Findings Of Fact The Department, a state agency, initiated the underlying proceeding when Redi-Care's request for payment as a Medicaid provider was denied on September 19, 1989. Redi-Care was required to seek review of this governmental action through an administrative proceeding on September 28, 1989. Petitioner, Redi-Care Home Services, Inc. is a corporation which has its principal office in this state. At the time the administrative proceeding was initiated, the corporation had less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of less than two million dollars. The assets of Redi-Care were sold to Lorinda Crowley on July 31, 1990. The shares of corporate stock and the liability were not transferred. Redi-Care authorized its President, Ms. Ingeborg G. Mausch, Ph.D., to proceed with the corporation's attempts to collect the Medicare claims at issue in the underlying proceeding. A Final Order was entered by the Department in the underlying proceeding on October 4, 1991. This order resolved the dispute in Redi-Care's favor. The claim for reimbursement for services rendered as a Medicaid Provider were to be paid upon the resubmission of the claims. The time for seeking judicial review of that order has expired and the order has become final agency action as a matter of law. Redi-Care timely filed its Petition for Attorney's Fees in this proceeding. The Department disputes portions of the application for fees relating to entitlement and to requested amounts of reimbursement for fees and costs. The underlying proceedings were initiated when the Department denied Redi-Care's claims for reimbursement for home health care services rendered to Richard Mow and Claire Jester beginning February 8, 1989. The reason given by the Department for its denial of the claims on September 9, 1989, was that Redi- Care's "Medicaid Provider" number could be used only for services rendered on or after May 4, 1989 because its certification survey was not completed until then. Although the agency's determination of ineligibility for payment due to the lack of certification would be proper in most cases under Rule 10C- 7.044(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, it is not appropriate in this case. The Department was supposed to complete the requested survey in November 1988. The survey was not actually completed until May 4, 1989 because the Department's representative confused this entity with a similarly named entity located next door in November 1988. When Redi-Care received the documentation from Consultec assigning it a "Medicaid Provider" number in December 1988, the applicant reasonably believed the certification process had been completed and eligibility granted. The Department has been aware of its error in failing to provide the survey since at least April 18, 1989. Yet, no attempt was made to address this error as it related to the pending reimbursement claims beginning on February 8, 1989. Instead, the agency's involvement in the series of events that operated to prevent the proper application processing was ignored and Redi-Care was expected to suffer the consequences of the confusion created by all of the parties. One very reasonable way the Department could have cured its error would have been to submit Redi-Care's application for certification to Consultec on the day it discovered the error. This would have allowed Consultec to process claims from 90 days prior to the application under the Medical Home Health Agency Services Manual in effect at that time. This action was not taken by agency personnel who knew or should have known of this potential solution to the certification and reimbursement issues. The Department's letter advising Redi-Care of the Medicaid Program's decision to deny payment for services provided before May 4, 1989 was unreasonable governmental action. The possible affect of the agency's errors and the unrelated errors of its successive Medicaid agents for the Florida Medicaid Program on Redi-Care's pending claims were never addressed in spite of the Department's awareness of their existence. Redi-Care was required to pursue its claims through administrative proceeding's in order to prevent the denial of the reimbursement request.
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Stipulation and Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached Stipulation and Agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONEANDORDEREDthis Jf dayof ,2011,in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DUDEK, INTERIM SECRETARY AGENCY F R HEALTH CARE ADMINI RATION A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A COPY, ALONG WITH THE FILING FEE 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 PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Filed January 24, 2011 9:09 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Old DOAH Case No. 06-4927MPI AHCA v. Kids Medical Services, Inc. Final Order CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE = , I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order was furnished by U.S. Mail, interoffice mail, or email transmission to the persons named below on this of 2011. ==,: ::::::::: D""-,! ncy Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Telephone No. (850) 412-3630 Copies furnished to: John G. Van Laningham Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Kids Medical Services, Inc. c/o James M. Barclay, Esquire 200 W College Ave Ste 120 Tallahassee, FL 32301-7710 Agency for Health Care Administration Debora E. Fridie, Assistant General Counsel, MS#3 Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Health Quality Assurance Agency for Health Care Administration Home Care Unit, MS #34 Agency for Health Care Administration Bureau of Finance and Accounting, MS#14 Agency for Health Care Administration Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity, MS#6 ATTN: Mike Blackburn, Bureau Chief Florida Department of Health 2
