The Issue Whether the named Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice to wit: race, religion, national origin, and retaliation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Pakistani citizen, female, and a practicing Muslim. Petitioner came to the United States in July 2003, and was employed by Alachua Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home. As a practicing Muslim, Petitioner wore her traditional Pakistani robes to work on Fridays so that she could go to her mosque in her off-duty hours. At some point, Carl Young, a white male American, was hired as administrator of the facility. Petitioner's unrefuted testimony was that, at various times, Mr. Young said to her, "Oh, I hope you're not a terrorist"; "I'll kill you"; and "Shut up." On one occasion, Mr. Young told her about her robes, "You look like a terrorist. You have to stop wearing that." In March 2004, Steve Strawn, whom Petitioner believed to be one of the people buying the nursing home, told Petitioner she should make an application for employment to the purchasing entity or she could not stay employed after May 1, 2004. Petitioner claims Steve Strawn and Shelby Parker, whom Petitioner also believed to be buying the nursing home, took over the nursing home on February 1, 2004, but she had no solid information to corroborate that belief. The after-filed authorization for Ms. Bennett's representation of Respondent in this proceeding shows Ms. Shelby Parker as the "Director" of "The Manor at Gainesville." Petitioner claimed to have made her new employment application before May 1, 2004, but she had no copy of her application to put in evidence, and it is not clear to what corporate entity she applied. On or about March 29, 2004, Petitioner filed an internal grievance against Mr. Young. At Mr. Strawn's instruction, Petitioner was interviewed by third parties concerning her complaint. (See Finding of Fact 11.) On April 6, 2004, Integrity Health Care Systems, Inc., wrote Global Compliance Services concerning its investigation of Petitioner's foregoing allegations against Mr. Young. There is no competent evidence to explain the relationship of either of these entities to the Alachua Nursing and Rehabilitation Center or to The Manor at Gainesville. It appears that Petitioner did not provide the page of this exhibit (P-1), giving a final conclusion of the Integrity Health Care investigators, but most of their report points to Mr. Young's "shut up" incident being the only allegation of Petitioner against Mr. Young corroborated by the investigators. At some point, Mr. Young told Petitioner that there had been a complaint of abuse against her by three patients and he was putting her on leave. The Department of Children and Family Services investigated this complaint and returned a report that no indicators of abuse by Petitioner could be found. Petitioner testified, without refutation, that Mr. Young allowed her to return to work, and when she returned to work, on April 13, 2004, he fired her because she had complained against him to management. Petitioner certainly has not worked at the nursing home since May 1, 2004 and probably not since April 13, 2004. Alachua Nursing and Rehabilitation Center was renamed The Manor at Gainesville, effective May 1, 2004. Ms. Bennett did not know what corporate entity initially appointed Carl Young administrator or what corporate entity he worked for from February to May 2004. She did not know if he had been appointed under a Bankruptcy Court Order. She was unsure whether Mr. Young had worked for The Manor at Gainesville after May 1, 2004. Respondent offered Exhibit R-1, an Allocation Agreement, to which Petitioner objected. The exhibit is clearly hearsay (an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of its contents). It was considered here only pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes, to explain or supplement other evidence. The Allocation Agreement was entered in facilitation of a transfer of property on or about May 1, 2004, between Healthcare Properties, Inc., a Florida S-corporation (Purchaser), The Manor at Gainesville, Inc., a Florida S Corporation (Lessee), and Marshall Preston Sweeney, an individual as court-appointed receiver. It states: Effective as of the Transfer Date, Lessee, at its sole discretion, may hire any or none of the former Nursing Home employees ("Employees") who complete a job application. Neither Purchaser nor Lessee shall be responsible for the Employees' accrued wages, salaries, sick leave, vacation time, and other benefits that have accrued and are due to the Employees as of 11:59 p.m. on the day immediately preceding the Transfer Date. Neither Purchaser nor Lessee shall be responsible for any claims, liabilities, losses, damages, demands, causes of action, suits (whether actual, pending, threatened, or suspected) or liability costs or expenses of any kind relating to any and all Employees and/or employment matters including, without limitation, Employee claims, employment discrimination, harassment, back pay, accrued time off, qui-tam issues, garnishments, and COBRA issues, or any other Employee or employment issues (herein referred to as "Employment Issues") that occurred or accrued prior to the Transfer Date. Neither Purchaser nor Lessee shall have any responsibility for any Employment Issues arising for such Employment Issues occurring on or after the Transfer Date for its own employees. Receiver shall identify all actual, pending, threatened, or suspected Employment Issues in the attached Schedule 2. No pending threatened or suspected employment issues are identified in the document. The document recites that due to failure to meet debts, a foreclosure resulted in the Purchaser tendering the highest and best bid on the Alachua Nursing and Rehabilitation Center nursing home property, and that the Purchaser will take title to the real property, lease the nursing home, and hold the state nursing home license. The Allocation Agreement was signed by Steve Strawn, as President of Healthcare Properties, Inc., Purchaser. Mr. Strawn also signed as President of the Lessee, The Manor at Gainesville, Inc. Marshall Preston Sweeney, the receiver, also signed the Allocation Agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Noreen Abrar 309 Southwest 16th Avenue, No. 157 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Angi R. Hill Kimnie Bennett The Manor At Gainesville, Inc. 1000 Southwest 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
Findings Of Fact The facility which is the subject of this proceeding is Florida Living Nursing Center, a 104-bed skilled nursing home in Apopka, Seminole County, Florida. The facility is currently constructing a 60-bed nursing home addition and a 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) addition. The licensee and operator of Florida Living Nursing Center is Sunbelt Health Care Centers, Inc., (SHCC) whose President is Glenn Choban. The facility is leased from the Florida Conference of Seventh Day Adventist. The lease, which includes payments for the current construction, is guaranteed by Adventist Health system/Sunbelt Health Care Corporation (AHS/SHCC), the parent corporation of SHCC. In October of 1988, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) issued a fixed need pool report showing a need for 19 nursing home beds in Seminole County, Florida. The deadline for applying for a certificate of need (CON) for those beds was November 1988. SHCC decided to apply to convert 19 ACLF beds under construction to nursing home beds, as the beds at Florida Living Nursing Center were already being built to nursing home standards. Prior to filing its letter of intent SHCC learned that it would need to include its own audited financial statements in the application. SHCC's statements are included in the audited financial statement of its parent, AHS/SHCC, and there was insufficient time prior to the application deadline to obtain its own separate statements. In a prior CON batching cycle, SHCC had applied for a 20-bed nursing home conversion at Florida living Nursing Center. The named applicant in that cycle was AHS/SHCC and its wholly owned subsidiary, SHCC. At no time during the course of its review of that application did HRS object that the license holder and CON applicant were not identical. HRS never indicated in that cycle that the applicant could not effectuate the project because it was not the same as the license holder. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. (AHS/Sunbelt) is also a wholly owned subsidiary of AHS/SHCC and a sister corporation of SHCC. AHS/Sunbelt operates other health care facilities in Florida, but not nursing homes. AHS/Sunbelt and SHCC both deposit their revenues into a cash pool account where all funds from corporations within AHS/SHCC are deposited. AHS/Sunbelt is the major depositor and has excess funds in the account. Both corporations draw from the account for their expenses, and to the extent that SHCC's funds are insufficient, AHS/Sunbelt's excess funds are applied. The letter of intent for the CON was submitted in November 1988, in the name of AHS/Sunbelt. Attached to the letter of intent was a resolution by AHS/Sunbelt authorizing the application, appointing Glenn Choban, President of SHCC, as agent for the corporation; and authorizing the licensure and operation of the facility by AHS/Sunbelt or SHCC. HRS accepted the letter of intent and cited application deadlines in its letter dated November 9, 1988. Neither HRS' letter nor any other contact by HRS during the review process, including the omissions letter, hinted that there might be a problem with the applicant's identity. The application plainly revealed that management would be provided by SHCC, the applicant's sister corporation. The facilities licensed by SHCC were listed in the application, as required by the application form. Nothing in the application form, nor the statutes, nor any rule of HRS states that the applicant for a CON must, at the time of application, be the licensee of the facility, when that facility already exists. AHS/Sunbelt first learned of HRS' position when it received the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) denying the application. The application had been reviewed and scored, and was found eligible in all respects, except this: ".... the applicant is not the license holder of the facility to which the proposed beds would be added, and as such, Adventist Health system/Sunbelt, Inc., is unable to effectuate the project." (SAAR, Petitioner's Exhibit #9) AHS/Sunbelt was the only applicant in this batching cycle for the 19 nursing home beds identified as needed in Seminole County. HRS interprets the CON and licensing law and rules as requiring the applicant of a CON for an addition to an existing facility to be the licensee of that facility. The statutes permit transfers of CON's but their approval or disapproval is within the authority of the Department, and approval is not automatically granted. HRS' policy regarding transfers was explained by its officials, Amy Jones and Sharon Gordon-Girvin. Transfers of CON's are not favored by HRS as they are considered to thwart the competitive process. Applications for transfers generally undergo expedited review, which is noncompetitive. (But see, Beverly Enterprises - Florida, Inc. d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast Florida, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service, 11 FALR 2762, Final Order entered 5/11/89, wherein the statute regarding expedited review was strictly construed to apply to certain transfers only.) The policy discouraging transfers is reflected in the CON application process which favors those applicants which have not transferred a CON in the prior 36 months. In the view of Ms. Gordon-Girvin, transfers can undermine effective health planning because they disrupt the correct matching of the community needs with the best applicant. Facility licenses are not transferred, but a facility may be transferred by sale or lease and the new owners can apply for and receive their own license. Again, HRS must deny or approve the license, and approval is not automatic. According to Amy Jones, changes in ownership can disrupt the continuity of operation and quality of care. Sharon Gordon-Girvin and Amy Jones are experienced HRS staff who have been directly involved in HRS CON and licensing process. They are expert health planners and speak for the agency they represent. Their opinions are accorded substantial weight with regard to the agency policy and its bases. In this unique case, however, the policy is not advanced by denial of the CON to AHS/sunbelt. This was not a competitive batching cycle and no other applicant competed for the 19 beds indisputably needed in Seminole County. The parties stipulated that AHS/Sunbelt, but for its lack of license, would be entitled to the CON. AHS/Sunbelt and SHCC are two separate legal entities with their own separate board of directors. However, each are nonprofit corporations and their relationship to the parent corporation makes them closer than sisters. AHS/SHCC, the parent, and AHS/Sunbelt have the same board of directors and corporate officers and are operated as one business enterprise. AHS/SHCC is the sole member of SHCC and appoints the board of directors of SHCC. The Bylaws of SHCC provide for control by AHS/SHCC over SHCC's operations. AHS/Sunbelt, therefore, also controls SHCC. Under the application at issue, the facility will remain under the management of SHCC, thus a transfer of the CON to SHCC would not disrupt the continuity of care. A health care facility which is required to have a CON may not be licensed until that CON is obtained. If HRS should deny a CON transfer to SHCC, it could not be licensed for the additional 19 beds. However, in this case, the beds are already being built, and denial of a nursing home license at a later date would not mean that a CON was granted to this applicant to the prejudice of another applicant. The health planning process itself is not impacted: The 19 nursing home beds would not be provided whether the CON is denied now or the license is denied later. Just as HRS has distinguished this from other cases involving grants of CONS to non-license holders, this unique case can be distinguished from future cases to avoid the negative impacts on the integrity of the competitive process and valid health planning principles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by HRS Awarding CON No. 5802 to Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. for the conversion of 19 ACLF beds at the Florida living Nursing Center to 19 nursing home beds. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Mary Clark Hearing Off cer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX Case NO. 89-2408 The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. 2-3. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. 7-11. Rejected as unnecessary. 12-13 Adopted in paragraph 7. 14. Rejected as unnecessary. 15-16. Incorporated in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected as accumulative. 20-21. Rejected as unnecessary. 22. Included in Conclusion of Law #4. 23-25. Rejected immaterial. 26-27. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 6. 30-35. Adopted in paragraph 16. 36-38. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 2. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as immaterial. 44-45 Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 46-61. Rejected as unnecessary. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Addressed in statement of the issues. Adopted in paragraph 10. 3-4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. 5. Adopted in paragraph 2. 6-10. Adopted in paragraph 16. 11. Rejected as immaterial. 12-14. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as immaterial. 17-19. Rejected as unnecessary. 20-21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 15. 22. Adopted in paragraph 12. 23-26. Rejected as conclusions of law or unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Klingbeil, Boone and Robets, P.A. P. O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284-1596 Thomas R. Cooper, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from maintaining its challenge to rule 59A-4.128, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the evaluation and rating of nursing homes, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the representations of counsel at the hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Advantage Therapy and Nursing Center (Beverly Health and Rehabilitative Services, Inc.) is the licensee of a nursing home in Fort Pierce, Florida. Rule 59A-4.128, Florida Administrative Code, governs the evaluation and rating of nursing homes in Florida. The rule provides: 59A-4.128 Evaluation of Nursing Homes and Rating System. The agency shall, at least every 15 months, evaluate and assign a rating to every nursing home facility. The evaluation and rating shall be based on the facility's compliance with the requirements contained in Sections 59A-4.100 through 59A-4.128, of this rule, Chapter 400, Part II and the requirements contained in the regulations adopted under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1987 (Pub. L. No. 100-203) (December 22, 1987), Title IV (Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Health Related Programs), Subtitle C (Nursing Home Reform), as amended and incorporated by reference. The evaluation shall be based on the most recent licensure survey report, investigations conducted by the AHCA and those persons authorized to inspect nursing homes under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. The rating assigned to the nursing home facility will be either conditional, standard or superior. The rating is based on the compliance with the standards contained in this rule and the standards contained in the OBRA regulations. Non-compliance will be stated as deficiencies measured in terms of severity. For rating purposes, the following deficiencies are considered equal in severity: Class I deficiencies; Class II deficiencies; and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Further for rating purposes, the following deficiencies are considered equal in severity: Class III deficiencies; and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy with no actual harm. Class I deficiencies are those which present either an imminent danger, a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm and require immediate correction. Class II deficiencies are those deficiencies that present an immediate threat to the health, safety, or security of the residents of the facility and the AHCA establishes a fixed period of time for the elimination and correction of the deficiency. Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies are deficiencies which constitute either: immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety; a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy; or a widespread potential for more than minimal harm, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm. Class III deficiencies are those which present an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than Class I or Class II deficiencies. A conditional rating shall be assigned to the facility: if at the time of relicensure survey, the facility has one or more of the following deficiencies: Class I; Class II; or Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy; or if at the time of the relicensure survey, the facility has Class III deficiencies, or Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm and at the time of the follow-up survey, such deficiencies are not substantially corrected within the time frame specified by the agency and continue to exist, or new Class I or Class II or Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy are found at the time of the follow- up survey. A facility receiving a conditional rating at the time of the relicensure survey shall be eligible for a standard rating if: all Class I deficiencies, Class II deficiencies, and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy are corrected within the time frame established by the AHCA and all Class III deficiencies and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm are substantially corrected at the time of the follow-up survey. A facility receiving a conditional rating at the time of the relicensure survey shall not be eligible for a superior rating until the next relicensure survey. A standard rating shall be assigned to a facility, if at the time of the relicensure survey, the facility has: No Class I or Class II deficiencies and no Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy, and Corrects all Class III deficiencies and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm within the time frame established by the AHCA. A superior rating shall be assigned to a facility, if at the time of the relicensure survey, the facility has received a standard rating and meets criteria for a superior rating through enhanced programs and services as contained in (7) of this Section. In order to qualify for a superior rating, the nursing facility must provide at least three enhanced programs or services which encompass the following areas: Nursing services. Dietary or nutritional services. Physical environment. Housekeeping and maintenance. Restorative therapies and self help activities. Social services. Activities and recreational therapy. In order to facilitate the development of special programs or facility wide initiatives and promote creativity, these areas may be grouped or addressed individually. In establishing the facility's qualification for a superior rating, the AHCA survey team will use the Rating Survey and Scoring Sheet, Form No. AHCA 3110-6007, Nov., 1994, incorporated by reference, and may be obtained from the Agency for Health Care Administration. Upon initial licensure, a licensee can receive no higher than a standard license. After six months of operation, the new licensee may request that the agency evaluate the facility to make a determination as to the degree of compliance with minimum requirements under Chapter 400, Part II, F.S., and this rule to determine if the facility can be assigned a higher rating. Nursing facilities will be surveyed on this Section of the rule beginning March 1, 1995. Advantage Therapy filed a petition pursuant to Section 120.56(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), challenging the validity of existing rule 59A-4.128 and asserting in paragraph five of the petition: Rule 59A-4.128, F. A. C., as applied to the issuance of conditional licenses, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that it is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in employees of the agency, and violates . . . [Section] 400.23(8)(h) which requires that the agency have uniform procedures in place for the evaluation of nursing homes. Advantage Therapy focuses its challenge on the Agency's alleged failure to interpret or apply the rule in a manner consistent with the federal rules relating to nursing homes adopted pursuant to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 and on alleged inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the rule by the Agency and by the various Agency survey teams which are responsible for identifying and classifying deficiencies in nursing homes. In a Final Order entered July 16, 1996, Administrative Law Judge David M. Maloney concluded that proposed rule 59A-4.128 was not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in a challenge brought by the Florida Health Care Association, Inc. Florida Health Care Association, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case Number 95-4367RP (1996). No appeal was taken from this Final Order. The Florida Health Care Association's challenge to proposed rule 59A-4.128 was brought pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1995), which provided in subsection (a) that "any substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of any proposed rule on the ground that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" was defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes (1995), as follows: "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply: The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in s. 120.54; The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or The rule is arbitrary or capricious. Florida Health Care Association's challenge to proposed rule 59A- 4.128 was brought pursuant to this 1995 definition of "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Advantage Therapy's challenge to existing rule 59A-4.128 was brought pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), which provides that "[a]ny person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Section 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Sections 120.56(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), include special provisions which apply to challenges of proposed rules and to challenges of existing rules, respectively. In Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), the legislature added to the five bases included in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (1995), two new bases for finding that a proposed or existing rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority : The rule is not supported by competent substantial evidence; or The rule imposes regulatory costs on the regulated person, county, or city which could be reduced by the adoption of less costly alternatives that substantially accomplish the statutory objectives. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Advantage Therapy's rule challenge does not implicate either of these two new bases for finding that a proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; rather, it asserts that "[t]he rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency." Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes (1995 and Supp. 1996).2 The party challenging either a proposed or an existing rule pursuant to Sections 120.54(4) or 120.56, Florida Statutes (1995), was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So. 2d 759, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In Section 120.56(2)(a), the legislature changed the allocation of the burden of proof in challenges to proposed rules, but no change in the allocation of the burden of proof is included in Section 120.56(3) with respect to challenges to existing rules. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., which does business as Advantage Therapy, is, and was at the time of the challenge to proposed rule 59A-4.128, a member of the Florida Health Care Association, Inc. The language in proposed rule 59A-4.128 is identical to the language in existing rule 59A-4.128.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what sanction(s), if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent operates a 120-bed Skilled Nursing Facility located at 1990 S. Canal Drive, Homestead, Florida 33035 (Facility) pursuant to a license issued by the Agency. At all times material to the instant case, Edwin Coelho was the administrator of the Facility; Linda Howell was the LPN clinical coordinator at the Facility; Diane Doyle was the Facility's staff educator and infection control nurse; and Isela Palacios and Rosa Romero were Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) on the Facility's staff. At all times material to the instant case, E. H. was a resident of the Facility. On July 8, 2004, prior to her admission to the Facility, E. H. suffered a spiral/oblique fracture of her right distal tibia and fibula. Such a fracture is "usually caused by some sort of torque on the bone." At the time of her injury, E. H. was an 89-year-old woman with osteoporosis2 who had been "nonambulatory for nine years." Her bones were "very fragile" and "brittle" and "subject to easily be[ing] fractured" as a result of mere "movement." E. H. was treated by Felix Stanziola, M. D., an orthopedic specialist. Because of E. H.’s age and condition, Dr. Stanziola treated E. H.'s fracture conservatively by "align[ing] the bones and then put[ting on] a [long leg] cast." No surgery was performed. In August of 2004, E. H. became a resident of the Facility. Her right leg was still in a "long leg cast" at the time of her admission. On September 1, 2004, E. H. was transported from the Facility to Dr. Stanziola's office, where Dr. Stanziola removed her "long leg" cast and put her in a "short leg cast." On September 29, 2004, E. H. was again transported from the Facility to Dr. Stanziola's office. During this visit, Dr. Stanziola determined that the "fracture was healed" and, based on this determination, removed the cast he had put on E. H.'s leg the previous visit. Because E. H. was experiencing "knee pain" as a result of "severe arthritis," Dr. Stanziola "ordered physical therapy" for her. Throughout her stay at the Facility, both before and after the cast was removed, E. H. was nonambulatory and bedridden, requiring "total care" except for feeding.3 Facility staff had to reposition her in bed every two hours "because she could not reposition herself." When she needed to be moved either out of, or back onto, her bed (and the need arose "virtually every day"), Facility staff used a Marisa "sling lift" (Marisa) to make the transfer. This was "the safest way to move her." Other non- weight bearing residents in the Facility were also moved using a Marisa. A Marisa is a mobile, electric lift consisting of a U- shaped base and an upright post, on which is mounted a curved arm with a "tilting spreader bar." A head and body support sling, which "cradles" and supports the resident above the knees, is attached to the "tilting spreader bar." The operating controls are located on the back of the upright post. There is also a "remote" device that can be used to operate the lift. In making a transfer using the Marisa, the curved arm is first positioned over the resident. Then, two Facility staff members, situated in front of the resident, with the aid of a "Maxislide," slide the sling "right up under [the resident's] buttocks so it supports [the resident] from the knees back." To do this, the resident's "legs have to be lifted manually," but "only a very small amount." During the lift, the resident's lower legs (beneath the knee), which are unsupported, can swing freely. At all times material to the instant case, the Facility had policies and procedures in place that its staff were to follow in making a "patient lift/transfer." These policies and procedures included the following, among others: Every precaution is used to safeguard the patient when making a mechanical or manual lift, transfer or move. Plan any lift, transfer or move ahead of time. Have the proper equipment or personnel on hand. Ensure everyone involved in the task understands his or her role in the transfer, lift or move. Arrange the environment as necessary. Make sure there is appropriate space to maneuver and work in to ensure a safe lift, transfer or move. * * * Prior to using a mechanical lifting device the nurse will ensure proper planning for the transfer/lift has been accomplished and will request assistance [when] required for any difficult lift/transfer. CNAs Palacios and Romero received training in these policies and procedures prior to December 8, 2004. E. H. received a shower every other day in the shower room, which was two rooms down the hallway from the room E. H. occupied at all times material to the instant case. In the shower room, she was bathed while seated in a shower chair (which had wheels) by "shower CNAs." The shower chair that was used did not have a footrest, nor any other device or feature to prevent E. H.'s lower legs from swinging freely when being wheeled in the chair. The "shower CNAs" had to lift E. H.'s legs to bathe them properly. On December 8, 2004, CNA Palacios, with the assistance of another CNA, used the Marisa to transfer E. H. from her bed to a shower chair. The transfer was safely accomplished, without incident, like every prior transfer of E. H., since her arrival at the Facility, had been. CNA Palacios then wheeled E. H. in the shower chair to the shower room, where the "shower CNAs" bathed E. H. After bathing E. H., the "shower CNAs" placed a "covering" on her and wheeled her into the hallway, where CNA Palacios was waiting. CNA Palacios then wheeled E. H. back to E. H.'s room. E. H. had remained in the shower chair the entire time she had been out of her room. E. H.'s room (which she shared with another resident) was a "standard" 12-foot by 24-foot semi-private room with a small bathroom (having just a sink and toilet). When E. H. returned from her shower on December 8, 2004, in her room (taking up floor space) outside the bathroom, were: two beds (eight feet by three feet); two night stands (18 inches by 30 inches); two wardrobe closets (23 inches by 22 inches); two "over the bed" tables; a reclining chair (30 inches by 30 inches); a television stand (24 inches by 14 inches); an oxygen concentrator; a high back chair (22 inches by 26 inches); E. H.'s wheelchair; and the shower chair in which E. H. was seated. These were the same items that had been present in the room earlier that day when E. H. had been moved (safely, with the Marisa) from her bed to the shower chair. On Respondent's side of the room (the "A" side, which was closest to the door) were one of the beds, one of the nightstands, one of the "over the bed" tables, both of the wardrobe closets, the high back chair, the wheelchair, and the shower chair (with E. H. in it). The remaining items were on the other resident's side of the room (the "B" side). The high back chair was located against the wall next to the wardrobe closets (which were to the left as one entered the room). The high back chair was in the room, not for E. H. or her roommate to sit on, but for visitors to use. After wheeling E. H. back into the room in the shower chair, CNA Palacios went to get the Marisa, which was "right outside the door" to the room. There, she met CNA Romero, who volunteered to help CNA Palacios transfer E. H., with the Marisa, from the shower chair to E. H.'s wheelchair. CNA Palacios then went back into E. H.'s room with the Marisa, followed by CNA Romero. The Marisa was positioned so that its curved arm was over the shower chair in which E. H. was seated. CNAs Palacios and Romero then secured E. H. in the sling and the lift began, with CNA Palacios at the controls and CNA Romero next to E. H. (who was facing in the general direction of the door). The wheelchair (into which E. H. was to be placed) was between the shower chair and the high back chair. During the lift, E. H.'s roommate (who was behind a privacy curtain) asked for CNA Palacios' assistance. CNA Palacios responded that she would "be there in a minute," after which she continued to focus her attention on operating the Marisa and completing the lift. Before the lift was completed, CNA Romero advised CNA Palacios that there was blood on the floor directly below E. H.'s right leg. Up until that point in time, nothing unusual had occurred during the lift, such as E. H. bumping into or hitting something or expressing discomfort. Upon being told about the blood, CNA Palacios turned off the Marisa. CNA Romero then removed the covering that the "shower CNAs" had placed on E. H.'s legs. It was apparent that E. H. had suffered a compound fracture (that is, a fracture where "the bone was protruding through the [skin]") of her right lower leg. There was considerable bleeding. The blood was dripping onto the floor in the area beneath the injured leg. There was no blood anywhere else inside or outside the room (other than on E. H. and CNA Romero's pants). Once E. H.'s injury was discovered, nurses were summoned to the room. After the nurses had stabilized E. H.'s leg, the Marisa was turned on again and E. H. was moved back onto her bed. It was not until she was on the bed that E. H. first gave "any indication of discomfort." Emergency rescue workers were called. After they arrived on the scene, E. H. was transported to the hospital by helicopter. X-rays revealed that that E. H. had a "new" spiral/oblique fracture "just above" where she had fractured her leg on July 8, 2004. Shortly after E. H. was taken to the hospital, the Facility began an investigation to determine what had happened to cause her injury. LPN Howell was the staff member put in charge of the investigation. Among the individuals LPN Howell interviewed as part of her investigation were CNAs Palacios and Romero. CNA Palacios was interviewed within an hour of the incident. CNA Romero was interviewed within two and half hours of the incident.4 Both CNAs told LPN Howell that they did not know how E. H. had been injured. CNAs Palacios and Romero were subsequently asked to give written statements about the incident. The written statement CNA Palacios