Findings Of Fact At all times, material to this case, Petitioner has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 6200 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida, and is known as the Warrington House. Francis Cooper is the sole shareholder and operator of the Warrington House. Prior to 1984, the Warrington House was known as the Heritage House and was owned by a Mr. Mitchell. Sometime in 1984, Mr. Mitchell was criminally charged with elderly abuse on his residents and the Heritage House went into receivership. Another branch of HRS who was represented by Esther Ward, asked Ms. Francis Cooper to take over the facility. HRS was apparently well satisfied with Ms. Cooper's qualifications in running an ACLF since she had another such facility. When Ms. Cooper took over the Heritage House the electrical power to the facility was about to be turned off. Only by Ms. Cooper's pleading with Gulf Power was that circumstance forestalled. There were only thirteen (13) patients at the facility out of the sixteen (16) that were supposed to have been there. Three (3) of the patients had been mysteriously removed during the night. The residents that were at the house could not identify themselves and very few resident records were at the facility. The building was infested with roaches, there was raw sewage in the yard and the sewage system was completely blocked to the extent that sewage came up through the showers when a toilet was flushed. There was urine in every carpet. None of the appliances in the house worked. There were no air conditioners, fans or plastic dishes. The floors were in bad shape. In fact, Ms. Cooper fell through two of the bathroom floors. When Ms. Cooper questioned HRS representatives about the appalling conditions of the facility, she received no responsive answer. After Ms. Cooper had taken over the facility, she discovered that Mr. Mitchell had absconded with three months advance rent from the residents. Ms. Cooper, therefore, had to operate the premises for three months without income from the residents that were there. She used her own money. Ms. Cooper started with the air conditioning, flooring and carpeting. All these items were replaced. The bathrooms were tiled and additional bathrooms were added. She put in a $6,000.00 sewage system, a lift station and paid $1,000.00 to hook the building onto city sewage. She also brought in an exterminator to get rid of the bugs. All of this took place over a period of two years wherein Ms. Cooper worked diligently to bring the building up to "snuff." In fact, in the time since she has had the facility she has accomplished wonders in improving conditions at the house. These conditions clearly did not appear overnight, but over several years and were apparently overlooked by Respondent until the crisis with Mr. Mitchell had occurred. Ms. Cooper went into the house with the understanding that the corporation would eventually build another facility and close what had become the Warrington House. The reason for the new construction was that the current building, regardless of the amount of repair, was still an old building not worth maintaining and which was allowed to deteriorate badly prior to her stewardship. However, due to a falling out with her brother, who was then a co- shareholder of the corporation, Ms. Cooper was unable to complete her plans for moving the residents of the Warrington House to a new facility. She continues to attempt to obtain financing to build a new facility. At least once a year, HRS does a full survey on a ACLF like the Warrington House. A full survey is simply an inspection of the property in order to determine the degree of compliance with HRS rules and regulations. Upon completing the inspection, the inspector goes through an exit briefing with the ACLF's management. During the exit briefing, the inspector will go over any deficiencies he or she has discovered and attempt to establish mutually agreeable correction dates. The inspector also explains that these time periods are the best estimates that they can come up with at that point to allow a reasonable amount of time for the required corrections to be made. If any problems should arise, the inspector requests that the manager communicate with his or her office and ask for an extension. Extensions are not always forthcoming. After the full survey inspection is done, a follow-up visit is normally scheduled to determine whether the earlier cited deficiencies have been corrected. If, after the follow-up survey there are items that are still not corrected, the inspector will explain to the person in charge that they are subject to administrative action and that he or she will report he facility's noncompliance to his or her office. Whether or not administrative action is taken is determined at a level above the inspector. However, it appears that the customary practice of the office is to pursue an administrative fine for any noncompliance after the correction date has been passed. After the first follow-up survey has been made it depends on the particular factual situation whether or not further follow-up surveys are made until compliance is achieved. If there are efforts being made to correct the problems further follow-up surveys will be made. If not, further follow-up surveys may not be made. In this case, James Temkin, an HRS Fire Protection Specialist, performed a full survey fire safety inspection on the Warrington House on September 24, 1986. During that survey, he cited 11 deficiencies. Various compliance dates were established for the deficiencies. A follow-up survey was conducted by Mr. Temkin on January 14, 1987. During that survey, he noted that 6 of the previously cited deficiencies had not been corrected. He recommended administrative action on all the uncorrected deficiencies. The six remaining uncorrected deficiencies were as follows: No up to date fire plan and the July 7th fire drills were not documented; No fire alarm test since July 1986 and fire alarm zones were not shown on the actuator panel; Smoke detectors not working in four (4) rooms; Exit sign lights burned out at the front and center exits, emergency lights not working at the front, rear and upstairs exit halls; Sleeping rooms had hollow core doors; and There was no documentation of fire safety on the wood paneling and tile ceilings on the first and second floors. All other deficiencies cited during the September 24, 1986 full survey were corrected. As to the alleged deficiencies contained in the latter half of (b) and (c)-(f) above, none appear at any point in HRS' rules governing ACLF's. Supposedly, these deficiencies are cited in the NFPA life safety code, which is incorporated by reference in the Fire Marshal's rule on ACLF's, Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 version of Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code is incorporated by reference in HRS' rule, Rule 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Both HRS' rule and the Fire Marshal's rule are contained in the Florida Administrative Code. However, the 1984 version of NFPA is nowhere to be found in the Administrative Code. The current Fire Marshal's rule adopts portions of the 1985 NFPA life safety code. However, the HRS' rule adopts the 1984 version of the Fire Marshal's rule. No showing was made by Respondent as to what the 1984 version of the NFPA code contained. The HRS inspector's testimony regarding a particular deficiency's inclusion in the NFPA cannot be relied on since both inspectors apparently used the 1985 version of the NFPA which is not the 1984 version included in HRS's rule. Without proof of the contents of the NFPA, HRS has failed to prove any deficiencies for which it may take administrative actions. As to the other