Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Stacey Health Care Centers, Inc., is licensed to operate Riverside Care Center, located at 899 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Florida, as a nursing home in compliance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. On July 9, 1986, James A. Bavetta, assistant area supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, made a visit of Riverside's facility and determined that Ralph Stacey, Jr., the administrator of record, was acting in the capacity of administrator for two facilities, the subject facility and another facility in Kentucky, without having a qualified assistant administrator to act in his absence. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ralph L. Stacey Jr., is a licensed nursing home administrator in the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. He has been licensed in Kentucky and Florida since 1974. At the time of Mr. Bavetta's visit and inspection during July, 1986, Ralph Stacey, Jr., was in Cincinnati, Ohio preparing the payroll for Stacey Health Care Centers. During this time period, Ralph Stacey, Jr., served as the administrator for the subject facility, Riverside Care Center, and another facility in Kentucky and did not have a qualified assistant administrator employed to act in his absence. However, once Mr. Bavetta issued his recommendation for sanctions, Petitioner, as part of its plan of correction, has employed a licensed administrator who is presently on staff and serves as Riverside's assistant administrator during the administrator's absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn it is RECOMMENDED: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) upon Stacey Health Care Centers- Inc., d/b/a Riverside Care Center, which amount shall be payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of Respondent's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3410 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard -Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating home health care agencies. At all times material to this case, Respondent has been licensed as a home health care agency. On March 26, 1996, a registered nurse specialist went to the Respondent’s place of business to perform an annual survey. Such survey allows an agency to verify compliance with applicable rules and statutes of the Petitioner. In this instance, the surveyor requested the files of the Respondent’s active patients. Since there were no active files on the date in question, Respondent was unable to produce same. The surveyor did not review the Respondent’s files for the preceding six months to determine if the agency had had an active patient within that time frame. Nor did the surveyor request the files for any active patients for the last six months. In fact, Respondent provided direct nursing services to a patient between November 11, 1995, and November 24, 1995. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent provided nursing and home health aide services to another agency, but also provided direct nursing services to at least one of its own patients every six months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against this Respondent.DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1997. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jean Claude Dugue, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 8355 Northwest 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33166 Edward M. Lerner, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 3810 Inverrary Boulevard, Suite 405-408 Lauderhill, Florida 33319 William M. Furlow Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all time material hereto, Respondent, Robert Norman Doolan, was and is currently licensed by Petitioner, Department of Insurance, as a health insurance agent. Respondent was and is licensed to represent National States Life Insurance Company. Each of the counts charged against Respondent by Petitioner relate to alleged misrepresentations made by Respondent concerning National States policies. Respondent is an aggressive, successful salesman and is highly motivated to sell as many National States policies on an annual basis as possible. He receives a 45% commission of paid annual premiums on policies sold for National States as well as a company bonus. The bonus is computed weekly conditioned on total business written. Respondent consistently received the maximum weekly bonus possible. On or around December 9, 1988, Respondent sold a nursing home insurance Policy to Mrs. Irene Koenig. Mrs. Koenig is an alert and pleasant lady who suffers from Parkinson's disease. Mrs. Koenig is eighty years old. On the day of the hearing, Mrs. Koenig was affected by her illness but requested to go forward with her testimony and was deemed competent to testify. She offered that her condition on the day of the hearing was worse that it was on the day of Respondent's visit. Mrs. Koenig's contact with Respondent began sometime around December 9, 1988 when Respondent contacted Mrs. Koenig, by telephone, and told her he would be in the neighborhood and would like to talk with her about insurance. According to Respondent, he called Mrs. Koenig in response to a mail advertisement which Mrs. Koenig had completed indicating that she was interested in talking with someone about insurance. Mrs. Koenig was interested in obtaining insurance for home health care and invited Respondent into her home. During Respondent's visit, he talked to Mrs. Koenig for over two hours attempting to sell her a Policy. Mrs. Koenig explained to Respondent that she was interested in home health care coverage and informed him that she suffered from Parkinson's disease, a heart disease and had undergone a mastectomy. Mrs. Koenig was not feeling well and wanted Respondent to leave, although she did not ask him to do so. Instead, she Purchased the policy offered by Respondent to get him to leave. Respondent completed the application for the policy but failed to note that Mrs. Koenig suffered from Parkinson's disease. The National State's underwriting guidelines would have prohibited the issuance of this policy if Respondent had informed *he company that Mrs. Koenig had the disease. Respondent, however, testified that Mrs. Koenig did not tell him about her Parkinson's disease. He went further to say that if he had known of Mrs. Koenig's condition, he would have placed her with another company, American Integrity, since he was aware that National States did not want insureds with Parkinson's disease. At the time, Respondent was licensed to represent American Integrity. Respondent also said that the commission from American Integrity was a "little better" than National States but after going through the National States' application with Mrs. Koenig, he felt that National States offered a better program. Although the commission may have been more on the sale of an American Integrity policy, evidence of the difference between the bonus policy offered by the two companies was not presented. Absent further competent substantial proof that Mrs. Koenig did not tell Respondent about her disease, and of how the bonus policy may have affected the sale, and given the demeanor of the witnesses, Mrs. Koenig's testimony concerning her conversation with Respondent about her Parkinson's disease is deemed credible. The National States policy was approved and mailed to Mrs. Koenig. When Mrs. Koenig received the policy she asked a friend to review it. Her friend told Mrs. Koenig that Parkinson's disease was not mentioned in the insurance papers. Mrs. Koenig then asked her friend to write a letter to the company cancelling the policy. Mrs. Koenig cannot write for the period of time necessary to draft a letter due to her illness. National States cancelled her policy and refunded her premium. On or about August 24, 1988, Respondent visited the home of Robert P. and Dorothy T. Perry for the purpose of discussing coverage for nursing home care coverage. Mr. Perry is seventy-two years old, and Mrs. Perry is seventy- one. Respondent had previously sold the Perry's a medicare supplement policy. After several visits, Respondent was successful in selling the Perry's two nursing home plan policies. The policies are written on National States and cover nursing home care as well as home nursing care. They pay $80 per day for skilled and intermediate nursing care for a maximum of twenty-four months. The home health care benefit is $40 per day for a maximum of 100 visits per year. The policies also have a rider which pays $20 a day for up to 30 days in any one year. Petitioner alleged that Mr. Perry was under the impression that the policies provided coverage at $100 per day for two years. The policy which Respondent sold to the Perry's did not include coverage to that amount. At the hearing, Mr. Perry could not recall having made that determination. He also testified that he does not retain matters relating to insurance policies well. A letter from Mr. Perry to National States dated January 17, 1989 indicates that Mr. Perry remembered that Respondent had made such representation. The letter was received into evidence without objection. Mr. Doolan testified that he did not tell the Perry's that the policies paid $100 a day for anything. Even though Mr. Perry's letter seems to indicate that Respondent represented the $100 per day coverage, it is clear that Mr. Perry may be confused about the actual coverage of the policies and of the representations made to him by Respondent. Thus, Respondent's testimony about the representations concerning the coverage amounts is deemed credible. Mr. Perry also claimed that Respondent assured him that Respondent would take care of cancelling the policy after Mr. Perry decided not to keep it. In fact, after receiving the policy and within the ten day "free look" cancellation period provided by the policy, Mr. Perry initiated a meeting with his financial advisors, himself and Respondent to go over the policy. At the meeting, it was recommended to Mr. Perry by his financial advisors that he not take the policy. Immediately after the meeting Mr. Perry spoke to Respondent and told Respondent that he wanted to cancel the policy. Respondent assured Mr. Perry that Respondent would handle the cancellation, and that Mr. Perry would receive a return of his full premium since the cancellation would occur within the ten day period. Mr. Perry recalls that Respondent told him that he was going to Chicago but would return in time to cancel his policy. Respondent did not go to Chicago and did not cancel the policy. Respondent was born in Chicago and had discussed the town with Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry may have been confused about Respondent's destination when he left the meeting. When Mr. Perry noticed that the ten day period was running and Respondent had not cancelled the policy, Mr. Perry attempted to contact Respondent. Unfortunately, he was using an incorrect telephone number. Respondent had given Mr. Perry his home telephone number, but Mr. Perry could not find it at the time he was trying to reach him. Respondent stated that he never told Mr. Perry that he would cancel the policy for him. Instead, Respondent asserted that he told Mr. Perry to contact the company directly by using the self-addressed envelope with which Respondent had supplied Mr. Perry. According to Respondent, his custom is to advise all of his clients about the ten day period and to contact the company directly if they chose to cancel the policy within the ten day period. Although this may be Respondent's normal procedure, Mr. Perry does not recall Respondent instructing him on how to contact the company. Instead, Mr. Perry remembers that Respondent assured him that Respondent would cancel the policy. Considering the demeanor of the witnesses, Mr. Perry's testimony concerning Respondent's assurance that Respondent would handle the cancellation is deemed credible. When Respondent failed to contact Mr. Perry about cancelling the policy, Mr. Perry, on October 20, 1988, returned the policy to National States. The ten day period had expired, and Mr. Perry did not receive a return of premium. In 1988, John F. Spence purchased health insurance from Respondent written by National States. The coverage included two policies, a medicare supplement policy and a hospital indemnity policy. Mr. Spence is 92 years old. While discussing both plans with Mr. Spence, Respondent twice offered a rider to Mr. Spence which would cover dental, vision and hearing. Mr. Spence was interested in the rider, because he had ordered new hearing aids and had hoped to obtain coverage for the cost of his hearing aids. Respondent had told Mr. Spence that the rider would cover up to $500 for hearing aids, although Mr. Spence did not tell Respondent he already had hearing aids and had ordered replacements. However, Mr. Spence rejected the rider on both occasions and was not covered for the hearing aids. Although Mr. Spence testified that Respondent had led him to believe that his hearing aids would be covered under his policies, the demeanor of Mr. Spence and Respondent's testimony at the hearing indicate that Mr. Spence did not recall that he had rejected the hearing aid coverage when he denied the rider. Mr. Spence sought reimbursement for his hearing aids, but his claim was denied. It was Respondent's policy to give each of his clients an outline of the coverage they had purchased. He did so in each of the above incidents. Even though Respondent documented his actions, each of these clients trusted Respondent to provide the insurance protection which they requested. As to Mrs. Koenig, it is clear that Respondent knowingly failed to provide her with a policy which would cover claims relating to Parkinson's disease. As to Mr. Perry, the proof also clearly demonstrated that Respondent, in his fiduciary capacity, failed to honor Mr. Perry's trust when he did not cancel the policy within the ten day period although Mr. Perry was relying on him to do so. Mr. Spence, however, declined the coverage for the hearing aids, and Respondent was under no obligation to Mr. Spence to assist him with his claim concerning the hearing aides. On one previous occasion, a complaint has been filed against Respondent, but he was not found guilty of the allegations therein. The evidence is not clear as to whether the complaint was civil or administrative in nature.