Findings Of Fact 1. The initial action of HRS in regard to the application of Home Health Care of Bay's application for a CON, as set forth in the State Agency Action Report (SAAR), was to deny the application. 2. The SAAR, dated April 29, 1987, together with a cover letter dated April 30, 1987, advised Home Health Care of Bay that its application has been denied because "[t]here was no need demonstrated by Home Health Care of Bay for an additional home health agency in Bay County." These two documents further advised Home Health Care of Bay of its point of entry into Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. 3. Home Health Care of Bay availed itself of this point of entry by filing a reguest for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) on the initial decision to deny its application. 4. Home Health Care of Bay is a for-profit corporation under the laws of Florida, having been incorporated on December 10, 1986, prior to the SAAR and the initial denial letter. 5. Home Health Care of Bay has had its principal office in the State of Florida since its incorporation. 6. Home Health Care of Bay does not have and has never had more than 25 full-time employees. 7. At the time of its CON application and of the initial denial by HRS, Home Health Care of Bay had assets of $1,000, which was received from issuance of 1,000 shares of stock at $1.00 per share, and a note receivable of $21,600. The total net worth of Home Health Care of Bay at the time this action was initiated was $22,600. 8. By its response to Request for Admission 1 and its stipulation at hearing, HRS has stipulated that Home Health Care of Bay incurred attorneys' fees and associated costs in DOAH Case No. 87-2151 equal to $15,000 and that said fees and costs are reasonable. It is so found. 9. Following a formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 87- 2151, a Recommended Order was entered on December 17, 1987, recommending granting of the CON. A Final Order was entered by HRS on February 15, 1988. HRS adopted all of the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order. HRS granted certain exceptions to the Conclusions of Law. Specifically, HRS granted exceptions as to the conclusions that its reliance on the statutory criteria is "nebulous," that its failure to establish a need methodology is arbitrary and capricious, that it was requiring applicants to prove "unmet need," and that the Hearing Officer relied in part on a need methodology abandoned by HRS. 10. HRS granted the requested CON to Home Health Care of Bay by this Final Order. 11. Findings of Fact in that Recommended Order, which were adopted by HRS, included findings that: A. HRS abandoned its "interim policy" regarding use of a need methodology in home health agency applications in late 1986. (Finding of Fact 56). B. HRS informed applicants that it had abandoned the interim policy only after applications were filed in the second batching cycle of 1986. (Finding of Fact 57). C. Applicants in this December, 1986, batching cycle, including Home Health Care of Bay, were asked for an unlimited extension of time within which HRS could render a decision. (Finding of Fact 58). D. Applicants who refuse to agree to an extension were evaluated on the basis of the "statutory need criteria." Applicants who did not agree to an extension were denied. (Finding of Fact 59). E. The new "policy" used by HRS to evaluate these applications (the ones who refused to grant extensions) put the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate an unmet need. Such a demonstration would be difficult to make. (Finding of Fact 62). F. HRS reviewed Home Health Care of Bay's application using the new "policy" based on the "thirteen statutory criteria." Such a review required Home Health Care of Bay to prove need by demonstrating an unmet need. (Finding of Fact 63). G. As evidenced by HRS' review of Home Health Care of Bay's application, a policy requiring an applicant to meet a negative burden of proof is unreasonable. It imposes a standard which is e for an applicant to meet. (Finding of Fact). 12. Fig in the Recommended Order set forth extensive the standard used by HRS to review the application Health Care of Bay and the reasons why the review was deficient and the determination to deny the application was flawed. 13. One Conclusion of Law which HRS did not reverse is that found on page 35 of the Recommended Order in the second full paragraph: Further, DHRS' preliminary decision had no reasonable basis in law or fact at the time it was made. It is this same preliminary decision which was set forth in the SAAR and which constituted the initial decision from which Home Health Care of Bay had a point of entry into Chapter 120 proceedings. 14. In attempting to justify its actions, HRS presented the testimony of Sharon Gordon-Girvin. Ms. Gordon-Girvin had no part in or knowledge of the initial decision of HRS to deny this application. Instead, shortly before and in preparation for the formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 87-2151, Ms. Gordon- Girvin reviewed the SAAR and the initial decision and agreed with HRS' counsel not to enter into a settlement with Home Health Care of Bay. Her testimony regarding the basis for and correctness of the initial denial is rejected as being irrelevant to the question of whether HRS had a reasonable basis in law and in fact at the time it initially denied the application. Additional, such after-the-fact rationalization and justification for HRS' actions is so self- serving as to merit little weight. 