The Issue The issues are whether the alleged actions of the respondents demonstrate a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance within the meaning of Subsection 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (2004), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2004) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating insurance agents in Florida. The respondents, Crain and Carll, are licensed as Life and Health insurance agents pursuant to respective license numbers A056967 and A040734. The respondents have known each other for approximately 13 years. During that time, the two engaged in the business of selling health insurance. Mr. Carll was an independent contractor, but Mr. Crain was Mr. Carll's only boss. Mr. Crain wholly owns two Florida corporations that he operates as insurance agencies. The two corporations are identified in the record as International Life and Health Services of Manatee County, Inc. (Manatee), and International Life and Health Services of Sarasota County, Inc. (Sarasota). Mr. Crain owns two other Florida corporations. They are identified in the record as Independent Living Home Care Agency, Inc. (Home Care Agency), and Independent Living Home Care Membership Association, Inc. (Home Care). Home Care promises in a plan written by Mr. Crain to provide plan purchasers with access to discounted in-home care (the plan). Approximately 44 Florida residents purchased the plan in 2005 and 2006 from insurance agents, including Mr. Carll, who, as agents for Mr. Crain, Manatee, or Sarasota, previously sold health insurance to some of the plan purchasers. Mr. Crain is personally and fully liable for the acts of the selling insurance agents within the meaning of Section 626.839. Mr. Crain is a health insurance agent who is the president and sole shareholder of a health insurance agency. Mr. Crain directly supervised and controlled the insurance agents who sold the plan in Florida. Mr. Crain wrote the plan and trained the insurance agents in the content of the plan, sales techniques, how to exclude impaired customers, and how to determine whether a customer was an appropriate candidate to purchase a plan. Mr. Crain did not obtain a legal opinion concerning his final version of the plan. The plan satisfies the statutory definition of insurance. However, the plan is not health insurance that the legislature has expressed its intent to regulate.1 The plan promises Home Care will provide a purchaser of a membership with access to in-home care from a third-party provider, denominated as a "caregiver," at a cost substantially less than the market rate caregivers normally charge for such services (discounted home care services). The plan promises to refund 120 percent of the membership fee if Home Care were unable to provide access to discounted home care services. The plan excludes medical care from the definition of home care services. Home care services include companion and homemaker services; housekeeping and laundry services; transportation services for doctor visits, groceries, and visits with friends; meal preparation; assistance with dressing and undressing; organizing files and bills; not burdening loved ones; protecting assets and heir's inheritance; gaining respect; and preserving one's legacy while gaining respect and dignity. The plan offers memberships for four, six, and eight years. Only four and six-year memberships are pertinent to this proceeding. The respective cost for each four and six-year membership is $2,475 and $3,475. Home Care promises each member will have access to discounted home care services for respective benefit periods of 1.5 and 2.5 years. The cost of membership does not apply toward the cost of discounted home care services. Services are not available at the discounted rate for the first 90 days after the date a purchaser requests services (the elimination period).2 The elimination period is 180 days "for pre-existing conditions".3 An additional payment of $1,395 reduces the normal elimination period from 90 to 60 days, extends the membership period an additional two years, and extends the respective benefit periods by one year. The plan charges an additional 25 percent if a purchaser elects installment payments. The plan promises home care services at substantial discounts below the market rate. The discounted plan rates are $94 for 24 hours of service; $72 for eight hours of service; and $36 for four hours of service. Market rates in the community range from $204 to $480 for 24 hours of service and from $16 to $18 an hour for shorter periods.4 The 44 plans sold in Florida generated approximately $192,000 in membership fees for Home Care. Mr. Crain deposited the fees into a bank account he created for Home Care and for which Mr. Crain is the sole authorized signatory. Home Care paid commissions to insurance agents ranging from 50 and 60 percent of the sale proceeds. The allegations in this proceeding pertain