The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Proposed Rule 10- 5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, as promulgated by DHRS constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Based upon the following findings of fact, conclusions and analysis, proposed Rule 10-5.005(2)(a) and (b) is invalid.
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 hereby make the following relevant factual findings. DHRS' Office of Health Planning and Development is divided into two separate divisions: The Office of Community Medical Facilities, which administers the State Certificate of Need Program and has responsibility for making recommendations regarding CON applications, and (2) the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, which has primary responsibility for development of rules pertaining to Certificate of Need policy. Mr. Robert Maryanski, Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, believes his office made no formal comments (perhaps informal comments,) concerning the proposed rule. Mr. Maryanski considered that the proposed rule was objectionable based on his understanding of the statutes. (TR 33, 54). Elfie Stamm is employed by the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and has primary responsibility for development of Proposed Rule 10-5.005. The text of the proposed rule is as follows: 10-5.005 Exemptions. * * * (2)(a) Physician offices or physician group practices which do not exist for the primary purpose of providing elective surgical care are exempt from certificate of need requirements for ambulatory surgical centers as specified in 10-5.011(30). This certificate of need exemption applies to offices and associated surgical suites maintained by one or more private physicians or a physician group which is used only by the physician or the physicians of the group practice, and in which 50 percent or more of the patients treated annually are non-surgical patients. (b) Physician offices, or physician group practices applying for designation as an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and who meet the requirements for exemption from certificate of need review under the provisions delineated under paragraph (2), shall submit a request for exemption from certificate of need to the Department. The physician office or physician group practice shall provide the Department with at least 30 day's written notice of the proposed exemption from the certificate of need requirements for ambulatory surgical centers. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the Department shall determine if the physician office or physician group practice is exempt and advise the applicant of its determination in writing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). The proposed rule exempts physician offices and physician group practices from CON requirements for ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) when at least 50 percent of the patients treated annually in these facilities are non- surgical patients. The proposed rule purportedly implements the Federal Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA) policy allowing physician offices which are exempt from State CON and licensure requirements to apply directly (to HCFA) to receive ASC designation for medical facility reimbursement purposes without first obtaining a CON. Currently, "Ambulatory Surgical Center" means a facility, the primary purpose of which is to provide elective surgical care and in which the patient is admitted to and discharged from such facility within the same working day and which is not part of a hospital. However, a facility existing for the primary purpose of performing therapeutic abortions, an office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine, or an office maintained for the practice of dentistry shall not be construed to be an ASC. Section 395.002(2), Florida Statutes (1985). DHRS is trying to implement what it believes to be a statutory CON exemption for doctor's offices through the proposed rule. In so doing, HRS considers physicians' offices to be indistinguishable from physician group practices. In this regard, the relevant statutes do not reference physician group practices. Historically, HRS would not certify physician offices as medicare providers (in its role as surveyor for HCFA) because such certification entails the requirement that a physician's office comply with the State ASC Law. In short, a physician's office wishing to become an ASC had to satisfy both CON and State licensure requirements in order to be certified as a medicare providing ASC. Prior to promulgation of the proposed rule, DHRS never had a policy that group practices or physicians with operating suites are excluded from the statutory definition of an ASC. DHRS has no exemptions or exclusions for physicians' groups with surgical suites so that they could become ASCs for medicare certification. (Testimony of Tom Porter, previous supervisor for DHRS' Certificate of Need Program). DHRS took the position that it was without authority to grant an exemption to physician group practices and the related offices as an associated surgical suite without such facility having first obtained a CON as an ASC prior to offering such services. DHRS also took the position that a physician wishing to do minor surgical procedures as a sub-part of his office practice would not be required to obtain a CON as an ASC. These services could be done as an ancillary part of the physician's office. (Testimony of Gene Nelson, former Administrator, Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities prior to Mr. Maryanski's tenure with DHRS). Section 381.495, Florida Statutes, provides for several defined exemptions from CON review. As stated above, the proposed rule purports to grant an exemption to physician offices or to physician group practices from State CON requirements. Section 381.493 (3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), states, in relevant part, that an office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine is excluded from the definition of an ASC. The referenced statute does not grant an exemption from the ASC regulation nor has DHRS previously exempted a person or entity from CON review under such circumstances. DHRS has historically distinguished between a physician performing minor surgical procedures as an ancillary part of his office versus a full service ASC. HCFA clarified in Memorandum FQA-731, Ambulatory Surgical Center regulations relating to compliance with state licensure requirements and the application of state CON provisions as a prerequisite for medicare certification. (Pet. Exh. 8) In states where ASC licensure laws are in effect, facilities seeking to participate in medicare must meet such licensure requirements. Thus, 42 CFR Section 416.40 states, in pertinent part, that the ASC must comply with state licensure requirements. CON provisions must be met as a prerequisite for medicare licensure certification for an entity to operate legally within a state and CON approval is required before the decision to award a license is made. In instances where licensure is not required either by virtue of the absence of an ASC Licensure Law or the exemption of certain entities from the licensure law, compliance with CON provisions is not necessary for medicare eligibility as an ASC. It is through a series of correspondence between Mr. Robert Streimer of HCFA and Mr. Marshall