Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1987, DOA mailed a Request for Proposal, (RFP), to various Health Maintenance Organizations, (HMOs), soliciting proposals for the providing of HMO services in the Orlando service area. Petitioner, Cigna, and the various Intervenors herein, submitted proposals which were opened by DOA on August 28, 1987, with a contemplated date of award of September 14, 1987 and an effective date of contract on January 1, 1988. Section 2 of the RFP defined the general purposes of the procurement as being to meet benefit objectives of DOA and to provide high quality benefits and services to state employees. Specifically, the objectives of the RFP were: A proactive approach to cost containment, including an emphasis on aggressive claims management, utilization review, and superior statistical reporting. Quality medical care which encourages health promotion, disease prevention, early diagnosis and treatment. Stability in the financial structure of offered health plans. Professional, high quality service in all administrative areas including claims processing, enrollment, membership services, grievances, and communications. Competitive premium rates which take into account the demographics and, if appropriate, the claims experience of state employees. Other stated objectives included: Have each county or contiguous group of counties be considered one service area. Award no more than two contracts per service area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Have reciprocal agreements between locations, if an HMO has multiple service areas. Enter into a two year, non-experience rates contract. A provision will be included tying renewal action at each of the two renewals to the consumer price index, (CPI), for medical care services. In order to be considered as a "qualified" proposer, an organization had to be licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Part II, Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Section IX of the RFP listed five major criteria for evaluation of the proposals. They were: Premium Cost Extensiveness of service area - by county and/or contiguous counties. Plan Benefits as follows: Covered services Limitations and exclusions Co-payments, deductibles, and coinsurance features Range of providers including specialists and numbers of hospitals D. Out of service area coverage F. Grievance procedures Accessibility as follows: Reciprocal agreements Provider locations Number of primary care physicians and specialists, in relation to membership Completeness of proposals The first four of the above objectives were called for by the Legislative action providing for these procurements to be effective January 1, 1988. The fifth, completeness of proposals, was not identified by the Legislature but was added by DOA. The Department reviewed and evaluated all the proposals submitted by Petitioner and the various Intervenors. Each proposer was evaluated by three individual evaluators. Two separate sets of evaluations were performed; the second coming upon the direction of the Secretary who, after the first evaluation and recommendation of award, concluded the standards for evaluation had been too subjective and directed a second evaluation utilizing more objective standards. During this second evaluation process, after the actual evaluations had been done but before the recommendation was forwarded to the Secretary, several computer treatments of the raw scores were accomplished by Mr. Nye because of additional unidentified factors brought to his attention. The final computer run identified that Central Florida Physicians, not a party to this action, received the highest point total followed by Health Options, Pru-Care, and Petitioner, Cigna. Mr. Nye, who had designed and supervised the evaluation process, recommended to the Secretary that Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Pru-Care receive the award even though the guidelines called for only two recommendees. Central Florida Physicians was recognized to be in financial difficulties though it received the highest rating, and in order to provide two viable candidates in the event that provider should be disqualified, Health Options and Pru-Care were added. Central Florida Physicians was, in fact, subsequently disqualified due to financial insolvency. This left Health Options and Pru-Care as the two providers with the highest evaluations and the Secretary made the award to them. At the final count, Health Options received a point total of 64.635; Pru-Care, 57.415; and Cigna, 56.83, or a difference of .585 between Pru-Care and Cigna. According to Mr. Black, an administrator with the Department of Insurance and responsible for the licensing of HMOs and other health care facilities, as of January 12, 1988, Pru- Care was not licensed in Volusia or Lake Counties and department records show that Pru-Care has never been or requested to be licensed in those counties. Mr. Beckerink, the Director of Planning for Cigna of Florida, who oversaw Cigna's proposal for the Orlando area and who reviewed DOA's evaluation of the various proposals submitted, carefully examined the evaluation forms for both Cigna and Pru- Care and concentrated on scores relating to costs, benefits, accessibility, service area, and completeness. He noted that Pru-Care received 10 points for proposing service in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, and Volusia Counties though it is not licensed in the latter two, whereas Cigna received only 4 points for Orange and Seminole Counties. Cigna is licensed in all five counties and has hospitals and physicians in Seminole, Osceola, and Orange Counties. He contends Pru-Care received credit by the evaluators for five counties when it is licensed only in three, an unearned award of 4 points, and Cigna was awarded credit for only two counties when it is licensed in five, an improper denial of 6 points. According to Mr. Nye, the award to Pru-Care was based on its representation it would provide service in five counties. The Department of Insurance