15. HRS failed to prove that its initial denial was reasonable in DOAH Case No. 87-2151 and it failed to prove in this case that there was any reasonable basis for its initial denial. 16. HRS did present evidence that Home Health Care of Bay may be able to recover some of its fees and costs through Medicare reimbursements amortized over at least five (5) years. However, the evidence was speculative and uncertain, and HRS did not offer evidence that Home Health Care of Bay will recover any or all of its fees and costs through Medicare reimbursements.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Agency issued a Notice of Intent to Deem Application Incomplete and Withdrawn from Further Review on the Petitioner, Global Services Home Care Corp., an applicant for a home health agency license. 2. The Petitioner requested a formal hearing, but failed to pursue its litigation. 3. The Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH”) issued an Order to Show Cause on the Petitioner, and when the Petitioner failed to respond to the Order, the DOAH issued an Order Closing Case (Ex. 2). ; 1 Filed May 10, 2010 4:23 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED: 1. The Petitioner’s application for home health agency licensure is deemed incomplete and withdrawn from further review. 2. The Petition for Formal Hearing is dismissed. 3. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this / day of Lhag , 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Thomas W. Arnold, Secretary EEL t— Agency for Health 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: Harrison Becerra, President Carlton Enfinger, Esq. Global Services Home Care Corp. Office of the General Counsel 9510 Ormsby Station Road Agency for Health Care Admin. 1790 West 49" Street, Suite 305-10 | (Interoffice Mail) Hialeah, Florida 33012 (U.S. Mail) Anne Menard, Unit Manager Jan Mills Home Care Unit Facilities Intake Unit Agency for Health Care Admin. Agency for Health Care Admin. (Interoffice Mail) (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 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 ZS method designated, on this the Z day of LEY , 2010. Richard Shoop, Agency Cler Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to deem application incomplete and withdrawn from further review dated October 4, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) finds and concludes as follows:
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's license rating for all or some of the time between February 26 and June 1, 1998, should be conditional or standard.
Findings Of Fact When surveyed by AHCA on February 24 through 26, 1998, Spanish Gardens had a license which would expire and have to be renewed on May 31, 1998. The facility had a license rating of superior. For the preceding year (from June 1, 1996, through May 31, 1997), the facility had a license rating of standard. During the survey, a disabled resident told a surveyor that the resident recently had complained to a nurse at the facility that a certified nurse assistant (CNA) had roughly handled the resident while transferring her into her bed, causing redness on the resident's arm, but that the facility did nothing about it. The surveyor viewed the resident's arm to verify the alleged incident. The surveyor also found a nurse's note for February 18, 1998, which mentioned the resident's complaint. On inquiring, the surveyor found that neither the administrator of the facility nor the director of nursing knew about the complaint and that the facility had not telephoned the Central Abuse Registry Hotline (the abuse hotline.) The "Guidance to Surveyors - Long Term Care Facilities" defined "abuse," in pertinent part, as "the willful infliction of injury . . . with resulting physical harm or pain." The surveyor decided to report the alleged incident to the facility's administration and to telephone the abuse hotline herself. The nurse's note stated that the resident first alleged that incident occurred on February 16, 1998; when the CNA, who also was present at the time the complaint was made, stated that he was not working on that day, the resident alleged that the incident had occurred the following day or, directing her comment to the CNA, "whenever you were here." The nurse noted a small red area on the inside of the resident's arm. The resident denied having any complaint of pain. The resident then told the nurse, "I just wanted to tell on him (the CNA)," and laughed. The survey team did not interview the nurse although she was on-duty during part of the time the survey team was at the facility. In fact, the nurse had made a professional judgment that the evidence before her did not give her reason to believe that any abuse had occurred. The survey team also interviewed a group of residents, several of whom complained that the staff at Spanish Gardens was slow to answer the call button located in residents' rooms. It was difficult if not impossible for Spanish Gardens to defend itself against the specific allegations that it had ignored residents' calls for assistance. AHCA never identified the residents who had made the complaints. However, AHCA presented no evidence that any resident was harmed or