provided read as follows: She came back from the shower on the chair. I put the sling on her back. Rosa help[ed] me. We put the machine Maris[]a [to] get her up. The Mari[]sa pick[ed] her up in the air. Then we put her in the wheelchair. Then we notice[d] blood on the floor. I went out to get nurse [G]eorge. Everybody went to help. I did not hear her foot bump or hit anything. The written statement CNA Romero gave read as follows: I, Rosa Romero was assisting Isela Palacios transferring a resident in . . . Room 304 A from the shower chair to the wheelchair with the hoyer l[i]fter and her leg got caught in it. We didn't notice she was hurt until she was s[it]ting in the wheelchair when we saw lot[s] [of] blood on the floor. Isela and I w[ere] helping each o[ther] and we did everything the right way, the way [it] is supposed to be [done]. Notwithstanding the assertion CNA Romero made in her written statement that E. H.'s "leg got caught in it," there is "nothing [in the Marisa] to get caught in."5 After completing her interviews on December 8, 2004, LPN Howell spoke to her supervisor, Facility Administrator Coelho, who also serves as the Facility's risk manager. Facility Administrator Coelho told LPN Howell that he "was going to check things out himself." To this end, he participated in several "reenactments" of what had transpired in E. H.'s room after she had come back from her shower on December 8, 2004, in an effort to ascertain how E. H. may have injured herself. The "reenactments" took place in E. H.'s room. "[I]tems [in the room] were placed" where, according to CNAs Palacios and Romero, they had been at the time of the incident. Facility Administrator Coelho played the role of E. H. "[O]ne of the CNAs" operated the controls of the Marisa and, using the machine, lifted Facility Administrator Coelho out of the shower chair and into E. H.'s wheelchair. This was done "about three times." At no time did Facility Administrator Coelho come close to "hit[ting] anything inside" the room. The Facility administration submitted required reports concerning E. H.'s injury. LPN Howell prepared the "Federal 5-day Report," which Facility Administrator Coelho reviewed and discussed with her before its submission. This report contained the following "findings of facility investigation": After completion of interviews, the area and equipment involved were checked. It is determined that the area was crowded due to the size of the resident, the size of the shower chair, the size of the w/c, the size of the Marisa lift and the furniture along with the constant request of the other resident in the room distracted the staff when the resident was moved to position the Marisa sling over the w/c. The procedures in place at the time for safety of both residents and staff were being followed but a lack in focus or concentration led to the injury.[6] There is no evidence of intent to do harm on the part of the staff members involved. The staff members were suspended without pay for 5 days and have returned to work effective 12-13-04.[7] Facility Administrator Coelho authored an "Administrative Incident Report," in which he stated that the Facility administrations's investigation revealed "no definitive reason for the accident," but that it "was assumed that in turning the resident while she was on the sling her leg got caught on the high back chair" in the room. He added that the Facility administration was taking action to remove high back chairs from rooms of residents who "ha[d] to be lifted." The high back chairs were removed from E. H.'s room and the rooms of other residents who "ha[d] to be lifted" on or about December 10, 2006. The Facility administration did so only out of an abundance of caution, not because it had determined with any certitude that the presence of the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, constituted a hazardous condition that resulted in E. H.'s injury. Prior to the incident on December 8, 2004, there had never been a problem at the Facility in lifting E. H. or any other resident in a room with a high back chair. The lifting of residents in rooms set up like E. H.'s had "happened all the time in [the] building" without any resident getting injured. At no time during this period had the Facility been cited by the Agency, during any life safety inspection, for failing to comply with requirements concerning the design and equipping of residents' rooms.8 Having the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, did not unreasonably expose E. H. to the risk of accidental injury while being lifted with the Marisa. Even with the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, there was adequate space for trained Facility staff, acting in a reasonably prudent manner in accordance with Facility policy and procedure, to lift E. H. with the Marisa (as had been done in the past) without E. H.'s bumping into something and injuring herself. It is unclear exactly what caused E. H. to suffer a compound fracture of her right lower leg on December 8, 2004.9 What is clear is that this injury was not the result of her having gotten her leg "caught" in the Marisa or on the high back chair while being lifted from the shower chair. During the lift, her leg did not hit against any object in the room.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period June 14 through August 10, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. In relevant part, Rule 59A- 4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written "plan of care." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, are correct and if so what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with responsibility for regulation of licensed nursing home administrators in Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed nursing home administrator. On or about April 13, 1998, the Respondent was hired as the administrator of the “Colonial Oaks” nursing facility (the facility) located in Ft. Myers, Florida. The facility was owned by Vencor and had been operating for about four years by the time the Respondent became the administrator. Prior to her move to Colonial Oaks, the Respondent had 20 years of experience as a nursing home administrator. The Respondent’s previous nursing home employment had been at facilities with superior ratings. She agreed to transfer to this facility because she believed that she could improve the situation and secure a superior rating for it as well. She has never been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding prior to this case. Colonial Oaks had been through 12 administrators and 15 directors of nursing before the Respondent assumed the administrator’s position. There were considerable staff problems at the facility. Continuing management difficulties made if difficult to motivate staff members who apparently assumed that the managers would soon be gone and that new managers with new expectations would arrive. Further staffing problems were related to the type of patients who resided at Colonial Oaks. The facility drew a large population of private pay residents who expected high levels of service from the staff, which the staff was apparently unable or unwilling to provide. At the time of the Respondent’s employment at the facility, there was no director of social services and no director of activities. Additionally, resignations had been submitted by the medical records coordinator, the care plan coordinator, the staff development coordinator, the therapy director, the case manager, and the central supply clerk, all of whom were completing their resignation notice periods. Immediately upon beginning her tenure at the facility, the Respondent began to advertise the job openings in an attempt to fill the positions. She filled a number of open positions and began training new employees. She met with the staff frequently and made daily rounds to review the operation of the facility. Employees seeking to become Certified Nursing Assistants were offered classes to encourage them to complete their training. The Respondent also changed the resident care plan records program from a computerized system, which was allegedly disliked by survey teams from the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) responsible for inspecting the facility, to a paper-based system which provided for easier review by survey teams. There is no evidence that the Respondent failed to make an appropriate effort to address the problems existing at the facility when she assumed control. AHCA inspectors surveyed the facility on August 6 through 8, 1998. While the survey team inspected the facility, the Respondent spent much of the time in her office preparing a package she expected to submit to the survey team which she believed would lead to a superior rating. She also responded to requests for information from the survey team. According to the survey report, the survey team identified numerous deficiencies. The facility received a conditional rating. Among the cited deficiencies were instances where residents were allegedly left in soiled clothing for extended periods of time. Some of the allegations involved residents with skin irritation or sores which could be exacerbated by unsanitary clothing. The facility’s policy and procedure require that residents be “repositioned” every two hours and that incontinent residents should be changed every two hours. Based on the testimony of William Sullivan, the evidence establishes that in at least one case of an incontinent resident sitting in a wheelchair, the facility did not comply with the policy and procedure requirement that he be moved and changed every two hours. Based on the testimony of Joan Cagley-Knight, the evidence establishes that in at least one case of an incontinent resident with a “full diaper,” the facility did not comply with the policy and procedure requirement that the resident be changed every two hours. There is no evidence that the Respondent was aware that some employees of the facility failed to comply with the policy and procedure requirement that the resident be changed every two hours. According to the survey report, other alleged deficiencies included weight loss by some residents. There is no evidence that prior to the August survey, the Respondent was aware that some residents were losing weight. The weight of the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent should have known that some residents were losing weight. According to the survey report, other alleged deficiencies included random complaints voiced by some relatives of facility residents. The Respondent maintained an “open door” policy so that any person could meet with her and address matters of concern. There is no evidence that prior to the survey, the Respondent was aware of any unresolved relative complaints that had not been addressed. Colonial Oaks had been rated “conditional” previously and was described by the Vencor employee who followed the Respondent as a “yo-yo facility” which would sometimes improve and then falter. The Respondent prepared a plan of correction to address the deficiencies. The plan of correction was apparently approved by AHCA and was implemented by the Respondent. The corporate owner of the facility did not challenge any of the cited deficiencies through a procedure known as Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR). The Respondent was not involved in the decision not to utilize the IDR process. Subsequent to the August survey, the facility’s director of nursing resigned. The Respondent made attempts to hire a new director of nursing. She requested that the corporate owner assist in the search, which extended outside the State of Florida. Apparently the troubled reputation of the facility made it difficult to convince prospective nursing directors to accept the position. Regional nurses assigned by Vencor to assist in the situation resigned rather than work in the facility. Eventually, the Respondent’s immediate supervisor came in to assist with the problems. The supervisor brought in some additional corporate employees including nutritionists, but most refused to become involved in the turmoil. On October 6, 1998, an AHCA team resurveyed the facility. At the time of the October survey, the nursing director was still serving out her resignation notice period. Although as of the October 6 survey a number of deficiencies had been corrected, several deficiencies were again cited. The cited deficiencies included instances where residents were allegedly left in soiled clothing for extended periods of time. In at least one case, based on the testimony of Joan Cagley-Knight, an incontinent resident sat in urine- soaked sweatpants for more than two hours without being assisted by an employee of the facility, in violation of the applicable policy and procedure requirement. The weight of the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent knew or should have known that some employees of the facility failed to comply with the policy and procedure requirement that the resident be changed every two hours. Based on the testimony of William Sullivan, the evidence establishes that some residents continued to lose weight and that nutritional recommendations were not being implemented. There is no evidence that the Respondent was aware that the nutritional issues had not been addressed, after corporate nutritional specialists were brought in following the August survey. There was also an issue related to an injury suffered by a resident who fell while unrestrained. The issue related specifically to an apparently incorrect report made by the facility’s director of nursing to AHCA officials regarding the site where the accident occurred. There is no evidence that the Respondent attempted to mislead the AHCA employees about the incident in any manner. On October 9, 1998, the Respondent transferred to the “Windsor Woods” facility, a superior-rated facility also owned by Vencor, where she continued to achieve a superior rating until the rating program was discontinued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint, as amended, filed against Janice Carol Reeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith & Grout, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Mary Denise O'Brien, Esquire Department of Health 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John Taylor, R.Ph., Executive Director Board of Nursing Home Administrators Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact On September 29, 1988, HRS published its July 1991 Planning Horizon Florida Community Nursing Home Bed Need Projections ("the Original Bed Need Projections"). According to the Original Bed Need Projections, there is a need for 86 additional beds in HRS District 4, Subdistrict 3 (i.e., St. Johns County and southeast Duval County, hereafter, "Subdistrict 3"), a need for 187 additional nursing beds in Orange County, and a need for 35 additional nursing beds in Palm Beach County. On October 7, 1988, HRS published notice of the Original Bed Need Projections in the Florida Administrative Weekly ("FAW"), Vol. 14, No. 40, pages 3838-3839. On October 19, 1988, HRS published a memorandum and attached errata sheet ("the Errata Memorandum") detailing certain errors in the Original Bed Need Projections. The Errata Memorandum notes that the errors which had been discovered up to that time do not affect the number of additional beds that are projected to be needed by the Original Bed Need Projections. On October 24, 1988, Health Quest filed three petitions: A "Petition for Formal Hearing" was filed with HRS. Health Quest served an "Amendment to the Petition for Formal Hearing," correcting wordprocessing errors in the original Petition, on November 10, 1988, which "Amendment to the Petition for Formal Hearing" was forwarded by HRS to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on November 28, 1988 simultaneously with the original "Petition for Formal Hearing", and these pleadings together are here considered as the "120.57 Petition." They/it was assigned DOAH Case No. 88-5848 and are the basis for the instant proceeding. A Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Rule 10-5.008 (2)(a) F.A.C., the fixed need rule, pursuant to Section 120.56, F.S. ("the 120.56 Rule Challenge"), was filed with DOAH and was subsequently assigned DOAH Case No. 88-5228R; and A Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy, referencing the same fixed need rule, pursuant to Sections 120.54 and 120.56, F.S. ("the NonRule Policy Challenge"), was filed with DOAH and subsequently assigned DOAH Case No. 88-5230R. Each of the three petitions challenged HRS' determination that additional nursing beds were needed in Subdistrict 3, Orange County, and in Palm Beach County. The petitions also note that Petitioner Health Quest owns and operates nursing homes in Subdistrict 3, Orange County, and Palm Beach County. On October 31, 1988, HRS published its Revised July 1991 Planning Horizon Florida Community Nursing Bed Need Projections ("the Revised Bed Need Projections"). In contrast with both HRS' Original Bed Need Projections and its Errata Memorandum, the Revised Bed Need Projections change the number of additional beds that are needed for Orange County and Palm Beach County. Specifically, the Revised Bed Need Projections decrease the number of beds that are needed in Orange County from 187 to )15, and increase the number of beds that are needed in Palm Beach County from 35 to 62. On November 4, 1988, HRS published a Notice of Correction to Nursing Home Fixed Pools ("the Correction Notice") in the FAW, Vol. 14, No. 44, page 4404. The Correction Notice altered the number of additional beds that are needed for Orange County and Palm Beach County "based on recalculations of net need," as described above in paragraph 6. On November 14, 1988, Health Quest and HRS executed a Stipulation and Agreement ("the Stipulation"). The Stipulation states that HRS acknowledges Health Quest's standing to contest the Original Bed Need Projections, as corrected pursuant to the Revised Bed Need Projections. HRS therefore agreed to refer the 120.57 Petition (this instant case) to DOAH. In reliance on such acknowledgment and agreement, Health Quest voluntarily dismissed both the Rule Challenge (DOAH Case No. 88-5228R) and the Non-Rule Policy Challenge (DOAH Case No. 88-5230R). See Finding of Fact 4, above. The undersigned hearing officer scheduled the instant case (the 120.57 Petition) for final formal hearing at a date stipulated by Health Quest and HRS; however, subsequent to the filing of unilateral prehearing statements by the parties, the undersigned cancelled the formal hearing and by Order of March 20, 1989, required memoranda of law upon the issues discussed in the following Conclusions of Law. Prior to the date for filing such memoranda, Arbor Health Care Company was granted Intervenor status by a March 23, 1989 Order, upon the basis that it had received written notice on March 14, 1989 that HRS intended to issue CON No. 5785, effective March 10, 1989 to Arbor for construction of an 86-bed nursing home to be located in St. John's County, Florida. Arbor had applied for the CON on or before November 23, 1988 in response to the Summary Bed Need Projections published in FAW by HRS on October 7, 1988.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a final order dismissing the Petition herein. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether DHRS should approve the application for certificate of need of any one or more of the January, 1987, applicants for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County. STIPULATIONS The parties stipulated to the following facts: All applicants timely filed their respective letters of intent, applications and omission responses with DHRS and the appropriate local health council for the January, 1987, batching cycle. The petitioners each timely filed a petition requesting a Section 120.57(1) hearing and have standing in this proceeding. The parties agree the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties. The CON application content requirements of Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985), apply as that was the statute in effect at the time the applications were filed. The review criteria in Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), apply to this proceeding. The following statutory criteria have been met orare not applicable in this proceeding: Section 381.705(1)(d), (f), (g), (j) and (k) and all of Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Except for the effects the project will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs, the extent to which services will be accessible to schools for health professionals and the availability of alternative uses of such resources for the provision of other health services, Section 381.705(1)(h) is in dispute and remains to be litigated.
