The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Home Health Care Agency, Inc. (Home Health Care) was licensed as a home health agency by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), having been issued license number 20481-95 NC. The license was valid for one year from the date of issuance, which was January 1, 1996. The license expired on December 31, 1996, and the license bore such expiration date. On September 9, 1996, AHCA conducted an on-site inspection of Home Health Care. No deficiencies were found. On October 21, 1996, AHCA mailed a blank license renewal application to Home Health Care’s administrator. Accompanying the blank application was a letter also dated October 21, 1996, and addressed to Home Health Care’s administrator. The letter stated, among other things, that Home Health Care's license was expiring on December 31, 1996; that 60 days prior to the expiration date of the license, the application, all required documentation, and the license fee must be received by or postmarked to AHCA; and that a fine may be imposed for failure to timely submit the documents. October 31, 1996, was the deadline for Home Health Care to timely submit the license renewal application to AHCA. On December 3, 1996, Home Health Care’s completed license renewal application was executed. On December 3, 1996, via UPS Next Day Air, Home Health Care shipped its completed license renewal application to AHCA. The next day, on December 4, 1996, AHCA received Home Health Care's completed license renewal application. Home Health Care failed to timely submit its completed license renewal application to AHCA, but submitted the license renewal application 34 days late to AHCA. On or about February 22, 1997, AHCA issued a renewal license to Home Health Care for the 1997 licensure period. Prior to the expiration date of the licenses for home health agencies, as a courtesy, AHCA attempts to mail-out blank license renewal applications to home health agencies. The timing of the mailings varies and is dependent upon when AHCA’s computer system is able to generate the letters to the home health agencies, which accompany the blank license renewal applications. AHCA does not consider its act of courtesy to relieve the home health agency of the responsibility to submit the license renewal application within the required time frames. A home health agency which wishes to renew its license can request a blank license renewal application from AHCA at any time. AHCA receives numerous requests for blank renewal applications, as well as other documents required to be submitted by a home health agency. AHCA can fax, and has faxed, a blank renewal application to a home health agency on the same day that the application is requested. In the previous year, 1995, AHCA mailed a blank license renewal application for the 1996 licensure year to Home Health Care's administrator. Accompanying the blank license renewal application was a letter, dated June 22, 1995, to Home Health Care's administrator, which contained the same information and language as the letter of October 21, 1996, except for the expiration date of the license and the name of the author of the letter. Home Health Care’s administrator prepared and submitted a completed license renewal application for the 1996 licensure year. The blank license renewal applications for 1995 (the 1996 licensure year) and 1996 (the 1997 licensure year) did not change and were identical.
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: Finding that Home Health Care Agency, Inc. violated Subsection 400.471(5), Florida Statutes (1995), and Rule 59A- 8.003(4), Florida Administrative Code. Imposing an administrative fine of $3,400. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1998.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came on for consideration before the Agency for Health Care Administration ("the Agency"), which finds and concludes as follows: The Agency issued the Petitioner ("the Applicant") the attached Notice of Intent to Deem Application Incomplete and Withdrawn from Further Review (Ex. 1). Petitioner requested a formal hearing (Ex. 2). Petitioner withdrew its Petition for formal hearing on January 4, 2010 (Ex. 3). The Agency's Notice oflntent is upheld. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney's fees. This matter is closed. 010. old, Secretary Ith Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party that is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek judicial review which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the agency clerk of ARCA, and a second copy, 1 Filed January 20, 2010 8:00 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days ofrendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone (850) 922-5873 Jan Mills Facilities Intake Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Anne Menard, Manager Home Care Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Carlton Enfinger, II Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Christopher A. Parrella Law Center at Brickell Bay 2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1 Miami, Florida 33129 (U.S. Mail) 2