suffered medically in any way from staff's response time when called for assistance. Slow response to calls for assistance is a common complaint in nursing homes and does not in itself prove neglect. There are a number of reasons why the speed of staff's response may not satisfy a resident. Often, unbeknownst to the resident, staff is attending to the call of another resident whose needs are judged to be a higher priority. Other times, again unbeknownst to the resident, the resident's call for non- emergency assistance may require the attention of a particular staff member who may not be available at the time. The evidence was that Spanish Gardens responds reasonably quickly to residents' calls for assistance. Subject to higher priorities, the nearest staff member responds and assists when able; sometimes, another staff member with special expertise, knowledge, or skills must be summoned. Spanish Gardens does not ignore residents' complaints regarding staff response time. The evidence was that meetings have been held to allow residents to raise complaints of various kinds. Predictably, these included complaints regarding staff response time. Spanish Gardens has attempted to address these as well as the other complaints raised in these meetings. The survey team could not find the abuse hotline telephone number posted anywhere in the facility. When the survey team asked to see the facility's written policies on prevention of abuse and neglect, they were shown a document entitled "Suspected Abuse/Neglect of Residents." The document stated the facility's policy: "Any or suspected abuse/neglect of residents shall be referred immediately to the Administrator for investigation." It also stated the facility's procedures: Any staff, family member, friend, who suspects possible abuse/neglect of a resident shall report to the Administrator and Director of Nursing Services immediately. An incident report shall be completed to include all pertinent information of the alleged abuse/neglect. The Director of Nurses or the Administrator will notify the Abuse Hotline (1-800-96-ABUSE). An in house investigation with concerned parties and action to be taken will be conducted. Since the facility is charged with the responsibility of protecting the resident it will be necessary to terminate employee(s) that may be involved if allegations are found to be substantiated. If it is found that it is a family member, or friend who is responsible for the abuse/neglect, such finding shall be turned over to area adult protection agency. It may be necessary to report any substantiated abuse/neglect to appropriate regulatory agencies in accordance with their established policy regarding abuse/neglect. The survey team was not satisfied with the written policy and procedure presented because it did not require staff to report and call in all allegations or complaints of abuse or neglect but rather only known abuse, "suspected" abuse, or "suspected possible" abuse. In an attempt to satisfy the survey team, the facility produced a document entitled, "Adult Abuse Public Law No. 299 Policy," which related to a law prohibiting: battery; placing a dependent in danger to life or health; abandoning or cruelly confining a dependent; and exploiting a dependent by misuse of the dependent's resources. The facility also produced a document entitled, "Grievance Procedure," which informed residents and their family and friends to express concerns to the Charge Nurse, the Director of Nursing, the Department Supervisor, and the Executive Director. It also included two telephone numbers for the Ombudsman, neither of which was the abuse hotline telephone number. The survey team did not review any employee or resident files for additional documentation; nor did the facility produce any for the survey team's review. In accordance with normal procedure, the survey team reported the results of the survey on a federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) form 2567 (the 2567). Under the Statement of Deficiencies "Tag" F224, the 2567 alleged violations of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(i) for failure to "develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property" and for "use [of] verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, corporal punishment, or involuntary seclusion." For purposes of the 2567, the survey team gave the alleged deficiency a federal scope and severity rating of "G." The federal scope and severity ratings range from "A" (for the least serious) to "L" (for the most serious). A deficiency with a rating of "G" is not considered "substandard quality of care" under the federal scope and severity rating system. For purposes of the 2567, the survey team also gave the alleged deficiency a state classification of Class II. The state classifications are from Class I (for the most serious) to Class III (for the least serious). See Conclusion of Law 28, infra. Based on the 2567, AHCA replaced the facility's superior license with a license having a conditional rating from February 26 through May 31, 1998, when the license would expire and have to be renewed. In response to the 2567 and conditional rating, Spanish Gardens requested a formal administrative hearing, as well as an informal dispute resolution (IDR) conference. At the IDR, the facility's new administrator informed the IDR panel that, since at least 1994, all employees (including himself when he began his employment, coincidentally, during the survey conducted February 24 through 26, 1998,) were required to sign an "Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy." It states: It is the policy of this facility to protect it's [sic] residents from abuse, neglect, and exploitation by providing a safe and protected environment. Any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a resident is an abused, neglected or exploited person shall immediately report such knowledge or suspicion to the Control Abuse Registry (Toll Free Telephone Number 1-800-342-9152) and to the Facility Administrator. The statewide toll-free telephone number for the Control Abuse Registry shall be posted on the Facility Bulletin Board and in each Employee Lounge. Employees who commit acts of abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation are subject to criminal prosecution and/or fines. Employees who witness acts of abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation are required to report them immediately. Failure to report can also result in criminal prosecution and/or fines. * * * No employee of this facility will be subjected to reprisal for reporting abuse, neglect or exploitation. . . . Any employee who has been reported for abuse, will be suspended from work until any and all investigations have been completed. If the investigation confirms the employee committed an act of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, that employee shall be terminated immediately. . . . All employees of this facility will be inserviced on this policy and the consequences of abuse, neglect and exploitation during their initial orientation and alt least once annually. A complete copy of the Florida law on Abuse, Neglect, and exploitation [sic](Section 415, Florida Statutes) [sic] is on file in the Administrator's office and available for inspection upon request. Spanish Gardens also produced at the IDR conference a copy of a Resource Contact List that included a telephone number for the abuse hotline. The facility's administrator testified at final hearing that the list was given to all residents at the time of admission. However, he was not employed at the facility prior to the survey, and it is not clear from his testimony that the list was in use as described at the time of the survey. Notwithstanding the additional information presented to it, the IDR panel declined to rescind the Petitioner's conditional rating. The panel did not believe that the "Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy" was in effect at the time of the survey; in fact, it was. The IDR panel also decided that, even if the policy had been in effect, it did not require employees to report and call in all allegations or complaints of abuse or neglect but rather only known abuse, reasonably suspected, or suspected abuse. Finally, the panel decided that, if construed to require employees to report and call in all allegations or complaints of abuse or neglect, the "Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy" was not being followed since the resident's complaint was not either reported to the facility's administration or telephoned to the abuse hotline. The "Guidance to Surveyors - Long Term Care Facilities" states in part: The intent of this regulation [42 C.F.R. § 483.13(1)(c)] is to assure that the facility has in place an effective system that regardless of the source (staff, other residents, visitors, etc), prevents mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents, and misappropriation of resident's property. Over the years, Spanish Gardens has reported eighteen incidents of suspected abuse or neglect to the abuse hotline. No abuse or neglect has been substantiated in any of these incidents. Never before has Spanish Gardens been cited in a survey for any deficiency relating to abuse or neglect of residents. As required, regardless whether a facility agrees with the Statement of Deficiencies in a 2567, Spanish Gardens submitted a Plan of Correction. The facility's Plan of Correction stated that it does not constitute an admission or agreement with the alleged deficiencies. The Plan of Correction reported that Adult Protective Services had investigated the alleged abuse called in by the surveyor on February 26, 1998, and had concluded that the allegation was unfounded. Otherwise, the Plan of Correction essentially stated that written policies for prevention of abuse, neglect, and exploitation were in place and that the facility's administration would conduct inservices with staff and conferences with residents and the Resident Council to ensure that the policies were understood and followed. The Plan of Correction also stated that it had again posted the abuse hotline telephone number in four different places, one behind the locked glass bulletin board. The Plan of Correction stated that it would be completed by March 26, 1998, and the evidence was that the Plan of Correction was completed by the time promised. On May 1, 1998, a team from AHCA re-surveyed Spanish Gardens and satisfied itself that the Plan of Correction had been completed and that the alleged deficiency had been corrected. On May 13, 1998, AHCA notified Spanish Gardens of the results of the re-survey. However, AHCA took no action with respect to the facility's license until June 1, 1998, when AHCA renewed the license with a standard rating for the period from June 1, 1998, through May 31, 1999. Although the Petitioner's license rating had been superior, it only requests that its license rating for the period from February 26 through May 31, 1998, be made standard. See Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Proposed Recommended Order of Spanish Gardens.