could not tell him, at the time, in which counties Pru-Care was licensed. As a result, he took the proposal, which indicated the five counties, at face value. Credit was given only for full counties to be served and Cigna's proposal indicated it would deliver service to two full counties and to only portions of three counties. The evidence indicates that Pru-Care's facilities are primarily in Orange and Seminole Counties with some service offered in the extreme northern portion of Osceola County, too far away for those individuals living in the southern portion of that county reasonably to take advantage of it. Mr. Nye indicates that driving time, which would be the problem here, is not a consideration in assessing accessibility, but merely a factor in quality of service. The department is not concerned with whether it is convenient for the employee to get to the service but merely whether the service will be offered to anyone residing in the county. For this reason, Pru-Care was awarded credit for Osceola county since it proposed to enroll any eligible employee living in the county whether service was convenient to that party or not, whereas Cigna, which limited it's enrollment in certain counties to those personnel living in only a part of the county, was not given any credit for those partially served counties. Mr. Nye admits that had he known Pru-Care was not fully licensed, he would have deferred to legal counsel, but would most likely not award points if a provider is not licensed in a county for which it proposes service. Mr. Breckerink identified additional areas in the evaluation wherein he believes errors were made, the correction of which would result in an adjustment of the award of points. For example, in evaluating plan benefits, the evaluator gave Pru- Care 20 points when only 10 points are available for award without a demonstration of additional services. For emergency room availability, Cigna was awarded 5 points when it should have received 10. In the area of co- payments, Cigna was awarded points and should have received 23. Concerning range of providers, Cigna's proposal lists seven hospitals yet the evaluation form only reflects six, resulting in a shortage of 10 points. As to turnaround time, Cigna indicated it would accomplish payment in 60 days whereas Pru-Care indicated it would in "an average" of two weeks. As a result, Mr. Breckerink, who points out Cigna's actual time is 30 days and it therefore should have been given 30 points, contends there is no opportunity for a valid comparison here since Pru-Care's answer is not responsive to the RFP's call for" an "expected" time. His point is well taken. With regard to accessibility, Mr. Breckerink states that Cigna got only 20 points for its two allowed counties but should have received 30 points since it has hospitals in three counties in the service area. DOA's rationale on this point is identical to that on the issue of full counties served. He also alleges that Cigna was shortchanged by at least 2 points on the number of counties in which specialty providers are represented and by at least 1 point on the number of providers. Mr. Nye admits Pru-Care should have received 5 points instead of 10 for benefits. This would reduce its' raw score in this area from 258 to 253 points. Nye contends, however, that the points awarded Pru-Care for its' turnaround time were correct. He does not consider the question to be a bad one since it was asked equally of all providers and each responded as it saw fit realizing that its response might become a part of a contractual obligation. This reasoning is specious at best and does not address the real question of the fairness and appropriateness of the question asked. Further, Mr. Nye also admitted that under certain circumstances, if Pru-Care were to lose credit for those two counties in which it was not shown to be licensed, the change could result in a difference sufficient to reverse the relative standings of Pru-Care and Cigna. Mr. Breckerink alleges, and Mr. Nye admits that multiple computer runs were made utilizing the raw scores developed by the evaluators before the recommendation as to award was forwarded to the Secretary. On the first run for the second evaluation, Cigna was in second place with a point total of 71.1 and Pru-Care was third with 65.86 points. On the second run, which Nye contends was done to make the computer run consistent with what had been said at the pre-bid conference and in the RFP, Cigna dropped from second place to third with 58. 2 points and Pru-Care went from third to fourth with 57.195 points. In the third run, which ultimately formed the basis for the award, the positions of Cigna and Pru-Care reversed with Cigna dropping to 56.83 points and Pru-Care rising to 57.415. Central Florida Physicians remained in first and Health Options in second. When Central Florida Physicians dropped out due to insolvency, Health Options became number one and the other two each went up one place in the standings without changing relative positions. According to Mr. Breckerink when the mistakes were identified and changes made in the raw scores, Cigna got a total of 23 more points but Pru-Care still got 16 more points than it should have. He contends that if the mistakes were accurately corrected, if Cigna were to get all the points it should and Pru- Care lose all it should not legitimately have, Cigna would come out higher in the overall ranking than Pru-Care. However, he admits there are factors involved about which he does not know which may affect the standings. What is clear is that while Mr. Breckerink could not clearly follow the evaluation procedure, neither can others charged with evaluating it. What is more, notwithstanding the direction given in the objectives of the procurement that only two providers be awarded contracts, the department continuously has been unable to abide by this guideline. In its September 11, 1987 recommendation after the first evaluation sequence, Mr. Nye recommended, for the Orlando service area, awards to Central Florida