The Issue The primary issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a home health agency was complete upon Petitioner's submission of additional information to Respondent within 21 days after Respondent had timely notified Petitioner of the need to provide additional information. If Petitioner failed to provide Respondent with information which Respondent timely requested, then Respondent may deny Petitioner's application as incomplete, as it intended to do, provided the information Respondent sought is information Respondent is permitted by law to require. On the other hand, if Petitioner's application was complete, then Petitioner's application is "considered approved," because Respondent failed to grant or deny the application within 60 days after receiving additional information from Petitioner; in that event, a license must be issued to Petitioner, subject to reasonable conditions authorized by law.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency" or "AHCA") is the state agency responsible for regulating home health agencies in Florida. In this capacity, the Agency determines whether to approve applications for licensure as a home health agency, and it has administrative jurisdiction to enforce the laws governing such licensees, including the authority to take disciplinary measures against licensees who violate the applicable statutes and rules. MVP Health, Inc. ("MVP"), is a corporation which, for a time relevant to this case, held a license to operate as a home health agency. On June 11, 2009, MVP filed an application with AHCA seeking to obtain a new home health agency license, notwithstanding that it was already licensed. Prompting this seemingly unusual maneuver was the recent acquisition of 100 percent of the company's equity by an individual named Rey Gomez, who had bought out the other shareholders. About one week after submitting its application to AHCA, MVP voluntarily stopped operating as a home health agency under its then- existing license. Pursuant to Sections 120.60(1) and 408.806(3), Florida Statutes, which will be examined below, the Agency was required to notify MVP, within 30 days after receiving MVP's application for licensure, of any errors, omissions, or requests for additional information. By letter dated July 10, 2009 (the "Omissions Letter"), the Agency timely gave MVP such a notice, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Your application for a home health agency license has been reviewed and was found to be incomplete. Applicants for licensure will receive only one omission letter describing the corrections, omissions or revisions needed to complete the application. If the response to the omission letter does not satisfactorily address what is outlined below, the application will be denied. Therefore, pursuant to section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes, no further action can be taken until the following is received: * * * Include a separate list showing all health care entities licensed or registered in the State of Florida that are also owned in whole or in part by each of your controlling interests as required by subsection 400.471(2)(g), F.S. Controlling interests as defined in [section] 408.803, F.S., include the applicant or licensee; a person or entity that serves as an officer of, is on the board of directors[,] or has a 5 percent or greater ownership interest in the management company or other entity, related or unrelated[,] with which the applicant or licensee contracts to manage the provider. The term does not include a voluntary board member. * * * You have listed Rey Gomez as the sole owner of MVP Health Inc. We currently have a licensed home health agency, MVP Health Inc., HHA #29992195, which our records show as being owned by Virginia Duby, Michael Lee, and Priscilla Lee. We cannot process an initial application for licensure from a company for which we currently have an active license if the owners of record on that existing license differ from the owners of record on the new application. A change of ownership application was recently filed for that agency but that application was denied and withdrawn. Since then we have come to understand that this company's ownership was in dispute. Please submit documentation that the legal issues of ownership of this company have been finally resolved. Please eliminate any inconsistencies in the ownership of this company regarding this initial licensure application and HHA #29992195. Please complete #2A Individual and/or Entity Ownership of Licensee on Health Care Licensing Application page 2 of 5 per reporting requirements of Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes. * * * Please send the required information no later than 21 days from the receipt of this letter. If the applicant fails to submit all of the information required in the application within 21 days of being notified by AHCA of the omissions, the application will be denied and the fees shall be forfeited as required in subsection 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes. (Boldface and underlining in original.) There were, listed in the Omissions Letter, other items as to which the Agency wanted additional information, but none of these later became the subject of dispute, and thus they require no further mention. Following instructions, MVP filed the requested additional information with AHCA on July 24, 2009, a date which was well within 21 days after MVP's receipt of the Omissions Letter. In its supplemental filing, as it had done previously in its application, MVP identified Mr. Gomez and his wife, Zenaida, as the corporation's only "controlling interests," and represented that neither of them owned any part of any other health care entities. MVP asserted also that Mr. Gomez was its sole shareholder, just as it had done in the application. On August 13, 2009, MVP voluntarily relinquished its then-existing home health agency license. This was done in response to the Agency's assertion, in the Omissions Letter, that the Agency "cannot process an initial application for licensure from a company for which we currently have an active license if the owners of record on that existing license differ from the owners of record on the new application." At