chief, and requested he search the department's fire inspection records for the period 1977-1980 for any documentation, such as inspection records, surveys, or the like, to indicate inspections done by Respondent. On May 5, Mulac responded in writing, indicating that a thorough search of the records in question disclosed no documentation on inspections by Respondent, nor did the records show Respondent was ever a part-time or full-time, paid or nonpaid, inspector during the period 1977-1980. In addition to the lack of full-time inspector employment, the Bureau also concluded that Respondent's training records did not reflect the required training in that it is felt he did not have training in: Blueprint reading and plan examination; Inspection procedures; (a) Private protection systems (sprinklers, alarms); and (d) Causes and origins of fires. Without this background, the Bureau concluded Respondent could not function as an inspector, as all are pertinent to that operation, especially in light of current building methods. Further, concerning the experience requirement, this was considered to be imperative because there are many aspects of fire safety which are learned only through experience. Without the experience, even the training would not, in Stark's opinion, make an individual a qualified inspector. Respondent's duties as fire chief, which required him to oversee inspections done by others, was not, in Stark's opinion, sufficiently connected to the inspection process to allow him to sit for the incumbents' examination. Therefore, on May 11, 1983, Mr. Stark, as Bureau Chief, voided Respondent's Municipal Fire Inspector certificate and advised him of that fact by letter. Respondent contends that Mr. Stark's action was taken without adequate investigation and was based on irrelevant matters. As to the latter issue, Mr. Stark admits that the discussion he had in his office with Dahlgren and Weatherbee related to the rules and procedures as they applied to Respondent. Mr. Stark assured these two gentlemen only that he would look into their allegations. Prior to this visit, he had no indication there was anything wrong with Respondent's certification or that of Mr. Taylor, also from the Fort Myers Beach Fire Department. About a week after this visit, Mr. Stark received a package in the mail that consisted mostly of newspaper clippings concerning Respondent and alleged improprieties in the District, but, he contends, he read only one, and none of this had any bearing on the decision to decertify Respondent as a fire inspector. He also received numerous phone calls from individuals in Fort Myers regarding Respondent's status, and he referred them all to the Fire Marshal's Office in Tallahassee. Without concluding at this point whether that decision was appropriate or not, it is clear there is no reason to disbelieve Mr. Stark in this regard or to conclude the decision was based on any improperly considered evidence. As to the adequacy of the investigation into the allegations, it is also clear that Mr. Stark could have improved little on what he did. He could have, himself, examined the department's records and, in light of the fact that at the time in question Respondent had been suspended as chief and was barred from the department offices (he could not, therefore, get to the files to secure copies of his inspection reports, if any existed), perhaps should have done so. However, at no time did Respondent contend he had done inspections himself, but instead, in his response to Mr. Stark's initial letter, relied solely on his supervisory position, the responsibility that went with it, and his efforts on behalf of the Interlocal Agreement. In light of the evidence presented to him, Mr. Stark had no requirement to go further, and it is clear his inquiry into the matter was adequate. At the time of the test, no rule had been promulgated for the certification process. The Fire Marshal's Office took the statutory language calling for "certification" of inspectors as the authority to give the test to incumbents to certify them. It is the opinion of Mr. Stark that some of the 400 to 500 individuals who took the incumbent test, out of the 23,000 inspectors working in this state, had very little fire inspection training or experience at all. However, since the Training Bureau has only two individuals to do the checking for the entire state, he had to rely on the integrity of the individual who verified the experience claimed on the application form. If, however, the Bureau received information that someone was not qualified, it decertified that individual, utilizing the same procedure as done in the instant case; that is, to decertify after investigation, but without hearing prior to the decertification action. In fact, to the best of Mr. Stark's knowledge, there were five other cases where certificates were looked into because of alleged irregularities such as here. Respondent applied for employment with the FMBFCD on May 15, 1976. Prior to coming to Florida, he worked as a fire fighter in New York since 1965 and while there took numerous fire fighting courses and officers' training. After coming to Florida, he enrolled in St. Petersburg Junior College and Edison Community College by which latter institution he was awarded the Associate of Science Degree in Fire Administration. During the course of study, he took courses in: Introduction to Fire Protection; Fire Protection Systems; (a) Fire Company Leadership; Fire Fighting I; Fire Company Management; Fire Codes; Protection Organizations; Fire Prevention Investigation; Hazard Material; Fire Fighting II; and graduated in the winter of 1983 from Edison Community College with an overall grade point average of 3.22 out of a possible 4. Respondent submitted extensive