Physicians, Cigna, and Pru-Care for a part of the service area and an additional award to Health Options and Florida Health Care for other counties in the service area. When the Secretary directed the objective second evaluation, no change was made to the number of providers to be recommended (two), but again, on October 6, 1987, Mr. Nye recommended three providers, Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Cigna. No evidence was presented as to why this recommendation was not implemented, but it is seen that on October 26, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his third set of recommendations to the Secretary, this time recommending only Central Florida Physicians, and Health Options. Being still unable to finalize the process, on October 30, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his fourth set of recommendations to the Secretary recommending, for the most part, three providers, but specifically recommending Pru-Care for award in Lake and Volusia Counties, where it was arguably not even licensed. No justification or explanation for this vacillation was forthcoming from the Department and the exercise appears to have been clearly capricious.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a Final Order rejecting all proposals submitted for the Orlando service area and readvertise for new proposals if deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1988 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5525BID 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. By Petitioner Cigna: 1 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence not a Finding of Fact. Second sentence accepted except for conclusion as to legal license status of Pru-Care. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. First three sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Balance accepted with the assumption that "those counties" indicates Lake and Volusia counties. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted as a possibility and, not a fact. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted except for use of word "awarded" in last sentence. Award is a function of the Secretary. A better word would be "recommended". Accepted. Reject Accepted. Rejected. Accepted except for word "significantly". First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not being a proper Finding of Fact. For Respondent, DHRS: 1 - 14. Accepted and incorporated as appropriate. 15 - 16. Accepted. 17 - 19. Accepted. First, second, and fourth sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted except for the last three sub-paragraphs which are not supported by the evidence. Absent. 25 - 26. Accepted except for last sub-paragraph which is rejected as a conclusion. 27. Absent. 28 - 29. Accepted. 30. Accepted. 31 - 37. Absent. 38. Accepted. For Intervenor, Pru-Care: 1 & 2. 3. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 4 - 5. Accepted. 6 - 7. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 8 - 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted. 12. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 13 - 14. Accepted. 15. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact except for 16 - 17. last sentence which is accepted. Accepted. 18. Accepted. For Intervenor, Health Options: 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted except for the seventh sentence which is rejected. 12 - 13. Accepted. 14. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 15 - 16. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Yon, Esquire 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 800 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John Buchanan, Esquire 118 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jann Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Stanley Chapman, Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom, & Kitchen Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry Carnes, Esquire 515 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Introduction Petitioner, New Riviera Health Resort, Inc. (New Riviera or petitioner), operates a fifty-two bed nursing home at 6901 Yumuri Street, Coral Gables, Florida. The facility is licensed by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). At all times relevant hereto, New Riviera was a participant in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respondent is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In this regard, HRS requires providers such as New Riviera to follow cost reimbursement principles adopted by the federal government. These principles, rules and regulations are codified in publications known as HIM-15 and the Cost Provider Reimbursement Manual. Pursuant to Rule 10C-7.48(4)(a)5.a., Florida Administrative Code, petitioner filed a cost report for its fiscal year ending November 30, 1983, reflecting what it perceived to be its reimburseable costs for providing Medicaid services during the fiscal year. The cost report was audited by HRS field auditors in 1984. Thereafter, on March 20, 1985, HRS issued a Schedule of Audit Adjustments, Statement of Costs, and Statement of Cost and Statistics. As is pertinent here, the Schedule of Audit Adjustments recommended that reimburseable costs be reduced by $71,561.00 in order to bring the cost report in conformity with Federal and State Medicaid reimbursement principles.1 These adjustments relate to the owner's salary and fringe benefits ($50,246), certain roof repairs ($11,613.00), a pension plan contribution ($6,000), and the write-off of certain assets ($3,772). Prior to the preparation of the above reports, an exit conference was held by HRS representatives and petitioner to discuss the proposed adjustments. When no resolution was reached, the reports were issued. That precipitated the instant proceeding. Owner's Salary & Benefits ($50,246.00) Petitioner's facility is owned by Shirley El. St. Clair. Using an HRS formula, New Riviera allocated $30,934.00 of her total salary during the fiscal year to the cost report for reimbursement. It also sought to be reimbursed for $2,312.00 in related payroll taxes, and $17,000.00 for pension plan contributions. All were disallowed by HRS on the ground the costs were "unnecessary" under applicable federal regulations. Specifically, Section 902.2 of HIM-15 provides in part that compensation paid to an owner may be included in allowable provider cost "only to the extent that it represents reasonable renumeration for managerial, administrative, professional, and other services related to the operation of the facility and rendered in connection with patient care." The regulation goes on to provide that "services rendered in connection with patient care include both direct and indirect activities in the provision and supervision of patient care." The same section prohibits reimbursement where services rendered are not related to either direct or indirect patient care but are, for example, rendered "for the purpose of managing or improving the owner's financial investment." The agency takes the position that Ms. St. Clair's efforts are focused in the direction of managing and improving her investment, and that her salary and benefits should be accordingly disallowed. It also contends that the facility had three licensed administrators during fiscal year 1983, and that New Riviera does not need that number to adequately operate a 52- bed facility, which is small by industry standards. St. Clair has been owner-president-administrator of the facility since its inception some thirty two years ago. In response to an audit inquiry, St. Clair gave the following description of her duties: . . . in general terms. I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and Trustee of the New Riviera Pension Trust. Though I no longer keep regular business hours in the traditional sense, I generally work a 30-50 hour week depending on circumstances, frequently on weekends. Much of my time is spent managing the financial aspect of New Riviera and the Pension Plan. I do most of the banking and a great deal of the grocery and "odds and ends" shopping for New Riviera. At final hearing she described her working hours in 1983 as being "irregular"; but still totaling 30 to 50 hours per week. Her duties included "a bit of everything," including keeping the books, admitting patients, performing marketing and banking activities, and relieving other personnel on weekends. There is no dispute that St. Clair has a voice in all business decisions of the nursing home. Because there are no secretaries or receptionists employed by the facility, she also performed various secretarial tasks. During the fiscal year in question, St. Clair also had two other licensed and full-time individuals performing administrative duties. One was a Mrs. Campbell whose primary duty was to keep the books while the other was her son, Michael, who acted as assistant administrator. According to St. Clair, Michael has a masters -degree in health care administration, supervised the maintenance of the facility, and was there "just to learn the business" in anticipation of her retirement. He recently left New Riviera in September, 1985 and had not been replaced as of the time of final hearing. Mrs. Campbell still remains on the payroll. HRS has allowed Campbell's and Michael's salary and fringe benefits but has proposed to disallow all salary and fringe benefits of Mrs. St. Clair. In this regard, there is no credible evidence that a 52-bed facility requires three licensed administrators. Indeed, a 52-bed facility is unique in terms of size, and is roughly one-half the size of a typical nursing facility. Mrs. St. Clair did perform numerous administrative duties during the fiscal year in question, and without contradiction, it was established she devoted some 30 to 50 hours per week at the facility. On the other hand, her son was simply "learning the trade," and his sole function was described as "supervising the maintenance." Under these circumstances, it is found that Shirley St. Clair's salary and fringes are related to "services rendered in connection with patient care" and should be reimbursed. Conversely, the son's salary and fringe benefits were not necessary, were duplicative in nature, and should be disallowed. This finding is substantiated by the fact that the son has not been replaced since leaving the facility. Reimburseable expenses should be accordingly adjusted. Roof Repairs ($11,613.00) During the fiscal year, repairs costing $11,613.00 were made to a part of the roof structure due to leaks. The facility's accountant recorded these repairs as an expense on the cost report. This accounting treatment was made, according to the provider, on the theory the repairs did not extend the useful life of the building, and were necessary for continued operation of the facility. Section 108.2 of HIM-15 in controlling and provides in part as follows: Betterments and improvements extend the life or increase the productivity of an asset as opposed to repairs and maintenance which either restore the asset to, or maintain it at, its normal or expected service life. Repair and maintenance costs are always allowed in the current accounting period. The more credible and persuasive evidence of witness Donaldson supports a finding that the roof expenditure was a "betterment and improvement" that extended the life of the roof (asset). In view of this, it is found that the cost of the repair should have been capitalized, rather than expensed, and that reimburseable costs should be reduced by $11,613 as proposed by the agency. Pension Plan Contribution ($6,000.00) Petitioner reflected $51,000.00 on its cost report for contributions to its employee pension plan during the fiscal year. This included separate payments of $10,000.00, $35,000.00 and $6,000.00 made in April and May, 1983 and January, 1984, respectively. This information is contained on Schedule B of the firm's Form 5500-R filed with the Internal Revenue Service on September 7, 1984. During the course of its audit, HRS requested the pension plan consultant to furnish information concerning minimum funding standards and retirement