Findings Of Fact SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES. HCR's application (CON Action No. 5000) is to construct a 120-bed nursing home consisting of 40,000 square feet at a cost of $3,964,000.00, or $33,033 per bed (including adult day care; $32,1127 when the cost for day care is excluded.) The HCR application describes special programs and services for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder patients in a distinct special care unit and an Alzheimer's day care center, both Identified in the plans submitted by HCR showing special design elements. HCR also proposes to offer sub-acute care and respite care. The HCR nursing home will have 2.08 (120/57.6) patients per staff, which includes the assistant director of nursing and occupational therapy and recreational therapy aides listed by HCR in its application. FCP submitted an application for 30 nursing home beds to be constructed as a part of a retirement facility (CON Action NO. 4993). The 30 beds will comprise approximately 17,558 square feet at a cost of $1,549,599.00, or $51,653 per bed. The Florida Country Place application proposes a patient staff ratio of approximately 2.3 (30/13). Palm Court submitted an application for a 60-bed addition to its existing 120-bed facility (CON Action No. 4987). The 60-bed addition would consist of 15,260 square feet at a cost of $1,472,435.00, or $24,571 per bed. The Palm Court facility is located in Plant City in the far eastern portion of Hillsborough County, near the Polk County line. Palm Court proposed a ratio of 2.31 (60/26) patients per nursing staff. Manor Care submitted an application (CON Action No. 5006) to add 60 beds to an approved certificate of need for 60-beds for which construction has not yet begun. The area to be added would consist of 19,000 square feet at a cost of $2,187,045.00, or $36,451 per bed. The Manor Care addition would include a distinct special care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims and the 60-bed addition would provide a patient staff ratio of 1.98 (60/30.3), which includes a half-time physical therapy aide, a half-time recreational therapy assistant and an assistant director of nursing. Forum submitted an application (CON Action No. 4999) to construct a 120-bed nursing home as a part of a retirement complex. The nursing home element will consist of 49,283 square feet at a cost of $5,053,301.00, or $42,111 per bed. Forum proposes a staffing ratio of 3.0 patients per staff FTE. Forum proposed to provide respite care and hospice care, and adult day care and meals on wheels during or after the second year of operation. HHL submitted an application (CON Action No. 4978) for 120-bed nursing home consisting of 37,700 square feet at a cost of $3,900,000.00, or $32,500 per bed. The HHL facility proposes 2.27 (120/52.8) patients per staff, which includes the rehabilitation assistants and the assistant director of nursing listed by HHL. HHL proposes sub-acute care, respite care, programs for Alzheimer's Disease victims (but not a distinct special care unit) and an Alzheimer's adult day care program of from four to six patients. Cypress submitted an application (CON Action No. 5004) to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Sun City Center in southeastern Hillsborough County. The nursing home described in the application would contain 24,069 square feet at a cost of $2,125,000.00, or $35,419 per bed. But Cypress' estimated construction cost per square foot of $49.81 does not account for inflation and is unreasonably low. Median cost of nursing home construction in Florida is $55 per square foot. It is estimated that Cypress' construction cost estimate is 10-15 percent too low. Assuming that the cost estimate is 12.5 percent too low, the cost of construction would increase to approximately $2,274.485 or $37,914 per bed. Cypress did not detail any special programs in its application and proposed 2.45 (60/24.5) patients per staff. However, this ratio is questionable in view of the confusion surrounding Cypress' evidence regarding staffing and the apparent inaccuracy of the staffing presented by the application. DHRS is the state agency that preliminarily reviewed and passed on the applications and is responsible for final agency action on them. DHRS PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND ACTION. HCR, FCP, Palm Court, Manor Care, Forum, HHL, Cypress, and others filed their applications for community nursing home bed certificates of need for Hillsborough County in the January, 1987, batching cycle. On June 18, 1987, DHRS issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in which it denied all of the applications except HCR's, FCP's and VHA/Oxford's (for 120 beds). Review of the SAAR in light of the evidence introduced at the final hearing indicates that DHRS erred in reviewing the applications in at least the following respects: Manor Care. -- The SAAR indicates that DHRS was not cognizant that Manor Care had a final approval for a 60-bed nursing home CON (No. 4155) to which to add the 60 beds applied for in this case, CON Action No. 5006. The SAAR was somewhat critical of the Manor Care proposal for being a two-story structure. It appears that DHRS confused the proposal to add 60-beds (CON Action No. 5006) with a parallel contingent proposal to build a new 120-bed facility (CON Action No. 5005), which Manor Care eventually withdrew during the final hearing. Actually, CON Action No. 5006, added to the approved CON No. 4155 for a new 60-bed nursing home, would result in a one-story 120-bed nursing home. On page 7 of the SAAR, DHRS indicated its understanding that Manor Care had not specified a location for its proposal. Later, on page 11, the SAAR acknowledges the true fact that Manor Care's proposed nursIng home would be located in the Northwest Hillsborough County subdistrict, which is the Local Health Plan's first priority for location of additional nursing home beds in DHRS District 6. HHL. The SAAR (p. 13) states that Convalescent Services, Inc. (CSI), the management corporation HHL and other limited partnerships for which the Kellett Brothers are the general partners, has no other nursing homes in Florida. While technically correct, Kellett limited partnerships do have other nursing homes in Florida. Staffing tables on page 17 of the SAAR are incorrect, attributing no LPNs to the HHL proposal instead of 6 and only 36 aides instead of 38. On page 18 of the SAAR, the table of patient privileges incorrectly states that the HHL applications had no patients' bill of rights. Also on page 18 of the SAAR, DHRS incorrectly omitted adult day care and community outreach from the table of programs provided by HHL. On page 26 of the SAkR, it gives HHL's private pay private room rate ($101) as its semi-private room rate (actually $69.92) The SAAR Review Matrix incorrectly omits adult day care, community outreach and sub-acute care from HHL's proposed programs and omits HHL's patients' bill of rights. Forum. -- The SAAR starts out on page 3 by misidentifying Forum as being affiliated with Hospital Corporation of America. On pages 4, 6 and 15, the SAAR incorrectly fails to recognize that a retirement living center (apartments) is part of the overall development Forum proposes. The semi-private room rate of $110 attributed to Forum's application on page 26 of the SAAR is wrong; it should have been $85. Cypress. -- The Review Matrix in the SAAR failed to identify several services and programs Cypress stated in its application that it would offer. The matrix did not recognize that Cypress would offer social activity functions within the community, would offer rehabilitation, would provide some Alzheimer's type services, (which Cypress called supportive care and mentally frail services) and physically frail services. Cypress also spoke of hospice care and respite care in its application, as well as specialized rehabilitation, physical therapy, and speech therapy. Cypress also spoke of community outreach programs, psychiatric services, home health agencies, and numerous other areas that were not recognized by DHRS in its matrix. However, there are valid reasons for some of these omissions. On May 9, 1988, the first day of the final hearing, VHA/Oxford withdrew its application. On the afternoon of May 17, 1988, DHRS announced it was supporting the grant of Palm Court's application since VHA/Oxford had withdrawn. But the only evidence to support the new DHRS position was through the testimony of Reid Jaffe, DHRS Health Services and Facilities Consultants Supervisor, who did not express a personal opinion but acted as a messsenger to relay the positions taken by others at DHRS who did not testify. NUMERIC NEED. Rule 10.5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, is a methodology for calculating net numeric need for nursing home beds. Under the methodology, gross numeric need is calculated essentially by multiplying the population of two age cohorts projected on the planning horizon by a use rate. The use rate is calculated by divIding current population by the current number of licensed beds. To obtain net need in a health planning sub-district, the methodology first prorates the gross need in the entire district, using the proportion of current licensed beds in the subdistrict to the current licensed beds in the district, and adjusts the resultant by a current occupancy rate factor (occupancy rate /0.90); then, the number of licensed beds, plus 90 percent of the number of approved beds in the subdistrict, are subtracted from the adjusted gross need in the subdistrict. With three exceptions, the parties agree on how net numeric need is calculated under the rule methodology. The parties disagree only on the current licensed bed count, the current approved bed count, and the occupancy rate at one facility that has both community nursing home beds and sheltered nursing home beds. (Sheltered nursing home beds generally are not factored into the formula.) As for the licensed bed count, the issue is whether The Home Association, a 96-bed facility in Hillsborough County, should be included as a licensed community nursing home facility or excluded as a sheltered facility. At hearing, all of the parties presenting evidence on the issue except Forum counted The Home Association's 96 beds as licensed community beds. Forum excluded The Home Association from the licensed bed count because it was not listed on the Department's Community Nursing Home Report for January 1, 1988. This same report reflects three other facilities in Hillsborough County in which the beds were formerly sheltered but as of August 1, 1987, began to be counted by the Department as community beds. Forum conceded, however, that if the Department recognizes The Home Association as a community facility, then it would be appropriate to include those beds in the licensed bed count under the rule formula. In its proposed recommended order, even Forum agrees that The Home Association beds are included in the licensed bed count. Two issues are presented relating to the inventory of approved beds under the rule formula: the date at which approved beds are to be counted; and whether the 120 beds under Careage CON #4714 and Manor Care's 60 beds under CON #4155 were approved at the pertinent time. On the first question, Forum again stands alone. In the face of a rule which is silent as to the date on which approved beds are to be counted, Forum suggests that they be counted cn the same day licensed beds are counted, December 1, 1986, for this batch. All other interested parties follow the Department's general practice of counting approved beds as of the date the State Agency Action Report for this batch was executed, June 18, 1987. Forum supports its position on the ground that use of the same date for both licensed and approved beds avoids the prospect that beds may be "lost" from the calculation if they are not licensed as of December 1, 1986, but become licensed before June 18, 1987, and therefore are no longer approved beds on that latter date. The argument is meritless. There is no evidence of any "lost" beds under this policy for this batch. Indeed, the evidence is that such beds are not lost: 120 beds at Carrollwood were licensed on December 15, 1986, after the December 1 licensed bed cut-off and before the June 18, 1987, SAAR date. These beds were included in the approved bed inventory on June 18, 1987. The Department's policy under its numeric need rule is to count approved beds as of the execution date of the SAAR. Under this policy, the need for beds in the future is predicated on the number of beds currently or soon to be available to meet the need. When more than seven months can elapse after licensed beds are counted but before the agency decision is formulated, it makes sense to count beds approved during this intervening period. A 120-bed award to Careage in the prior batch was published by DHRS in the Florida Administrative Weekly of January 23, 1987, reflecting approval on January 7, 1987. However, DHRS then received criticism.of the approval, and a new supervisor in charge initiated a second review of the circumstances and of the Careage approval. The second review did not conclude until after June 18, 1987. When it did, DHRS re- affirmed its decision to approve Careage and issued a CON for 120 beds on August 18, 1987. Although the Careage CON was issued after June 18, 1987, DHRS proved that there is a rational basis for including it in the approved bed count under these unusual circumstances. The Careage CON represents 120 beds approved in the batching cycle preceding the one at issue in this case. Counting the 120 beds as approved promotes sound health planning. The projection of net need on the planning horizon is predicated on the most accurate count of approved beds from prior batching cycles that can be anticipated to come on line in the near future. As of June 18, 1987, there were 308 other beds approved but not yet licensed in Hillsborough County. Included among these 308 approved beds are 60 beds awarded to Manor Care under CON 4155 by Stipulation dated March 30, 1987. By mistake, DHRS did not count Manor Care's 60-bed CON in the SAAR. This mistake was not discovered, and DHRS served discovery responses and took a final position on need, as required by prehearing orders, that did not count the Manor Care CON. But this mistake f fact should now be corrected, even if it could have been discovered earlier through the use of due diligence, so that the health planning decision resulting from these de novo proceedings will be predicated on the correct facts. See Gulf Court Nursing Center v. HRS, 483 So.2d 700, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). It is appropriate to include Manor Care's finally approved 60 beds in the rule formula. Adding Careage's 120 beds, the total approved bed count is 428. The final variation accounting for the differences in the parties' calculations under the formula is the manner in which the occupancy rate should be computed at John Knox Village, a facility containing both community and sheltered beds. The issue is whether the patient days in this mixed facility should be prorated between the two types of beds or whether the full patient days for both types of beds should be used in calculating the occupancy rate in the facility. There is no separate report of occupancy by bed type for this mixed facility. The number of patient days delivered in the community beds at John Knox is not known. If the patient days for the entire facility are prorated according to the percentage the community beds bear to the total number of beds, there is a necessary but wholly unsupported and speculative assumption that the proportion of patient days delivered in community beds is identical to the proportion of community beds. DHRS historically has been unwilling to make this assumption and has always included the total number of beds and patient days in mixed facilities to determine the occupancy rate under the community bed rule. The rationale supporting this policy has been appropriately explicated on the record. The use of prorated patient days to determine occupancy in mixed facilities, as suggested by DHRS for the first time at final hearing, also is a change from the position the Department took when exhibits were exchanged and the prehearing stipulation was executed and then relied on by the parties. Because the Department, as a party litigant, did not prorate in its prehearing submissions, it cannot do so at hearing in the absence of fraud, mistake of fact, or newly discovered evidence. No evidence of any such extenuating circumstances was presented. The only explanation DHRS gave for changing its treatment of the John Knox occupancy data was that more accurate recent data (using daily census data instead of first day of the month census data) furnished by the Local Health Council was prorated. But DHRS just as easily could have prorated the older, less accurate data if it had chosen to take that position at the time the parties were required to take final positions in prehearing procedures. The Department, therefore, is precluded from adopting a posture at hearing relating to the treatment of patient days in mixed facilities which is different from that reflected in the Department's prehearing stipulation and exchanged exhibits. In summary, the appropriate numeric need calculation must include The Home Association in licensed beds, count both Careage's 120-bed CON and Manor Care's 60-bed CON in the approved bed count, and use the full John Knox bed complement and patient days in determining the Hillsborough County occupancy rate. Using these factors in the rule methodology, the net need for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County for the January, 1990, planning horizon is 231, as reflected in the calculation included in the attached Appendix To Recommended Order, Case Nos. 87-3409, etc. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, provides that DHRS normally may not approve more beds than the numeric net need calculated under rule methodology. In this case, none of the circumstances specified in the rule that would justify exceeding the numeric net need were proven by the evidence. At the same time, the rule does not require DHRS to fill all, or as much as possible, of the numeric net need by attempting to "mix and match" applications to come as close as possible to the calculated number. LOCAL GEOGRAPHIC NEED PRIORITIES. The current, 1985 District VI Local Health Plan provides that, after consideration of numeric bed need under the rule need methodology, its "priority need rankings" should be considered in the competitive review for new nursing homes. Hil1sborough County, Northwest, is priority rank number one. HCR, FCP, Manor Care, Forum and HHL all propose to locate their nursing homes there. Cypress proposes to locate in Sun City Center and Palm Court is in Plant City, both in Hillsborough County, Southeast, an area ranked fifth in priority in District VI. Plant City is close to Polk County, which the Local Health Plan designates as the fourth ranked area in priority. Cypress proposes its 60-bed nursing home approximately 1/4 mile down the road from an existing nursing home called Sun Terrace, operated by CSI. Quality of care concerns have arisen due to rapid fill-up of 60 additional beds recently licensed at Sun Terrace and opened in September, 1987. See Findings of Fact 83-87, below. As a result, Sun Terrace has imposed on itself a moratorium on new admissions until quality of care concerns can be addressed. In part as a result of the moratorium, Sun Terrace's occupancy rate at the time of the final hearing was only approximately 65 percent, leaving 42 empty beds. MEDICAID NEED. One of the three major considerations for competitive review of nursing home CON applications in the Longterm Care section of the 1985-1987 State Health Plan is "resource access." Except as reflected in the priority rankings, geographic access is not an issue in this proceeding. (Priority/Policy 7 of the Local Health Plan, setting a goal of providing for nursing home services within 30 minutes travel time of 90 percent of urban residents and within 45 minutes travel time of 90 percent of rural residents, already has been achieved in District VI.) But, to address concern for financial access, Priority/Policy 2 of the Local Health Plan provides that applicants "should commit, at a minimum, to serve Medicaid eligible patients in proportion to the representation of elderly poor in the subdistrict." In Hillsborough County, Northwest, where all but two of the applicants propose to locate, the elderly poverty rate is 18.6; in Hillsborough County, Southeast, where Cypress and Pal:n Court would be located, the elderly poverty rate is 15.6 percent. The applicants propose to commit the following percentages of their nursing home beds to the care of Medicaid- 4 eligible patients: HCR, 70 percent; FCP, 70 percent; Manor Care, 30 percent; HHL, 45 percent; Palm Court, 70 percent; and Cypress, approximately 10 percent. Cypress proposed in its application to commit 10 percent of its beds for Medicaid use. It attempted to update its application to provide for a 15 percent Medicaid commitment. The update was said to have been the result of a decrease in the average age of the residents of Sun City Center, Cypress' proposed primary service area, from 73 to 70. But the percentage was calculated by first estimating 60 percent private pay and "backing down" to a Medicare percentage of 25 percent, leaving 15 percent Medicaid. The evidence was persuasive that this attempted update was not due to extrinsic factors. See Conclusions of Law 20 to 25, below. Forum has committed only to have 50 percent of its beds Medicaid- certified and to meet the requirements of Priority/Policy 2. Although Priority/Policy 2 is written as a minimum Medicaid percentage, no evidence was presented from which to determine how high a percentage of Medicaid commitment is desirable. There was, e.g., no evidence on which to find that a Medicaid percentage as high as four times the elderly poverty rate is more desirable than a percentage approximately equal to or perhaps just a bit higher than the elderly poverty rate. To the contrary, the only evidence on the subject was that DHRS does not now consider the Medicaid percentage to be as important as it was considered to be in the past and that DHRS now just checks to see that the percentage approximates the elderly poor rate in the County. NEED FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PROGRAMS. Description Of The Disease And The Need. There is a need in Hillsborough County for additional nursing home beds and services for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims. There is no known nursing home in Hillsborough County which provides a distinct care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims. There is an estimated unmet need by Alzheimer's patients for nursing home care in Hillsborough County of approximately 1,271 by July, 1989. DHRS has recommended that "preference should be given to applicants for new nursing home beds which propose the development of special Alzheimer's units" and "greater preference should be given to units that will also provide adult day care and/or respite care." Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that was discovered at the turn of the century. It primarily affects persons over the age of 60. The term "related disorders" is used because some non-Alzheimer's disorders mimic Alzheimer's Disease symptoms and create many of the same needs for specialized care. Typically, Alzheimer's Disease results in gradual memory loss and, as memory loss progresses, results in the need for ever- increasing personal care. In the earlier stages, the victim is often in reasonably good physical condition and simply exhibits signs of recent memory loss. However, as memory loss increases, various activities of daily living are disrupted. Victims encounter more serious physical problems and exhibit symptoms such as wandering, significant weight loss, clumsiness, incontinence and antisocial behavior. In the last stages of the disease, the victim requires increasingly intense medical attention, becomes totally dependent on others, and may eventually require total skilled nursing care. The intensity of care required for the Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victim increases as the disease progresses. In early stages, the victims are typically cared for at home by a family member. The nature of care required for an Alzheimer's Disease or related disorders victim is very exhausting for the care giver. Toward the end of the first stage of the disease when the victim requires increasing supervision, the victim can be maintained longer in the home if there is available to the care giver some form of occasional rest, such as adult day care or respite care. Adult day care and respite care provide opportunities for the primary care giver to "take a break". See Findings of Fact 133 to 135, below. An Alzheimer's Disease patient usually requires inpatient nursing home care late in the second stage of the disease. If the patient is ambulatory, he often exhibits a wandering behavior. Approximately 50 percent of the Alzheimer's victims admitted to a nursing home have the potential to wander. Ultimately, Alzheimer's victims become bed-ridden and require skilled or sub- acute nursing home care, including tube feedings, cathethers, and artificial life support. Historically, ambulatory Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes have been mixed with other patients. The Alzheimer's victim has often disrupted life in the nursing home because of the victim's wandering, incontinence, confusion, and socially unacceptable behavior. Because of these characteristics, some nursing homes avoid admitting Alzheimer's patients and others control problem behavior with sedation and physical restraint. A separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the Alzheimer's disease victim and allows the victim to maintain his cognitive capabilities for as long as possible, without restraint and sedation. Nursing home patients who do not suffer from Alzheimer's and related diseases are often agitated and disrupted by the Alzheimer's patients' unacceptable social behavior. A separate unit for Alzheimer's Disease victims accommodates the needs of the non-Alzheimer's patient by eliminating unpleasant, often violent encounters between dementia victims and other patients. Distinct Alzheimer's special care units provide better care for Alzheimer's disease and related disorder victims for several reasons. A separate unit eliminates the tendency of the Alzheimer's disease patient to disrupt the remainder of the nursing home. A separate unit provides a smaller, safer, specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the unique needs of the Alzheimer's disease victim. A separate unit is preferable to mixing Alzheimer's patients with non- Alzheimer's patients. Traditional nursing home programs and activities are often inappropriate and counterproductive for the Alzheimer's patient. HCR's Proposal. The 120-bed nursing home proposed by HCR will help meet the needs in Hillsborough County for adult day care, respite care, sub-acute care and a special care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims. The programs and services will enable the HCR nursing home to provide at one location a complete continuum of care from the least intense level of care in adult day care to total (sub-acute) care. HCR's Alzheimer's special care unit will incorporate special design features, special patient activities and programs and higher staffing levels to meet the unique needs cf Alzheimer's disease victims. These features are intended to compensate for memory loss and provide a safe environment where cognitive capabilities can be maintained for as long as possible while patients enjoy personal freedom without the use of restraints and sedation which have typified the treatment of unmanageable Alzheimer's and dementia patients. The architectural design of the HCR nursing home will accommodate the tendency of Alzheimer's victims to wander by allowing the victims to ambulate in circular patterns through the facility and the adjacent court yard and by providing an electronic warning system to prevent inadvertent exit from the nursing home. Patient bathrooms are specially designed to avoid fright and confusion through the use of automatic lighting fixtures, appropriate coloring and distinctly shaped fixtures and waste baskets. Calming colors, color coding, carefully selected art work, special floor coverings and labeling are provided. Separate dining and activities areas enable the nursing home to provide programs and activities for Alzheimer's disease victims in a more effective and efficient manner than would be possible if the same areas also had to be used for non- Alzheimer's Disease victims. The proposed HCR nursing home includes a discreet area designed for an adult day care center, which will share some resources with the nursing home. The program will accommodate 12 persons and be operated in accordance with adult day care regulations. The physical spaces include an entry separate from the main nursing home entry, a lobby, an office, a therapeutic kitchen for use by the patients, toilet facilities, an activities center, and a lounge with an adjacent covered porch. The adult day care program will be staffed by a nurse director, an assistant and volunteers. The participants in this program will be provided with various activities of daily living in an environment developed for Alzheimer's Disease victiMs. This program is intended to provide placement for persons not yet in need of in-patient care and will provide an alternative to premature nursing home admission. Manor Care's Proposal. Manor Care proposes a dedicated 30-bed specialized unit for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. In 1985, Manor Care perceived the need to treat Alzheimer's patients in a manner different than patients in the general nursing home population. Manor Care's task force of nurses, administrators, architects, and designers developed an Alzheimer's program which recognizes the special needs of the patient. Manor Care now operates 21 special dedicated Alzheimer's units throughout the country and is planning 16 additional Alzheimer's units. Manor Care's comprehensive Alzheimer's program encompasses five components: (1) environment, (2) staffing and training, (3) programming, (4) specialized medical services, and (5) family support. Environment. The proposed 30-bed Alzheimer's unit will be separate from the rest of the facility and self-contained, with its own dining room, activities room, lounge, quiet/privacy room, nurses sub-station, director's office, and outdoor courtyard. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's residents enables staff to provide individualized attention and special assistance. By providing a simple and separate dining environment, residents are no longer embarrassed by confusion and agitation displayed in the presence of non-Alzheimer's residents during mealtime. A separate lounge area is provided for families to visit with residents. In a typical nursing center, the family must visit a confused resident in the presence of other families; families of Alzheimer's residents can find this embarrassing. A separate lounge makes visitation more desirable for Alzheimer's residents and families. The quiet/privacy room can be used by families as a quiet area to visit with a family member, by residents who want to spend time alone, or by staff persons and residents for individualized programming away from the activity on the unit. The outdoor courtyard, which is enclosed and accessible to the unit through the activities room and hallway door, allows Alzheimer's residents to walk outside freely without wandering off. The Manor Care Alzheimer's unit is specially designed with features which reduce environmental stress by minimizing glare (using parabolic lenses), noise and bold patterns which increase agitation in Alzheimer's residents. Throughout the unit, a residential, uncluttered atmosphere is emphasized, using soft, contrasting colors and textures. The unit also contains visual cues to increase orientation. Furnishings are functional, durable and easy to maintain. Staffing and Training. The Alzheimer's unit has its own specialized staff including a Unit Director, Activities Director, and nursing staff. The unit is staffed at a higher "nurse to resident" ratio than the rest of the facility. Staffing patterns emphasizu continuity to ensure that residents receive individualized care. The nurses become f;i1iar with the behavior and abilities of each resident and are able to render care appropriately. Programming. The goal of programming and activities in the Alzheimer's unit is to improve the quality of life of the Alzheimer's resident. This specialized programming results in reducing the use of medications and restraints necessary to manage the Alzheimer's resident. The Manor Care Alzheimer's activity program is success-oriented; staff provide activities designed to allow Alzheimer's residents to succeed more frequently. (They usually fail when mixed in with the general nursing home population.) specialized Medical Services. The use of consultant medical specialists is an integral part of Manor Care's Alzheimer's Program. Specialists provide diagnostic and treatment services for Alzheimer's residents upon admission to the unit, and thereafter when deemed medically appropriate. Family support. Family support is another important aspect of the Manor Care Alzheimer's program. Families are very supportive of the unit's programming and have benef itted from the understanding and support available to them. The Others' Proposals. None of the other applicants propose specialized units for the care of patients with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's sufferers will be treated in an "open unit" at the HHL facility and will be placed as compatibly as possible with other residents. Although these residents will be able to intermingle with other residents, their movements will be monitored by the "wander guard" system and all doors will be equipped with buzzers connected to the nurse's stations. The HHL facility will be designed to incorporate secure courtyards and other areas where residents will be free to wander safely throughout the living areas. The facility's