the time, Mr. Gomez believed that AHCA soon would issue MVP a new license, whereupon MVP would be authorized to resume operations as a home health agency. The Agency, however, did not soon issue a license to MVP. Instead, by letter dated October 20, 2009, which was captioned, "Notice of Intent to Deem Application Incomplete and Withdrawn From Further Review" (the "Withdrawal Notice"), the Agency informed MVP that its application had been deemed incomplete and would be withdrawn from further consideration.1 The Agency described the "outstanding issues remaining for licensure" as follows: The applicant could not provide proof of ownership of MVP Health Inc. The ownership of this company has been in dispute for over a year. The applicant was asked to provide proof of ownership of the company but did not do so. A call to the Clerk of Courts in Miami revealed that there is an ongoing legal dispute that has not been resolved regarding the ownership of MVP Health Inc. Rey Gomez claims to be the sole owner, however, there are three previous owners who are involved in the ownership dispute that is ongoing. The Agency cannot issue a license to a corporation where the ownership is not clear. * * * The applicant's accreditation was terminated due to not providing services since June of 2009. The home health agency submitted a change of ownership application which was subsequently withdrawn and the license was voluntarily terminated. The applicant applied for an initial home health license after the original license was voluntarily terminated. In so doing, the applicant needed to secure accreditation within 120 days of receipt of the initial application in the Home Care Unit. That date would have been October 8, 2009. * * * The applicant did not provide a list of all health care entities licensed or registered in the State of Florida that are also owned by each controlling interest. In its Proposed Recommended Order, which was filed after the final hearing in this case, the Agency conceded that because "no evidence was entered to contradict" Mr. Gomez's testimony that "neither he nor MVP Health, Inc. had an ownership interest in any other health care facility," MVP "has met [its] burden and must prevail on this point." The undersigned agrees that, with regard to Item #3 in the foregoing list of alleged deficiencies, MVP's application was complete, as a matter of ultimate fact, no later than July 24, 2009, contrary to AHCA's preliminary determination. No further discussion of this point is required. Regarding Item #1, it is the Agency's position that MVP did not——and indeed could not possibly have——provided "proof" that "the legal issues of ownership of [MVP] have been finally resolved." This contention is based on several undisputed facts (to which the parties stipulated), namely: (1) Several persons brought suit in the circuit court in Miami-Dade County seeking to establish that they own, in the aggregate, 40 percent of MVP's equity, as against Mr. Gomez's claim to be the company's sole shareholder; (2) On October 28, 2009, the trial court entered a judgment in Mr. Gomez's favor in this litigation, determining that he owns 100 percent of MVP's shares; and (3) As of the final hearing in this case, an appeal from that judgment was pending in the Third District Court of Appeal. The Agency argues that the mere existence of the ongoing litigation clouds the issue of MVP's ownership, which in turn necessarily makes MVP unable to "prove" Mr. Gomez's claim of ownership, and that, without such proof, the Agency is precluded from issuing a license. There are two problems with AHCA's contention. First, the mere fact that some persons (who are not parties to, and did not testify in, this proceeding) dispute certain statements in MVP's application, i.e., that (a) Mr. Gomez owns 100 percent of MVP's shares, and (b) Mr. Gomez and his wife are the only two "controlling interests" of the company, is not terribly persuasive evidence that MVP's statements, which were made under oath, are untrue. In this case, Mr. Gomez testified credibly that he is MVP's sole owner, and that he and Mrs. Gomez are the company's officers. Mr. Gomez's testimony in this regard is corroborated by the stipulated fact that a judgment vindicating Mr. Gomez's claim of ownership was rendered in a legal proceeding brought specifically to defeat such claim. On the present record, the undersigned does not hesitate to find, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the statements in MVP's application regarding its owner and officers were true and complete. Second, however, and more important, the issue in this case is not whether MVP's statements regarding ownership were true and complete, but whether such statements were complete. This is because AHCA did not deny MVP's application on the grounds that Mr. Gomez is not, in fact, the sole shareholder; that MVP made a material misrepresentation in, or omitted a material fact from, its application2; or even that the ongoing litigation is a per se barrier to the issuance of a license (although the Agency seems to believe that this latter proposition is true). Rather, the Agency deemed incomplete MVP's application, and on that basis refused to consider whether the application should be granted or denied "on the merits." To be sure, the effect of AHCA's intended action, if implemented, would be indistinguishable from denial; indeed, such action——the withdrawal of an allegedly incomplete application——properly can be (and sometimes is3) called a denial. But the basis of the action would be materially different from that justifying the denial of a completed application. Simply put, the failure of an applicant to meet the criteria for a