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order which finds that Respondent committed the multiple violations of the Florida Insurance Code as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order and suspends Respondent's health insurance agent's license for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 9 day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of April, 1990. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner by paragraph within the Findings of Fact section of this Recommended Order: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 1 and 2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 19,; and, in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and argumentative. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19; and, in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and argumentative. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 19 and, in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and argumentative. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part in paragraphs 11 and 15. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part in paragraphs 10, 12 and 13. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part in paragraph 12. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part in paragraph 12. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part in paragraph 12. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part in paragraphs 13 and 14. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part as subordinate to paragraphs 13 and 14. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 13,14 and 19. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and the demeanor of the witnesses. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part in paragraphs 3, and 7, and, in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part in paragraph 5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part in paragraph 10, and in part rejected as argumentative. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are adopted in material part in paragraph 7, and, in part, rejected as not Supported by competent substantial evidence. The Proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in material part in paragraphs 3-10, and rejected, in part, as not Supported by competent substantial evidence, argumentative and the demeanor of the witnesses. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as not Supported by competent substantial evidence and the demeanor of the witnesses. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 16 is rejected as a preliminary matter. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 17 is adopted in material part in paragraphs 16 - 19. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 17 is adopted in material part in Paragraphs 16 - 19. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 18 is adopted in material part in paragraph 17. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 20 are adopted in Paragraphs 17 and 18. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 21 are adopted as subordinate to Paragraphs 17 and 18. The Proposed finding of fact in Paragraph 22 is adopted in Paragraph 16-19 of the Recommended Order. Copies furnished: Roy H. Schmidt, Esquire Department of Insurance Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Irving Lesnick, Esquire 7521 West Palmetto Road Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The letter of intent and authorizing board resolution to establish a new Medicare certified home health agency filed by ABC for District Four for the September, 1989 batching cycle was timely filed with HRS and the Health Planning Council for Northeast Florida, Inc., and met all statutory and rule requirements for filing. The CON application to establish a new Medicare certified home health agency filed by ABC for District Four for the September, 1989 batching cycle was timely filed with HRS and the Health Planning Council for Northeast Florida, Inc. The CON application to establish a new Medicare certified home health agency for District Four for the September, 1989 batching cycle was deemed complete and accepted for review by HRS, effective November 13, 1989. There is a numeric need for one additional Medicare certified home health agency in District Four as determined by HRS and published pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Local Health Plan The 1989-90 CON Allocation Factors Report for HRS District Four (Health Plan) is the applicable health plan with regards to this proceeding. In its application ABC addressed the recommendations found in the Health Plan. The Health Plan recognizes that under the new methodology for determining numeric need, a licensed home health agency within an HRS district could serve any and all counties within the district. However, the Health Plan contains recommendations for allocating home health agencies. The Health Plan makes the following recommendations: Geographic Preference Home health agencies should be allocated to counties on the following basis: Preference should go to applicants who will establish their program in a county which does not have any CON approved agencies or subunits based in the county. Consideration should be given to counties with a low number of Medicare visits per 1,000 persons 65 years and older. Competing Applications In the case of competing applications for the same or similar geographic area, preference should be given to those applicants which demonstrate: They will meet identified needs in the most cost-effective manner. They are addressing a current or potential geographic access problem in the district. They will serve the widest spectrum of the population, including the medically indigent. They have written agreements with a broad spectrum of local hospitals, nursing homes, mental health resources and/or other service providers in order to help ensure continuity of care. They demonstrate in their CON application how they will comply with any conditions placed on the CONs. They will serve AIDS patients. ABC proposes to locate its agency office in Duval County because it contains medical centers, hospitals with discharge planners and physician staff for referrals, and because of enhanced recruiting and retaining of appropriate staff. However, it proposes to serve all patients referred to it in all counties located throughout District Four, including Baker County. Baker County has no CON approved home health agency based within the county. However, it is presently being served by home health agencies based in Duval County. Because of its small population, with a relatively low percentage of the population being 65 years old or older, its distance from hospitals and the recruiting and staffing problems it would engender, it is doubtful that Baker County could support a main office for a home health care agency. In fact, the 1988 Local Health Plan indicated that Baker County should probably not have a home health agency physically located within the county. Baker County has the lowest number of citizens 65 years of age or older and the lowest usage rate for home health agencies. There is no data or documentation to show why the usage of home health services in Baker County is low. However, HRS makes the assumption from the usage rate only that Baker County is underserved. Duval County is not considered as being underserved in terms of Medicare units. By locating in Duval County, ABC does not specifically comply with preference 1A or 1B. However, ABC has proposed to serve all patients within District Four referred to it regardless of where the patient is located, and regardless of the patient's payor class. (Medicare, Medicaid, private pay or indigent) While 1A and 1B of the Health Plan's recommendation is concerned with geographic preferences, 2A through 2F of the Health Plan's recommendations are preferences that relate mainly to situations involving competing applications in the same batch. ABC meets a majority of those preferences, including: 1A. ABC will be among the lowest in cost of the existing providers in District Four. 1B. ABC goes to the patient and has stated it will serve all of the patients within District Four referred to it. 1C. ABC proposed to serve all patients referred to it, including the medically indigent and medicaid. Because of the situation with Medicaid patients, ABC did not project any Medicaid patients. However, ABC proposed to serve all patients on which it has referrals including Medicaid patients. 1D. ABC did not have written referrals with hospital, nursing homes and other resources for patient referrals. However, ABC stated that this was its standard operating procedure and if granted a CON they would establish written referrals. 1E. ABC does not specifically address how they would comply with any condition placed on the CON. 1F. Again, ABC proposed to serve all patients within District Four referred to it, including AIDS and HIV patients. Since ABC has no control over which patients are referred to it, then its payor mix is just a projection. Whether an AIDS or HIV patient is on Medicare, Medicaid, private pay or medically indigent ABC has proposed to served them. In fact, it has a corporate policy to train and educate its employees in this area of service. ABC has shown that it intends to serve AIDS and HIV patients on which it has referrals. State Health Plan The 1989 Florida State Health Plan is the applicable health plan in this proceeding. The State Health Plan is a comprehensive three-volume document which describes Florida's health system and the services available to Florida residents. Specifically, the State Health Plan addresses certain preferences which HRS uses in reviewing home health CON applicants. They are as follows: Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to serve AIDS patients. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to provide a full range of services, including high technology services, unless these services are sufficiently available and accessible in the same service area. Preference shall be given to an applicant with a history of serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent patients in comparison with other providers within the same HRS service district and proposing to serve such patients within its market area. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to serve counties which are underserved by existing home health agencies. Preference shall be given to an applicant who makes a commitment to provide the department with consumer survey data measuring patient satisfaction. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing a comprehensive quality assurance program and proposing to be accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. As to 16A, ABC has proposed to serve all patients in District Four that are referred to it by referring agencies, including AIDS and HIV patients regardless of their of payor class. ABC has a stated commitment to serving AIDS and HIV patients. The evidence establishes that of all AIDS cases reported in District Four, Duval County has approximately 69 percent. District-wide 52 percent of all reported AIDS cases have ended in death whereas in Duval County the percentage is 56. Very few AIDS patients are medicare eligible. A higher percentage of AIDS patients in Duval County are served as indigents or under Medicaid, notwithstanding HRS' Medicaid Project AIDS Care. As to 16B, ABC proposes to provide the full range of services, including high technology services. ABC included in it application excerpts from its high tech policy manual. There was no data available from local health council on what high tech services are available from existing providers. As to 16C, while ABC's payor mix does not indicate that they would be serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent patients there is no data indicating what access problem, if any, exists for Medicaid and indigent case patients needing home health care services. ABC proposes service to all patients within District Four that are referred to it be referring agencies. As to 16D, while there is no data available that any county within District Four is in fact underserved, ABC has stated that it will serve all counties in District Four and there is no evidence to show that ABC will not serve all counties in District Four. As to 16E, ABC has indicated it will comply with this requirement and there is no evidence to show that ABC will not furnish the data in terms of consumer survey response. As to 16F, ABC has a quality assurance program in place and HRS agreed that ABC could provide quality of care to its patients. Statutory Criteria Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes - Availability and Access to Services District Four has 20 Medicare certified home health agencies, with five located in Duval County and, one approved but not yet established Medicare certified home health agency. However, as stated in the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) there is a market for another home health agency in District Four as determined by the fixed need pool. ABC's stated commitment to serve all counties in District Four and to serve all patients in those counties referred to it by referring agencies regardless of whether the patient's payor class should enhance the convenience and accessibility to patients. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes - Quality of Care, Efficiency and Adequacy of Existing Area Providers There is no specific data available from HRS concerning the quality of care, efficiency and adequacy of services being provided by existing care providers in District Four. ABC did not conduct a survey to assess the existence of quality care problems in District Four. However, the existence of quality care problems in District Four would be difficult to gauge since the in- home provision of services makes them largely beyond public or professional scrutiny. In fact, generally, with few exceptions, application for home health agencies do not address this criterion. The parties stipulated that the provisions of Section 381.705(1)(c) through (g), Florida Statutes were deemed to have been met or otherwise not applicable. Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes - Availability of Resources and Funds and Accessibility of Service to all Residents of Service District The evidence establishes that ABC has sufficient resources and funds to accomplish what it proposes. HRS has no data suggesting significant access problems for Medicaid patients to home health care nor was there sufficient evidence that AIDS or HIV patients suffer an access problem for home health care. However, due to improvements in terms of Medicaid reimbursement any access problem that may exist should be reduced. ABC has a stated commitment to serving all patients in District Four regardless of the patient's payor class. This commitment should improve the accessibility of home health care to underserved patients if, in fact, there is an access problem for the Medicaid, AIDS, HIV or indigent patients. Section 389.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes - Financial Feasibility ABC projects it will do 12,000 home visits in year one and 14,000 home visits in year two. These projections are based on ABC's experiences in other districts, particularly District Three. These projections also represent approximately 25 and 29 percent of the new visit pool market for each year, respectively. However, ABC clients would not necessarily all come from the new visit pool. ABC's projected home care visits are reasonable based on its experience in other Florida districts and its experience in other states, notwithstanding its lack of an established referral network in District Four and being a new entrant into the District Four market. ABC's financials displayed in its application are reasonable and consistent with its Florida experience. ABC's payor mix and visit each correlate to its actual Florida experience. ABC's pro forma expenses for year one and year two are reasonable. ABC projects a first year profit of $3,914 and a second year profit of $5,010 and after the second year, ABC should continue to show a profit. ABC's proposed project will benefit ABC by allowing it to meet its long term goals. ABC's existing Florida agencies are operating in financially sound manner and there is no reason to believe that ABC's proposed agency will not operate in the same manner. ABC's liquidity ratio is 0.7 to one which means that ABC has excess current liabilities over current assets and is one factor used for determining the general health of a company. ABC has an accumulated deficit of $651,836. From all of the above, ABC's proposed agency is feasible in both the short term and the long term. It was stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(j) and (k), Florida Statutes were deemed to have been met or otherwise inapplicable. Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statute - Impact on Competition Since ABC has a stated commitment to serve all patients in all counties in District Four referred to it regardless of the payor class and is offering a full range of services, including high tech, its proposal should only serve to enhance competition within District Four, notwithstanding that the proposal is primarily a Medicare home health care provider which would not provide any financial competition. The parties stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes was deemed to have been met or otherwise inapplicable. Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes - Medicaid and Indigent Care Very few medicaid and indigent patients are served by the existing agencies in District Four. Most of these patients are served by the Visiting Nurses Association (VNA) which is subsidized by United Way, local governments and other sources. There is no data or documentation that Medicaid patients do not in fact have a significant access problem. Medicare is the predominant payor source in Florida and is ABC's primary payor source even though ABC has a stated commitment to serve all patients regardless of payor class. A high percentage of Florida's Medicaid budget for home health services is used for co-insurance for medicare. Therefore, Medicaid patients that are "dually eligible" are receiving home health care under Medicare. Florida's Medicaid program does not reimburse for physical therapy, speech therapy or occupational therapy for adults. In a Medicare certificate home health agency there is only a certain pool of profit available to serve Medicaid and indigent patients. Therefore, if the percentages of Medicaid service goes up then indigent or charity cases must suffer or the agency cannot operate in the "black". While HRS usually places a condition on the CON concerning Medicaid services, a majority of the recently issued CONs for home health care had no such condition placed on them. The parties stipulated that Section 381.705(2) and (3), Florida Statutes were deemed to have been met or otherwise inapplicable. State Agency Action Report (SAAR) HRS up to and including, the home health care agency batching cycle immediately preceding the instant September 1989 batch, used not applicable (N/A) on those criteria that were not typically addressed by applicants or were not considered to be applicable to an applicant. HRS now enters a "no" in those situations but a "no" in this situation has no adverse or negative impact on HRS' decision. Typically, approved applicants do not meet all the statutory criteria. Some of the criteria may be only partially met and some may not be met at all.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting ABC's application for a certificate of need (CON No. 6015). DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1990, 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 26th day of October, 1990. 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, ABC 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: 6(2,3); 7(8); 8(7,8,11); 9(8,10); 11(7,14); 15(4); 16(16,17,18,19); 17(16,18); 18(16,21); 19(16,22); 20- 21(23,24); 23(25); 25(4,25); 28-29(25-27); 31-38(29); 40-42(29); 45(32); 48- 52(33,34,35,36); 54-58(32,37,38,41); 61-64(43); 68-70(45,46,47); 72- 77(47,48,49); 79-81(47,49,50); 83(51); 85-87(53); 89(53); 90(54). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1-5, 10, 12-14, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 53, 59, 60, 65-67, 71, 78, 82, 84, 88, 91 and 92 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, HRS 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: 3-9(5,6,7,9,12,13,14); 12- 26(14,18,19); 28-29(15,16); 44-46(32) 48-51(39,40). Findings of fact 1 and 2 are covered in the preliminary statement. Proposed findings of fact 10, 11 as to the last 2 sentences, 27, 30, 31, 32 other than last sentence, 33, 35, 36 other than last sentence, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 47 and 52 are not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The last two sentences of finding of fact 34 are adopted in finding of fact 25, otherwise not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 43 is unnecessary. The first two sentences of proposed finding of fact 53 are adopted in finding of fact 36, otherwise not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Copies furnished to: R. Terry Rigsby, Esq. F. Philip Bank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Edward Labrador, Esq. Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32308 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 issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 13th day of February, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Findings regarding general matters The Respondent, Elnor Darlene Johnson, is currently licensed in the State of Florida as a life insurance agent and as a health insurance agent. At all times pertinent to the issues in this case, the Respondent was licensed in the State of Florida as a health insurance agent and was employed by National States Insurance Company and Transport Life. In order to become a licensed Florida Insurance agent, the Respondent was required to become familiar with the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code and pass an examination given by the Department of Insurance. Respondent is familiar with the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code applicable to health and life insurance agents. Findings regarding Count I (Anna Hajek) The Respondent visited Anna Hajek for the first time on December 6, 1988. Mrs. Hajek had sent in an advertising card to the Respondent's insurance agency requesting information on several health insurance programs. When the Respondent arrived at Mrs. Hajek's home, she asked Mrs. Hajek what other insurance coverage she had in addition to her Medicare coverage. Mrs. Hajek told the Respondent that she did not have any other existing health insurance coverage at that time. During the visit on December 6, 1988, Mrs. Hajek appeared to understand what she and the Respondent were talking about. They discussed the meals Mrs. Hajek was having, Mrs. Hajek's son, and some of Mrs. Hajek's activities. The Respondent was under the impression that Mrs. Hajek was handling her own affairs and that Mrs. Hajek's son was not involved in the management of her affairs. The Respondent and Mrs. Hajek discussed Mrs. Hajek's son and the fact that she wanted to protect her assets (money invested in certificates of deposit) for her son and that she did not want to spend it all on a nursing home. Mrs. Hajek invited the Respondent to return for another visit to have lunch. During the course of the December 6, 1988, visit, the Respondent sold Mrs. Hajek a Medicare Supplement insurance policy. Respondent explained the various benefits and coverages under the policy. Mrs. Hajek appeared to understand the policy. The Respondent did not fill out any "replacement forms" because Mrs. Hajek had told her that she did not have any existing Medicare Supplement insurance. Mrs. Hajek appeared to understand the Respondent's questions regarding whether Mrs. Hajek had any existing coverage. When she left Mrs. Hajek's house, the Respondent left identification, including her telephone number. The insurance policy sold too Mrs. Hajek on December 6, 1988, was a Medicare Supplement insurance policy to be issued by National States Insurance Company, with an intensive care benefit rider, a dental, vision, and hearing care expense rider, an extended care facility confinement rider, and a rider to increase benefits to Supplement Medicare Part B. The initial annual premium was $1,264.00. Mrs. Hajek paid the initial annual premium by delivering a check to the Respondent. National States Insurance Company issued the policy on December 28, 1988. On December 8, 1988, the Respondent made a second visit to Mrs. Hajek's home. At that time Mrs. Hajek told the Respondent she thought she needed nursing home coverage because she did not believe she could rely on her son to help her. The Respondent sold Mrs. Hajek three insurance policies during the course of the December 8, 1988, visit. The first of these policies was an Extended Care Confinement policy with an initial premium in the amount of $121.00 The second was a Limited Medical-Surgical Expense policy with an initial premium in the amount of $668.00. The third was a Nursing Home Policy with a home nurse benefit rider with an initial premium in the amount of $1,496.00. On December 8, 1988, Mrs. Hajek paid the initial premiums on all three policies by delivering a check to the Respondent. National States Insurance Company issued the three policies on December 28, 1988. The Respondent explained all of the coverages and benefits provided under the various policies prior to selling them to Mrs. Hajek, and Mrs. Hajek appeared to understand the policies she was purchasing. During the December 8, 1988, visit with Mrs. Hajek, the Respondent also discussed policies that would provide long-term custodial-type care, which is a different type of coverage than skilled nursing coverage. On December 20, 1988, the Respondent made a third visit to Mrs. Hajek's home. During the course of that visit, the Respondent sold Mrs. Hajek a Long- Term Care policy with an inflation rider to be issued by Transport Life Insurance Company. The initial premium for that policy was $2,380.88. On December 20, 1988, Mrs. Hajek delivered a check in the amount of $2,404.80 in payment of the initial premium and the application fee for the Long-Term Care policy. Transport Life Insurance Company issued a Long-Term Care policy to Mrs. Hajek with an effective date of December 20, 1988. Mrs. Hajek was enrolled in and covered under Humana Gold Plus HMO from at least June 1, 1987, until December 31, 1988. On December 16, 1988, a disenrollment form dated December 6, 1988, and apparently signed by Mrs. Hajek, was received at the offices of the Humana Gold Plus HMO. The disenrollment form was processed and Mrs. Hajek was disenrolled from the HMO effective December 31, 1988, or January 1, 1989. The annual premiums of all of the policies sold to Mrs. Hajek by the Respondent during December of 1988 total $5,869.88. At that time Anna Hajek had an annual income of approximately $7,500.00. 1/ During the time period when the Respondent sold the several insurance policies to Mrs. Hajek, Mrs. Hajek appeared to be mentally competent and in charge of her own affairs. At that time, Mrs. Hajek had her own checking account, was handling her own financial affairs, and was living on her own in a condominium. As of that time, Mrs. Hajek had never been diagnosed as suffering from dementia or any other type of mental disorder that would prevent her from handling her own affairs. 2/ When Mrs. Hajek's son, Frank Hajek, discovered that his mother had purchased several insurance policies, he attempted to contact the Respondent, but she did not return his calls. Ultimately, Frank Hajek wrote to the issuing insurance companies requesting that the policies be cancel led and that the premiums be refunded to his mother. In due course all the policies were cancelled and all of the premiums were refunded. The coverage provided by the policies the Respondent sold to Mrs. Hajek overlaps in several respects. However, all of the coverage appears to be cumulative in the sense that where a specific circumstance is covered by two policies, both policies will pay. 3/ Findings regarding Count II (Sadie & Joseph Grossman) No evidence was received regarding the allegations contained in Count II of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. 