nursing personnel will be specially trained to provide services to Alzheimer's sufferers. The proposed HHL facility will also offer an adult Alzheimer's day care program. Although the program will be small (accommodating between four to six individuals) it will interface with the Alzheimer's program offered to the in-house residents. As with the respite program, the Alzheimer's adult day care program will give the families of Alzheimer's disease sufferers an opportunity to take a breather during the day, and the participants will benefit from the special Alzheimer's programs and activities offered. With its proposed 60-bed addition, Palm Court plans to add a program directed specifically at persons suffering from Alzheimers and related brain disorders. Currently, it does not have one. Neither FCP nor Forum make any particular provision for the care of Alzheimer's patients. FCP points out that its facilities in other states historically have cared for this special category of patient, primarily through use of high quality, thereapy-oriented programs, especially at the earlier stages of the disease. Cypress proposes to locate off of a central core: a 60-bed nursing home, offering both intermediate and skilled care, with its own recreation area and dining, serviced from the central kitchen; (2) a 20-bed assisted living unit (which Cypress also calls "supportive care") for mentally frail and physically strong individuals which has its own outdoor recreation area and dining area; and (3) another 40 assisted living beds broken into two 20-unit wings for mentally strong and physically frail individuals, with their own dining and recreation area, including outdoor recreation. The various levels of care are separate since each of the levels have different needs and methods of treatment. However, Cypress will only accept in the mentally frail, physically strong wing, Alzheimer's-type patients who are in the earlier stages of the disease. QUALITY OF CARE. Priority/Policy 9 of the 1985 Local Health Plan states: "Applicants should be evaluated as to their achievement of superior quality ratings by DHRS and other indications of quality as available." Track Record. At the time of application, three of the nursing homes operated by HCR in Florida had superior licenses and the remaining homes had standard licenses. FCP has one nursing home in Florida. It is rated standard by DHRS. None of the facilities operated by FCP's principals, the Phillipses, has ever been in receivership or had a Medicaid or Medicare certification revoked. The Phillipses have an excellent reputation in Ohio for their operation and management of nursing homes and have remained in positive standing with federal and state certification agencies. Manor Care's proposed 60-bed addition will be owned by Manor Care of Florida, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor HealthCare Corporation. Manor HealthCare Corporation is a publicly-held corporation which owns and operates about 130 nursing homes in various states. Manor Care owns and operates nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLFs) in Florida. All nine Florida nursing homes exceed DHRS licensure standards; the majority of Manor Care's Florida facilities hold a superior license rating. Manor Care has never had a license denied, revoked, or suspended in Florida. Manor Care has opened three nursing homes in Florida in recent years. All three are superior rated. Palm Court Nursing Home has a superior license, with zero deficiencies, from DHRS' Office of Licensure and Certification with the most recent inspection having occurred between May 2 and May 4 immediately preceding the beginning of the final hearing. It is managed by National Health Corp., Murpheesboro, Tennessee. National Health Corp is an owner-operator of other facilities and either owns or operates some 19 facilities in Florida. It has managed Palm Court Nursing Home since its inception and, if the 60 bed addition is approved, will manage the addition. Forum has never had a license denied, revoked or suspended, nor had a facility placed in receivership. Forum has never had any nursing home placed in receivership at any time during its ownership, management or leasing. Forum has a history of providing quality of care and owns and operates facilities in other states which hold superior ratings. Forum has a corporate policy of seeking to attain a superior rating in those states which have such a system. Forum presently owns and operates one facility in Florida. That facility is rated standard and was acquired by Forum within the past two years. That facility, which only has 35 nursing beds, is not a prototype of what Forum proposes in this case. Seventeen (17) of the twenty-one (21) nursing homes currently managed by CSI are located in states which utilize a superior rating system. Of the facilities that are eligible to receive superior licenses, CSI maintains superior ratings in over 80 percent of its beds. CSI's Sun Terrace in Sun City Center was the subject of an extensive survey issued by the Office of Licensure and Certification, an arm of DHRS, in April, 1988, that cited numerous deficiencies in the areas of quality of care, staffing, and programs at the Sun Terrace facility. The licensure survey also cited violations of state and federal laws in the handling of controlled substances and problems with resident care plans at the facility. The findings of DHRS in its licensure survey of Sun Terrace appear to be serious matters, the resolution of which is clearly within the control of CSI. Following the opening of the second 60 beds at Sun Terrace in September, 1987, the facility experienced a shortage of nursing personnel which necessitated a greater use of agency personnel to staff the facility. The problems cited by DHRS at Sun Terrace were largely the result of the increased use of agency personnel, lack of documentation, a newly licensed administrator, and the unexpected resignation of the director of nursing. Even before the DHRS licensure survey, CSI had taken affirmative action to address the problems at Sun Terrace, including a voluntary moratorium on new admissions. In response to the recent problems at Sun Terrac, CSI has moved toward more centralized management of its facilities. CSI now requires administrators to adhere very closely to the corporate policies and procedures. Further, the addition of a second full-time nurse/consultant will double the frequency of quality of care monitoring visits at CSI facilities. The problems experienced at Sun Terrace are atypical of CSI-managed facilities. When CSI's policies and procedures are properly followed, the result is excellent nursing care and services. But the problems at Sun Terrace are examples of what can happen when an organization attempts to expand operations more rapidly than it should. In this connection, CSI has received seven CONs since July 1984. Two of the seven are preliminary approvals that have been challenged and have not yet gone to hearing. One was the 60-bed addition to Sun Terrace which is now licensed. Another is a 73-bed nursing home in Brevard County which is expected to open within the next several months, and another is a 21-bed addition project in Collier County. Cypress has never operated a nursing home and has no track record. Staffing. Staffing arrangments are important considerations in assessing the quality of care to be expected from a proposal, but there is not necessarily a proportional correlation between staffing and quality. How staffing affects quality also depends on the breadth and types of programs to be offered. For example, Alzheimer's programs and sub-acute care will require higher staffing ratios. HCR, FCP, Manor Care, Palm Court and Forum all propose staffing arrangments that meet or exceed state requirements. See Findings Of Fact 1-5, above. Cypress' application, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired in its proposed staffing. The staffing plan presented by Cypress on its Updated Table 11 fails to meet the requirements of Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. Specifically, no provision has been made for an activity director (10D-29.116), a medical director (10D-29.107), a pharmacy consultant (10D-29.112), or a medical records consultant (10D-29.118), all of which are required by rule. (Cypress attempted to explain that it would have a pharmacy consultant on contract who would bill patients separately.) Further, no provision has been made for utilization review to monitor the appropriateness of the placement of residents, as required by Rule 10D-29. Cypress' Updated Table 11 provides for LPNs of 1.5 FTEs on the first shift and night shift and 6.0 FTEs on the second shift. The second shift LPN coverage is over-staffed by 4 1/2 FTEs which will result in inefficiency. Rule 10D-29.108, F.A.C., requires staffing of nursing assistants on all shifts. The Cypress staffing plan makes no provision for nursing assistants on the second shift. In testimony, Cypress attempted to explain that Table 11 was wrong and that the second shift LPNs should have been aides. The proposes Cypress nursing home will not offer 24-hour RN coverage. The third shift has no RN coverage. Based upon the proposed staffing pattern appearing in Cypress' Updated Table 11, its proposed facililty would not qualify for licensure under Florida regulations, much less qualify for a superior rating. Cypress has not secured or identified the day-to-day management of the proposed nursing home. No medical director has been secured or identified. Quality Assurance programs. All of the applicants except Cypress have existing quality assurance (QA) programs that are adequate to assL're quality of care. From the evidence HCR's, Manor Care's, HHL's and Forum's QA programs are comparable and are the best among the applicants. Palm Court has had results comparable to or better than the others , which is itself evidence of an adequate QA program. Meanwhile, CSI, despite an evidently superior QA program, has experienced quality programs due to rapid fill-up of its 60 additiional beds at Sun Terrace. Cypress has no experience operating a nursing home. Not surprisingly, it professes to desire quality and to plan to implement stringent QA programs. But its plans at this stage are not as developed and detailed as the existing QA programs being used by the other applicants at other facilities. Other Factors. Whether Therapies Are In-House or Contracted. Assuming a need for it, and reasonable cost of providing it, provision of therapies--e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy-- in-house generally is preferable to providing them by contracts with third parties. From an operational and administrative perspective, there are advantages to providing physical therapy services (PT) on an in- house basis. Contracted physical therapy staff tend to be available only for scheduled treatments; in-house staff are always available to assist staff and perform unscheduled maintenance therapy. In-house physical therapy staff work regularly with the nursing home staff. They are present within the facility anc learn the operation of the nursing home facility better than outside agencies. Manor Care proposes to provide in-house physical therapy staff, as opposed to employing outside physical therapy staff on a contract basis. The evidence was that the other applicants plan to provide all of these therapies through third- party contracts. Palm Court has one full-time PT assistant who works under the direction of a licensed physical therapist who now divides time among three 120- bed nursing homes managed by National Health Corp. The service of this licensed physical therapist is provided as part of National Health Corp's management services. Having to cover another 60 beds at Palm Court will spread the service even thinner. In addition, Palm Court's administrator conceded that the single PT assistant in Palm Court's application will not be enough once 60-beds are added to the facility; two will be required. Of course, the trade-off (implied in Finding of Fact 102, above) for providing in-house therapy is that it is less efficient if full use of the services is not required. De-institutionalization. FCP, Forum and Cypress have made special efforts to "de- institutionalize" nursing home care at their proposed facilities. All three proposals emphasize the provision of nursing care within aresidential development--a combination of retirement apartments, assisted living accommodations and nursing home. (See also this concept's impact on Continuum of Care concerns, Findings of Fact 114-127, below.) FCP's proposed facility is designed with a residential appearance to facilitate and implement the philosophy of de-institutionalization co:tained in its application. It reflects FCP's modular approach to care with residential units in wings tied to a common area of support services. The support services are extensive. There are activities areas, craft areas, exercise rooms, therapy areas, a beauty salon and barber shop, men's and women's recreational areas, private dining rooms, a community dining room, screened patios and porches, a newsstand, a bank, a post office, a library, a chapel, a screened-in gazebo, and a swimming pool. The exterior amenities of the design include a pond, an exercise course, a sitting deck, and a putting green. The center core and its recreation and therapy programs are designed to encourage interact ion among the residents in all the different levels of care. Although the third floor, where the nursing home is located, also has a secondary lounge and supplemental dining area, the primary dining area, as well as all of the other amenities, are on the first floor to enhance the interaction. The 30-bed size of FCP's proposed nursing home unit is a part of the original Phillips concept of a de- institutionalized setting, enabling the provision of more personalized care. Where there are fewer residents to care for, a better rapport between the residents and the care givers and a more family-type, personal atmosphere are achieved. This 30-bed concept previously has been approved by the Department in Lee and Polk Counties. Those projects are operationally, structurally, and physically identical to this proposed project. The symmetrical, 3-story design minimizes the amount of travel distance for the resident at the farthest unit to the amenities of the center core and its services. The nursing unit is on the third and smallest floor so that the distance by elevator to the central core for the nursing home iesidents is at a minimum'while still providing those residents with the greatest opportunity for quiet time. Privacy is an essential element in achieving high quality of care. The semi-private room plan utilized in this proposal is a unique approach to maximizing privacy for each resident. A permanent partial partition separating the two beds in each room effectively creates two private rooms. This provides a private space for each resident with his or her own thermostat, window, storage space, television, and telephone accommodation, and heightened auditory privacy. There will be equal access to and control of the vestibule and bathroom for each resident. The 585 gross square feet per bed in the FCP proposal is approximately one-third greater than standard nursing home room configuration. Forum's proposal's chief effort in furtherance of the goal of deinstitutiona1izationother than the continuum of care concept and overall residential appearance--is in the relatively large and "up-scale" living areas. The Cypress facility will include a central core dividing the two 60- bed portions of the project. The central core will include an administrative area, a chapel, a beauty and barber shop, enclosed courtyard, physical and occupational therapy, dining, a central kitchen, and a laundry area. One trade-off for de-institutionalization is cost. Both FCP and Forum generally cost more than the others. Cypress claims not to, but its projected construction cost of $49 per square foot is unrealistically low. See Findings of Fact 147 and 149, below. PROGRAMS (OTHER THAN ALZHEIMER'S). Continnum of Care. As just alluded to, several of the proposals emphasize the placement of their nursing home within a larger community of persons needing different levels of care. FCP. FCP proposes the construction of a 30-bed nursing unit as part of a family owned and operated, 120-unit, full continuum of care facility for the elderly. The facility also contains 60 independent living apartments and 30 adult congregate living units. The full continuum of care is proposed in a uniquely designed, de-institutionalized, home-like atmosphere. FCP offers a therapeutic community offering individualized, personalIzed care in small self- contained units, each specializing in various levels of care ranging from day care and respite care, through apartments for the elderly and assisted living, to skilled, post-hospital rehabilitation. The continuum of care will provide a homogeneous environment through which residents can move as their medical and personal needs change. Forum. Forum Group, Inc., is a national company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers in a number of states. Forum's proposed nursing home will be part of a total retirement living center containing two other levels of care, assisted living (or ACLF units) and independent apartment units. Forum's proposal calls for provision of a continuum of care, from independent living to assisted living to nursing care, all on the same campus. Cypress. Cypress Total Care would be part of an overall medical project known as Cypress Park. The corporation was formed and a master plan was created, to be developed in two phases. Phase I is a 120-bed nursing facility consisting of 60 skilled and intermediate nursing beds, the subject of these proceedings, and 60 personal care units. Phase II would consist of a 290-unit adult congregate living facility (ACLF) and 143 units of independent villa housing on a golf course with nature trails and other amenities. Also proposed in Phase II would be units of medical offices and commercial health-related facilities to support the community. The area selected by Cypress is adjacent to the Sun Hill Medical Arts Building and the Community Arts Building, as well as a hospital owned by Hospital Corporation of America known as Sun City Hospital. These components would be worked into the overall master plan proposed by