license, which results in a denial on the merits, is not, as a logical matter, equal to the failure of an applicant to timely provide requested information (or correct an identified error or omission), which results, as a procedural matter, in a refusal to consider (or to deny) an application consequently deemed to be incomplete. It is one thing, in other words, to say, based on all the necessary information, that a person is ineligible for licensure. It is another thing to say that the person's eligibility cannot and will not be determined because the person has failed to provide all of the necessary information upon which such a determination must be based. Because the Agency has taken the position that MVP failed to submit all of the information that the Agency needed in order to make a decision whether or not to grant MVP's application for licensure, the question in this case is not whether MVP in fact meets the criteria for licensure, but whether MVP timely provided AHCA with all of the information which the Agency requested and was permitted by law to require. The evidence in this case establishes clearly, and the undersigned finds, that MVP timely provided AHCA with all of the legally required information concerning its owner and officers for which it was asked. As will be discussed below, the law neither requires that an applicant provide, nor authorizes the Agency to demand, as a prerequisite to licensure, "proof of [corporate] ownership" in the form of a final judicial determination of such issue where a legal dispute has arisen. To the extent AHCA sought to require such information from MVP, AHCA was not permitted by law to do so, and thus MVP's application cannot be "deemed incomplete" based on MVP's "failure" to provide such proof (which in this instance did not even exist). MVP identified its owner and officers and provided AHCA with identifying information about them in accordance with the applicable law. No more was required of MVP to make its application complete in regard to matter of ownership.4 It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that, with regard to Item #1 in the Withdrawal Notice, MVP's application was complete as of July 24, 2009, at the latest. Item #2 in the Withdrawal Notice, which raised the issue of accreditation for the first time, requires consideration of additional facts not previously discussed. At the time MVP submitted its application to AHCA, MVP was fully accredited by an appropriate accrediting organization known as The Joint Commission. This accreditation was effective beginning February 3, 2009, and was valid for up to 39 months. MVP's accreditation remained in effect up to, and beyond, the date of AHCA's Withdrawal Notice, wherein the Agency mistakenly stated that MVP's accreditation had been terminated (as of October 20, 2009). In fact, MVP's accreditation remained valid until at least October 27, 2009, on which date The Joint Commission issued a letter to Mr. Gomez that provided as follows: The Joint Commission was notified that MVP Health, Inc. closed effective 6/19/2009 and that your organizations [sic] license was surrendered to the state on 8/13/2009. In order to complete the process of removing the organization, MVP Health, Inc., and all of its services from our records, please return to the Joint Commission the Certificate of Accreditation, since the certificate and all copies remain the property of The Joint Commission. We will update our records accordingly. The parties stipulated that, as of the final hearing in this case, MVP was not accredited by The Joint Commission or any other accrediting organization. As will be discussed below, Section 400.471(2)(h), Florida Statutes, provides unambiguously that a home health agency must maintain accreditation to maintain licensure. Mr. Gomez believes, based on conversations he has had with The Joint Commission, that The Joint Commission would reinstate MVP's accreditation, without the need for MVP to reapply for accreditation, if AHCA were to indicate that MVP will be licensed. While Mr. Gomez's testimony in this regard is not a legally sufficient basis upon which to find that The Joint Commission is, in fact, prepared to reinstate MVP's accreditation, Mr. Gomez's credibly articulated belief nevertheless persuades the undersigned to find that the possibility of such reinstatement exists, should a clear path to MVP's licensure emerge. The posture of this case is such that the question at hand is not whether MVP's application should be denied for failure to maintain accreditation, as the Agency urges; the question is whether MVP's application should be withdrawn from further consideration as incomplete. The answer to that question is clearly no because, as will be seen, the law prohibits an agency from denying an application for licensure for failure to correct an error or omission or to supply additional information unless the agency notified the applicant of the error, omission, or need for additional information within 30 days after receiving the application. In this case, the Agency did not notify MVP that there was any issue regarding MVP's accreditation until long after this statutory deadline had passed. Indeed, MVP was still accredited 30 days after submitting its application, and the company remained accredited for more than three months after that. It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that, with regard to Item #2 in the Withdrawal Notice, MVP's application was complete as of June 11, 2009. The upshot of the foregoing findings of fact is that, as a matter of ultimate fact, AHCA had received from MVP a completed application for licensure as a home health agency no later than July 24, 2009.