documentation in the form of memoranda, notations, calendar memos, and newspaper articles to show that he was actively engaged in fire inspection. However, careful review of these documents reveals that while he was frequently embroiled in controversy over the inspections of various commercial and residential establishments in Fort Myers Beach, and while he may, from time to time, have actually been personally involved in inspections, for the most part he was the upper echelon supervisor who was called upon to resolve disputes over inspections conducted by others, on the basis of policy or whatever other concern was pertinent to the issue. Whatever else he did, it is clear Respondent was not a full-time fire inspector. In fact, Respondent admits that though he has personally participated in many inspections in the field, assisting Mr. Weatherbee, who was, at the time, the Fire Inspector (Marshal) for the FMBFCD, and bringing to his attention various aspects of the fire codes, he did not do the actual inspection and has never done one by himself. However, because of the periodic friction between Weatherbee and Mulac, then the Assistant Fire Chief, he found himself going out into the field with both, frequently to do inspections. Respondent contends that the area of fire prevention and code enforcement, into which fire safety inspection falls, is the biggest part of his job, which also entails fire suppression and rescue. During the period in question, Fort Myers Beach did more building in general than the rest of the county. As a result, he was always out at the site looking at plans and consulting with the builder. In that regard, however, he has, by his own admission, taken no course work in blueprint reading or plans review that was certified by the State Fire Marshal. Finally, concerning this particular subject, when Respondent was temporarily suspended from his job as fire chief in April, 1983, he was contacted by a reporter from the local paper who read to him, over the phone, from the long list of charges laid against him, of which, prior to that moment, he had no knowledge and had not seen. In response to the reporter's question about inspections, 1/ Respondent is quoted as having denied participating in fire inspections and indicating he had nothing to do with fire codes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent's certification as a fire safety inspector be rescinded. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 22nd day of May, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a rooming house located in Pensacola, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held license numbers 2705932 for food service and 2705800 for operation of a rooming house issued by the Division. Russell Crowley is a Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist employed by the Division. Mr. Phelan has a two- year degree in environmental technology. He has been employed by the Division for eight years. Prior to working for the Division, he was in the Air Force, Public Health Service, for 26 years. He also received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, and is a certified special fire inspector. Case Nos. 06-3292, and 06-3293 On February 28, 2006, Mr. Crowley conducted an inspection of Respondent's premises and issued a food service inspection report and a lodging service inspection report while on the premises. Harrison Anderson an employee of Respondent, signed for the inspection reports. During the February 28, 2006 inspection, Mr. Crowley observed six food service violations and four lodging violations and issued a warning that the violations must be corrected by March 28, 2006. Mr. Crowley conducted a call-back inspection on March 29, 2006, during which he observed that four of the violations noted on February 28, 2006 had not been corrected. At the time of the first inspection, Mr. Crowley observed that the fire extinguishers were out of date. During the call-back inspection, he again found the fire extinguishers to be out of date, in that they had last been inspected in April 2005. This is a critical violation because if a fire extinguisher is not inspected to be sure it is in proper working condition, it could malfunction causing a fire safety hazard. During the original inspection, Mr. Crowley also observed that the stove hood in the kitchen was not cleaned. This was listed as a violation because it is a vermin control issue. This is a critical violation because grease buildup in the stove hood system can cause a fire. This violation had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. During the original inspection, Mr. Crowley observed that the hood suppression system in the kitchen was out of date. This had not been corrected at the time of the call- back inspection. Hood suppression systems should be inspected every six months. This is a critical violation because the hood suppression system is how grease fires are put out. Mr. Crowley also observed an accumulation of food debris on the kitchen floor and under the stove and refrigerator. This had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. Another violation that Mr. Crowley found that had not been corrected is that the manager lacked proof of a food manager certification. This is a critical violation because a food manager who has received training in proper food handling procedures must be on the premises. Mr. Crowley gave Respondent a time extension of 60 days to correct this violation. Additionally, Mr. Crowley gave a 60-day time extension for a related violation, in that there was no proof of employee training in proper food handling procedures. A lodging violation that had not been corrected between inspections is that the central heat and air conditioning was inoperable. Mr. Crowley observed