deficiencies, attempts to comply were in fact made by the Warrington House. The facility's personnel in fact thought they had complied with HRS' desires based upon previous inspections. However, for one reason or another, these attempts were rejected by the HRS inspector and the deficiency was cited again, but because of another reason. The lack of an up- to-date fire plan (cited in (a) above) was met by the Warrington House when they obtained a fire plan prior to the established correction date from another arm of HRS responsible for devising such plans. However, upon the January 14th follow-up inspection, the plan obtained from HRS by Petitioner was considered insufficient in that it did not outline staff responsibilities during a fire. The same thing occurred with the lack of fire alarm tests, cited in the latter part of (a) and the first part of (b) above. The Warrington House obtained the testing document and test from another branch of HRS responsible for such testing. However, the inspector at the follow up survey did not deem his own agency's testing documents sufficient since it did not show a different type sending unit was being tested at least once a year. 1/ These are simply not repeat deficiencies since in each instance the earlier grievance had been met and it was another grievance which cropped up. On July 9, 1987, a second follow-up survey to the Temkin September 24, 1986, full survey was performed by O.B. Walton, an HRS fire safety inspector. The evidence was not clear as to any remaining uncorrected deficiencies, if any, he found. Therefore, Respondent failed to establish any repetitive deficiencies as a result of the July 9 follow-up survey. Apparently, however, Mr. Walton, did perform another full survey on July 9, 1987. Several additional deficiencies were cited by him. A follow-up visit was conducted by Mr. Walton on October 23, 1987. Four alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected as follows: Ceiling not repaired in hot water heater closet, i.e. not taped; Kitchen fire door latch was jammed open so it would not latch, but it would stay closed; Plug by hot water heater had no cover; No documentation that drapes were fire retardant. Again, none of the above alleged deficiencies appear in HRS' rules or in the fire marshal's rule and a reasonable person could not glean from any of the other provisions contained in HRS' rules that the above conditions might be included in these provisions. The lack of clarity or uniformity in interpretation of HRS' rules is especially born out in this case since two different inspectors while inspecting the same building cited different deficiencies under their respective interpretation of the rules. When the experts differ it is difficult to see how a reasonable lay person could even begin to know or understand the contents of HRS or the Fire Marshal's rules. This lack is especially true since the relevant contents of the 1984 NFPA life safety code are not contained in the Florida Administrative Code and were not demonstrated by HRS. HRS, therefore, failed to prove any repeat deficiencies from the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. A third fire safety follow-up visit was conducted by Pat Reid, a human services program analyst, on January 21, 1988. She has no expertise or license to perform fire safety inspections. She found all of the earlier cited uncorrected deficiencies corrected except for the documentation on the drapes. That alleged deficiency was partially corrected since Petitioner was replacing the drapery with metal blinds. However, as indicated earlier the lack of documentation for fire retardant drapes was not proven to be a violation by Respondent. Ms. Reid had previously conducted a full survey of Petitioner on August 17 and 18, 1987 in her area of expertise operation and general maintenance of an ACLF. Several deficiencies were cited and correction dates were established. Ms. Reid conducted a follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey on October 23, 1987. The following alleged deficiencies had not been corrected: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases; The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease; Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom; Faucet of first floor bathroom is loose; Carpeting in first floor resident room (#7) is badly stained; Three vinyl chairs in dining room have tears, exposing foam padding; Second floor bathroom faucet nearest exit does not clearly distinguish between hot and cold water taps. As to the alleged deficiency contained in (a) above, the regulations do not contain a requirement that any documentation be kept regarding staff members being free of communicable disease. The regulations only require that the facility administrator assure that staff is free of communicable disease. The evidence showed that Petitioner had in fact assured that the staff was free of communicable disease. Therefore, no violation occurred. The alleged deficiency cited in (b) above does constitute a violation of Rules 10-5.081(1)(b), (2)(a)4.d., and (2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. However, in this instance, there are several mitigating circumstances. Foremost is the fact that Petitioner attempted on several occasions to obtain this information from another arm of HRS who had M. B. under its care prior to his admission to Petitioner's facility and had actually failed to complete M. B.'s Health Assessment form properly. Petitioner received many assurances from HRS that it would obtain and forward the information. HRS failed to do so. Moreover, after several years of M. B. living at the Warrington House and after several years of HRS care prior to his admission, common sense would dictate that M. B. is free of communicable diseases. Petitioner has in fact received confirmation of that fact from an examining physician who certified M. B. free of communicable diseases. 2/ As to (c) above, the evidence showed that the windows were only cracked and not broken. No evidence was presented as to the severity of the cracks. Cracked windows are not included in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code, which only addresses broken window panes. Moreover, cracked windows without proof of the severity of the cracks is not sufficient evidence of the lack of good repair or other hazardous conditions similar to those listed in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Rule requires proof of the hazardous nature of such a condition. Cracked windows are not hazardous in and of themselves and no showing was made that these cracked panes constituted a hazard. Nor do cracked window panes standing alone constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(d). The rule requires evidence that such cracked panes are unreasonably unattractive and no showing was made that the cracks were unreasonably unattractive. Likewise, the missing shower tile in (d) above fails to constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(a) since the deficiency is not listed, and no showing was made that the missing tile constituted a hazardous condition. Similarly, the missing tile, by itself, does not constitute a violation under Rule 10A-5.022(d) since no showing was made that the missing tile was unreasonably unattractive. The same failure of proof occurs with the alleged deficiencies listed in (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). See Rules 10A-5.022(c), (e) and (i). The alleged deficiency cited in (j) above does constitute a violation of 10A-5.023(9)(e). However, the violation was not repeated after October 1, 1987, the effective date of Section 400.414(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ms. Reid conducted a second follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey when she performed the fire safety follow-up on January 21, 1988. All previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases. The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable diseases. The following maintenance problems exist: broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms and resident room identified as W. S. A third follow-up was conducted by Ms. Reid on April 15, 1988. All the previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease. Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom. All of the alleged deficiencies cited in the January 21, 1988 follow- up and the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey were carried forward from the alleged deficiencies discussed above, cited in the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. The same findings are made as to the alleged deficiencies which were carried forward. Only the physical health assessment of M. B. was cited by Respondent and shown to be a repeated deficiency since the information was not obtained by the established correction dates occurring after October 1, 1987. By the date of the hearing all the above alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Respondent notified Petitioner that it proposed to deny renewal of Petitioner's license to operate the Warrington House on December 23, 1987. The basis for the denial was Section 400.414(1) and (2)(d) which states: 400.414 Denial, revocation, or suspension of license; imposition of administrative fine; grounds. The department may deny, revoke or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine in the manner provided in chapter 120. Any of the following actions by a facility or its employee shall be grounds for action by the department against a licensee: * * * (d) Multiple and repeated violations of this part or of minimum standards or rules adopted pursuant to this part. The language of Subsection (d) was added to Section 400.414 F.S. on October 1, 1987. Prior to that date Respondent had no authority to take punitive action against the license of an ACLF licensee for multiple and repeated violations of Respondent's statutes and rules. The only action Respondent could take against a facility for such violations was in the form of a civil fine the amount of which could be raised if the violation was repetitive. Section 400.426, Florida Statutes. No multiple violations were shown by the evidence through the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey. More importantly, however, no multiple violations were shown by Respondent after October 1, 1987, the effective date of the statutory language at issue in this case. No showing was made by Respondent as to any legislative intent that the statute operate retrospectively. The statute operates only prospectively. Therefore, any alleged deficiencies cited prior to October 1, 1987 are irrelevant for purposes of imposing the punishment contemplated under Section 400.414, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services renew Petitioner's license. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether violations of Section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61C-1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, as well as Chapter 4A-3, Florida Administrative Code, had been committed by the Respondent in terms of two specific safety violations allegedly occurring at the Respondent's lodging establishment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating the operation of hotel or lodging establishments in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, at all times material hereto, has been licensed or otherwise subject to the Petitioner's jurisdiction. On September 28, 2001, and again on October 16, 2001, an inspector of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) inspected the Respondent's lodging premises. The Division inspector noted certain deficiencies at her first inspection and that those deficiencies where still outstanding and uncorrected at the end of her second inspection at that location. In light of the deficiencies noted at both inspections, the Division issued its Administrative Complaint on November 16, 2001, alleging that the fire extinguisher near Apartment Number One was in the "re-charge zone," meaning that it was inoperable on September 28, 2001, and was missing on October 16, 2001. The Complaint also charged that the balcony railing near Apartment Number Four was loose and, therefore, in an unsafe condition in violation of Rule 61C-1.004(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. In response, the Respondent testified that he does not live on the premises and that, although the fire extinguisher deficiency has occurred repeatedly, it is because children who are present on the premises keep discharging it. He testified that whenever it has been discharged he, or his maintenance man, immediately has it recharged by the Daytona Fire and Safety Company. Mr. Rampersad also testified that he did everything in his power to bring the railing up to proper code requirements by re-drilling holes and re-anchoring the railing in concrete. He contends that an "inspection supervisor" observed the railing and opined that it had been brought up to code, but there is no direct evidence of that observation. He established that, as of the time of the hearing, all necessary repairs to the railing had been made and that the fire extinguisher was charged and fully operable. He testified that at the time the fire extinguisher was missing upon the re-inspection date, found above, that it was at the service company being recharged.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, imposing a fine in the amount of $750.00; That the Respondent's license be suspended for six months, but with the suspension held in abeyance contingent upon timely payment of the administrative fine being received upon a schedule agreed to between the Respondent and the Director of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. The failure to continue to make timely payments of the fine amount should result in imposition of the suspension of the Respondent's license; and That the Respondent be required to attend a Hospitality Education Program class under the auspices of the Petitioner within 60 days of the date of the final order herein and to provide satisfactory proof thereof to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 8th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Milton Rampersad 1201 Kennedy Road, Apartment 19 Daytona Beach, Florida 32117 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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 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 Whether a civil penalty should be assessed against the Respondent under the facts and circumstances of Case No. 89-2966. Whether Respondent should be denied licensure renewal under the facts and circumstances of Case No. 89-4890. Whether a civil penalty should be assessed against Respondent under the facts and circumstances of Case No. 89-5238.