Kelley, DHRS' Assistant Secretary for Program Planning that affords the proffered "basis" for the proposed rule. (TR 87). The Streimer letter provides that ASC services performed in a physician's office which is not required by state law to be licensed as an ASC and which meets all medicare ASC requirements would be covered and reimbursed by medicare at the ASC rate. As noted, DHRS historically took a different position. Nowhere in Mr. Kelley's letter to Mr. Streimer did HRS identify the specific criteria that would relate to an exemption request in Florida as currently stated in the proposed rule. DHRS, based on the proposed rule, now takes the position that any physician having a operating room and furnishing surgical procedures for less than 50 percent of his or her patients would be entitled to an exemption from CON requirements and in turn be entitled to apply for certification from HCFA as an ASC for ASC reimbursement (facility fee). The proposed rule allows for surgery currently performed in a physician's office to qualify for higher reimbursement from medicare (i.e., a facility fee). DHRS uses as authority for the proposed rule, Section 381.493(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Prior to receipt of Streimer's letter, DHRS considered HCFA's policy to be that if a facility did not have a CON and was not licensed as an ASC, there would be no medicare certification forthcoming from HCFA. The Streimer letter purportedly clarifies HCFA's policy although it does not represent a change in that policy. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). The proposed rule defines "primary as 50 percent or more of the patients treated annually as being non-surgical patients. However, according to the 1982 federal regulations, an entity seeking application and certification as a medicare ASC must be dedicated exclusively to the provision of Ambulatory Surgical Services (42 CFR Section 416.2). Federal Rules provide that the requirement for ASC's to be certified in order to receive medicare payments was expected to exclude physicians offices. There appears to be no federal regulation dealing with reimbursement for the surgical procedures which are to be done in physicians' offices. To satisfy HCFA's certification requirements, an applicant must satisfy the relevant state licensure requirements if any, and meet federal certification requirements. As presently codified, it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy the proposed rule and the federal ASC definition contained in 42 CFR Section 416.02. Thus, an entity could not "exclusively" provide ASC services and at the same time not exist for the "primary" purpose of providing elective surgical care on an outpatient basis. They are mutually exclusive since the two definitions are inconsistent. The Streimer letter initiated HRS's evaluation of current statutes and the proposed rule is, according to HRS, designed to implement current statutes. HCFA's policy is that if a facility legally provides or is allowed to provide elective surgical procedures in Florida, without having to be licensed as an ASC or having gone through the CON process, it is inappropriate to require the facility to obtain a CON and be licensed as an ASC as a condition of that facility being approved for medicare reimbursement at the ASC rate. Prior to HCFA's correspondence, HCFA required an applicant for medicare ASC certification to meet State Law and also meet its certification requirements. This is still the case and the HCFA's correspondence to DHRS did not change that requirement. The purpose of the Health Facility and Health Services Planning Act, more commonly known as the CON law, (sometimes called the Act) is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of Floridians. These protections are further defined as a necessary increase in health care, minimizing duplication in health services, and minimizing situations where there is an underutilization of existing health care resources. The proposed rule does not relate to or otherwise address any "need" issue or capacity issue and contrary thereto, allows for uncontrolled growth of surgery suites as long as the physician group practice has 50 percent or more of total patients treated as non-surgical patients. It can be expected that there will be a proliferation of physicians, solo or group practices, with physician surgical practices developing in addition to hospital out-patient surgery. Additionally, there is no physical constraint on the location of the physician and a physician's group practice. Adoption of the proposed rule will also increase the cost of the total health care system in Florida as follows: The average cost per procedure increases when procedures are spread out over a greater number of fixed facilities and because of incentives that would be inherent in this additional capacity for additional unnecessary utilization. Physicians would receive a facility fee in addition to a professional fee. Physicians would thereby receive more money for doing the same procedures they are currently doing in their offices without the facility fee. The effect of the introduction of surgery centers where there is already excess capacity in hospitals and in freestanding surgery centers is to increase the cost of health care to the community. With the addition of new facilities, there are added fixed costs placed into the system that would remain until the facility becomes outmoded. With the addition of fewer procedures spread over more fixed costs, the average cost per procedure likewise increases even though the cost to an individual patient might appear to be lower in an alternative setting. Excess capacity leads to underutilization with the resultant increase in the rates for surgery. Without a capacity constraint, there will be more elective surgery performed. With the approval of the proposed rule, a doctor's office will be eligible for medicare reimbursement for a facility fee. Medicare reimbursement for a facility fee is unique to ASCs and does not apply to surgical procedures performed in a doctor's office. The purpose behind reimbursing for facility fees is that there is considerable overhead associated with performing relatively complex surgical procedures which require an operating room. If procedures are so simple as to be safely performed in a doctor's office, the intent of the rule is to distinguish between these two settings. It is desirable for procedures to be done in a doctor's office that are simple because it is the lower cost setting. Procedures performed in a physician's office will not qualify for the facility fee reimbursement and overhead payment because of the simplistic nature of the procedures and the lack of need for sophisticated equipment which is currently being used in ASCs. The federal regulations were intended to remove hospital surgery to ASCs, if appropriate, and to remove minor surgery to doctors' offices in order to avoid reimbursement for procedures which can be done in a less sophisticated setting. If more procedures are shifted to medicare certified ASCs, there would be an additional facility fee and physicians would be eligible for this reimbursement. An example of the operational effect of the proposed rule is the scenario surrounding Doctor Stephen S. Spector and the Presidential Eye Surgery Center in Palm Beach County. Doctor Spector was denied a CON for an ASC based on a lack of need for additional operating suites in Palm Beach County. After DHRS made its initial decision denying Dr. Spector's CON, he petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. A Recommended Order was entered denying Dr. Spector a CON and HRS then issued a Final Order denying a CON to Dr. Spector. Dr. Spector has since simply requested an exemption for a freestanding ASC pursuant to the proposed rule. DHRS will entertain this request and if granted, Dr. Spector will be entitled to medicare certification and a facility fee for surgical procedures performed in his office. The proposed rule will encourage the massive proliferation of outpatient surgery facilities and outpatient surgery suites. 