space heaters in some but not all rooms. The central air system was still inoperable on the call-back inspection and there were only four space heaters for 15 rooms. On June 6, 2006, Mr. Crowley made a call-back inspection of Respondent's facility and found that there still was no proof of anyone having received food manager training and no proof of employee training. Case No. 06-3294 During the March 29, 2006, call-back inspection of Respondent's facility, Mr. Crowley observed that no room rate schedule was filed with the Division and that no room rate was posted in each room or unit. He wrote an inspection report finding these two lodging violations, issuing a warning about these two violations, and notifying Respondent that the violations needed to be corrected by April 29, 2006. Mr. Crowley went back to Respondent's facility on May 5, 2006, and found that these violations had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. His call- back re-inspection report noted that the owner stated that she sent the room rate schedule to the Division for filing, but that when he called to verify this, there was no record of Respondent's room rate schedule with the Division. In any event, the room rate schedule was not posted. Case Nos. 06-3698 and 06-3699 On April 11, 2006, Mr. Crowley again inspected Respondent's facility. As a result of this inspection, he wrote a lodging inspection report on which he noted nine violations. He noted on the inspection report a call-back date of April 12, 2006. On April 12, 2006, he returned to Respondent's facility to make a joint inspection with an inspector from another agency, the Agency for Health Care Administration. As a result of the April 12, 2006, inspection, he found two violations that had not been corrected: he observed an insufficient number of fire extinguishers and observed 10 live gnats in a resident's room. He also gave a 30-day time extension for the seven other violations found, indicating a call-back date of May 13, 2006. During the April 12, 2006 inspection, Mr. Crowley also observed an expired fire sprinkler inspection tag, indicating it had been last inspected on April 11, 2005. The inspection report again shows a call-back date of May 13, 2006. Mr. Crowley made a call-back inspection of Respondent's facility on June 6, 2006, and found two violations that had not been corrected from the April 2006 inspections: the smoke detector in the common area was not working and there was rotted wood in the restroom. The smoke detector not working is a critical violation; the rotted wood in the bathroom is not. Mr. Crowley did note in his report that the air conditioning/heating system was now working. On May 15, 2006, Mr. Crowley made a call back inspection and found that the fire sprinkler had still not been inspected since April 2005. This is a critical violation. Mitigation Ms. Finkley offered mitigating circumstances regarding some of the deficiencies noted by Mr. Crowley. Regarding the allegation that no food service manager had a certification, Ms. Finkley asserts that before the house was licensed to be a rooming house, it was an assisted living facility. She and others who had previously worked there had received training and were not aware they needed additional training when the facility became a rooming house. Further, Ms. Finkley took the training class on July 17, 2006. Regarding the allegation that the stove hood had a grease buildup, Ms. Finkley asserted that she did have the hood cleaned, and showed the inspector the receipt for the cleaning. Mr. Crowley disputes this and insists that had he been shown the receipt, he would have given her credit for having it. Mr. Crowley's testimony in this regard is more persuasive and accepted. Ms. Finkley explained that the house and floor are very old. Therefore, she feels that it was more the condition of the floor as opposed to uncleanliness. In any event, she has installed a new floor since Mr. Crowley's inspections. Regarding the room rates, Ms. Finkley insists that she mailed the room rates to the Division. It was returned to her from the Division within a couple of days after Mr. Crowley was there, and she then posted it. Her assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the allegations about the fire extinguishers, Ms. Finkley asserted that she had taken two fire extinguishers to be inspected and tagged the day Mr. Crowley made his reinspection. According to Ms. Finkley, Mr. Crowley was still in the yard of the facility when she returned with the fire extinguishers and attempted to show them to Mr. Crowley. This apparently happened after he had written his report, as Mr. Crowley recalls passing her in the driveway as he was leaving. Her assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the allegation about the smoke detector, Ms. Finkley asserts that it was brand new and had just been installed that day (the day of Mr. Crowley's inspection) by the maintenance man. She was not present during the inspection but retuned to the facility that day and found the smoke detector to be working. Her testimony in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the sprinkler system, the utility company was working on the road outside the facility and had cut the water line to the facility due to work being done on the day the inspector inspected the system. This is corroborated by Wesley Perdue's testimony and is accepted as credible. Again, this correction to the cited violation was made after the callback inspection. Wesley and Vicki Perdue lease the facility to Ms. Finkley and perform maintenance on the facility. Regarding the allegation about the rotten wood in the bathroom, they remodeled the entire bathroom including putting in new walls, a new commode, and a new vanity with a new sink. The Perdues also installed the new kitchen floor. According to Mr. Perdue, they repaired many things that were written up by Mr. Crowley after he had cited Ms. Finkley for the deficiencies, and he believes that the repairs were completed during the call-back time frame of Mr. Crowley's inspection reports. While Mr. Perdue believes this, the weight of the evidence is that repairs were not completed before Mr. Crowley's reinspection.