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 these proceedings, Sacred Heart was operating an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) under either a Standard license or a Conditional license issued by the Department in accordance with Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. FINDINGS AS TO CASE NOS. 89-2966 AND 89-5238 In DOAH Case No. 86-4065 (OPLC No. 86-474 ACLF) the Department and Sacred Heart entered into a stipulated settlement that was read into the record at the time of the final hearing (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, Tab 6) on September 1, 1987 which provided: (a) that the Department was to perform a full survey (the same as an annual survey) of Sacred Heart beginning on September 1, 1987 and concluding on September 2, 1987; (b) that the parties would review the survey and establish a date for correcting any deficiencies noted; (c) that upon Sacred Heart timely correcting the noted deficiencies the Department would issue a renewal license for a period of one year from the date of issuance; (d) that substantial compliance of the noted deficiencies was a pre-condition to issuance of the renewal license; and (e) that Sacred Heart's failure to timely correct the noted deficiencies would result in the Department denying the renewal license. In accordance with the above-referenced stipulation the Department conducted a survey of the Sacred Heart facility on September 1 and 2, 1987. The survey was broken down into two parts: (a) operational deficiencies which are dealt with in Case No. 89-5238 and (b) fire safety standards deficiencies which are dealt with in Case No. 89-2966. That part of the survey concerning operational deficiencies was conducted on September 1 and 2, 1987. The Department noted 15 deficiencies of which 7 were Class III, 3 were part Class III and part Unclassified and 5 were Unclassified. Some of these deficiencies were required to be corrected by September 8, 1987, others to be corrected by October 2, 1987 and November 1, 1987 and the balance to be corrected by November 30, 1987. That part of the survey concerning fire safety standards deficiencies was conducted on September 2, 1987. The Department noted 18 Class III deficiencies which some were to be corrected by September 15, 1987 and the balance to be corrected by November 1, 1987. On December 1, 1987 the Department conducted a follow-up survey and noted that all operational deficiencies (Class III and Unclassified) listed on the September 1-2, 1987 survey had been corrected with the exception of the following: (a) ACLF 106 A(1), E(1), I, and J, Class III ; (b) ACLF 108F, Unclassified; (c) ACLF 109 H(18) and (19), Unclassified; (d) ACLF 111 A(1), Unclassified; and (e) ACLF 113(20) and (25), Unclassified. On December 8, 1987 the Department conducted a follow-up survey and noted that all of the fire safety standards deficiencies (Class III) had been corrected by Sacred Heart or withdrawn by the Department with the exception of ACLF 89, 107 A., B., C., F. and Q all of which had been partially corrected. Sacred Heart was operating with a conditional license with a termination date of October 7, 1987 at the time of the above-referenced stipulation and survey. This conditional license was extended until December 15, 1987. After the follow-up survey on December 1, 1987 and December 8, 1987 the Department notified Sacred Heart on January 6, 1988 that it was issuing Sacred Heart a Standard (regular) license with an effective date of December 16, 1987 without any conditions requiring Sacred Heart to correct the operational or fire safety standards deficiencies noted on the follow-up surveys of December 1 and 8, 1987. This standard license had an expiration date of October 7, 1988. Since the Department was aware of Sacred Heart's less than full compliance with correcting both the operational and fire safety standards deficiencies it can be assumed that the Department considered Sacred Heart in substantial compliance with correcting those deficiencies as required by the stipulation when it issued Sacred Hearth the Standard license without any conditions placed on the license requiring the correction of those deficiencies. Notwithstanding that it had issued a Standard license without any condition requiring Sacred Heart to correct any outstanding deficiencies, the Department conducted a follow-up survey on the operational and fire safety standards deficiencies on March 18, 1988 and March 25, 1988, respectively. On March 18, 1988 the Department conducted a follow-up visit of the annual survey conducted on September 1-2, 1987 and the follow-up visit of December 8, 1987 and found the following operational deficiencies that were noted in the September 1987 annual survey that had not been corrected: (a) ACLF 106(H) - Loose iron railing on entry of main building, Class III; (b) ACLF 109H (18) - cracked or peeling paint on wall in shower in room 18 of the main building, Unclassified; and (c) ACLF 113A (20) and (25) - stained or dirty ceiling panels in room 20 and 25 in the main building, Unclassified. Based on the follow-up survey of March 18, 1988 sanctions were recommended and approved for the uncorrected operational deficiencies. An administrative complaint was issued on March 16, 1989 and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 26, 1989 in Case No. 89-5238 charging Sacred Heart with failure to correct these deficiencies and attempting to discipline the license issued to Sacred Heart, notwithstanding Sacred Heart's substantial compliance with the stipulation. On March 25, 1988 the Department conducted a follow-up visit on the September 1987 annual survey and the December 1987 follow-up visit and found the following fire safety standards deficiencies that had been noted in the September 1988 annual survey that had not been corrected: ACLF 89, 107 - A. all resident sleeping rooms that open into corridors did not have self-closing or automatic closing devices installed - this deficiency had been partially corrected in December 1987 and remained partially corrected in March 1988; B. all stair well doors (2-story building) did not have self-closing or automatic closing devices installed - partially corrected in December 1987 but neither door operational in March 1988; C. - all sleeping rooms, common areas, hallways, corridors, sitting or lounge areas, T.V. rooms, dining room, kitchen areas, laundry rooms, furnace rooms, Chapel and office areas adjoining the resident use areas did not have electronic smoke detectors wired into household electrical current (heat detector acceptable in kitchen) - this was only partially corrected on December 1987 as it was in March 1988; and F. all electrical panel boxes did not have each circuit breaker identified and labeled showing the area each circuit breaker protected - all corrected except in cottage #8 which was not corrected in March 1988. Based on the follow-up survey of March 25, 1988 sanctions were recommended and approved for the uncorrected fire safety standards deficiencies. An administrative complaint was issued on March 31, 1989 in Case No. 89-2966 and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 30, 1989 charging Sacred Heart with failure to correct these deficiencies and attempting to discipline the license issued to Sacred Heart, notwithstanding Sacred Heart's substantial compliance with the stipulation. While the administrative complaint in Case No. 89-5238 indicates that deficiencies ACLF 109 and ACLF 113 are Class III deficiencies, both of the surveys and the Recommendation For Sanctions list these deficiencies as Unclassified . The operational and fire safety standards deficiencies noted by the Department in its September 1987 annual survey did exist. Furthermore, those operational and fire safety standards deficiencies noted in the follow-up visits of December 8, 1987 and March 18 and 25, 1988 as not being corrected, were uncorrected on the dates of the follow-up visits. FINDINGS AS TO CASE NO. 89-4980 On June 10 and 14, 1988 the Department conducted an annual survey of the Sacred Heart facility and noted the following deficiencies: (a) ACLF 63, 64, 66 - Unclassified; (b) ACLF 67, 71, 96A, 97A, Class III; (c) ACLF 106, 109, 89 (1-14) (maintenance problems) Unclassified; (d) ACLF 107A and B, 108 A-E, Class III; (e) ACLF 110A and B, 111 and 113, Unclassified; and (f) ACLF 26 and 42, Class III. On June 16, 1988 the Department conducted a follow-up of the annual survey conducted on September 2, 1987 and found the following fire safety standards deficiencies noted in the 1987 annual survey and the March 25, 1988 follow- up survey that had not been corrected: (a) ACLF 89, 107A - had not installed automatic or self-closing devices on all doors of residents' rooms that open into hallway or corridor; (b) ACLF 89, 107B - failed to install automatic or self-closing devices on all stairwell doors; and (c) ACLF 89 107C - failed to have electric smoke detectors wired into household electric current in furnace room, others noted in earlier annual survey and follow-up survey had been corrected. Additionally, the Department conducted an annual survey of the fire safety standards on June 16, 1988 and noted several deficiencies which were corrected at the follow-up survey of August 16, 1988 with the exception of: (a) having improper ashtrays in use in various areas of the main building and cottages; and (b) failure to install automatic fire extinguishing (sprinkler) system in the 2-story (main) building in accordance with Rule 4A-40.