3/ Evidence adduced at final hearing indicates that CON approved and licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers are currently underutilized and not operating at optimal capacity. The result will be increased hospital and ASC costs per unit because fixed costs must then be spread over a smaller patient base. It is likely that there will be underutilization of existing facilities. The proposed rule does not foster the purposes of Florida's CON law and it will not restrain increases in health care costs. The proposed rule will enhance or maximize unnecessary duplication and promote underutilization of existing resources. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the Department is required to prepare an economic impact statement of the proposed rule. For the proposed rule, HRS states, in part, in its economic impact statement as follows: The proposed amendment is expected to have an economic impact on hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgical centers licensed by the State. It is expected that some Medicare patients who previously have been referred to hospital outpatient departments or a freestanding ambulatory surgical center licensed by the State may have their elective surgeries performed in the physician's group practice. In addition, the proposed rule may encourage the development of physician group practices with surgical suites since they are exempted from the certificate of need process and State licensure requirements. The fiscal impact on hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers cannot be estimated since the Department has no data regarding the number of potential applicants under this Rule, the location of those applicants, the volume of surgeries which may be performed by these entities, or the number of surgeries which would have been performed in hospital outpatient departments or State licensed ambulatory surgical centers in the absence of these new entities. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). The economic impact statement for the proposed rule does not provide any data or method used in making the required economic impact estimates. The statement does not include any data to analyze whether the rule will impact ASCs having less than one million dollars net worth and less than 25 employees or whether the proposed rule will have an economic impact on hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers. Although HRS has indicated that the exact amount of the fiscal impact is impossible to estimate due to the unknowns respecting the number of physician offices or group practices that will qualify for the exemptions and therefore no analysis was undertaken or developed, studies could have been made to determine the effect any level of participation would have on hospital costs and utilization of existing facilities. Although the task of compiling such data would, no doubt, be arduous, evidence adduced at final hearing indicates that DHRS could have, with effort, compiled a data base with a stratified sample which would have been reliable and could forecast the likely effect of the proposed rule within an acceptable margin of error. DHRS did not compile data which would provide an estimate as to the number of patients who would choose the physician's office over other facilities that perform Ambulatory Surgery. DHRS never requested input from hospitals or outpatient surgery centers with respect to pay or patient mix. DHRS conducted no surveys with respect to the number of potential applicants under the proposed rule. DHRS considered it not relevant to examine the capacity of existing freestanding surgery centers or hospitals having outpatient surgery facilities. DHRS conducted no studies to determine the accessibility of existing ASCs and hospital ASCs. No studies were done to examine the impact, as to the cost to patients, that the proposed rule is likely to have on existing providers. No studies were done to assess the impact the proposed rule will have on the medicare trust fund. No studies were done to determine the impact, if any, on Florida small and minority businesses. It is true that a great deal of the needed data was not readily available to HRS whereas, on the other hand, it made no attempt to gather such data. DHRS has the ability to assess the number of surgeries that could be performed in hospital outpatient departments and ASC's since DHRS does such compilations on a day to day basis when it projects the need for new ASCs. DHRS could have commissioned studies to determine the effect any level of participation would have on hospital costs and utilization. Development of an adequate data base and a meaningful economic impact of the proposed rule is paramount in view of the legislative mandate (to DHRS) to contain health care costs. Rules are promulgated to further the purpose and objective of the statutes they implement. To accomplish this, they must be consistent with the statute. Here, the purpose of the statute is cost containment. Evidence adduced at final hearing reveals, without contradiction, that the proposed rule will increase health care costs, contrary to the major purpose for its existence. Finally, DHRS compiled no data as to the impact on the ability of hospitals to provide indigent care under the proposed rule. As example, Florida Hospital projects that it will provide $48,000,000 in uncompensated care for fiscal year 1986. If the hospital were to lose revenue as result of this proposed rule, the level of indigent care will also correspondingly be reduced in order to offset the loss of revenue. Other parties herein provide services to indigent persons. The proposed rule does not require these exempt facilities to provide indigent care. In addition to the above economic impact which will be brought about by the proposed rule on the Health Care system as a whole, the proposed rule will have an economic impact on the existing hospitals and ASC's. (TR 276-277; 438-440). As example, one Petitioner herein advises that if one surgery suite were added by an existing physician group or formed near the hospital, the hospital will lose approximately $481,000 per annum. By letter dated August 29, 1986, DHRS forwarded a copy of the purposed rule to the statewide and local health councils requesting comments by September 12, 1986. The public hearing on the proposed rule was scheduled for October 20, 1986. Neither health council (state or local) participated in the public hearing for the proposed rule nor has either council submitted comments respecting the proposed rule. The notice provided to the local and statewide health councils for comments on the proposed rule was adequate and afforded the various councils an opportunity to voice any concerns or provide input about the proposed rule. Dr. Montgomery, an Intervenor herein, will receive additional medicare reimbursements of $500.00 per patient for a facility fee under the proposed rule. Dr. Montgomery approximated that he performed 320 cataract surgeries per year of which approximately 300 patients are paying patients. Approximately 85 percent of those patients are over 65. Therefore, Dr. Montgomery will receive medicare reimbursement for 255 patients or approximately $127,500.00 in additional fees if his office is certified as exempt under the proposed rule.