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding a Class III deficiency and assigning a standard rating to the Petitioner's license for the time period from February 26 through May 31, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 18th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Stinson, Esquire R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karel Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Regional Services Center 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 309 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Deny dated August 25, 2010, 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: 1. 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 Notice of Intent to Deny is superseded by the Settlement Agreement and an administrative fine of $10,000 is imposed in lieu of license application denial. 2. The request for an administrative proceeding is withdrawn. 3. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 4. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this | | day of March, , 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Agency for Health. Gare Administration Filed March 14, 2011 8:48 AM Divigfion of Administrative Hearings 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: Barrington Coombs, Administrator Nelson E. Rodney Prima Home Health, LLC Assistant General Counsel 3500 N. State Road 7, Suite 499 Office of the General Counsel Lauderdale Lakes, FL 33319 Agency for Health Care Admin. (U. S. Mail) (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting The Honorable Stuart M. Lerner Agency for Health Care Admin. Administrative Law Judge (Interoffice Mail) Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) Jan Mills Home Care Unit Agency for Health Care Admin. Agency for Health Care Admin. (Interoffice Mail) (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named persgn(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the 1 Pe tay of _/ VanPP , 2011. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent failed to provide appropriate emergency care for a nursing home resident in respiratory distress in violation of 42 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 483.25 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect as of the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the State of Florida. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 830 West 29th Street, Orlando, Florida (the facility). Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of the facility on September 14, 2001. The survey cited the facility for a deficiency described in F309, and rated the deficiency with a scope and severity of "G" and Class II, respectively. The deficiency classifications authorized in Subsection 400.23(8) range from Class I through Class IV. Class I deficiencies are not relevant to this case. The statute defines the remaining classifications as follows: A Class II deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services. . . . A Class III deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines will result in no more than minimal physical, mental or psychosocial discomfort to the resident or has the potential to compromise the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being as defined. . . . A Class IV deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident. . . . Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the state of Florida to adhere to federal regulations found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, Rule 59A-4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. The "G" rating adopted by Petitioner for the scope and severity rating of the deficiency alleged in F309 is a rating authorized in relevant federal regulations. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated. Applicable state law authorizes Petitioner to change a facility's licensure rating from standard to conditional whenever Petitioner alleges that a Class II deficiency exists. Petitioner alleged in the survey report that a Class II deficiency existed at the facility and assigned a conditional rating to the facility's license. The conditional rating was effective September 14, 2001, and continued until substantial compliance was achieved. When Petitioner proves that a Class II deficiency exists, applicable law authorizes Petitioner to impose a civil money penalty. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent seeking to impose a fine of $2,500.00 and subsequently filed an Amended Administrative Complaint. The allegations on which both the change in license status to a conditional license and the proposed fine are based are set forth in F309. The deficiency alleged in F309 is set forth on CMS Form 2567, entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" (the 2567). The 2567 that Petitioner used to charge Respondent with the deficiency described in F309 involved only one resident. In order to protect this resident's privacy, the 2567, F309, the Transcript, and all pleadings refer to the resident as Resident 1. F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25. In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Use F309 for quality of care deficiencies not covered by 483.25(a)-(m). F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 CFR Section 483.25 because: Based on interview and record review the facility neglected to provide appropriate emergency care for [Resident 1] in respiratory distress and failure. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the Manual). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The facility admitted Resident 1 to the pediatric long-term care unit on November 20, 2000. The admitting diagnosis was cerebral palsy, pneumonia and convulsions, a tracheostomy, and a gastrostomy. Resident 1 could breathe on her own and was being weaned from the trach. She could breathe through her nose at times. She was not on a ventilator but could breathe room air. At all times, Resident 1 was making respiratory effort. Resident 1 was on an apnea monitor. Resident 1 had three stomas. Stomas are the openings for the tracheostomy tube. Her throat structures were very frail. She had received numerous throat reconstructions. She had significant scar tissue and a granuloma at her stoma sites. A granuloma is a tumor-like growth. The granuloma was vascular, and the blood vessels were easily broken. Resident 1 was spastic as a result of her cerebral palsy. On September 7, 2001, at 2:50 a.m., Resident 1's apnea monitor alarm sounded. Staff immediately responded to find that Resident 1 had pulled out her tracheostomy tube and was bleeding profusely. Facility staff called 911 and notified the treating physician and the parents. An ambulance was dispatched to the facility at 2:51 a.m. on September 7, 2001. While awaiting the ambulance, the Registered Nurse on duty (RN) could not detect an apical or radial pulse. The RN did not administer CPR. Rather, the RN established an airway by successfully replacing the tracheostomy tube. Securing a patent airway was the first thing that the RN should have done for Resident 1 under the circumstances. No oxygen can be given without a patent airway. It was difficult for the RN to visualize the trach opening because of the profuse bleeding. The RN was able to tactilely reinsert the tube. Vital signs taken by the RN showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. CPR is not appropriate when vital signs are present. The ambulance and EMT personnel arrived shortly after the RN reinserted the trach tube. At 2:56 a.m., EMT personnel took over the care of Resident 1. EMT personnel worked on Resident 1 for 23 minutes before transporting her to the hospital. Resident 1 died at the hospital at 3:35 a.m., 38 minutes after the EMTs took responsibility for her care. EMT personnel generated EKG strips indicating that Resident 1's heart was beating at some point after they took over. Two sets of x-rays subsequently taken at the hospital substantiate that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel took over her care. EMT personnel removed the trach the nurse had inserted and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. Removing the trach eliminated the airway that the RN had established for Resident 1 before EMT personnel arrived. The endotracheal tube was 22 centimeters long and significantly longer and larger than the regular trach tube used for Resident 1. The physician's order for Resident 1 stated that nothing should go past 6 centimeters into Resident 1's trach. It took the EMTs three attempts to get the endotracheal tube placed. The EMTs should have hyperventilated Resident 1 before placing the endotracheal tube. They did not do so. The x-ray taken at 3:42 a.m. in the hospital, shows that the endotracheal tube was improperly positioned in Resident 1's lung. All steps taken by the RN were appropriate for Resident 1 under the circumstances. Petitioner failed to show a nexus between any act or omission by the facility and the harm to Resident 1. The care plan for Resident 1 called for suctioning of her tracheal tube. Care plans are to be followed under normal circumstances. Emergency procedures take precedence in critical situations. Suctioning for Resident 1 was appropriate under normal circumstances when she had a patent airway. If Resident 1 did not have an airway, the first priority is to establish an airway. The RN first established a patent airway for Resident 1. It would have been inappropriate for the RN to suction Resident 1 before establishing an airway because it would have sucked out the air remaining in Resident 1's lungs. Suctioning also could have caused a vasovagal response that could stop the heart and could have caused tissue damage. After the RN opened an airway for Resident 1, the next priority would have been for the RN to check for vital signs. The RN checked Resident 1's vital signs after opening an airway, and the vital signs showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. The presence of vital signs made it inappropriate for either the RN or EMT personnel to administer CPR. CPR is appropriate only in the absence of vital signs. When EMT personnel arrived, they continued the same procedure that the RN had followed. EMT first established an airway by removing the trach tube used by the RN and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. The resident had vital signs after placement of the trach and CPR was inappropriate. F282 relates to failure to implement a care plan. Respondent was not cited under F282. Petitioner stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation that both the conditional license and fine were based on F309 alone.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in F309 and the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the Administrative Complaint, and changing Respondent's conditional license to a standard license effective September 4, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, Room 3106 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. Post Office Box 2011 2180 Park Avenue, North Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