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. The August 16, 1988 survey also noted the following new fire safety standards deficiencies: (a) the failure to encase alarm wires in protective casings in north and south cottages; (b) failure to install additional alarm bells and switches or pull boxes in north cottages; (c) failure to have additional fire alarm bells installed on the first floor of 2- story main building; and (d) the failure to have pull box alarm systems properly installed according to Rule 4A-40.004, Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated August 9, 1988 the Department imposed a moratorium on admissions at the Sacred Heart facility effective August 8, 1988 in accordance with Section 400.415, Florida Statutes, for severe deficiencies including, but not limited to, inappropriate placement and retention of residents, substandard cleanliness of residents and substantial cleanliness of the facility. On August 16, 1988 the Department conducted another follow-up survey on the Sacred Heart facility and noted the following operational deficiencies: (a) ACLF 26, 27, 41 (1-6), 51, 52, 53, 58, 67, 71 (2-8), 96 (a-s), 98, 104, 105, 106 (a-o), 107 A-C, 109 A-H, 110 A-V and 111 (a-c), Unclassified; and (b) 71 (1), 93 A (1-7) and B (1-4), 97 A-E, 108 A-N, 112-115, 117 and 89 (a-m), Class III. On the follow-up survey of August 16, 1988 it was noted that the following operational deficiencies noted in the annual survey of June 10 and 14, 1988 had not been corrected: (a) ACLF 67; (b) ACLF 96 A & B (partially corrected); (c) ACLF 106, 109, 89 (1-6 partially corrected and 9 not corrected); (d) ACLF 107 A partially corrected; (e) ACLF 110 A-B; and (f) ACLF 111. On September 6, 1988 the Department notified Sacred Heart that its application for renewal of its license was being denied pursuant to Section 400.414(1)(2)(a)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes, because Sacred Heart did not comply with the standards for operation of an ACLF pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. The specific reasons given by the Department were the inappropriate placement and retention of residents and substandard cleanliness of the facility and, "the failure to: provide adequate resident care; meet life safety standards; provide social, leisure and recreational activities and to correct numerous physical plant deficiencies" as demonstrated by the March 18, 1988, June 10, 14, 1988 and August 16, 1988 area office visits and surveys. As a result of this denial letter Sacred Heart filed a petition with the Department requesting an administrative hearing which was assigned PDRL No. I 88-899 and referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings which assigned Case No. 88-5177 to this request. On October 13, 1988 the Department conducted a survey of the Sacred Heart facility for the purpose of reconsidering the moratorium issued on August 8, 1988. The October 13, 1988 fire safety standards survey noted the same deficiencies as were noted on the August 16, 1988 survey, none had been corrected. The operational deficiencies survey noted that some of the operational deficiencies noted on the August 16, 1988 survey had been corrected but that a good number had not been corrected. Additionally, the operational deficiency survey of October 13, 1988 noted a large number of new deficiencies. On February 8, 1989, the Department conducted another follow-up survey on both the operational deficiencies and the fire safety standards deficiencies. This survey noted that all fire safety standards deficiencies noted on October 13, 1988 had been corrected with the exception of installing an automatic fire extinguishing system. This survey also noted that a large number of the operational deficiencies noted on the October 13, 1988 survey had not been corrected and also noted several new deficiencies. Sometime before May 25, 1989 the Department and Sacred Heart entered into a Joint Stipulation wherein the Department would again place Sacred Heart on a 60 day conditional license upon the execution and return of the Joint Stipulation and lift the moratorium imposed on August 8, 1988. In return, Sacred Heart agreed to: (a) correct all remaining deficiencies arising out of the surveys of March 18, June 10 and 14, August 16, 1988 and February 8, 1989; (b) a full and complete survey utilizing the new survey manual; and (c) the results of this new survey being used to determine whether the license would be denied and the matter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for licensure denial proceedings de novo. On May 25, 1989 in accordance with the stipulation the Department lifted the August 8, 1988 moratorium that it had imposed on the Sacred Heart facility and issued Sacred Heart a 60-day Conditional license effective April 16, 1989 with an expiration date of June 15, 1989 In accordance with the stipulation and, the need to conduct an annual survey for licensure, the Department conducted an annual survey of the Sacred Heart facility on June 13-14, 1989. There were no repeat fire safety standards deficiencies noted in the June 1989 annual survey. However, the following new fire safety standards deficiencies were noted in the June 1989 survey: (a) ACLF 700-801A kitchen - cooking range and fry grill needs to be certified as to their safety, and cooking range and fry grill need thorough cleaning, removing flammable burnt and crusted food and grease from burners, well and cooking surface, and (b) ACLF 700-901B, main building - (1) sprinkler alarm bell not connected, (2) holes in ceiling and walls left by sprinkler contractor need to be sealed to prevent passage of toxic gases to other areas, (3) exit door (ground floor, south wing) does not swing outwardly in direction of escape travel, and (4) fire alarm "Pull Station" not loud enough to be heard throughout building on outside of building. These fire safety standard deficiencies are Class III deficiencies. The June 13-14, 1989 survey noted the following Class III operational deficiencies: ACLF 302 (ANC), ACLF 404-1001-1010, ACLF 504-507(4)-508 (a repeat deficiency), ACLF 602; ACLF 613, ACLF 617 (1-10), ACLF 700, ACLF 708, ACLF 800- 1010 (A-G, with G being a repeat deficiency), ACLF 803-806-808-1010 (A-F, with F being a repeat deficiency), ACLF 804-1010 (A-H, with H being a repeat deficiency), ACLF 810-811-1010 (A-B, with B being a repeat deficiency), ACLF 1002-1010, ACLF 1003-1010, ACLF 1005 and, ACLF 1105-1106 (A-B, with B being a repeat deficiency). Although several of the above operational deficiencies are listed as "repeat deficiencies", there is insufficient evidence to show that these exact deficiencies had been noted in an earlier annual survey or the earlier follow-up