Findings Of Fact Carolle Lynn Baya is a licensed midwife holding license #8341-31 issued by Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. She was so licensed at all times relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Having received a complaint from a physician, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services caused an investigation to be conducted by investigators from the Department of Professional Regulation. A review of the records provided by Baya revealed that Baya had treated Dianne Williams as a patient. Ms. Williams' records maintained by Baya did not have a copy of a physician's physical; did not reflect that an emergency plan had been developed; and did not reflect referral of Williams to a physician when she failed to develop an alternative obstetrical plan. Ms. Williams was first seen by Baya in the 12th week of her second pregnancy. Ms. Williams was referred to an obstetrician in her 38th week of pregnancy because the fetus was in frank breech position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services fine Respondent $100 and that she receive a letter of reprimand. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of September 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 16th day of September 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick J. Simpson, Esquire HRS District IV Legal Counsel 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Carolle Lynn Baya Stork Flight Inc. 7816 Southside Blvd. #110 Jacksonville, Florida 32216
Findings Of Fact On or about January 25, 1979, Respondent, while employed as a registered nurse at Coral Reef General Hospital in South Miami, Florida, was assigned as a scrub nurse for Dr. Firth Spiegel. The physician was preparing to perform surgery on a boy, age 10 or 11, for an umbilical hernia. While Dr. Spiegel was scrubbing-up in the room adjacent to the operating room, he relayed an order to Respondent through the circulating nurse, to begin the procedure. Respondent began the procedure by making a U-shape skin incision in the patient's abdomen approximately five centimeters in length. At this point, the physician came into the room, remarked that the incision was a little low, and told the Respondent to continue with the procedure. The Respondent refused to continue and the physician completed the surgery. Nothing unusual was noted in the surgical notes. The patient died shortly thereafter. Approximately one month later, Respondent was terminated from Coral Reef General Hospital over this incident. Respondent had received on the job training as a surgical "first assistant," but had no license or certificate of training in this regard. Respondent had performed surgical tasks numerous times prior to this incident and had observed her direct supervisor also acting as a "first assistant." There was an "unwritten policy" at Coral Reef General Hospital that it was acceptable for scrub nurses to act as surgical first assistants. Respondent had had no other complaints made against her at this hospital prior to being terminated over this incident. Respondent did not continue with the surgical procedure as requested by the physician only because she did not feel it was necessary, although she testified that the doctor is the "captain of the ship," and she would do anything he asked as long as it wasn't a ridiculous order. At all times material to the administrative complaint, the Respondent was a registered nurse, licensed in the State of Florida, license number 56881- 2. Petitioner's expert witness, a registered nurse with extensive operating room experience, believes that the making of surgical incisions is beyond the scope of nursing practice. Her testimony established that the registered nurse is responsible for her actions and may properly refuse to perform procedures for which she is not qualified.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct in violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(f), F.S., and issuing a reprimand as provided by Subsection 464.018(2)(d), F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: William Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 3202 Harvey D. Rogers, Esquire 1401 Northwest 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Helen P. Keefe, Executive Director Board of Nursing Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Conclusions Having reviewed the 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 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 $14,500. 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 January 28, 2014 3:22 PM Division of Admitlistrative Hearings 3. Conditional licensure status is imposed on the Respondent beginning on August 30, 2012 and ending on September 4, 2012. 4. The references in the Statement of Deficiencies for the August 28-30, 2012 survey of Springwood Care and Rehabilitation Center relating to Resident #2 being on thickened liquids is deleted. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 2-4 day of eee , 2014. i Le ek, Secretary y for Nealfh Care 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 I CERTIFY that a true and correct opt this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this ZY. ay of eauary , 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) Andrea M. Lang Thomas W. Caufman, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Quitairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. Agency for Health Care Administration Attorney for Respondent (Electronic Mail) 4905 West Laurel Street, 2"! Floor Tampa, Florida 33607 (U.S. Mail) Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. Case Nos. 2012009469 4602 NORTHGATE COURT, LLC d/b/a SPRINGWOOD CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. COMES NOW the Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter “Agency”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint against 4602 NORTHGATE COURT, LLC d/b/a SPRINGWOOD CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER (hereinafter “Respondent”), pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57 Florida Statutes (2012), and alleges: NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action against a nursing home to impose an administrative fine of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) pursuant to Section 400.23(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), based upon one (1) Class I deficiency; to assess a survey fee in the amount of SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,000.00) based upon Respondent being cited for one (1) Class I deficiency pursuant to Section 400.19(3), Florida Statutes (2012), and to assign conditional licensure status beginning on August 30, 2012, pursuant to Section 400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2012). The original certificate for the conditional license is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference. EXHIBIT 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2012). 