Cypress. Cypress proposes a multi-level assessment program. The 120-bed Cypress Park Community facility will have an independent level one facility in Sun City Center which will admit healthy elderly residents. These elderly may have canes, but no walkers or wheelchairs, and they will function normally in their activities of daily living. These individuals may prepare two meals a day in their apartments, or have them in the dining room. The main meal will be in the dining room. Social services and activities will be provided and recommended to the independent living residents to enhance their lifestyles. A home health agency is planned as a part of the center so that house calls can be made to insure that any necessary medications are taken and that residents receive the services they might need from time to time. (Cypress has not yet applied for a CON for its home health agency.) The next level of living is for patients who need more assistance. These are residents who require 24-hour companion service. These patients do not require skilled nursing care and do not require the institutional environment of a nursing home. Some of these paients may be in the first stage of Alzheimer's, or they may be physically frail, but not enough to require skilled nursing care. This level is primarily for those individuals who are physically frail and mentally strong or mentally frail and physically strong. The physically frail and mentally strong may have limited ambulatory capabilities, need assistance in activities of daily living, need medication, or need all their meals prepared. As noted above, this level of services also will be provided to individuals who are physically strong but mentally frail. The majority of these people will be Alzheimer's residents, they must be carefully monitored 24 hours a day and receive strong psychological support. The next level of care offered is for individuals who require some nursing care and no longer qualify for the level two care described above. This will be intermediate nursing care and will consist of care from certified nursing aides and licensed practical nurses. These individuals do not require skilled nursing care. Rehabilitation is the key to this portion of the plan, and the rehabilitative center will be involved to constantly push these individuals to the point of rehabilitation where they can reenter an independent lifestyle. If individuals progress further, they can move into the skilled nursing care center in which they will receive care not only from nursing aides and licensed practical nurses, but also from registered nurses. The final level would be acute hospital care which would be provided by the existing Sun City Hospital. The medical staff who are involved in the Cypress project also are on the medical staff of the Sun City Hospital and will be working and consulting with individuals both in the acute hospital care and the nursing home setting to provide appropriate levels of care to the individuals who need it. The nursing home will share IV teams, work with tracheotomy patients, A.D.A. dieticians, accounting services, and other services with the existing hospital in Sun City Center. Palm Court. Palm Court, while currently a free-standing 120- bed nursing home, is located on property where construction of a 360-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) is now starting. In addition, Palm Court has transfer agreements with area hospitals including Plant City Hospital, South Florida Baptist Hospital, Brandon Humana Hospital and Lakeland Regional Medical Center. It also has formal working relationships with home health agencies and with elderly programs in the area. The Others. The other applicants--HCR, Manor Care and HHL-- propose free-standing nursing homes. But all can be expected to make efforts to achieve transfer and other agreements with local hospitals, home health agencies and providers of care for the elderly where reasonable and appropriate. Sub-Acute Care. The HCR nursing home will be staffed and equipped to provide sub- acute care. The sub-acute care services provided by HCR will include high tech services such as ventilator care, IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation, and short and long term rehabilitation. HCR currently provides a wide variety of these sub-acute services in its existing nursing homes. CSI currently provides sub-acute nursing services at its existing Florida facilities. Those services include ventilators, hyperalimentation, intravenous therapy, Clinitron beds, heparin pumps, nosogastric and Jejunoscopy tube feedings, subclavian lines, and Hickman catheters. These service will be provided at HHL's proposed facility. Forum will provide skilled and intermediate care, and the following services will be offered at the proposed facility: Sterile dressing changes for decubitus care. Brittle diabetics on sliding scale insulin. Continuous administration of oxygen. Sterile case of tracheotomies. Ventilators. Continuous bladder irrigation. Hyper-alimentation or N-G feeding. IV treatment. Special medication monitoring (e.g. heparin, comadin). New post-operative cases facing hospital discharge as a result of D.R.G. reimbursement. The skilled nursing services to be provided by FCP include parenteral nutrition, internal nutrition, tracheostomy care, respirator care, skin wound decubitus care, ostomy care, and head trauma care. Palm Court also will provide sub-acute care. Adult Day Care Adult day care is a part of the specialized Azfleimer's program HCR proposes. In addition, HHL, FCP and Forum offer adult day care. Respite Care. HCR and Manor Care offer respite care as part of their Alzheimer's programs. Both will have no minimum length of stay and no extra charge over the regular daily rate for nursing home care. All the others except Palm Court also offer respite care, but Cypress' proposal for respite care is sketchy. HHL says it will offer respite care at no extra charge. D. Hospice. Only HCR, Forum and HHL offer hospice care as part of their nursing home programs. F. Rehabilitation and Community Outreach. All of the applicants propose rehabilitative (or restorative) care and some kind of community outreach programs. The distinctions among the ideas expressed by the applicants are not particularly competitively significant. However, the manner in which the therapies are delivered can be significant. See Finding of Facts 102 to 105, above. HOW SOON THE PROJECT BECOMES OPERATIONAL. Because there is a shortage of nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, there is a valid concern how long it would take for the holder of a CON to get its facility operational. Priority/Policy 3 of the 1985 Local Health Plan gives expression to this concern as follows: In competitive reviews, preference should be given to applicants with a documented history of implementing certificates of need within the statutory time frames. Of the applicants who have developed nursing homes in the past (i.e., excluding Cypress), all but Palm Court have a history of timely implementing their CONs. Palm Court had to request an extension of time in implementing its existing 120-bed facility. But Palm Court bought the CON for that project from the original owners in 1982 or 1983. Palm Court then had to secure another, more suitable location, re-design the facility, get construction financing and enter into a construction contract before construction could begin. This delayed the project and resulted in administrative litigation to decide whether Palm Court should lose the CON for failure to timely implement it or be given an extension of time. Palm Court prevailed, and the facility opened in September, 1985. HHL, through CSI, also has a history of timely implementing CONs but recent expansion in Florida raises some question whether it can continue to be as timely in implementing this CON, along with the others. See Findings of Fact 82-87,98, and 100, above. Generally, an addition of beds to an existing nursing home can be constructed more quickly than a new facility, giving Palm Court an advantage in potential speed of implementation. similarly, Manor Care, which is prepared to begin construction on its finally approved 60-bed CON, has an advantage over the others, as well as a potential construction cost savings over Palm Court. See Findings of Fact 146, below. COST OF CARE. Cost of Construction And Development. Advantage of Additions. Within limits placed on recovery of capital costs under the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement programs now in place (which, to some extent, are emulated by private health care insurers and employers' health benefit plans), construction and development costs generally are reflected in the charges patients pay for nursing home care. Additions, such as Palm Court's and Manor Care's proposals, have a cost advantage over the other proposals. Construction sites already have been prepared, and it is not ncessary to duplicate some features already incorporated in the original structure, such as the kitchen, laundry and building plant. Due to delays in finalization of its approved CON for 60 beds, Manor Care has the fortuitous additional potential cost advantage of being able to construct both the "original facility" and the 60-bed "addition" at the same time. Quality vs. Cost Trade-Off. Other than the cost advantage of adding on, and of saving the contractor's fee by using an in-house construction team (as HCR does), reduced cost of construction generally will reflect reduced quality. For example, some of the quality features incorporated in the proposals of Forum, FCP and Cypress will cost more. See Finding of Fact 113, above. Put another way, lower costs may result in lower patient charges but also may result in lower quality, everything else being equal. The costs of construction of the various proposals may be found in Findings of Fact 1 to 7, above. It should also be noted at this point that Cypress' facility design has features--primarily unusual wall and roof angles and one water heater requiring larger pipe sizing-- which make its construction costs appear lower than they should be. Cost Overruns. The applicants' respective records for cost overruns in implementing CONs mirror their records for timeliness. See Findings of Fact 138-143, above. Cypress has no track record; all the others except Palm Court have experienced no cost overruns; Palm Court's $1.3 million cost overrun was precipitated by the need to secure another site and re-design the facility after it acquired the CON for 120 beds; and CSI, which would be responsible for implementing HHL's proposal, is involved in recent expansion which could affect its ability to bring all of its' CONs on line within budget. Cost of Operations. Economies of Scale--Size of Facility. In addition to construction and development costs, cost of operations are reflected in patient charges. It generally is accepted that a 120-bed nursing home is the optimal size for operational efficiencies. In this respect, the proposals by HCR, Forum and HHL have an advantage over the others. Manor Care has the advantage of proposing to expand a less efficient 60-bed nursing home to an optimally efficient 120-bed facility. To some extent, the generally accepted principle that 120-bed nursing homes are more desirable may have become dated. Two of the proposals--FCP's and Cypress'--combine some of the operating efficiencies of a 120-bed nursing home with the continuum of care and quality of care that can be achieved in a 120-bed living complex that incorporates a smaller nursing unit with other living units of different levels of care. By c(Jmparison, these type facilities are less institutionalized than a 120-bed nursing home, whether free-standing or incorporated within a larger complex with other living units. See Findings of Fact 106 to 113, above. Economies of Scale--Size of Organization. Economies of scale also can be realized from the size of the organization that owns or manages a nursing home. The proposals of all of the applicants except Cypress benefit from this principle, Palm Court to a lesser extent than the others, including in the area of quality assurance, nurse training and nurse recruiting. At the time of hearing, HCR operated nine nursing homes in Florida. HCR has approximately twelve nursing homes scheduled to begin construction in Florida within the next year. Nationwide, HCR operates more than 125 facilities containing approximately 16,000 beds. HCR has designed and built over 200 nursing homes and related health care facilities. HCR realizes substantial savings by using national contracts for the purchase of furniture, equipment, hardware and other operating supplies. Forum, as a national company, has the experience and purchasing power to cut operational costs through national purchase contracts and through economies and improvements experienced at the local level with a total retirement facility all on one campus. The Manor Care Florida Regional Office offers the services of a Regional Director, a Regional Nurse, a Nurse Recruiter, and a Comptroller to work with the corresponding departments of the Manor Care Florida nursing homes. FCP's long term plans are to develop homes in clusters, currently concentrating on the central west coast area of Florida. FCP has previously been granted certificates of need in Lee County and Polk County and has been recommended by the Department for a certificate of need in Hillsborough County. This cluster will operate under a unified local administration and share rehabilitative, medical, social, dietary and transportation personnel, enhancing economies of operation. CSI was formed in 1978 for the purpose of operating extended care facilities, including nursing homes and retirement centers. Since that time, the company has grown to its current operations of twenty-one (21) nursing homes, two (2) retirement centers and one (1) home for the aged located in seven states. Historically, much of this growth has occurred through the acquisition of existing facilities, although more recently the focus has shifted to the development of new facilities. Because CSI has established "national accounts" for the acquisition of movable equipment CSI can purchase nursing home equipment and furnishings and other operating supplies for HHL at reduced prices. (3) Patient Charges. The applicants propose the following room charges for semi-private rooms. Applicant Medicaid Medicare Private Pay HCR 60.94 76.00 75.00 FCP 60.00 65.00 80.00 Manor Care 1/ 69.37 ---- 72.57 HHL 66.30 109.33 2/ 72.76 Forum 67.18 80.67 79.50 Palm Court 77.00 100.00 77.00 Cypress 58.00 65.00 69.00 However, Cypress' charges are suspect; they probably are unrealistically low. Palm Court's charges also are suspect. It is difficult to understand from the evidence whether they are charges or Medicaid reimbursements. It also is difficult to tell if they are current or projected. In any event, they do not relate to the information in Palm Court's pro forma. As previously alluded to, patient charges do not necessarily proportionately reflect construction and development and operating efficiencies. They also are affected by programs and quality. BUILDING DESIGN AND ENERGY FEATURES. Patient Care and Safety. Overall, HCR's design is excellent. Functional elements are effectively inter-related, the building is designed to be open to landscaping, sunlight and court yards, and there is a wide range of amenities. Cypress' patient rooms are smaller than allowed under state requirments. The state minimum in Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code, is 80 net square feet per bed for multi-bed and 100 net square feet in a single room. Cypress' proposal only has approximately 65.58 gross square feet per bed. Cypress' building design also has rooms that are approximately 130 feet from the nurses' stations and clean utility and soiled utility rooms, 10 feet over the state maximum under Rule 10D-29.121(24), Florida Administrative Code. Forum's :4 floor plan also violates this standard. Rule 10D-29.121(6), Florida Administrative Code, requires a 20 foot clear view out room windows. Cypress' design also violates this standard. Manor Care's floorplan is the most compact one- story design. It has four compact wings off a central core. Forum proposes a two-story structure, creating a potential increased hazard for patients with reduced mobility. But DHRS rules provide for nursing homes of more than one floor, and required safety features, which Forum will provide, keep the potential to an insignificant minimum. FCP proposes a three-story facility with the nursing home on the third floor adjacent to the elevators connecting it to the first floor central core and amenities. FCP, too, adequately addresses DHRS safety concerns and actually could be more convenient to more nursing home patients than a one-story structure. Energy Conservation Features. All of the applicants propose to insulate their facilities for energy efficiency, some, e.q., HHL, somewhat better than others. Building design itself also affects energy consumption. Cypress' high exterior building surface area makes it a less energy-efficient design; Manor Care's compact design aces it a more energy-efficient design. FCP's three-story design also is a more energy-efficient design. Cypress' design incorporates only one water heater. This will produce line loss and lower energy efficiency, as well as potential total loss of hot water. (Cypress also has only one electrical plant.) Other Unique Design Features. Several unique features in FCP's room design helps "de- institutionalize" the facility and contributes to overall quality of care. Similarly, residents at FCP will be able to offer their guests refreshments from the kitchen at any time of the day or nights and children, spouses, and entire families will be encouraged to join residents for meals as often as they wish, assisting in the maintenance of ties with the community. Dining may be either communal or in the several lounge areas and private dining rooms. One of Cypress' unique design features is of the bizarre and morbid variety--a room designed to store deceased residents. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY. The short-term and long-term feasibility of the proposals of HCR, FCP, Manor Care, Forum and HHL was never seriously questioned and was easily proven. Not so with Palm Court and Cypress. Palm Court. The duty to defend the immediate and long term financial feasibility of Palm Court's project rested with Steve Jones. Mr. Jones, who was not involved in the preparation of the application, offered his opinion that the Palm Court 60-bed addition would be feasible in the immediate and long terms. In giving his opinion of the project's financial feasibility, Mr. Jones stated he believed the pro forma in years 1 and 2 relate back to the corresponding tables in the application; but acknowledged he performed no analysis of his own, but rather he took the information provided him at face value. The pro forma is one of the key components of an application, as literally the heart of the application ties directly or indirectly into developing the pro forma, including Tables 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 25, as well as the amortization schedule. It is a required component of the application. Section 381.494(4)(e), F.S. (1985). Mr. Jones was asked to render an opinion on the reasonableness of Tables 8, 10, 11 and 25, which he did. On cross examination, however, Mr. Jones acknowledged he did not evaluate existing staff at Palm Court to determine the reasonableness of the pro forma. He did not verify the projected management fee and, in fact, stated he didn't know if it was included as a line item under "administration and general" on the pro forma nor how the management fee was computed. Mr. Jones, who has never prepared all the financial information in a CON application, also admitted he didn't know what current nursing salaries were in Hillsborough County, or any other salaries for that matter. He further acknowledged that he could not testify that the application's hourly wage times the number of working hours in a year would give you the stated nursing salaries. In sum, Mr. Jones admitted his opinion of the project's feasibility was based solely on his review of Tables 8, 11, 20 and 25 and his firm's involvement in the preparation of Palm Court's two most recent cost reports and not on the pro forma filed with Palm Court's application. Mr. Jones' accounting firm, in preparing Palm Court's cost reports, does not conduct an audit or express any opinion relating to the reasonableness of the statement of revenues and expenses. Joseph Lennartz, an expert in financial feasibility analysis, gave persuasive testimony outlining the inconsistencies in Palm Court's application. Palm Court's total revenue projections appearing in Table 7 for years 1 and 2 do correspond to the daily room and board revenues appearing in the pro forma, yet none of the Table 7 revenue projections correspond to the projected charges on Table 8. Assuming the salaries on Table 11 do not include fringe benefits, all FTE's and salaries on Table 11 are not accounted for in the pro forma. The pro forma salaries are significantly lower than on Table 11: RNs ,- understated by $12,426 LPNs - understated by $30,518 CNAS -understated by $239,541 Social Worker - understated by $2,983 Dietary - understated by $3,009 Maintenance - understated by $10,165 Activities - understated by $4,486 Housekeeping - understated by $6,365 Laundry & Linen - understated by $6,498 Admin & General - understated by $2,560 Palm Court's salary information on Table 11 is in 1987 dollars and needs to be inflated forward at least two to three years. Palm Court's current average salaries exceeded the proposed salaries on Table 11--including the administrator's salary, proposed at an annual salary of just over $31,000 when it actually was over $50,000 in 1987. Based on Palm Court's answers to interrogatories, Palm Court's management fee is not accurately reflected in the pro forma and is $44,559 too low in year 2; the projected dietary expense is understated by $112,386 in year 2; the projected housekeeping expense is understated by $46,609 in year 2; the projected laundry expense is understated by $35,308 in year 2; and plant expenses are understated by $100,116 in year 2. The terms of debt financing appearing on Table 2 of Palm Court's application do not conform to the amortization table, causing the interest expense line item on the pro forma to be understated. Cypress. As previously alluded to, the reasonableness of Cypress' projected Medicaid and Medicare rates appearing on its Updated Table 8 has not been established by competent substantial evidence. The Cypress pro forma fails to make provision for interest expense, depreciation, and property tax expense. These omissions represent an understatement of expenses as follows: YEAR ONE YEAR TWO INTEREST $177,818 $176,186 DEPRECIATION $110,000 $100,000 PROPERTY TAXES 2,200 25,000 (at assessed value 75 percent of market) TOTAL $290,018 $301,186 When interest, depreciation, and property taxes are included in the Cypress pro forma, the result is a loss of $90,000 in year one and $80,000 in year two. Furthermore, from a cash flow perspective, Cypress will incur a cash loss of $2,037 in year one and a cash gain of just $6,342 in year two. If property taxes are based on an assessed value at 100 percent of fair market value, there would be a $2,000 cash loss even in year two. It is not unusual for a nursing home to experience a negative cash flow in its first year of operation due to its low occupancy. However, it is unusual for a nursing home to experience a negative cash flow, as the Cypress facility will, while operating at optimal occupancy (95 percent). Cypress' owner/investors are willing to proceed with the project because they expect to be able to use some of the approximately $90,000 per year tax loss in years one and two to offset personal income, resulting in a cash on cash return of approximately $23,000 or 5.4 percent. Cypress' Table 1, "source of funds" states that the applicant has $425,000 "in hand". In fact, Cypress does not have those funds in hand. They are in the hands of the Cypress owner/investors. So far they have contributed $90,000 to the venture and will have to contribute not only an additional $425,000 to fund the nursing home but also an unspecified larger sum to fund Cypress planned ACLF and other projects. The evidence suggests that at least $425,000 more of equity contribution would be required for the rest of the project. Cypress did not prove that its proposed facility is financially feasible, either in the immediate or long term. BALANCED CONSIDERATION. Giving a balanced consideration to all of the statutory and rule factors addressed in the preceding findings, it is found that there is a net need for 231 community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, that the applications of HCR, FCP and Manor Care should be granted and that the other applications should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting the applications of HCR (CON Action No. 5000), FCP (CON Action No. 4993) and Manor Care (CON Action No. 5006) and denying the applications of Forum (CON Action No. 4999), HHL (CON Action No. 4978) Palm Court (CON Action No. 4987) and Cypress (CON Action No. 5004). RECOMMENDED this 14th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 14th day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Wellington Specialty Care and Rehab Center sufficient to support the change in its licensure status to a conditional rating.
Findings Of Fact Wellington is a nursing home located in Tampa, Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The Agency is the licensing agency in the State of Florida responsible for regulating nursing facilities under Part II of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On September 10, 1998, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at Wellington in a matter unrelated to the issues that are the subject of this proceeding. On that same date, the Agency also conducted an appraisal survey that focused on six areas of care for which Wellington had been cited as deficient in past surveys. After the investigation and survey were completed, the Agency determined that there was no basis for the complaint, and further determined that Wellington was not deficient in any of the six areas of care which were the subject of the appraisal survey. Notwithstanding its findings that the complaint against Wellington was unfounded and that there were no deficiencies in the targeted areas of care being reviewed, the Agency determined that Wellington was deficient in an area not initially the subject of the September 1998 survey. Specifically, the Agency found that Wellington had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to two residents at the facility in violation of the regulatory standard contained in 42 C.F.R. s. 483.25(h)(2). Based on its findings and conclusions, the Agency issued a survey report in which this deficiency was identified and described under a "Tag F324." The basis for the Agency’s findings were related to observations and investigations of two residents at the facility, Resident 6 and Resident 8. During the September 1998 survey and complaint investigation, the surveyors observed that Resident 6 had a bruise on her forehead and that Resident 8 had bruises on the backs of both of her hands. Resident 6 suffered a stroke in May 1998 and had left-side neglect, a condition that caused her to be unaware of her left side and placed her at risk for falls. Moreover, Resident 6's ability to recall events was impaired. The Agency's investigation revealed that Resident 6 sustained the bruise on her forehead when she fell from the toilet on August 31, 1998. The Agency determined that Resident 6 fell because she was left alone by the staff of the facility and further concluded that Wellington was responsible for causing this fall. The Agency believed that given Resident 6's left-side neglect, the facility staff should have known not to leave the resident unattended during her trips to the toilet. The Agency suggested that Wellington should have provided constant supervision to Resident 6, although it acknowledged that such supervision may have created privacy violations. In making its determination and reaching its conclusions, the Agency relied exclusively on an interview with Resident 6, notwithstanding the fact that her ability to recall events was impaired. Since Resident 6 was admitted to the facility in May 1998, Wellington appropriately and adequately addressed her susceptibility to falls, including falls from her toilet. After Resident 6 was initially admitted to the facility in May 1998, she received occupational therapy to improve her balance. In late June 1998, following several weeks of occupational therapy, Wellington’s occupational therapist evaluated Resident 6’s ability to sit and to control the balance in the trunk of her body and determined that the resident was capable of sitting upright without support for up to 40 minutes. Based upon that assessment, Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy on June 25, 1998, and her caregivers were provided with instructions on how to maintain her balance. At the time Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy, a care plan was devised for her which provided that the facility staff would give her assistance in all of her activities of daily living, but would only provide stand-by assistance to Resident 6 while she was on the toilet, if such assistance was requested. In light of the occupational therapist's June 1998 assessment of Resident 6, this care plan was adequate to address her risk for falls, including her risk for falls while on the toilet. Wellington also provided Resident 6 with appropriate assistance devices. In Resident 6's bathroom, Wellington provided her with a right-side handrail and an armrest by her toilet to use for support and balance, and also gave her a call light to alert staff if she felt unsteady. These measures were effective as demonstrated by the absence of any falls from the toilet by Resident 6 over the course of June, July, and August 1998. The Agency's surveyor who reviewed Resident 6’s medical records was not aware of and did not consider the June 1998 Occupational Therapy Assessment of Resident 6 before citing the facility for the deficiency. Resident 8 was admitted to Wellington in February 1998 with a history of bruising and existing bruises on her body. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Resident 8 was taking Ticlid, a medication which could cause bruising and also had osteopenia, a degenerative bone condition that could increase Resident 8's risk for bruising, making it possible for her to bruise herself with only a slight bump. After observing the bruising on the backs of both of Resident 8's hands during the September 1998 survey, the Agency asked facility staff about the bruising and also reviewed the resident’s medical records. Based on her interviews and record review, the Agency surveyor found that these bruises had not been ignored by Wellington. Rather, the Agency found that when facility staff initially observed these bruises on Resident 8's hands, (1) staff had immediately notified Resident 8's physician of the bruises; and (2) the physician then ordered an X-ray of Resident 8 to determine whether there was a fracture. The X-ray determined that there was not a fracture but that there was evidence of a bone loss or osteopenia, which indicated that Resident 8 had an underlying structural problem which could increase the resident's risk for bruising. The Agency surveyor found nothing in Resident 8's medical record to indicate that the facility had investigated the bruising on the resident’s hands, identified the cause of the bruising, or identified any means to prevent the bruising from reoccurring. Based on the absence of this information in Resident 8's records, the Agency cited the facility for a deficiency under "Tag F324." The Agency's surveyor made no determination and reached no conclusion as to the cause of the bruising. However, she considered that the bruising on Resident 8 may have been caused by the underlying structural damage, medication, or external forces. With regard to external forces, the surveyor speculated that the bruising may have occurred when Resident 8 bumped her hands against objects such as her chair or bed siderails. During the September 1998 survey, when the Agency surveyor expressed her concerns about the cause of the bruising on Resident 8's hands, Wellington’s Director of Nursing suggested to the surveyor that the bruising could have been the result of the use of improper transfer techniques by either Resident 8’s family or the facility staff, or Resident 8’s medications. Despite the surveyor's speculation and suggestions by the facility's Director of Nursing, the Agency surveyor saw nothing that would indicate how the bruising occurred. In fact, the Agency surveyor's observation of a staff member transferring Resident 8 indicated that the staff member was using a proper transfer technique that would not cause bruising to the resident’s hands. The Agency surveyor made no other observations and conducted no investigation of the potential causes of the bruising on Resident 8's hands. During the September 1998 survey, after the Agency surveyor inquired as to the cause of the bruises on Resident 8's hands, the facility conducted an investigation to try to identify the potential causes for the bruising. The investigation was conducted by the facility’s Care Plan Coordinator, a licensed practical nurse who was also the Unit Manager for the unit on which Resident 8 was located. Included in the Care Plan Coordinator's investigation was a thorough examination of the potential causes suggested by the Agency's surveyor. The Agency surveyor’s speculation that the bruising was caused when Resident 8 hit her hands against her chair or bed siderails was ruled out as a cause for the bruises because Resident 8 was unable to move around in her bed or chair. More importantly, there were no bedrails on Resident 8's bed and her chair was a heavily padded recliner. Also, as a part of her investigation, the Care Plan Coordinator observed the transfer techniques employed by both Resident 8's family members and facility staff. During these observations, she did not see any indication that the techniques used were improper or would otherwise cause Resident 8 to bruise her hands. Based upon her thorough investigation, the Case Plan Coordinator determined that there were no identifiable causes of the bruising and, thus, there were no care plan interventions that the facility could have implemented then or in September 1998 to prevent the bruising suffered by Resident 8. Instead, the Care Plan Coordinator reasonably concluded that the bruising was most likely an unavoidable result of Resident 8's medications and her osteopenia. The Agency is required to rate the severity of any deficiency identified during a survey with two types of ratings. One of these is "scope and severity" rating which is defined by federal law, and the other rating is a state classification rating which is defined by state law and rules promulgated thereunder. As a result of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Tag F324 deficiency a scope and severity rating of "G" which, under federal regulations, is a determination that the deficient practice was isolated. The Tag F324 deficiency was also given a state classification rating of "II" which, under the Agency’s rule, is a determination that the deficiency presented "an immediate threat to the health, safety or security of the residents." Because the Agency determined that there was a Class II deficiency at Wellington after the September 1998 survey, it changed Wellington’s Standard licensure rating to Conditional, effective September 10, 1998. At the completion of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Class II rating to the deficiency although the surveyors failed to determine and did not believe that there was an immediate threat of accidents to other residents at Wellington. In fact, at the time of the September 1998 survey, the number of falls at Wellington had declined since the last survey. The Agency returned to Wellington on November 6, 1998, to determine if the facility had corrected the Tag F324 deficiency cited in the September 1998 survey report. After completing that survey, the Agency determined that the deficiency had been corrected and issued Wellington a Standard License effective November 6, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order issuing a Standard rating to Wellington and rescinding the Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 6800 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