visits as deficiencies. The date for correcting the new fire safety standard deficiencies was July 14, 1989 and the date for correcting the operational deficiencies varied from June 14, 1989 thru August 14, 1989. The Department made no further visits to the Sacred Heart facility subsequent to the June 13-14, 1989 annual survey in an attempt to determine if Sacred Heart had corrected those deficiencies noted in the June 13-14, 1989 annual survey, notwithstanding that the Department had allowed Sacred Heart a period of time to correct these deficiencies. All of the deficiencies noted in the June 1989 annual survey were subsequently corrected within the time period prescribed in June 1989 annual survey report. All of the operational and fire safety standards deficiencies noted in the annual surveys and follow-up visits conducted subsequent to March 25, 1988 did exist. Furthermore, all of the operational and fire safety standards deficiencies noted in the annual surveys and follow-up visits beginning with the September 1987 annual survey and ending with the February 8, 1989 follow-up visit had been corrected before the June 1989 annual survey in accordance with the stipulation. On June 22, 1989 the Department entered a Final Order adopting the stipulation and ordering the parties to comply with its terms. Based on this Final Order the Department filed a Voluntary Dismissal in DOAH Case No. 88-5177 on July 10, 1989 and the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings closed on July 13, 1989. By letter dated June 29, 1989 the Department advised Sacred Heart that its application for renewal of its license which had expired on June 15, 1989 was denied pursuant to Section 415.103, Florida Statutes; Section 415.107(5)(b), Florida Statutes; Section 400.414(1)(2)(a)(b)(d) and 3, Florida Statutes and; Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. The specific basis for the denial included but was not limited to: (a) the deficiencies cited during area surveys and follow-up with a September 2, 1987, March 18, June 10, June 14, June 16, August 12, October 13, 1988 and February 8, March 8, June 13 and June 14, 1989 which demonstrates continued non-compliance in correcting deficiencies (Section 400.414(d), Florida Statutes; (b) the August 8, 1988 moratorium imposed on admissions to the facility (Section 400.414(3), Florida Statutes; (c) failure to comply with the provisions of the joint stipulation in the DOAH Case No. 88- 5177, PDRL No. I-88-899 ACLF (Section 400.414(2)(d), Florida Statutes; and (d) the confirmed neglect of resident C. C. that occurred on September 15, 1988 (Section 400.414(2)(a), Florida Statutes). By letter dated August 7, 1989 Sacred Heart filed a petition with the Department requesting a formal hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The petition, with attachments was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 89-4890. On August 11, 1989 the Department entered its Final Order in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. C. N., Case No. 88-6455C wherein the Department denied the request of C. N. for expunction of the confirmed report of neglect involving C. C., a resident of the Sacred Heart facility at the time the incident of neglect occurred on September 15, 1988. Upon entry of the Final Order in this case Sacred Heart discharged C. N. and C. N. is no longer employed by Sacred Heart. On December 13, 1989 the Department entered its Final Order in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. B. B. A., Case No. 88-6258C wherein the Department denied the request of B. B. A. for expunction of the confirmed report of neglect involving C. C., a resident of Sacred Heart at the time the incident of neglect occurred on September 15, 1988. B. B. A. at the time the incident of neglect occurred was a co-owner and was still a co-owner on the day of this hearing on August 6-7, 1990. The final order was on appeal to the District Court of Appeal on the day of hearing.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order in Case No. 89-4890 denying renewal of the ACLF license of Sacred Heart Retirement Villa, Inc. It is further recommended that the Administrative Complaints in Case Nos. 89-2966 and 89-5238 be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of February, 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 15th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the finding of fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2 (3, 14, 17); 3 (6, 17); 4 (12, 17); 6-7 (28-30, 34); 9 (5, 17); 10 (6, 17); 11 (14, 17); 12 (19, 34); 15 (21, 34); 16 (24, 34); 18 (19, 34); 19 (24, 34); 22 (12, 13, 17); 24 (28-31, 34); 26 (25, 34); 28 (28-31, 34); 31 (24, 34); 32 (25, 34); 35 (28- 31, 34); 38 (20); 39 (29); 40 (35); 43 (36); 46 (38); 47 (39) and 48 (19). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, 8, 13, 14, 17, 21, 25, 29, 30, 34-37, 42, 44, 45 and 49 are unnecessary. 3. Proposed findings of fact 20, 23, 27 and 41 are not material or relevant. Specific Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. Adopted in findings of fact 26 and 35 but modified. 2. Adopted in findings of fact 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 17-21, 24, 25, 28-34 but modified. Although the alleged deficiencies, moratorium and confirmed neglect report arose prior to the June 22, 1989 Final Order, there is no substantial competent evidence in the report to support the position that this resolved all matters before the Department at that time. Not necessary. 5.-6. Not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Not necessary Not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in findings of fact 33 and 34 but modified. Adopted in findings of fact 32 and 33 but modified. Adopted in finding of fact 29, but modified. Not material or relevant. A restatement of testimony and not a finding of fact. However, if considered a finding of fact it is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire HRS Office of Licensure and Certification 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Kurt Andrew Simpson, Esquire Ocean South 3500 South Third Street Jacksonville, FL 32250 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are true, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a restaurant located at 29 North Boulevard of the Presidents, Sarasota, Florida 34236. Giuseppe Casadio owns and operates the restaurant. On March 25, 2002, an employee representing the Petitioner performed a routine inspection of the Respondent restaurant. Violations of applicable food and fire safety regulations, adopted and enforced by the Petitioner, were noted during the inspection. The inspector identified the violations to the owner and scheduled a re-inspection for March 27, 2002. On March 27, 2002, the Petitioner's employee re- inspected the Respondent restaurant and determined that some of the violations remained uncorrected. The uncorrected violations are related to refrigeration problems, pest control issues, inadequate fire extinguishers, and improper use of an electrical extension cord. The refrigeration problems resulted in a failure to maintain food at appropriate temperatures. The walk-in refrigerator was not chilling properly, and food items including salmon and ham were not chilled to the 41 degrees Fahrenheit required pursuant to regulation. The required storage temperature is intended to retard spoilage and the development of bacteria. At the time of the initial inspection, the Respondent's walk-in refrigerator unit was malfunctioning. The day after the initial inspection, repairs were made to the unit, but the repairs were inadequate and the food storage temperatures remained excessive at the time of the re-inspection. After the re-inspection, additional repair work was