2. The Agency has jurisdiction over the Respondent pursuant to Section 20.42, Chapter 120, and Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (2012). 3. Venue lies pursuant to Rule 28-106.207, Florida Administrative Code. PARTIES 4. The Agency is the regulatory authority responsible for the licensure of nursing homes and the enforcement of all applicable federal and state statutes, regulations and rules governing nursing homes pursuant to Chapter 400, Part Il, Florida Statutes (2012) and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. The Agency is authorized to deny, suspend, or revoke a license, and impose administrative fines pursuant to Sections 400.121 and 400.23, Florida Statutes (2012); assign a conditional license pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2012); and assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case pursuant to Section 400.121, Florida Statutes (2012). 5. Respondent operates a 120-bed nursing home, located at 4602 Northgate Court, Sarasota, Florida 34234, and is licensed as a nursing home, license number 15130962. Respondent was at all times material hereto, a licensed nursing home under the licensing authority of the Agency, and was required to comply with all applicable state rules, regulations and statutes. COUNTI The Respondent Failed To Ensure Residents The Right To Receive Adequate And Appropriate Protective And Support Services In Violation Of Section 400.022(1)(), Florida Statutes (2012) 6. The Agency re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs one (1) through five (5). 7. Pursuant to Florida law, all licensees of nursing home facilities shall adopt and make public a statement of the rights and responsibilities of the residents of such facilities and shall treat such residents in accordance with the provisions of that statement. The statement shall assure each resident the following: The right to receive adequate and appropriate health care and protective and support services, including social services; mental health services, if available; planned recreational activities; and therapeutic and rehabilitative services consistent with the resident care plan, with established and recognized practice standards within the community, and with rules as adopted by the Agency. Section 400.022(1)(1), Florida Statutes (2012). 8. On or about August 28, 2012 through August 30, 2012, the Agency conducted a Complaint Investigation (CCR# 2012009348 and CCR# 2012008938) of the Respondent’s facility. 9. Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to prevent the abuse, neglect and mistreatment of one (1) of three (3) sampled residents, specifically Resident number two (2). This resulted from the willful spraying of water in the facial area of Resident number two (2), who had an order to receive only thickened liquids, palliative care and was known to be resistive to activities of daily living, including showering. The facility's failure with Resident number two (2) and their failure to identify the need to retrain staff on procedures to appropriately shower residents with similar conditions placed all residents with those conditions at risk for serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. 10. On August 28, 2012, a review of Resident number two’s (2) record containing a Nursing Progress note dated August 25, 2012 at 5:30 a.m. which documented, “Resident number two (2) moaning loudly (and) then screaming... Visible signs of pain on Resident’s face (fear and grimacing)." Morphine 5 mg/0.25 cc SL (11:00 p.m. and 5 a.m.) and back rubbing, both had positive calming effect. 11. The progress note also documented, "Took 80 cc of water during the night shift. Pulse 78, respirations 16; unlabored while awake, dyspnea noticed while sleeping. Resting with cycs closed. Will monitor." 12. A nursing note at 12:20 p.m. documented MS04 (Morphine Sulfate) 0.25 cc was administered "with minimal effect" to Resident number two (2), who was "very anxious and moaning loudly." The note states at approximately 11:50 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistants called the nurse into the shower room where Resident number two (2) was found unresponsive with a faint pulse. Resident number two (2) was returned to bed immediately with a board under him/her. Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation was administered and oxygen was placed over Resident number two’s (2) face. No pulse was felt. The paramedics arrived and continued Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation. At 12:10 p.m., paramedics stated Resident number two (2) had passed away. The nursing note documented, the "Director of Nursing notified and family was being contacted by Director of Nursing. Westside funeral home called." 13. On August 29, 2012 at 12:45 p.m. during an interview regarding the event on August 25, 2012, Employee F stated, "I asked another Certified Nursing Assistant (Employee G) to help me give Resident number two (2) a shower." During the shower, when Employee G sprayed water in the resident's face, Employee F said, "Do not do that, he/she is on thickened liquids." Employee G said, “Resident number two (2) had soap in his/her eyes." After that, Employee F got the nurse because Resident number two (2)"was not acting normal." 14. During this interview, Employee F stated, "I am CPR certified, (but) did not assist with it." When asked when the last training on abuse was received, Employee F said, “I do the modules on the computer; | believe last month." Regarding the facility staff to notify in a case of abuse, Employee F stated, "You notify the Abuse Coordinator, the Director of Nursing, her name is on my badge." The incident was reported via phone call to Employee M, the Unit Manager, who was at home on August 25, 2012, by Employees J and F. 15. Inn interview on August 29, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., Employee M reported receiving a call at home on August 25, 2012 at approximately 1:10 p.m. regarding Resident number two (2). Employees I and F reported that while giving Resident number two (2) a shower, Employee G sprayed Resident number two (2) in the face and the mouth. Employee I did not see the action, but Employee F witnessed Employee G spray Resident number two (2). 16. During interviews on August 29, 2012, Employees B, D, N and H stated they received training about abuse after August 25, 2012. Employee H stated the instruction provided during training regarding getting shampoo out of a resident’s hair included "have them hold their head back and rinse it out." When asked if a resident had mucous coming out of their nose and going into their mouth, can you spray it off with the shower head, Employee H answered, “It is okay to spray it (face) to get it (mucous) out." 17. On August 28, 2012, a record review of Resident number two’s (2) Minimum Data Set Kardex Report for 2880 noted the resident as "Moderately Impaired" to make Activities of Daily Living, but made no mention of bathing or behavior issues. Also, there was no indication Resident number two (2) was receiving thickened liquids. The Kardex report is used by staff as a quick review of resident information. 18. On August 28, 2012, a review of the shower schedule used by the Certified Nursing Assistants, last updated on June 14, 2012 for Resident number two (2), revealed the resident due "Saturday" by the "11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift." The shower schedule notes no change can be made without the Unit Manager’s approval. Resident number two (2) was given a shower on August 25, 2012 during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. 