4/ Findings regarding Count III (Paul and Mary Kline) The Respondent visited Paul and Mary Kline at their home in response to a "lead card" the Klines had sent requesting information on long-term nursing home insurance. The Respondent reviewed the Klines' existing coverage and left them information outlining the various benefits and coverages that were available from the companies the Respondent represented. The Klines indicated they were interested in long-term nursing coverage, but did not buy any insurance during the first visit. Mr. Kline later telephoned the Respondent and told her that he and his wife were interested in purchasing the nursing home insurance they had discussed during the first visit. In the meantime, National States had introduced a new policy, the LTC, and the Respondent returned to the Klines' home on January 26, 1989, and showed them the coverages provided by the new policy. The LTC policy provided for skilled, intermediate, and custodial care, and also provided money back to the policyholder if the coverage was not used. During the visit on January 26, 1989, the Respondent solicited, and Paul and Mary Kline signed, applications for long-term nursing care policies to be issued by National States Insurance Company. The premium due on the two policies totaled $2,596.00. On January 26, 1989, Mrs. Kline wrote a premium payment check in the amount of $2,357.60 payable to the order of National States Insurance Company and gave the check to the Respondent. At the time of receiving the check, the Respondent did not notice that the amount on the check was less than the total amount of the premium due on the two policies. On January 26, 1989, the Respondent left receipts and outlines of coverage with the Klines. The receipts were for the full amount of the premium, an amount $238.40 greater than the check received by the Respondent on January 26, 1989. The discrepancy between the receipts and the check were noticed when the Respondent submitted the applications to her agency. Thereupon, the Respondent called Mr. Kline and explained what had happened. The Respondent told Mr. Kline that the company would process the applications, but that the $238.40 shortage would be charged against her account and she hoped he would pay the shortage. Mr. Kline told the Respondent he would pay the difference. The Respondent then wrote a personal check to the insurance company and submitted the Klines' insurance applications for processing. Shortly thereafter Mrs. Kline signed a check payable to the Respondent in the amount of $238.40 and delivered it to the Respondent. At some time subsequent to the purchase of the policies, but before the policies were actually issued, the Klines saw a television show that caused them to believe they had purchased the wrong type of insurance. The Klines tried unsuccessfully to contact the Respondent by telephone. Towards the end of February, the Klines wrote a letter to National States Insurance Company requesting that the policies be cancel led and that their premiums be refunded. Mr. Kline also contacted the Department of Insurance service office about his inability to contact the Respondent. Shortly after that contact, the Respondent called Mr. Kline. The policies were canceled and the Klines received a full refund of the $2,596.00 they had paid in premiums. At the time of the purchase of the policies, the Respondent fully explained the policies to the Klines and the Klines voluntarily purchased same. Mr. Kline was satisfied with the policies on the day he purchased them. Mr. Kline's main complaint was that the Respondent failed to return his telephone calls. Mr. Kline did not believe that the Respondent had lied to him or misrepresented any of the coverages provided by the policies. Findings regarding Count IV (Charles Retty) In November of 1988, Charles Retty contacted the St. Petersburg offices of National States Insurance Company and Diversified Health Services with questions regarding the effect of changes in the Medicare program, and how those changes might affect the need for insurance coverage. At that time, Mr. Retty and his wife were insured under two nursing home policies he had purchased from National States Insurance Company. The Respondent had not sold him either of those policies. As a result of that contact, someone in the management of the insurance company asked the Respondent to call on Mr. Retty. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent visited Mr. Retty, discussed his concerns with him, told him she did not know the answers to all of his questions, and told him she would get back in touch with him with further information. Following the initial meeting between Mr. Retty and the Respondent, Mr. Retty made several unsuccessful efforts to get in touch with the Respondent. Mr. Retty then complained to the Department of Insurance service office regarding his concerns and the failure of the Respondent to get back in touch with him. Shortly after his complaint to the Department of Insurance, the Respondent again visited Mr. Retty, at which time they did not get along very well. Each thought the other somewhat rude and antagonistic. The Respondent was never Mr. Retty's insurance agent. She had never sold him any insurance prior to the visit in November of 1988 and she did not attempt to sell him any insurance during any of her communications with him. The Respondent did not attempt to have Mr. Retty cancel any of his existing insurance or allow any such insurance to lapse. Mr. Retty never gave the Respondent any money. Findings regarding Count V (Minnie Holden) The Respondent has been Minnie Holden's insurance agent since about 1976 or 1977, when the Respondent enrolled Mrs. Holden and her husband in a Medicare Supplement program. When Mr. Holden passed away, the Respondent continued to service Mrs. Holden's policies. In 1986, the Respondent sold Mrs. Holden a Medicare Supplement policy issued by United American. In February of 1987, the Respondent converted that policy to an updated United American Medicare Supplement policy. Mrs. Holden also had a long-term nursing home policy issued by Transport Life. On February 18, 1988, United American Insurance Company received a $990.00 renewal premium for the renewal of Mrs. Holden's Medicare Supplement insurance policy. United American Insurance Company renewed the policy for another year, and it remained in force, paid in full, until its lapse date of February 26, 1989. The Respondent was listed as the agent of record for the renewal of that policy. United American Insurance Company credited the Respondent's debit balance account with a commission in the amount of $138.60 for the February 1988 renewal of Mrs. Holden's Medicare Supplement insurance policy. United American Insurance Company also sent the Respondent a statement of account covering the month of February 1988. The statement of account included the information that Mrs. Holden had renewed her Medicare Supplement insurance policy and that the Respondent's account had been credited with a commission for that renewal. The statement of account also contained information about many other policy holders and contained information about many things other than commissions. 5/ The Respondent visited Mrs. Holden on August 25, 1988, at which time Mrs. Holden told the Respondent that she (Holden) had cancelled her Medicare Supplement policy because she could no longer afford it. Mrs. Holden told the Respondent that she (Holden) had kept her long-term nursing home policy in effect because her daughter was thinking of placing Mrs. Holden in a nursing home. 6/ Respondent advised Mrs. Holden that she really should have Medicare Supplement coverage, and during the August 25, 1988, visit the Respondent solicited and obtained from Mrs. Holden an application for a Medicare Supplement insurance policy to be issued by National States Insurance Company. In filling out the application for the policy, the Respondent answered "No" to Question 4, which inquired, "Is the insurance being applied for intended to replace any accident or sickness insurance, health service or health maintenance contract? " She also answered "No" to Question 5, indicating that no other existing policies were in force. The Respondent believed that her answers to Questions 4 and 5 on the application form were correct on the basis of what Mrs. Holden had said about the cancellation of the prior policy. On August 25, 1988, Mrs. Holden paid for only six months of coverage because she said that was all she could afford. The Respondent told Mrs. Holden that the National State policy was less expensive than the prior United American policy because it provided slightly less coverage. The Respondent did not fill out a "replacement form" when she filled out the application on August 25, 1988, because she thought the United American policy had expired and was no longer in effect. On September 8, 1988, National States Insurance Company issued a Medicare Supplement policy to Mrs. Holden. Mrs. Holden had two Medicare Supplement insurance policies in effect from September 8, 1988, until February 26, 1989. Findings regarding Count VI (Louella Riley) The Petitioner did not offer any evidence regarding the allegations contained in Count VI of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. Findings regarding Count VII (Violation of probation) In 1986, the Florida Department of Insurance conducted an investigation Into the activities of the Respondent as an insurance agent in this state. As a result of that investigation, the Department filed Investigation Report No. 86- 158-IA-TP, alleging violation of the replacement laws relating to the solicitation and sale of Medicare Supplement insurance. On August 28, 1987, the Respondent entered into a Settlement Stipulation For Consent Order with the Department, Case No. 87-L-321DF, whereby she was placed on departmental probation for a period of one year, effective upon the date of signing of the Consent Order in that case. A condition of that probation was that the Respondent strictly adhere to all provisions of the Florida Insurance Code and of the rules of the Department of Insurance. The settlement stipulation also provided that the Department of Insurance would initiate proceedings to revoke all licensure and eligibility for licensure of the Respondent if she violated provisions of the Florida Insurance Code or rules of the Department of Insurance during her probationary period. On September 9, 1987, a Consent Order was issued by the Department of Insurance in Case No. 87-L-321DF, which incorporated all terms and conditions of the Settlement Stipulation For Consent Order. Accordingly, the Respondent was on departmental probation from September 9, 1987, through September 8, 1988.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance issue a Final Order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of November 1990. MICHAEL M. 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 5th day of November 1990.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of the parties and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: THE STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES The parties stipulated to the following facts: Forum timely filed its letter of intent and application with DHRS and the District IX Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. DHRS ultimately deemed the application complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the application. Forum timely filed a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The sole issue is whether there is a need for Forum's proposed services; additionally, it is DHRS's position that a lack of need for the project results in the project not being financially feasible in the short or long term. All other statutory and rule criteria were satisfied, at least minimally, except proof of need pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [formerly 10-5.11(21)(b)], Florida Administrative Code, and financial feasibility as it relates to need. FORUM'S PROPOSAL Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Palm Beach County that would consist of 120 to 150 apartment units for independent living, a separate personal care unit (known in Florida as an adult congregate living facility), and a 60-bed nursing home component certified for skilled and intermediate care. Palm Beach County is in HRS Service District IX, Subdistrict 4. All three components of Forum's retirement living center would be physically connected and share some operational functions, such as dietary facilities and the heating plant. Such a design provides for an efficient operation as well as an economic distribution of costs facility wide. No specific site has been selected , although Forum has narrowed its focus to the eastern half of Palm Beach County. It is not economically feasible to acquire property or pay for an option on property until after receiving CON approval. The projected total cost of Forum's proposed 60-bed nursing home is $2,329,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. Forum proposes to seek Medicare certification and will provide up to 25 of its beds for Medicaid patients. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. If need for the facility is shown, Forum would be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible while at the same time having no material negative impact on existing providers in the district. NUMERIC NEED Need for new or additional community nursing home beds in Florida is determined, preliminarily, by use of the methodology found in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Additional beds normally are not approved if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. Pursuant to the rule, need for a defined nursing home subdivision is projected to a three- year planning horizon, in this case July 1989. The need methodology prescribed in the rule is as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) or: The District's age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] (The population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental districts projected three years into the future [POPA] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]) + (The population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future [POPB] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB].) BA LB/(POPC) + (6 x POPD) or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA] (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]/the current population age 65-74 years [POPC] + (6 x the current population age 75 years and over [POPD]) BB 6 x BA or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB] 6 x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]. SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) or: The preliminary subdivision allocation of community nursing home beds [SA] The district's age-adjusted number of community nursing home bids for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] x (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict [LBD]/the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]) x (The average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district [OR]/.90) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: The new bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for CON approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs a. through i., unless the subdistrict's average estimated occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The appropriate planning horizon for the instant case is July 1989, corresponding to the review cycle which began July 15, 1986, and the subdistrict is Palm Beach County. THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (LB)/THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT SUBDISTRICT (LBD) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) requires that "review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding this cycle..." On June 1, 1986, there were 5,459 licensed community nursing home beds in District XI (LB) and 4,084 licensed community nursing home beds in subdistrict 4 (Palm Beach County LBD). These figures include 220 licensed beds that were previously categorized as sheltered. In the instant case, the appropriate figure for LB is 5,459, and the appropriate figure for LBD is 4,084. APPROVED BEDS WITHIN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL SUBDISTRICT DHRS's interpretation of the rule is to include in the count of approved beds, those approved up to the date of the supervisor's signature on the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). In this case, there were 640 approved beds in Palm Beach County at that time. As of June 1, 1986, the same date as the licensed bed cutoff, there were 640 approved beds in the subdistrict. In Dr. Warner's opinion, approved beds should be determined as of the same time period as licensed beds in order to have consistency and avoid anomalies in the formula. This opinion is reasonable and appropriate. In the instant case, the figure to be applied in the formula for approved beds in the subdistrict is 640 approved beds. THE POPULATION AGE 65-79 YEARS IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPA). THE POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPB). The rule provides that the three year projections of population shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. For the purposes of calculating need, DHRS utilizes at the final hearing the figures for estimated population obtained from data available at the time of initial application and review. The set of population projections which were available when Petitioner's application was filed and reviewed were those published on July 1, 1986. Based on this data, which is reasonable to use, POPA 170,639; and, POPB 122,577. THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 65-74 YEARS (POPC)/THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER (POPD). In calculating POPC and POPD, DHRS also utilizes at final hearing the most current data available at the time of initial application and review, in this case the July 1, 1986, release. Based on that data, POPC 153,005 and POPD 112,894. In the opinion of Dr. Warner, Forum's expert, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. According to Warner, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of this time period, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD in this case. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating the estimated current bed rate requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. It is reasonable and appropriate for the base for POPC and POPD to correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate is calculated. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of DHRS. Between December 1984 and December 1986, DHRS routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date in determining "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, DHRS utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon data for "current population" when it awarded beds. DHRS offered In this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon dated for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Using the July 1986 population release, POPC for January 1986 is 149,821 and POPD for January 1986 is 98,933. THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE FOR ALL LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOMES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION OF THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (OR). The rule requires the use of occupancy data from the HRS Office of Health Planning and Development for the months of the previous October through March when calculating a July batch of nursing home applicants. However, the rule is not instructive as to how one calculates this number. In this case, DHRS computed average occupancy rates based on the existing occupancy rates at applicable facilities on the first day of each month. Based on this occupancy data, which includes the data for the 220 previously sheltered beds in the subdistrict, occupancy rates for the July 1986 batch of Palm Beach County nursing home applicants is 83.75 percent. Forum's witness, Dr. Warner, determined that the correct occupancy rate was 85.46 percent for Palm Beach County for the period October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner arrived at this figure by including paid reservation days. A paid reservation day is a day which is paid for by the patient or the patient's intermediary during which the patient is not physically in the bed. Typically, the patient will either be in the hospital, visiting relatives or otherwise away from the facility and will continue to pay for the nursing home bed, so that they will be able to return and not have someone occupy the bed. One of the goals and objectives of the District IX Local Health Plan is that paid reservation days be considered when bed need calculations are made. Calculating prepaid reservation days is consistent with the Rule because such beds are no longer available to the public and are therefore in use. Dr. Warner determined that during the applicable period, 1.25 percent of the licensed beds in the subdistrict were paid reservation days. Although taking paid reservation days into account would not be inconsistent with the rule, Forum failed to demonstrate that the 1.25 percent figure arrived at is valid for the applicable period, i.e., October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner merely calculated a two-year average number of paid reservation days, broke this figure down to a six-month average and applied this average to the six-month period specified in the Rule. Gene Nelson, an expert called on behalf of Forum, calculated the occupancy rate as 88.72 percent in Palm Beach County for the appropriate period called for in the Rule. Nelson used the average monthly occupancy data obtained from medicaid cost reports for some facilities rather than first-day of the month data as used by DHRS. In addition, Nelson did not factor in the occupancy date of licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based on his belief that the District IX Local Health Plan mandates that the western area not be considered in any way with the eastern coast section of Palm Beach County for purposes of determining competitiveness. While the use of average full-month occupancy data is generally more reliable than using first-day of the month data, it is best, from a health planning prospective, to be able to use either all full-month data or all first- day of the month data. In making his calculations, Mr. Nelson mixed the two types of data, using full-month data when available and in other cases using first-day of the month data when full-month data was not available. It is inappropriate to fail to consider licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based solely on the local health plan. Among other reasons, the rule does not provide for exclusions for any of the subdistricts licensed facilities from the methodology. The appropriate and most reasonable occupancy rate (OR) in the instant case for the applicable time period is 83.75 percent. NET NEED Applying the above-referenced variables to the Rule formula produces the following results. July, 1986. District Allocation BA LB (POPC + (6 x POPD) - 5459 [149,821 + (6 x 98,833)] - .007349 BB - 6 x BA .044094 (.007349) July, 1989 Allocation (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) - (170,639 x .007349) + (122,577 x .044094) - 6659 Subdivision Allocation and Need SA A x (LBD / LB) x (OR 1.9) - 6659 x (4084 / 5459) x (.8375/.9) - 6659 x .74812236673 x .93055555555 4636 Subdistrict Allocation for Palm Beach County 4084 (Licensed Beds) 576 (90 percent of 640 Approved Beds) -24 (Bed Surplus)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the application for certificate of need filed by Forum be Denied. DONE AND ORDERED, this 4th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 4th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0704 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Sentence 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Rejected as misleading and/or subordinate. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18 and 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Stahl, Esquire 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact General Background At all times material hereto, Carol's Care Center (CCC) was a licensed nursing home facility certified to and participating in the Florida Medicaid Program. (Stip.) At all times material hereto, Volusia County owned the facility, which was an indigent nursing home. The first wing of the facility was constructed in 1954, at a time when there were no building codes for Volusia County. Volusia County operated the nursing home until 1968, at which time the county leased the nursing home to Dr. George Erickson. Both Volusia County and Dr. Erickson suffered financial losses in the operation of the nursing home. (Tr. 43, 162) In 1969, Carol E. Forrer and her son, Walter Littler, took over operation of the nursing home. Under their contract with Volusia County, the nursing home was required to accept up to 95 percent indigent patients. Another clause in that contract required the remaining five percent of the nursing home's beds to be available for Medicaid patients, if needed. Almost all of the nursing home patients were indigent. (Tr. 44, 162, 163) CCC experienced serious and continuous financial problems prior to 1979 because of the number of indigent or Medicaid patients placed at CCC. Funds were always short. In addition, the building was antiquated and in such poor condition that it required at least six staff people on the payroll to do only maintenance work. The reputation of the facility was horrendous. In addition, staff was difficult to find and keep because of low pay and poor working conditions. In fact, turnover was 105 percent. In 1979, Mrs. Forrer had extreme difficulty in getting physicians and nurses to treat patients in the nursing home. In early 1979, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) informed Mrs. Forrer that the building was not in conformance with licensure standards and would not be allowed to continue operation as a nursing home. Mrs. Forrer knew that a new facility had to be built, but she could not finance the necessary expenses because the county owned the facility. (Tr. 45, 48, 162, 165) In an effort to solve many of the problems at the nursing home, Mrs. Forrer hired Progressive Management Group (PMG) in July of 1979 to operate and administer the facility. Mrs. Forrer stayed on as administrator for August, 1979, during the transition period in which PMG took over. The Department disallowed $2,109 of her salary on the basis that there could not be two administrators. (Tr. 45, 46) On December 31, 1979, CCC had 134 beds, and its occupancy rate was approximately 97 percent. Of the patients at CCC, 88 to 92 percent were Medicaid patients. When Charles F. Cantrell, Jr., purchased all of Mrs. Forrer's stock in the 344 Corporation and assumed responsibility for the operation of CCC, the nursing home had the highest Medicaid percentage in the area because local doctors were not referring private patients to the nursing home. Private patients generate revenues that can be used to offset expenses for Medicaid patients. (Tr. 50, 51, 52) On December 31, 1979, Mr. Cantrell purchased Mrs. Forrer's stock and assumed any liabilities arising from the audits of CCC by the Department for the fiscal years 1978 and 1979. (Tr. 45, 70) The Department conducted audits of CCC for the fiscal years ending August 31, 1978, 1979 and 1980. The audits for fiscal years 1978 and 1979 were conducted by Hugo Jordan, an auditor employed by the Department. The Medicaid Program is a joint federal and state program. It is governed by the Florida Title XIX Medicaid Reimbursement Plan and the applicable doctrines in HIM-15. The Medicaid cost reports for CCC in fiscal years 1978, 1979 and 1980 were timely filed. This dispute arose from audit adjustments to CCC's Medicaid cost reports for fiscal years 1978, 1979 and 1980. (Stip.; Tr. 289; Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 5, 6) Activities of Charles F. Cantrell, Jr. The Department notified CCC that it would not be relicensed in the absence of major alterations of the physical plant to bring it up to existing standards. This was impossible because of the state of the existing building. Cantrell negotiated an arrangement with the Department that CCC would continue to be licensed upon the condition that major intermediate repairs be made to the existing facility and a new facility be built within 30 months. (Tr. 49, 57, 151) Cantrell was obliged to continue to operate CCC in the existing facility, making the necessary repairs to the physical plant, upgrading staffing and establishing an effective bookkeeping system while also undertaking to plan, finance and build a new facility. All of these actions were necessary to meet conditions for Department licensure and to continue operating the facility which was the primary facility in the area providing care for indigent and Medicaid patients. (Tr. 49, 57, 59, 151) Cantrell took a direct hand in the management and operation of the facility. He assumed the business management of CCC, supervising and arranging for maintenance and repairs, revamping the bookkeeping system and training personnel, and coordinating activities related to the planning, financing, certification and building