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 which, first, acknowledges that MVP's application for licensure as a home health agency is considered approved by the terms of Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes; and, second, directs the Agency Clerk to issue MVP a conditional license, which shall be subject to MVP's (a) providing satisfactory proof of accreditation upon such reasonable conditions as the Agency may prescribe, and (b) meeting such additional reasonable conditions, if any, as AHCA is authorized by law to impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 22nd day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be subject to an administrative fine for failing to submit a timely renewal of its application within the required time frames to the Agency, and if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, AHCA was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of home health agencies. John Knox Village of Central Florida, Inc., operates a certified home health agency in Orange City, Florida. AHCA's consultant, Ms. Jackie Clawson, was called as a witness and testified on behalf of AHCA. Ms. Jackie Clawson testified that she was familiar with the facility at John Knox Village of Central Florida, Inc. Ms. Jackie Clawson identified Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 as a letter that AHCA sends out advising the Petitioner that they needed to renew their license. Ms. Jackie Clawson, also testified that AHCA should have received John Knox's renewal application on or before May 3, 1999. (The actual renewal date fell on a weekend, and, therefore, the next business day was Monday, May 3, 1999.) Ms. Jackie Clawson identified Respondent's Composite Exhibit 2 as a copy of the renewal application for licensure that was received by AHCA with a stamp-date of May 10, 1999. Ms. Jackie Clawson identified Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3 as a copy of Petitioner's prior license with an expiration date of June 30, 1999. Ms. Jackie Clawson identified Respondent's Composite Exhibit 4 as a fine and omission letter that is sent to the facility stating the items that are missing from the original application packet and the fine regarding the late submission of the application. Ms. Jackie Clawson identified Respondent's Composite Exhibit 7 as a copy of a letter from Petitioner requesting a formal administrative hearing. Deanna Terrell, Administrator of John Knox Village admitted the license renewal was submitted late.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding Petitioner John Knox Village of Central Florida, Inc., submitted an untimely application and levy a fine in the amount of $700 against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 22nd day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Deanna Ferrell, Administrator John Knox Village of Central Florida, Inc. 101 Northlake Drive Orange City, Florida 32763 Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Suite 3231 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr., Director Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether respondent should pay a late fee of $5,000.00 for filing an application for renewal of its nursing home license 81 days late.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a final order requiring Y & S Partnership to pay a late fee of $5,000.00, which should be deposited and disbursed through the Patient Protection Trust Fund established by Section 400.063, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1983.
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Stipulation and Agreement. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached Stipulation and Agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this Me™ aay of jth , 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. dll Vofoll be IZABETH DUDEK, SEGKETARY Agency for Heaith C4re Administration Page 1 of 3 Filed September 20, 2013 11:45 AM Division of Administrative Hearings C.1. No. 12-2365-000 A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Cynthia A. Mikos, Esquire Attorney for Respondent Allen Dell, P.A. 202 S. Rome Avenue, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33606-1854 Email address cmikos@allendell.com Agency for Health Care Administration Debora E. Fridie, Assistant General Counsel, MS #3 Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Health Quality Assurance Agency for Health Care Administration Home Care Unit, MS #34 Agency for Health Care Administration Bureau of Finance and Accounting, MS #14 Agency for Health Care Administration Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity, MS#6 ATTN: Rick Zenuch, Bureau Chief Florida Department of Health Page 2 of 3 C.2r. No. 12-2365-000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order was furnished by United States Mail, interoffice mail, or email transmission to the above-referenced addressees this 2 day of Sgr te , 20438 . Ad ah ency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone No. (850)-412-3630 Fax No. (850) -921-0158 Page 3 of 3