benefits for the participants. This was required to verify the charges on the cost report. In a letter dated July 3, 1984, the consultant advised in pertinent part: Based on salary and financial information provided by New Riviera, a $45,000.00 contribution to the pension plan met the minimum funding standards and was deductible. Relying upon this information, HRS disallowed $6,000.00 of the $51,000.00 in total costs allocated for the plan during the year ended November 30, 1983. On January 19, 1984, New Riviera issued a check in the amount of $26,000.00 payable to Shearson American Express for a pension plan contribution. Of that total, $6,000.00 was a contribution to 1983 costs. According to New Riviera's accountant, the additional $6,000.00 was required by the plan's actuary. However, this was not confirmed by any documentation or testimony from the actuary. When the audit was being conducted by HRS in the summer of 1984, the check written to Shearson American Express was in its business records, but was not produced for the auditors' inspection. Further, it was not produced at the exit conference held at a later date. In this regard, it was petitioner's responsibility to furnish that information during the course of the audit and exit conference rather than assuming that the auditors would discover the document while reviewing the auditee's books and records. This is particularly true since petitioner was placed on notice that the $6,000.00 was in dispute and subject to being disallowed by the agency.2 Even if the check had been disclosed to the auditors, it does not change the character of the $6,000 payment. The check was issued during the fiscal year ending November 30, 1984 and was therefore outside the scope of the audit year in question. If it is an appropriate expenditure, it is reimburseable on the 1984 cost report rather than the cost report for the year ending November 30, 1983. Therefore, 1983 reimburseable costs should be reduced by $6,000, as proposed by the agency. Write-off of Certain Assets ($3,772.00) During fiscal year 1983 petitioner wrote off $3,722.00 in remaining balances related to certain equipment.3 This amount related to the remaining or salvage value of certain assets whose useful lives had expired according to depreciation guidelines, but which assets were still in service. Even though the assets had not been retired or sold, petitioner wrote off the undepreciated balances remaining on the books. The undepreciated balances arose by virtue of petitioner using the declining balance method of depreciation. Under Medicaid guidelines, assets acquired after 1966 must be depreciated by the straight line method. Therefore, petitioner was in error in using a declining balance method. Even so, according to generally accepted accounting procedures, it was incorrect to write-off a remaining balance related to certain assets before the assets were actually sold or retired. At hearing petitioner agreed that its accounting treatment was contrary to HRS requirements, and accordingly these costs ($3,772.00) should be disallowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's cost report for fiscal year ending November 30, 1983 be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs 4 through 7 of the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1986.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Amended Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Amended Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $1,500.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Filed October 16, 2014 3:44 PM Division of Admin\strative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 22 day of Kpfubee , 2014. (ne fel retary vare Administration
Other Judicial Opinions 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. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 CERTIFY that a true and correct co f this Final Order was served_on the below-named persons by the method designated on this Ee of KM » 2014. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) John E Bradley Ted Mack Office of the General Counsel Counsel for Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration Powell and Mack (Electronic Mail) 3700 Bellwood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (U.S. Mail)
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Impose Fine, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit 1) , and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 2) with the parties to these proceedings, and being otherwise 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. Respondent shall pay, within ninety (90) days of the date of rendition of this Order, the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). 1 Filed March 19, 2010 1:56 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Checks should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care Administration." The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. The Respondent's request for an Administrative proceeding is hereby withdrawn. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The above-styled case is h by close DONE and ORDERED this //' day of d in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Th i111crv , 2010, 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: Christine Urtz, Finance Director Infinity Home Care of Pinellas LLC 15500 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 103 Clearwater, Florida 33760 (U.S. Mail) Thomas J. Walsh II, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Admin. 525 Mirror Lake Drive N. #330G St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Admin. 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Agency for Health Care Admin. Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS # 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Administrative Law Judge Div. of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (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 method designated, on this the / 2: v of Narc"'< , 2010. S? Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873