of the new facility. All of his activities were necessary. Cantrell's prior experience as the owner of several businesses, including a small chain of drug stores, and his experience in providing professional services to nursing homes assisted him in keeping CCC operating and in establishing the new facility which is now in operation. Cantrell was a salaried management employee of CCC for eight months in fiscal year 1980. He was paid $37,977 by CCC for his services. Under Department guidelines, the annual salary for the administrator of a facility the size of CCC was $27,032. Cantrell dismissed PMG shortly after he took control on December 31, 1979. Because he was not a licensed administrator, Cantrell employed Mrs. Forrer for several weeks as an interim administrator. Cantrell hired Buford Jones as the permanent administrator in March, 1980. Jones is still in this position. Jones and Mrs. Forrer were assigned duties related to patient care, staffing and record-keeping related to patient care. The Department audit disallowed one month of Cantrell's compensation in total because his service overlapped that of two other administrators. In addition, the Department reduced Cantrell's salary to that of an assistant administrator/owner. The total disallowed by the Department was $25,277. The Department disallowed $1,195 of Mrs. Forrer's salary for the fiscal year ending August 31, 1980, on the same grounds. The field auditor for the Department disallowed a portion of Mrs. Forrer's salary in fiscal year 1979, when PMG was employed, because of overlapping administrators. The Department's auditor took the position that there could not be two administrators at the same time. The total salary paid Mrs. Forrer for the periods of transition in August of 1979 and January, 1980, when her employment overlapped that of another administrator, were legitimate. Both administrators were head administrators, one leaving and one coming. The maintenance of continuity and the benefits flowing to the patients warrant such a transition. The auditor for CCC, Betty Kelly, C.P.A., gave her expert opinion, based upon her personal observation of Cantrell's activities and the duties he performed. Cantrell's activities were necessary, and, had he not performed them, someone would have had to be hired to do those jobs. The salary he received was reasonable and consistent with salaries paid other persons for similar work. The situation at CCC was unusual, and its many problems justified additional management, expertise and personnel. CCC needed more than an assistant manager. It needed a separate manager to handle business operations until its inherent problems could be solved. Cantrell provided this expertise. Drug Expenses In fiscal year 1978, the Department disallowed $1,894 in prescription drug expenses on the grounds that prescription drugs are not covered under the Florida Medicaid Program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) In 1978, the Florida Medicaid drug program permitted patients to purchase $33 worth of legend drugs with a monthly Medicaid eligibility card. Some patients exceeded the limits on their card and had to apply for an excess prescribed medicine grant. In order to apply for the grant, the patient forwarded a form to the attending physician. (Tr. 84, 85, 86) The drug information portion of the form was to be completed by the physician and submitted to Jacksonville or to Tallahassee, where a board of physicians would review the request. The physicians, in general, were unable or unwilling to fill out these forms because they could not obtain the needed information. As a pharmacist, Cantrell applied for 700 to 800 excess prescribed medicine grants, but only ten were approved for increases. (Tr. 86, 87) Since some drugs are life-sustaining, CCC assumed the responsibility in fiscal year 1978 of paying the pharmacist for the excess cost of a Medicaid patient's prescription drugs. The amount of $1,894 represents the excess of purchases of drugs from The Medicine Shoppe. (Petitioner's Exhibit 16) Nursing homes are responsible for supplying their patients with prescribed drugs. Rental Equipment In fiscal year 1978, the Department disallowed $2,444, which represented 100 percent of the costs of a leased automobile. In fiscal year 1979, the Department disallowed $2,270, which represented 100 percent of the costs of a leased automobile. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 5) CCC operated three vehicles in 1978: a maintenance vehicle, a Pontiac Grand Prix, and a Dodge van. The maintenance vehicle was used to haul lumber and other items. The van contained a lift and was designed to transport patients. The van was used to transport patients until its insurance was raised to $3,600 per six months because of installation of the lift. It was thereafter not used to transport patients. The Pontiac was rented for that purpose, with insurance being included in the rental charges. Eventually, the maintenance vehicle was disposed of and the van used by maintenance personnel. (Tr. 169, 170, 176) All three vehicles were kept at the facility, and they were all used for patient-related activities. The Pontiac was used to transport patients. Mr. Littler also used it to conduct nursing home business in Tallahassee and Jacksonville. Littler left his personal car at the facility whenever he took the Pontiac and did not charge the costs of this vehicle to the Medicaid program. (Tr. 72, 172) Depreciation of Camper The Department disallowed $295 in fiscal year 1978 for depreciation on a camper as not related to patient care. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) The camper in question was used by Dr. Legg, a scientist, while he was conducting studies related to the certificate of need for the new facility. (Tr. 178, 179) Advertising and Promotion In fiscal year 1978, the Department disallowed $210 on the grounds that it constituted promotional advertising. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) The amount contained in Petitioner's proposed recommended order exceeded the amount disallowed. None of the advertising was for the purpose of hiring staff. The aerial photograph was taken for use in settling a property dispute with the city. It was directly related to cost containment in operating the facility by reducing maintenance requirements and taxes. As such, this provided a benefit to the patients and to the public. Utility Expense In fiscal year 1978, the Department disallowed $272, claiming that this was for utility bills for a commercial building owned by Mr. Littler. (Tr. 196; Petitioner's Exhibit 4) At said time, the Department cited CCC for not having proper beds. Littler used the building to refurbish beds for the facility according to the Department's standards. More than 100 beds were refurbished on the property owned by Littler. The only demand Littler made in return for the use of his building was that CCC pay his utility bills during the period of time that the beds were being refurbished. (Tr. 197) These utility bills paid by CCC were in actuality the rental assessed for use of the building. Considering the period of use, the rental was reasonable. Additional Rents The Department disallowed $2,000 in fiscal year 1978 for rent paid to Volusia County. (Tr. 198; Petitioner's Exhibit 4) The records of CCC reflect that it paid $38,000 in rents to Volusia County in 1978. The contractual rental was $36,000 per year. The auditor concluded, based upon data which he believed was given him by a bookkeeper, that the $2,000 was a late payment of 1977 rents. The uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Littler was to the contrary. Volusia County was to pay for repairs to the facility under the terms of the lease, but it did not have the money to pay for repairs required by the Department. It was agreed that CCC would pay Volusia County $2,000 for a sinking fund to cover future repairs. The $2,000 paid to this fund was not used to pay for repairs and was not for rental. The county retained it. Gasoline Expense In fiscal year 1980, the Department disallowed $380 of gasoline expense which was used in the vehicles of CCC's employees when they used their vehicles for patient-related activities. Petitioner is not challenging $133 of this adjustment. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 18) CCC has one gasoline credit card that is kept by Mr. Jones to supply fuel to vehicles that are used in the service of the nursing home. (Tr. 108) Jones only allowed other employees to use the gasoline credit card for patient-related activities. Cantrell never used the gasoline credit card for his own vehicle because he has another card. Employees who have used the gasoline credit card are the administrator, the activities director, the maintenance-man and the secretary. (Tr. 108, 109, 239) The amount of $247 would be an expense related to operations of the facility. Professional Services In fiscal year 1980, the Department disallowed $1,061 as costs incurred in the prior year. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The legitimacy of the expense is not at issue, and it was disallowed solely because it was not incurred in fiscal year 1980. These expenses were inadvertently omitted from the 1979 cost report. (Tr. 272; Petitioner's Exhibits 18, 19) The expenses for the 1979 audit are also at issue in these proceedings. Travel and Expense The Department disallowed $821 in fiscal year 1978 because the expense was considered personal. Petitioner does not challenge $247 of this adjustment. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) A portion of this expense is related to the expenses incurred by Mr. Littler to go to Washington, D.C., to participate in what was primarily a lobbying effort. This was not for the benefit of the patients or to increase the professional skills of Littler. Each administrator who is licensed by the State of Florida must attend a certain number of seminars every year as a condition of licensure. Mrs. Forrer and Littler registered and participated in the Miami seminar to expand their knowledge and to maintain their nursing home administrators' licenses. Mr. Jordan admitted that he erred in disallowing $157 for Mrs. Forrer's hotel room on this trip. Littler's room expense for this trip was $170. No travel expense was validated. (Tr. 188, 189, 291) Littler attended a seminar in Atlanta on cost reporting sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania. His American Express invoices contain a record of certain expenses which he incurred while attending this seminar. This was an activity related to Littler's professional qualification and to the business operations of CCC. The travel and room expense were $206. (Tr. 191; Petitioner's Exhibit 14) Mrs. Forrer's and Littler's expenses for the trips to Miami and Atlanta are $533. Other exhibits include expenses not mentioned in Petitioner's proposed recommended order. It is assumed that the Petitioner has abandoned those claims, and no findings are made regarding them. Travel and Expense In fiscal year 1979, the Department disallowed $113 as an expense that was not actually spent in that year. Petitioner asserts that the $113 was refunded in 1980, and the 1980 expenses reduced by that amount. This is based upon the testimony of the facility's accountant at pages 275 and 276. The effect of the accounting treatment was to reduce the 1980 expenses by $113. The result is that the Department deducted the $113 in 1979, and the accountant deducted the $113 again in 1980.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the following is recommended: The adjustment to Cantrell's salary should be reduced from $25,277 to $19,956; The adjustment to Mrs. Forrer's salary of $1,915 in 1979, and of $2,109 in 1980, should be rescinded; The adjustment for drug expenses of $1,894 should not be altered; The adjustment of $4,714 for rental of a Pontiac Grand Prix in 1978 and 1979 should be rescinded; The adjustment of $295 for depreciation of the camper should not be altered; The adjustment of $210 for advertisements should be reduced by $125, the cost of the aerial photograph; The adjustment of $272 for utility expense should be rescinded; The adjustment of $2,000 for rentals should not be altered; The adjustment of $380 for gasoline expense should be reduced by $247; The adjustment of $1,061 for professional services should be rescinded unless other grounds exist to deny an amendment of the previous year's report; The adjustment of $821 for travel and expense should be reduced by $533; and The adjustment of $113 for travel in 1979 should be rescinded unless other grounds exist to deny an amendment of the previous year's report. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Michael J. Bittman, Esquire Day Building, Suite 610 605 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Office of Audit and Quality Control Services Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions RENDITION NO.: AHCA-·09- I Bl -S-OLC Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Deny dated October 13, 2008, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the parties to these proceedings, and being well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Applicant's initial application for registration for homemaker companion service is withdrawn from further review in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 1 Filed March 27, 2009 1:11 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner's request for formal administrative proceeding is withdrawn. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this d off2ia<d .) , 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Holly Bens n, Secretary Agency for ealth Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Goldsmith and Grout, P.A. 2160 Park Avenue North Winter Park, Florida 32789 (U.S. Mail) Thomas M. Hoeler, Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Admin. 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, #330 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Honorable Lawrence P. Stevenson Agency for Health Care Admin. Administrative Law Judge 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, MS #3 Division of Administrative Hearings Tallahassee, Florida 32308 The Desoto Building (Interoffice Mail) 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (Interoffice Mail) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - , a- --, I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this -@ay of 2009. Rictiard S op, Agency Cl Agency r Health Care A ministration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 3 CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR FlORJI),>, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE AOMINISffiATION ICA HOLLY BENSON SECRETARY October 13, 2008 CERTIFIED RECE D 71bD 3901 ,a4a 104b 4201 Vera Clark, Managing E RAl r :f'ltiitMSEL Never Alone Home Care lfic.""'