required. Another uncorrected violation was the improper storage of a prepared garlic and oil mixture in a "reach-in" refrigerator on the cook's line. The temperature of the mixture was 56 degrees, in excess of the 41 degrees Fahrenheit required pursuant to regulation. Prepared garlic and oil mixtures present the potential for development of botulism if not chilled and stored appropriately. The pest control issue cited in the inspection related to the detection of roaches around the dishwashing machine. The restaurant has a contract with a pest control company, but the measures being taken to reduce the roach population are apparently inadequate. Fire prevention regulations require that an appropriate fire extinguisher be within a travel distance of 30 feet from "high hazard" cooking equipment. The Respondent was not in compliance with the regulations at the time of either inspection because the fire extinguisher was improperly located. Fire prevention regulations prohibit use of electrical extension cords except for temporary use during cleaning. At the time of both inspections, an extension cord was being used to power the reach-in refrigerator unit at the end of the cook's line. The Petitioner has prosecuted similar allegations against the Respondent in a prior administrative proceeding. Pursuant to a Final Order issued in 2001 based on an agreed stipulation and consent order, the Petitioner has previously identified code violations related to improper food storage temperature and inadequate fire suppression equipment during inspections in 1999 and 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $5,600, and requiring that the Respondent attend a Hospitality Education Class at his own expense within 60 days of the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Casadio Osteria Incorporated 29 North Boulevard of the Presidents Sarasota, Florida 34236 Giuseppe Casadio 934 Boulevard of the Arts Sarasota, Florida 34236 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of violating Sections 509.221(1) and (7) and 509.032, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(5), (6), and (13), 61C- 3.001(2), as set out in the Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (DHR) is the State Agency charged with regulating the operation of hotel establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed by DHR or otherwise subject to DHR's jurisdiction, pursuant to issued License No. 26-00783. Respondent's last known business address is Clark Apartment and Rooms, 9762 Bayview Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32208. On February 3, 2003, and again on March 10, 2003, a DHR sanitation and safety specialist, John Phelan, inspected Respondent's premises. On February 3, 2003, the initial inspection, Mr. Phelan was accompanied by his superior, David Futlon. At the February 3, 2003, initial inspection, the following deficiencies were observed by both inspectors and noted for Respondent by Mr. Phelan: No proof was observed that the smoke detectors were interconnected as required by law and as stated by management. The door of a gas oven was held in place by a garden spade. Live roaches were on the floor and climbing the walls around the oven. The inspectors observed a stained mattress and a missing mattress pad on the bed in room They also observed that the second floor bathroom was out- of-order, and that shower curtains and shower stalls were dirty with soap scum. On March 10, 2003, Mr. Phelan returned to Respondent's premises by himself and noted that the foregoing problems/violations remained. According to both inspectors, the most serious violation was that there was no documentation that the smoke detectors were interconnected. This is a critical violation because it could present a potential fire hazard. The next violation that was found to be critical was that there was "a garden spade holding the oven door closed." This was seen as a violation because of the potential for fire. Next down the urgent and critical scale was the presence of live roaches around the oven. The absence of a mattress pad on room 17's mattress and the stain on the mattress were of somewhat less concern. However, these bedding problems are violations because they pose a sanitary issue. The next-ranked violation was that the second floor bathroom was out-of-order. The bathroom also presented a lesser sanitary issue, which was that the shower curtain and shower stall were dirty with soap scum. Based on the foregoing uncorrected deficiencies, Mr. Phelan caused an administrative complaint to be issued against Respondent on March 24, 2003, alleging Respondent's violation of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and/or the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. Although it was demonstrated at hearing that Mr. Clark, Respondent's principal, had been attempting, between the two inspections, to fix the originally-cited deficiencies, and although some progress at renovation had been made, most problems had not been fully addressed as of the date of the follow-up inspection on March 10, 2003. The credible evidence and testimony as a whole show that Mr. Phelan had recognized that a gas heater which had been cited at the initial inspection had been disconnected by the date of the second inspection and that it was no longer in use at the time of the second inspection. Therefore, the gas heater had been crossed off the notification to Respondent by Mr. Phelan and had not been cited as a violation in the administrative complaint. The stove also had been disconnected prior to the re-inspection. The gas heater and gas stove were disconnected at the same time, so propping the stove door open or closed with a spade had no significance with regard to fire hazard. Like the heater, the stove should have been removed from the premises as a safety precaution, but because Mr. Phelan did not know that the stove had been disconnected when he made his re-inspection, it was cited and included in the administrative complaint. The reason the disconnected stove was still present on the premises was because Respondent was fumigating for roaches by setting off "roach bombs" inside it. The fumigation of the roaches in an area where all other exit holes for them were intentionally sealed had resulted in some dead roaches, but many live roaches had fled into the kitchen in the vicinity of the stove. The live roaches were observed by all the witnesses who saw the kitchen on or about the re-inspection date. The testimony of several witnesses was credible that the upstairs bathroom's sink and tub had been repaired prior to the re-inspection. Mr. Musselwhite recalled credibly that he had screwed the faucet handles back on the tub between the two inspections. However, the testimony of Mr. Musselwhite that he was using the tub and sink upstairs at the time of the re- inspection is not credible. The greater weight of the credible evidence is that the tub and sink upstairs might have been repaired, but they were not actually in working order at the time of the March 10, 2003, re-inspection, because the water had not yet been turned back on. The evidence is clear that plaster board had been installed in the shower by the date of the re-inspection and that this was done to deal with the prior notice concerning discoloration. A dispute among the witnesses as to whether the discoloration on the old shower walls was soap scum, discoloration by scum removers, or mildew cannot be resolved. However, it was proven that, despite several changes of shower curtains between the two inspections, the shower curtains present on the re-inspection date remained covered with soap scum and/or mildew. Respondent admitted that the lack of a mattress pad on the mattress in room 17 on the date of re-inspection was