19. On August 28, 2012, a review of Resident number two’s (2) Medication Administration Record dated August 25, 2012 revealed a physician order for palliative care to start on August 23, 2012. There was no indication the nursing staff knew to provide the palliative care on August 23, 2012, August 24, 2012 and August 25, 2012 as no nurse initialed those dates. 20. A record review on August 28, 2012 revealed Resident number two (2) was admitted to the facility on July 20, 2012. On August 23, 2012, Resident number two (2) was documented with a "Medical Diagnosis of Dysphasia," and was to receive "Palliative Care Only." 21. During an interview on August 29, 2012 at 2:25p.m., the administrator stated, "We are pretty much concluding with the investigation. We are unable to substantiate abuse.” 22. Regarding training provided since August 25, 2012, the administrator said, "We have done education on the Abuse and Neglect policy; what it means, how it is reported, with examples specifically of the scenario of Resident number two (2). If staff has an understanding of what abuse is, they are more aware of how they are interacting with residents. I am comfortable with what has taken place so far." During the interview, the administrator did not report any training was provided regarding the appropriateness of residents receiving showers, who are on palliative care, do not like showers, and have behavior issues." 23. \ The facility had failed to prevent abuse, neglect or the mistreatment of Resident number two (2) and other similarly-effected residents. Interviews and record reviews revealed staff failed to implement current standard of practice showering procedures with a resident that was on palliative care; had identified issues with exhibiting difficult behaviors, including while being showered and was on thickened liquids. On August 28, 2012, August 29, 2012 and August 30, 2012, the facility administrative staff failed to retrain and monitor adequately direct care staff administering showers to residents. 24. The facility has failed to ensure the critical incident will not be repeated. 25. The Agency determined that this deficient practice presented a situation in which immediate corrective action was necessary because Respondent’s non-compliance had caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident receiving care in Respondent's facility. The Agency cited Respondent for an isolated Class I deficiency as set forth in Section 400.23(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2012). WHEREFORE, the Agency intends to impose an administrative fine in the amount of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) against Respondent, a nursing home in the State of Florida, pursuant to Sections 400.23(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2012). COUNT I Assignment Of Conditional Licensure Status Pursuant To Section 400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2012) 26. The Agency re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Count I. 27. The Agency is authorized to assign a conditional licensure status to nursing homes pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2012). 28. Due to the presence of one (1) Class I deficiency, the Respondent was not in substantial compliance at the time of the survey with criteria established under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (2012), or the rules adopted by the Agency. 29. The Agency assigned the Respondent conditional licensure status with an action effective date of August 30, 2012. The original certificate for the conditional license is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, respectfully requests the Court to enter a final order granting the Respondent conditional licensure status for the period beginning on August 30, 2012, pursuant to Section 400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2012). COUNT OI Assessment Of Fine Pursuant To Section 400.19(3), Florida Statutes (2012) 30. The Agency re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Count I and Count II. 31. The Respondent has been cited for one (1) Class I deficiency and therefore is subject to a six (6) month survey cycle for a period of two (2) years and a fine of SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,000.00) pursuant to Section 400.19(3), Florida Statutes (2012). WHEREFORE, the Agency intends to impose a six (6) month survey cycle for a period of two (2) years and assess a fine in the amount of SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,000.00) against Respondent, a nursing home in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 400.19(3), Florida Statutes (2012). CLAIM FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, respectfully requests the Court to enter a final order granting the following relief against the Respondent as follows: 1. Make findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the Agency on Count I through Count III. 2. Impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) pursuant to Section 400.23(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), and assess a survey fee in the amount of SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,000.00), pursuant to Section 400.19(3), Florida Statutes (2012), for a total of SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($16,000.00). 3. Assign a conditional license to the Respondent beginning on August 30, 2012. 4. Assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case. 5. Enter any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted this i144 day of Sewer , 2012. tug a ae Co oN, YJ wane Andrea M. Lang, Assistant General Cournsel Florida Bar No. 0364568 Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (239) 335-1253 NOTICE RESPONDENT IS NOTIFIED THAT IT/HE/SHE HAS A RIGHT TO REQUEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 120.569 AND 120.57, FLORIDA STATUTES. THE RESPONDENT IS FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IT/HE/SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO RETAIN AND BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY IN THIS MATTER. SPECIFIC OPTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ARE SET OUT IN THE ATTACHED ELECTION OF RIGHTS. ALL REQUESTS FOR HEARING SHALL BE MADE AND DELIVERED TO THE ATTENTION OF: THE AGENCY CLERK, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 2727 MAHAN DRIVE, BLDG #3, MS #3, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32308; TELEPHONE (850) 412-3630. THE RESPONDENT IS FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF A REQUEST FOR HEARING IS NOT RECEIVED BY THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT, A FINAL ORDER WILL BE ENTERED BY THE AGENCY. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form were served to: Corporation Service Company, Registered Agent for 4602 Northgate Court, LLC d/b/a Springwood Care and Rehabilitation Center, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, by United States Certified Mail, Return Receipt No. 7011 2000 0001 4884 9195 and to Susan Ritchie, Administrator, 4602 Northgate Court, LLC d/b/a Springwood Care and Rehabilitation Center, 4602 Northgate Court, Sarasota, Florida 34234, by United States Certified Mail, Return Receipt No. 7011 2000 0001 4884 9195 on this is Onis day of Segoe mbec . 