= .T l 4 ZOOS SENDERS RECORD 1074 Wynn Street OC · File Number: 39965490 Sanford, FL 32773 AgMCY tor ttea,th Case #: 2008011656 A A_dmlnlstratton car OTICE OF INTENT TO DENY It is the decision of this Agency that the application for registration as a homemaker companion service for Never Alone Home Care Inc., is DENIED. Never Alone Home Care Inc. submitted an application for registration as a homemaker companion service that was received by the Agency for Health Care Administration on June 11, 2008. The application was reviewed and a letter regarding an item omitted from the application was sent on July 8, 2008, which was payment so that the fingerprint card sent for the managing employee could be reviewed and processed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and FBI. The payment was received on July 16, 2008 and an acceptable clearance for the fingerprint card was received by the Agency on August 20. 2008. On August 14, 2008, a complaint of unregistered activity was investigated. Never Alone Home Care was found to be operating without being registered the Agency for Health Care Administration. A Notice of Unregistered Operation was given to Vera Clark on August 14, 2008, that stated Never Alone Home Care Inc. could not provide or offer homemaker companion services according to Florida law since it was not registered. A follow up visit was made to Never Alone Home Care Inc. on September 8, 2008. There was evidence that Never Alone Home Care, Inc. was contracting to place personnel to provide personal care services including assistance with bathing, bathroom activities, and other activities of daily living included in personal care. Since the personal care services by independent contractors require a nurse registry license per state law, a Notice of Unlicensed Activity stating that Never Alone Home Care Inc. must cease and desist operating as a nurse registry was given to Vera Clark on September 19, 2008. companion and require Never Alone Home Care Inc. was found to be providing services that cannot be provided by homemakers and companions in section 400A62, F.S. Since Never Alone Home Care Inc. was providing·services-that are beyond the scope of a-homemaker service ·a. nurse registry license per state law, the application for homemaker companion services cannot be approved. 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#34 · Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at htto://ahca.myllorida .com EXHIBIT 1 Page2 October 13, 2008 Never Alone was previously registered as a homemaker companion service and this registration expired without renewal on July 13, 2006. On April 19, 2005, Never Alone was found have placed a companion in the home of a hospice patient that provided personal care and administered medication. These were services beyond the scope of the homemaker companion services registration. A Notice of Unlicensed Operation as a home health agency was sent to Never Alone on April 20, 2005. The basis for this action is pursuant to authority of Section 120.60 Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Section 408.815 (1) (c), F.S. which states as follows: In addition to the grounds provided in authorizing statutes, grounds that may be used by the agency for denying and revoking a license or change of ownership application include any of the following actions by a controlling interest: A violation of this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules. A demonstrated pattern of deficient performance. 400.509 Registration of particular service providers exempt from licensure; certificate of registration; regulation of registrants.-- (!) Any organization that provides companion services or homemaker services and does not provide a home health service to a person is exempt from licensure under this part. However, any organization that provides companion services or homemaker services must register with the agency. The requirements of part II of chapter 408 apply to the provision of services that require registration or licensure pursuant to this section and part II of chapter 408 and entities registered by or applying for such registration from the Agency for Health Care Administration pursuant to this section. Each applicant for registration and each registrant must comply with all provisions of part II of chapter 408. Registration or a license issued by the agency is required for the operation of an organization that provides companion services or homemaker services. 400.462, F.S. (7) "Companion" or "sitter" means a person who spends time with or cares for an elderly, handicapped, or convalescent individual and accompanies such individual on trips and outings and may prepare and serve meals to such individual. A companion may not provide hands-on personal care to a client. 400.462, F.S. (16) "Homemaker" means a person who performs household chores that include housekeeping, meal planning and preparation, shopping assistance, and routine household activities for an elderly, handicapped, or convalescent individual. A homemaker may not provide hands-on personal care to a client. rage_, October 13, 2008 400.506 (1), F.S. A nurse registry is exempt from the licensing requirements of a home health agency but must be licensed as a nurse registry. The requirements of part II of chapter 408 apply to the provision of services that require licensure pursuant toss. 400.506-400.518 and part II of chapter 408 and to entities licensed by or applying for such license from the Agency for Health Care Administration pursuant toss. 400.506-400.518. A license issued by the agency is required for the operation of a nurse registry. 400.506 (21), F.S. "Nurse registry" means any person that procures, offers, promises, or attempts to secure health-care-related contracts for registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nursing assistants, home health aides, companions, or homemakers, who are compensated by fees as independent contractors, including, but not limited to, contracts for the provision of services to patients and contracts to provide private duty or staffing services to health care facilities licensed under chapter 395, this chapter, or chapter 429 or other business entities. 400.506 (6) (b), F.S. Nurse Registry " ... A certified nursing assistant or home health aide referred for contract in a private residence shall be limited to assisting a patient with bathing, dressing, toileting, grooming, eating, physical transfer, and those normal daily routines the· patient could perform for himself or herself were he or she physically capable." 408.812 (1), F.S. A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a·violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. VU.LU - .L.1.!o,A.\,,f.1."'- - -.,.._,.._.._.. ._.. . ._..., ,iii UNITEOSTATES. POSTAL SERVICE. I tl..§!P- I fil9DJn Track & Confirm Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 7160 3901984810464201 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 9:43 AM on October 17, 2008 in SANFORD, FL 32771. Enter Label/Receipt Number. --- Optt._·00$ _ Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. (So>) ,,, Site.Map (;ontact.UJ; Priv cy Policy NJ,tioQal & Premier Accounts Copyright© 1999-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA J.# t,} i-·>.J:-:.r ;r:-, !:'1 /,t ...{·;·· ! 'fi•l'."; http://trkcnfrml.smi.usps.com/PTSinternetWeb/InterLabellnquiry.do 10/20/2008 STATE OF FLORIDA
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent's license as an insurance agent, and his eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in Florida should be disciplined for violation of certain provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-215.210, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Respondent, ROBERT DARREN CARLSON, at all times material hereto, was eligible for licensure and was licensed in Florida as a life insurance agent, life and health insurance agent, and variable annuity contracts salesman. Respondent was initially licensed in 1992. Respondent's license is currently under emergency suspension as a result of the actions alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case. Respondent is thirty years old, married with one son, and resides in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1993 Respondent became a shareholder and vice-president of National Consultants International, Inc. (National), a Florida corporation operating as an insurance agency in Pinellas County, Florida. National was incorporated on November 29, 1993, and dissolved on August 24, 1994. The principal shareholder and president of National was Coreen McKeever. At National Coreen McKeever was also responsible for the administrative functions of the agency. Respondent became an agent for National in March 1994. Respondent's duties were to contact potential customers, discuss the customer's insurance needs, explain products that might address the customer's needs, and write policies if purchased by the customer. Respondent collected the premiums, but as a usual practice at National, would turn the premium checks over to Coreen McKeever for administrative processing. Respondent was also authorized to make deposits and withdrawals on National's premium trust account at Republic Bank in Seminole, Florida. Findings as to Count III - Ralph Cody Ralph Cody is an eighty-nine year old retired school maintenance worker from Kentucky. Mr. Cody retired to Florida in 1980, and currently lives with his wife, Edna, in Pinellas County. Mr. Cody is in good health, but has difficulty with his eyesight and hearing. Mr. Cody no longer drives. Mr. Cody first met the Respondent approximately two years ago. At that time Respondent sold Mr. Cody an insurance policy with a company called United American. Mr. Cody was satisfied with this insurance policy. Subsequent to his initial contact with Respondent, Mr. Cody became interested in obtaining an insurance policy which would provide for in-home health care. Mr. Cody was particularly interested in such an insurance policy because of his concern for his wife's deteriorating health, and his desire that health care be provided at home for him and his wife, and not in a nursing home. Because of his interest in obtaining an in-home health care insurance policy, Mr. Cody met with Respondent. Respondent suggested, and Mr. Cody agreed, to the purchase of a policy called Fortis Long Term Security Home Health Care (Fortis), which was underwritten by Time Insurance Company (Time) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Respondent was an agent with Time. Mr. Cody believed the Time policy would meet his insurance needs. On or about March 31, 1994, Respondent received from Mr. Cody a check for $3,164.40. This sum was intended by Mr. Cody to be the premium payment for the Fortis home health care insurance policy underwritten by Time. Pursuant to Respondent's directions, the check from Mr. Cody was made payable to Respondent's agency, National, not to Time Insurance Company. Respondent directed this procedure because at this time, National had limited experience with Time, and National did not have "netting" privileges. "Netting" privileges allow an insurance agency to deduct its commission prior to forwarding a premium check to the underwriting company. Because of National's limited experience with Time, and the lack of netting privileges, Respondent did not believe it was unusual to make the Cody check payable to National, or to deposit the Cody check into National's account. Time has a general policy requiring that premium checks be made payable directly to Time; however, Time, on occasion, will accept premium checks from agencies. Time also requires that an application and premium check be immediately sent to the company for processing. Respondent deposited the Cody check into National's account at Republic Bank. Respondent took the Cody application back to National, entered the information into the computer and delivered the Cody application for the issuance of the Fortis policy to Coreen McKeever. Neither the Cody check, nor the Cody application for issuance of the Fortis policy was received by Time. Within three weeks of depositing the check and delivering the application, Respondent inquired of Coreen McKeever as to the status of the Cody application. Respondent was informed by Coreen McKeever that the application had been denied by Time because of Mrs. Cody's health problems. Contrary to Ms. McKeever's report, Time did not consider nor decline the application for issuance of the Fortis policy to the Codys because of Mrs. Cody's health or any other reason. Respondent did not personally check on the Cody application, and did not contact Time regarding the issuance of the policy to the Codys. Respondent had no personal knowledge whether the Cody application had been declined and received no written notification regarding the Cody application. Respondent did not question the representations made by Coreen McKeever in this regard. Shortly thereafter, Respondent informed Mr. Cody that the application to Time had been declined. Respondent met with Mr. Cody and suggested that Mr. Cody consider purchasing a product offered by a company called Secure Care Home Services, Inc. (Secure Care), which also provided home health care and was approximately the same purchase price as the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Respondent at that time represented to Mr. Cody, and Mr. Cody was under the belief, that the Secure Care product was substantially equivalent to the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Mr. Cody was aware that the Secure Care product was not insurance. Secure Care is a corporation located in Seminole, Florida. Secure Care is not an insurance company, but offers "membership agreements" marketed primarily to elderly persons to contractually provide in-home health care services to its members. Coreen McKeever (a/k/a Coreen J. Morgan) is a director of Secure Care, and has an interest in Secure Care. Secure Care is currently under a Cease and Desist Order suspending its business operations. The Cease and Desist order was entered by the Petitioner on March 13, 1995. On or about May 18, 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Cody