an oversight. It was proven that a mattress from a first floor room had been moved upstairs to room 17. In the opinion of Respondent's witnesses, this constituted, a "new" mattress which was not stained. In this situation, Mr. Phelan's observation of the mattress stain is more credible. On his first inspection, Mr. Phelan told Mr. Clark that in the absence of other documentation, Mr. Clark needed to have the State Fire Marshall inspect Respondent's smoke detectors, in order to provide documentation that they were interconnected. By "interconnectedness" the parties meant that if one smoke detector sounded, then all of the smoke detectors throughout the hotel should also sound. Mr. McGee and Mr. Clark testified that between the two inspections the issue of the smoke detectors had been "looked into" with employees of Home Depot and at the local fire department. Mr. Clark stated that he had contacted the Jacksonville Fire Department, which would not give him any documentation, but its employees agreed to come and inspect his smoke detectors. Mr. Clark testified convincingly that he had purchased and installed smoke detectors from the Home Depot which did not provide written documentation of interconnectedness but which could be tested for interconnectedness by pushing their buttons. He maintained that if the inspector had punched the button on any single smoke detector on the re-inspection date, the interconnectedness of all the smoke detectors would have been demonstrated by their all "going off" at once. The inspectors did not punch the smoke detectors' buttons during the two inspections because they could not reach the buttons, as they had no ladders. Respondent was written-up by DHR on both occasions because written documentation of interconnectedness was not provided and because interconnectedness was not otherwise demonstrated. In other words, Respondent provided neither papers showing interconnectedness nor a physical demonstration of interconnectedness during the second inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, shall enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 509.221(1) and (7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(5) and (6), and 61C-3.001(2), and not guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C- 1.004(13); Ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $2,500.00, due and payable to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, within 30 days of the final order; Requiring Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program class within 60 days of the date of the final order and provide proof thereof to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Hotels and Restaurants; and Requiring that Respondent pass a re-inspection of its premises within the same 60 days set out in (3), above. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of July, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed to engage in the food service business, having been issued license number 16-09404-R. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has operated a restaurant in which food was prepared and served to the public. The Respondent’s restaurant business is located at 625 East Atlantic Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060. On July 7, 2004, the Respondent’s restaurant premises were inspected by Larry Torres. Mr. Torres is a Sanitation and Safety Specialist employed by the Petitioner. In conjunction with the inspection on July 7, 2004, Mr. Torres prepared a Food Service Inspection Report in which he noted matters of significance that he observed during the inspection. During the course of his inspection on July 7, 2005, Mr. Torres noted several deficiencies that were violations of applicable statutes and rules. Mr. Torres advised the restaurant owner of these deficiencies and required that they be corrected by the next day. On July 8, 2005, Mr. Torres re-inspected the Respondent’s restaurant. Some of the deficiencies had been corrected and progress was being made towards the correction of others. Mr. Torres granted an extension of time until July 21, 2004, for the correction of the remaining deficiencies. On July 22, 2005, Mr. Torres again re-inspected the Respondent’s restaurant. As of July 22, 2005, all but four of the original deficiencies had been corrected and efforts were underway to correct those four deficiencies. On this occasion Mr. Torres granted an extension of time until August 22, 1004, within which to correct the remaining deficiencies. On August 23, 2004, Mr. Torres conducted another re- inspection of the Respondent’s restaurant. At that time there were three uncorrected deficiencies. Those uncorrected deficiencies were identified by numbers. The numbers were 32, 37, and 45. Deficiency number 32 was the absence of a sign in the area of the employee hand wash sink reminding employees that they were required to wash their hands before preparing or serving food. This is not a critical violation.3 Deficiency number 37 was an unrepaired hole in the wall in the area of the mop sink. The evidence in this case does not reveal what type of safety or sanitation issue resulted from the hole in the wall in the area of the mop sink. This is not a critical violation.4 Deficiency number 45 related to the condition of the automatic fire suppression system incorporated into the hood over some of the cooking elements in the kitchen. The Respondent’s automatic fire suppression system was an older dry chemical system. Such systems require maintenance and testing once every six years, and the Respondent’s system was overdue for maintenance and testing. Automatic fire suppression systems of the type used by the Respondent are rather rare and it can be difficult and time-consuming to locate the dry chemicals necessary to maintain the system. This was a critical violation because of the possibility of having a kitchen fire at a time when the automatic fire suppression system might not be working. The Respondent’s manager made diligent efforts to resolve deficiency number 45. On July 8, 2004, he received a proposal from a fire protection company to replace the existing fire suppression system with a more modern system for approximately three thousand dollars. That was more than the Respondent’s owner was able to spend to resolve that problem. Eventually the Respondent’s manager found someone who would resolve deficiency number 45 by bringing the existing fire suppression system into compliance for only five hundred dollars. By September 27, 2004, the fire suppression in the hood was in compliance and deficiency number 45 was resolved. The Respondent’s manager procrastinated in addressing deficiency number 32 because of his concerns about resolving the more serious matter of deficiency number 45. It took several months for the Respondent’s manager to hang hand washing signs near the employee hand washing sink. The Respondent’s manager addressed deficiency number 37 a bit sooner. At about the same time that deficiency number 45 was resolved, the manager also patched the hole in the wall by the mop sink area.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the three violations identified in the three numbered paragraphs of the Administrative Complaint existed on the dates alleged in the Administrative Complaints; Concluding that no penalty should be imposed for the violation identified in paragraph 1 of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that an administrative fine in the amount of $50.00 should be imposed for the violation identified in paragraph 2 of the Administrative Complaint; and Concluding that an administrative fine in the amount of $50.00 should be imposed for the violation identified in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 27th day of May, 2005.