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order that imposes an administrative penalty in the amount of $3,000, places Respondent under probation for a period of two months after issuance of the Final Order, and requires Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 28th day of December, 2006 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-1015 Fannie Finkley House of Love 5191 Zachary Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32526 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, Willie Mae Johnson, d/b/a Leisure Living Retirement Home, based on an Administrative Complaint that alleges that ten Class III deficiencies have persisted despite notice of the deficiencies and of the requirement that they be corrected.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie Mae Johnson, d/b/a Leisure Living Retirement Home, is licensed to operate Leisure Living Retirement Home, 401 S.E. 9th Avenue, Mulberry, Florida, as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. On January 9, 1989, the day of an HRS survey of the Respondent's ACLF, the following Class III deficiencies, among others, were present: The facility did not have on its staff at all times at least one staff person with training in an approved first aid course, and there was no evidence that all staff were free of communicable disease. Daily records of supervised self- administered medications had not been kept for some residents since 1/3/89. Others showed the medications had been logged sporadically, while one medication, Inderol 10 mg, had never been logged. Because of this haphazard system, there was no way to be sure residents were receiving medications at the proper times and in the correct dosages. Of eight health assessments reviewed three did not indicate the residents to be free of communicable disease. One did not indicate whether the resident was capable of self-administering medications with supervision or assistance from staff. Appropriateness of admissions and continued residency was not based on the medical records. See subparagraph C, above. Medications were not given as prescribed. As the medications had not been logged or given according to the medication label, there is a potential for over- or under- medicating the residents, which could lead to serious health problems for the residents. All rooms where food or drink was prepared and served were not clean or in good repair as evidenced by: Live and dead cockroaches were observed on the kitchen and dining room floor and in the kitchen cabinets. There were spills inside the microwave oven. There was an accumulation of dust on top of the refrigerator and the freezer. The curtains in the dining room were torn. All potentially hazardous food was not held at safe temperatures. Liver had been left at room temperature to thaw. It could not be determined if the freezer was 0 degrees Fahrenheit or colder, as the thermometer had not been placed in the freezer until shortly before the surveyor exited the facility. The last annual inspection of the portable fire extinguisher in the main building was done December, 1987. Documentation of monthly fire drills and quality tests of smoke detectors and the fire alarm system was not available at time of survey. The facility needed to institute an effective insect control system. There were roaches crawling up the wall near the phone, creating an atmosphere ripe for the spread of disease. (These lettered subparagraphs correspond to the lettered subparagraphs in paragraph (3) of the Administrative Complaint in this case.) At the conclusions of the January 9, 1989, survey, the Respondent agreed to the following schedule for correcting each of the deficiencies listed in the subparagraphs of Finding 2, above (each lettered subparagraph below corresponds to the deficiency identified in the same lettered subparagraph of Finding 2, above): February 15, 1989 Immediate and ongoing. February 9, 1989. February 9, 1989. Immediate. January 20, 1989. January 9, 1989. January 16, 1989. February 9, 1989. Immediate. On April 27, 1989, HRS personnel returned to the Respondent's facility. They found that the deficiencies listed in the lettered subparagraphs of Finding 2, above, were not corrected, as the Respondent agreed to do. Instead, as to each deficiency, they found: Of the two staff, neither had first aid, and only one had a "no communicable disease" statement. Medications had not been logged since the morning of April 25, 1989. One of the three still did not indicate that the resident was free of communicable disease. See subparagraph C, above. One medication prescribed April 1, 1989, was never used, according to the logs. A live roach was seen crossing the kitchen counter. Breaded frozen fish was left on the counter. The stand-up freezer was 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The last documented quarterly smoke detector test was January 26, 1989, and the last documented fire drill was February 6, 1989. A live roach was seen on food left to defrost on the kitchen counter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a final order finding the Respondent, Willie Mae Johnson, d/b/a Leisure Living Retirement Home, guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint in this case and fining her $2500. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 31st day of May, 1990.