entered into a membership agreement with Secure Care. The initial cost of the membership for both of the Codys as reflected in the agreement was $3,027.00; however, the record reflects that the ultimate cost to the Codys for the Secure Care membership actually totalled $3098.40. Respondent signed the agreement as an authorized agent for Secure Care. On May 26, 1994, Respondent met with the Codys at their home. At this time Respondent offered to refund to Mr. Cody the purchase price of the Time policy. To this end, Respondent tendered check number 1191 drawn on National's account in the amount of $3,164.40 to Mr. Cody; however, because the purchase price of the Codys' membership in Secure Care which Mr. Cody had already agreed to purchase was almost as much as the Time policy, Mr. Cody requested that Respondent apply the check for the Time policy to the Secure Care membership, and refund Mr. Cody the difference. Respondent accordingly on May 27, 1994, issued a check number 1189 drawn on National's account to Mr. Cody the amount of $65.70, which represented the difference in the cost of the two products. Several months after his purchase of the Secure Care membership, Mr. Cody became aware that some of his neighbors were dissatisfied with the home health care provided by the company. Thereafter, Mr. Cody became concerned that the Secure Care membership would not meet his or his wife's needs. At this time Mr. Cody had no personal experience with Secure Care. Neither Mr. Cody nor his wife ever used, or sought to use their Secure Care membership. Mr. Cody complained to Petitioner regarding Secure Care. Mr. Cody also contacted Time and discovered that his application and check had not been received. Respondent learned of Mr. Cody's concerns with Secure Care after Mr. Cody complained to Petitioner and a departmental investigation of this matter had been undertaken. Respondent then contacted Mr. Cody who told Respondent he wanted a refund of the purchase price of the Secure Care membership. Respondent contacted Secure Care, but learned that the company was not giving refunds at that time. Respondent suggested that Mr. Cody then attempt to deal with Secure Care directly. Mr. Cody was unable to obtain a refund of the cost of the Secure Care membership. The Codys obtained no benefit from their Secure Care membership. The Secure Care membership was not substantially equivalent to the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Secure Care was not an established company and did not have the resources or capability to provide the services offered by Time. Count II - Leila G. Smith Leila G. Smith is a widowed ninety-one year old retired first grade school teacher, originally from Georgia. Mrs. Smith currently resides with her niece, Miriam Enright, in Seminole, Florida. Brenda Blager is Miriam Enright's daughter, and Mrs. Smith's great-niece. Ms. Blager currently resides in Champagne, Illinois. Mrs. Smith receives a monthly income from her teacher's pension and Social Security benefits. Mrs. Smith is in generally good health for a person of her age, but has experienced a significant loss of vision, is totally blind in her left eye, and cannot read without the aid of a magnifying glass. Mrs. Smith moved to Florida approximately three years ago. Respondent was first introduced to Mrs. Smith by Mrs. Enright to whom Respondent had previously sold annuities. Respondent visited the Enright home and met with Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Enright, Ms. Blager, and also Mrs. Smith's nephew, Robert Smith, to discuss Mrs. Smith's insurance and investment needs. At that time Mrs. Smith purchased an annuity in the amount of $100,000 from Respondent. Approximately one month later Mrs. Smith purchased a second annuity in the amount of $100,000 from Respondent, and gave Robert Smith $60,000 for the purchase of an annuity. The interest payments from the second annuity purchased by Mrs. Smith were sent to Robert Smith. Brenda Blager usually reviewed and consulted Mrs. Smith regarding Mrs. Smith's personal finances; however, after moving to Florida and meeting Respondent, Mrs. Smith also began to rely on and trust Respondent with regard to advising her in her personal financial matters. Prior to moving to Florida, Mrs. Smith's investments consisted primarily of her home and certificates of deposit in banks and savings institutions in Georgia. Mrs. Smith was conservative in her investments, had never purchased stocks or bonds, and only wanted to place her savings in "safe" investments. Subsequent to her purchase of annuities, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Enright contacted Respondent to discuss other financial concerns. Specifically, Mrs. Smith had sold her home in Georgia and was interested in moving her certificates of deposit to Florida, achieving a higher rate of return, addressing tax problems associated with the payment of the annuity interest to her nephew, and purchasing a new Cadillac automobile. Whenever Respondent met with Mrs. Smith to discuss her finances and investments, Mrs. Enright, or another member of Mrs. Smith's family was also present. Respondent reviewed several financial documents relating to Mrs. Smith's Georgia certificates of deposit. Mrs. Smith's financial records were disorganized. Respondent advised Mrs. Smith that there would be substantial penalties if she prematurely removed her funds and invested in certificates of deposit. Despite the penalties and Respondent's advice to the contrary, Mrs. Smith decided to cash in her Georgia certificates of deposit and relocate her funds to Florida. Respondent assisted Mrs. Smith in cashing in the Georgia certificates of deposit. Respondent also assisted Mrs. Smith in using some of these funds to purchase a Cadillac automobile. Mrs. Smith had initially been interested in leasing the automobile; however, Respondent reviewed the lease arrangement, and advised Mrs. Smith that a purchase was in her best interest. Mrs. Smith followed Respondent's advice in this regard. Mrs. Smith trusted Respondent. To assist Mrs. Smith in relocating her funds to Florida, and also achieve a higher rate of return, Respondent presented Mrs. Smith with proposals to invest in promissory notes with two local firms, Zuma Engineering and Allstate Finance. (Allstate Finance is not associated with Allstate Insurance Company). Zuma Engineering (Zuma), is a start-up company located in Largo, Florida, engaged in the business of recycling tires. The rubber in the tires is converted to crumb rubber to be resold and used in asphalt roads, playground resurfacing and other products. Respondent first became aware of Zuma at a seminar in July of 1994 through another agent, Michael Mann, who was then raising funds for Zuma. Mr. Mann took Respondent to the Zuma facility and introduced Respondent to the president of the company. Thereafter, Respondent regularly toured the facility, inspected Zuma's existing and revised business plans, attended business meetings, and reviewed the company's monthly financial reports. The Zuma physical facility consisting of a warehouse and processing plant appeared to be consistent with the business plan. Respondent also obtained documents from Zuma reflecting that the company had initiated a research and development program associated with the University of South Florida. Respondent observed independent auditors at the Zuma facility, and reviewed financial documents that indicated Zuma had made progress toward a private stock offering. Respondent took reasonable actions to examine the operational and fiscal soundness of Zuma. When Respondent met with Mrs. Smith he presented her with documents including the Zuma business plan, and explained the investment opportunity in Zuma. Mrs. Smith does not recall Respondent explaining the Zuma investment proposal, nor does Mrs. Smith recall reading any documents or other material relating to Zuma. Given Mrs. Smith's extremely poor vision and the technical nature of the Zuma business plan, it is highly unlikely that Mrs. Smith read the business plan or any other documents pertaining to Zuma. Mrs. Smith did not comprehend the nature of the investment opportunity in Zuma. Although Mrs. Smith did not comprehend the nature of the Zuma investment, between September 26, 1994 and May 31, 1995 she nonetheless made several purchases of promissory notes payable by Zuma. Specifically, Mrs. Smith signed checks payable to Zuma as follows: September 26, 1994, two checks, one in the amount of $10,000, and another in the amount of $20,000; December 6, 1994, in the amount of $70,000; March 10, 1995 in the amount of $10,000; March 29, 1995 in the amount of $10,000; and, May 31, 1995 in the amount of $90,000. Mrs. Smith did not actually write the checks. Because of her poor eyesight, Mrs. Smith signed the checks in blank, and Respondent filled in the date, payee, and amount. Respondent remitted Mrs. Smith's checks to Zuma. In exchange, Zuma issued promissory notes to Mrs. Smith. The Zuma promissory notes were not insurance products. No interest has been paid on the Zuma promissory notes, and several of the notes are now in default. Mrs. Smith has not received any of the principal of the promissory notes back from Zuma. The prospectus of Zuma states that securities in Zuma are speculative, carry a high degree of risk, and "...should not be purchased by anyone who cannot afford the loss of his or her entire investment." Mrs. Smith did not understand the high risk involved in purchasing securities in Zuma. In addition to Mrs. Smith, Respondent sold promissory notes issued by Zuma to approximately thirty other investors. Subsequent to selling the Zuma notes to Mrs. Smith, Respondent met with an investigator from the Florida Comptroller's Office, and was informed that due to fiscal irregularities at Zuma, Respondent should refrain from selling Zuma securities. Respondent was not aware of the problems with Zuma prior to his meeting with the Comptroller's investigator. At the same time that Respondent presented Mrs. Smith with the Zuma proposal, Respondent also presented Mrs. Smith with information from Allstate Finance. Allstate, which is not related to the Allstate Insurance Company, is a company located in Tampa, Florida, in the business of automobile financing. Mrs. Smith purchased at least one promissory note in the amount of $40,000 from Allstate. The Allstate promissory note purchased by Mrs. Smith was not an insurance product. Mrs. Smith has received, and continues to receive, monthly interest payments from Allstate. In June of 1995, Mrs. Smith allowed the Allstate promissory note to renew for another year. In July of 1995, Brenda Blager received a telephone call from her mother, Miriam Enright, requesting assistance in reviewing Mrs. Smith's investments. Ms. Blager has worked in a financial planning office, but is not a certified financial planner. Prior to that time Ms. Blager had no knowledge of Zuma. Ms. Blager obtained a Dunn & Bradstreet report on Zuma and became very concerned regarding Mrs. Smith's investment in Zuma. Ms. Blager then came to Florida from Illinois for the purpose of reviewing Mrs. Smith's investments. After reviewing the Zuma and Allstate promissory notes, Ms. Blager met with an attorney and attempted to recover Mrs. Smith's funds; however, Ms. Blager was unable to do so. As a result of Respondent's actions, Mrs. Smith has cashed in all of her certificates of deposit to purchase the Zuma and Allstate promissory notes, and her Cadillac automobile. Mrs. Smith has no other savings or investments. While Mrs. Smith did want to relocate her funds from Georgia, Respondent was aware that Mrs. Smith desired and intended to place her funds in safe, low risk, investments. Respondent's advice and assistance, which resulted in placing Mrs. Smith's funds in a high risk security such as a Zuma promissory note, was not appropriate for an elderly woman in Mrs. Smith's circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER enter a final order finding Respondent, ROBERT DARREN CARLSON, in violation of the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth above, and that Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure be SUSPENDED for a period of fifteen (15) months. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4947 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted as to Zuma was a start-up company, recycling tires. Rejected as to Mrs. Smith's knowledge and consent. Accepted as to Mrs. Smith wanting safe investments. Rejected as to Respondent being employed by Zuma. 7.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11.-12. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith desired safe investments. 13.-21. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-6. Accepted and incorporated. 7.-13. Accepted and incorporated. 14.-16. Rejected as to Respondent's reasonable basis for believing the representations of Coreen McKeever. 17. Accepted, except to the extent that Mr. Cody was led to believe Secure Care was equivalent to Time. 18.-25. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not necessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not an accurate assessment of Mr. Cody's testimony. 29.-30. Accepted and incorporated. 31.-32. Accepted; Time's general policy allowed checks from agencies. 33.-35. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 36.-43. Accepted and incorporated. 44. Accepted except to the extent that Zuma and Allstate promissory notes were not appropriate investments for Mrs. Smith. 45.-54. Accepted to the extent that Respondent investigated Zuma, reviewed fiscal reports, and believed Zuma to be a viable start-up company. 55.-57. Accepted and incorporated. 58. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith had document relating to Zuma; rejected to the extent that Mrs. Smith understood the nature of the Zuma investment. 59.-63. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith allowed the Allstate not to renew. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith wanted her certificates of deposit moved from Georgia. Rejected to the extent that Respondent knew, or should have known, the investments were high risk. Accepted to the extent that Ms. Blager is not a certified financial planner. Rejected to the extent that Zuma has defaulted on several of Mrs. Smith's notes, and not returned any interest or principal. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire NEWELL & STAHL 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