2012. Qt 1M, Nowe Andrea M. Lang, Assistant General Counsel Florida Bar No. 0364568 Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (239) 335-1253 Copies furnished to: Susan Ritchie, Administrator 4602 Northgate Court , LLC d/b/a Springwood Care and Rehabilitation Center 4602 Northgate Court Sarasota, Florida 34234 (U.S. Certified Mail) Andrea M. Lang, Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (Electronic Mail) Corporation Service Company Registered Agent for 4602 Northgate Court, LLC d/b/a Springwood Care and Rehabilitation Center 1201 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (U.S. Certified Mail) Bernard Hudson, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Bureau of Long Term Care Services Long Term Care Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3, Room 1213B Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Electronic Mail) Harold Williams Field Office Manager Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 340A Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (Electronic Mail) STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. Case Nos. 2012009469 4602 NORTHGATE COURT, LLC d/b/a SPRINGWOOD CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, Respondents. ELECTION OF RIGHTS This Election of Rights form is attached to a proposed action by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). The title may be an Administrative Complaint, Notice of Intent to Impose a Late Fee, or Notice of Intent to Impose a Late Fine. Your Election of Rights must be returned by mail or by fax within twenty-one (21) days of the date you receive the attached Administrative Complaint, Notice of Intent to Impose a Late Fee, or Notice of Intent to Impose a Late Fine. If your Election of Rights with your elected Option is not received by AHCA within twenty-one (21) days from the date you received this notice of proposed action by AHCA, you will have given up your right to contest the Agency’s proposed action and a Final Order will be issued. Please use this form unless you, your attorney or your representative prefer to reply in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (2012) and Rule 28, Florida Administrative Code. PLEASE RETURN YOUR ELECTION OF RIGHTS TO THIS ADDRESS: Agency for Health Care Administration Attention: Agency Clerk 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Phone: 850-412-3630 Fax: 850-921-0158 PLEASE SELECT ONLY 1 OF THESE 3 OPTIONS OPTION ONE (1) ___ I admit the allegations of fact and law contained in the Notice of Intent to Impose a Late Fine or Fee, or Administrative Complaint and I waive my right to object and to have a hearing. I understand that by giving up my right to a hearing, a Final Order will be issued that adopts the proposed agency action and imposes the penalty, fine or action. OPTION TWO (2) ___ I admit the allegations of fact and law contained in the Notice of Intent to Impose a Late Fine or Fee, or Administrative Complaint, but I wish to be heard at an informal proceeding (pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes) where I may submit testimony and written evidence to the Agency to show that the proposed administrative action is too severe or that the fine should be reduced. OPTION THREE (3)__ I dispute the allegations of fact and law contained in the Notice of Intent to Impose a Late Fee, the Notice of Intent to Impose a Late Fine, or Administrative Complaint, and I request a formal hearing (pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes) before an Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. PLEASE NOTE: Choosing OPTION THREE (3) by itself is NOT sufficient to obtain a formal hearing. You also must file a written petition in order to obtain a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. It must be received by the Agency Clerk at the address above within 21 days of your receipt of this proposed administrative action. The request for formal hearing must conform to the requirements of Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that it contain: 1. Your name, address, telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of your representative or lawyer, if any. 2. The file number of the proposed action. 3. A statement of when you received notice of the Agency’s proposed action. 4. A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, you must state that there are none. Mediation under Section 120.573, Florida Statutes may be available in this matter if the Agency agrees. License Type: (Assisted Living Facility, Nursing Home, Medical Equipment, Other) Licensee Name: License Number: Contact Person: Name Title Address: Street and Number City State Zip Code Telephone No. Fax No. E-Mail (optional) I hereby certify that I am duly authorized to submit this Notice of Election of Rights to the Agency for Health Care Administration on behalf of the above licensee. Signature: Date: Title: Print Name: FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION RICK SCOTT ELIZABETH DUDEK GOVERNOR SECRETARY September 11, 2012 SPRINGWOOD CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 4602 NORTHGATE COURT SARASOTA, FL 34234 Dear Administrator: The attached license with Certificate #17737 is being issued for the operation of your facility. Please review it thoroughly to ensure that all information is correct and consistent with your records. If errors or omissions are noted, please make corrections on a copy and mail to: Agency for Health Care Administration Long Term Care Section, Mail Stop #33 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Issued for a Status Change to Conditional Sincerely, Pp bbe O aco Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Health Quality Assurance Enclosure ce: Medicaid Contract Management Visit AHCA online at 2727 Mahan Drive, MS#33 ahca.myflorida.com Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Exhibit A Original Certificate of Conditional License 4602 Northgate Court, LLC d/b/a Springwood Care and Rehabilitation Center Certificate No. 17737 License No. SNF15130962 CLOC/TE/OT ‘-ALVG NOLLVaId Xd CLOC/0E/80 “HLVd AALLOSAda HONVHD SN.LV.LS Sddd Oct “IVLOL vETvE Td ‘VLOSVUVS Land ALVOHLYON 709P YALNYO NOLLVITTEVHAY GNV FAVOD GOOMONIadS :3UIMOTI[OJ oy} oyeIado 0} PEZHOYINE ST sosudo!] BY] SB puB ‘saynyels epLOLy ‘[] Weg ‘OOp JeideyD ur paezuoyjne ‘uoneNsTUTUpY sed Wop 10,4 Aouesy ‘epuopy Jo areig am Aq paidope suone[ngar pur sani oy) ym porto sey OTT ‘LUNOD ALVOHLYON 7209p Jeu} WEFUOD 0} St SY, TVNOILIGNOD HINOH ONISHON FONVANSSV ALITWNO HLTWIH AO NOISIAIC NOLLVULSININGYV FaVO HLTVAaH YOd AONADV BPLIOLy JO 93e)S STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. Case No(s): 2012009469 13-1617 4602 NORTHGATE COURT, LLC d/b/a SPRINGWOOD CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, Respondent. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Petitioner, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter the “A gency”), through its undersigned representatives, and Respondent, 4602 Northgate Court, LLC d/b/a Springwood Care and Rehabilitation Center (hereinafter “Respondent”), pursuant to Section 120.57(4), Florida Statutes, each individually, a “party,” collectively as “parties,” hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) and agree as follows: WHEREAS, Respondent is a Nursing Home licensed pursuant to Chapters 400, Part II, and 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, Section 20.42, Florida Statutes and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, the Agency has jurisdiction by virtue of being the regulatory and licensing authority over Respondent, pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Agency served Respondent with an administrative complaint on or about September 17, 2012, notifying the Respondent of its intent to impose administrative fines EXHIBIT 2 in the amount of $10,000 and a survey fee of $6,000 and assign a conditional licensure status commencing August 30, 2012 and ending September 4, 2012; and WHEREAS, Respondent requested a formal administrative proceeding by filing a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated and agreed that the best interest of all the parties will be served by a settlement of this proceeding; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and recitals herein, the parties intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 1. All recitals herein are true and correct and are expressly incorporated herein. 2. Both parties agree that the “whereas” clauses incorporated herein are binding findings of the parties. 3. Upon full execution of this Agreement, Respondent agrees to waive any and all appeals and proceedings to which it may be entitled including, but not limited to, an informal proceeding under Subsection 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, a formal proceeding under Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, appeals under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes; and declaratory and all writs of relief in any court or quasi-court of competent jurisdiction; and agrees to waive compliance with the form of the Final Order (findings of fact and conclusions of law) to which it may be entitled, provided, however, that no agreement herein shall be deemed a waiver by either party of its right to judicial enforcement of this Agreement. 4. Upon full execution of this Agreement, Respondent agrees to pay $8,500 in administrative fines and a survey fee in the amount of $6,000 in accord with law. Respondent accepts the assignment of conditional licensure status commencing August 30, 2012 and ending September 4, 2012. In addition, the references in the Statement of Deficiencies relating to Resident #2 being on thickened liquids will be deleted. 5. Venue for any action brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement or the Final Order entered pursuant hereto shall lie in Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida. . 6. By executing this Agreement, Respondent neither admits nor denies, and the Agency asserts the validity of the allegations raised in the administrative complaint referenced herein. No agreement made herein shall preclude the Agency from imposing a penalty against Respondent for any deficiency/violation of statute or rule identified in a future survey of Respondent, which constitutes a “repeat” or “uncorrected” deficiency from surveys identified in the administrative complaint. The parties agree that in such a “repeat” or “uncorrected” case, the deficiencies from the surveys identified in the administrative complaint shall be deemed found without further proof. 7. No agreement made herein shall preclude the Agency from using the deficiencies from the surveys identified in the administrative complaint in any decision regarding licensure of Respondent, including, but not limited to, licensure for limited mental health, limited nursing services, extended congregate care, or a demonstrated pattern of deficient performance. The Agency is not precluded from using the subject events for any purpose within the jurisdiction of the Agency. Further, Respondent acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement shall not preclude or estop any other federal, state, or local agency or office from pursuing any cause of action or taking any action, even if based on or arising from, in whole or in part, the facts raised in the administrative complaint. This agreement does not prohibit the Agency from taking action regarding Respondent’s Medicaid provider status, conditions, requirements or contract. 8. Upon full execution of this Agreement, the Agency shall enter a Final Order adopting and incorporating the terms of this Agreement and closing the above-styled case. 9. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 10. | This Agreement shall become effective on the date upon which it is fully executed by all the parties. 11. Respondent for itself and for its related or resulting organizations, its successors or transferees, attorneys, heirs, and executors or administrators, does hereby discharge the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, and its agents, representatives, and attorneys of and from all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, damages, losses, and expenses, of any and every nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way related to this matter and the Agency’s actions, including, but not limited to, any claims that were or may be asserted in any federal or state court or administrative forum, including any claims arising out of this agreement, by or on behalf of Respondent or related facilities. 12. This Agreement is binding upon all parties herein and those identified in paragraph eleven (11) of this Agreement. 13. ‘In the event that Respondent was a Medicaid provider at the subject time of the occurrences alleged in the complaint herein, this settlement does not prevent the Agency from seeking Medicaid overpayments related to the subject issues or from imposing any sanctions pursuant to Rule 59G-9.070, Florida Administrative Code. 14. Respondent agrees that if any funds to be paid under this agreement to the Agency are not paid within thirty-one (31) days of entry of the Final Order in this matter, the Agency may deduct the amounts assessed against Respondent in the Final Order, or any portion thereof, owed by Respondent to the Agency from any present or future funds owed to Respondent by the Agency, and that the Agency shall hold a lien against present and future funds owed to Respondent by the Agency for said amounts until paid. 15. The undersigned have read and understand this Agreement and have the authority to bind their respective principals to it. 16. This Agreement contains and incorporates the entire understandings and agreements of the parties. 17. This Agreement supersedes any prior oral or written agreements between the parties. 18. This Agreement may not be amended except in writing. Any attempted assignment of this Agreement shall be void. 19. All parties agree that a facsimile signature suffices for an original signature. The following representatives hereby acknowledge that they are duly authorized to enter into this Agreement. / | ia Susan Ritchie, Administrator 4602 Northgate Court, LLC Agency for Health Care Administration d/b/a Springwood Care and 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #1 Rehabilitation Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4602 Northgate Court Sarasota, Florida 34234 DATED: { | DANY DATED: _/2-6-73 Stuért F.“Williafns, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 DATED: /; al/ [7 Andrea M. Lang, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 DATED: 1 [4/1 Loh: Thomas W. Caufinar, Esq. Quitairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. 4905 West Laurel Street, 2™ floor Tampa, Florida 33607 Attorney for Respondent patep:_/2 - #-/3