to four of the 44 plan purchasers. Ms. Janet McClurkin purchased the plan in April 2005 in two installments totaling $2,112. Ms. Ruth Frakes purchased the plan in February 2005 in two installments totaling $4,870. Ms. Carin Clareus purchased the plan in February 2005 for one payment of $1,953. Ms. Eva Muller purchased the plan in March 2005 for one payment of $3,475.5 A finding of guilt requires proof of one or more of five essential allegations, the first of which alleges the four plan purchasers are elderly women who, at the time of purchase, were "disabled" and suffered from "diminished mental capacity." The four sales allegedly violated the plan prohibition against sales to anyone "not of sound mind or body." The four plan purchasers are clearly elderly women. At the time of the hearing, Ms. McClurkin was 94 years old.6 Ms. McClurkin is Canadian, has been widowed for approximately 35 years, has no children or nearby family, and lives alone. Her nephew had power of attorney at the time of the hearing. Ms. McClurkin suffered from hearing and memory loss. She had worn two hearing aids for about a year, was recovering from surgery for breast cancer two years earlier, and had functioned for over 15 years with two artificial hips. Ms. Frakes was 90 years old at the time of the hearing.7 Ms. Frakes had been widowed for approximately 26 years and had no children and no surviving relatives. Ms. Frakes wore a Life Alert alarm, had been wearing two hearing aids for approximately seven years, had been reading through a magnifying glass for approximately five years, was taking medication for high blood pressure, and suffered from arthritis. Ms. Clareus was 97 years old at the time of the hearing and resided in a community of about 200 senior citizens.8 She immigrated to the United States in 1928, had been widowed for approximately four years at the time of the hearing, and had no children and no nearby relatives. Ms. Clareus had been legally blind for approximately eight years but was able to read through an assistive device in her residence. Ms. Muller was approximately 85 years old at the time of the hearing. She immigrated from Germany and then became a U.S. citizen, all in a time frame not disclosed in the record. Ms. Muller had been divorced early in her life and lived alone in a mobile home community. She had no nearby relatives and experienced memory problems. Ms. Muller owns an automobile but does not drive. Friends drive for her. After purchasing the plan, Ms. Muller executed a power of attorney naming Ms. Ingrid Eglsaer as her general power of attorney. At the time of the hearing, the four witnesses demonstrated confusion and difficulty in recalling specific facts. However, their confusion and impaired memory at the hearing was not clear and convincing evidence that the witnesses were incompetent when they purchased the plan. The allegation of incompetence at the time of purchase may be supported by inference or surmise, but inference and surmise do not satisfy the requirement for clear and convincing evidence.9 Petitioner submitted no expert testimony concerning the mental capacity of a purchaser at the time of the purchase. Petitioner next alleges the respondents misrepresented that Home Care would provide home care services and home medical care without further charge. Each Administrative Complaint admits the alleged misrepresentation conflicts with the terms of the plan.10 The plan promises access to discounted home care services and states that the membership fee does not apply toward charges for discounted home care services.11 The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the respondents misrepresented the contents of the plan in a manner that led purchasers to believe they would receive home care services or home medical care without additional charge. Testimony of the four purchasers concerning verbal representations by insurance agents during sales transactions is confused, is not precise and explicit, and is less than clear and convincing. Each purchaser may have inferred that she was purchasing insurance for either home care services or home medical care without an additional charge. Some purchasers had previously purchased such insurance from the same insurance agent. Each sale included a consultation in which the insurance agent reviewed other insurance held by the purchaser. The plan included terms that sounded to elderly women like familiar insurance terms. For example, the plan requires the purchaser to apply for coverage and employs terms such as "Eligible Persons," "Effective Date," "Elimination Period," "Limitations and Exclusions," and "Benefit Discount Period." The plan extends the elimination period when "pre- existing conditions" exist, describes home care providers as "caregivers," and discusses "co-payments." The plan includes a disclosure form and a medical release form. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the respondents made promises or representations, other than those in the plan, to induce a purchaser to infer that the plan entitled her to discounted home care or medical care at no additional charge. Rather, the terms of the plan were purposefully confusing and induced the four elderly women to draw the desired inference. Petitioner also alleges the respondents made false and worthless promises that defrauded the purchasers. However, it is unnecessary to resolve the allegations of fraud in this case.12 This case can be resolved if the evidence supports one of two remaining allegations. First, the respondents allegedly misrepresented the access to discounted caregiver services that a purchaser acquired upon payment of a membership fee. Second, the promises of access to discounted caregiver services that the respondents made to each of the four plan purchasers were false and worthless.13 The plan misrepresented the access to caregivers that a purchaser acquired upon payment of a membership fee. The plan provides, in relevant part: If a member joins the association they are guaranteed the homecare discounts provided for in the contractual agreement. Respondent Crain, Exhibit 1, at 4. The plan does not name or otherwise identify a caregiver responsible for supplying the discounted caregiver services "guaranteed" in the plan. In that regard, the plan is factually distinguishable from a home care plan that passed judicial scrutiny in an unrelated proceeding.14 Neither Mr. Crain nor Home Care possessed a legal right to require a caregiver to provide discounted services in accordance with the terms of the plan. Neither Mr. Crain nor Home Care possessed the practical ability to ensure that a caregiver would provide home care services at any price, much less the discounted prices promised in the plan.15 The absence of either a legally enforceable right or practical ability to ensure that a caregiver would provide the discounted home care services promised in the plan were material facts that Mr. Crain did not disclose to purchasers. The failure to disclose material facts was willful and misrepresented the access to discounted caregiver services that a purchaser acquired upon payment of a membership fee. Testimony from Mr. Crain concerning his practical ability to ensure delivery of discounted caregiver services was neither credible nor persuasive to the fact-finder. Mr. Crain discussed home care services with a number of caregivers. Based on those conversations, Mr. Crain developed a list of caregivers he said he could call in the future to request discounted caregiver services promised in the plan if and when one of the 44 purchasers requested services (the list).16 The list evolved between January 2005 and September 2006. Mr. Crain advertised for caregivers in local newspapers. The collective responses numbered between 100 and 200. Mr. Crain or a staff-member collected the contact information for each responder and questioned each responder concerning, among other things, their qualifications and experience. The final list identified 15 caregivers. Mr. Crain described the list of 15 in answers to questions from the fact-finder: [Q] Well, I want to make sure I understand clearly. So, you ran an ad. People called in, you took down their contact information, and did you run [abuse registry] screens on these people? [A] Yes, I did. [Q] Okay. You mentioned earlier 200 responded. Did all 200 make the list? [A] The list? . . . [Q] . . . The list I'm referring to is the list referred to in testimony of . . . [insurance] agents of yours that said you maintained a list of contract individuals . . . Did you maintain a list? [A] I had a list of potential caregivers from the original ad, yes. * * * [Q] So you ran two ads. You had some responses to the first ad, and overwhelming responses to the second ad, and when you talked to the person, what did [you] do . . . ? [A] They call in -- I briefly qualify them. * * * [Q] And what kind of information do you collect? [A] Name, address, phone number, work history, educational history ethical behavior . . . . [and abuse] screening . . . . [I]f the agency they work for currently or in the past could not fax me a copy of . . . screening . . . by AHCA [Agency for Health Care Administration], then I could then screen them myself. [Q] [H]ow many of these people did you actually either screen or get faxes of their screen? [A] About seven. [Q] Out of how many? [A] Altogether, I had spoken to no less than a hundred people. [Q] From both ads? [A] Correct. . . . [Q] How many of the seven did you screen yourself? [A] Three. . . . [Q] Okay. Now, you talked to a hundred. Did you compile a resource list? [A] Yes, I did. [Q] And how many . . . , of the hundred, made the resource list? [A] I had at least 15 potentially eligible people that could work for me, but I had seven that could go at any moment. Or not at any moment but that were available, already screened with experience and ready to go. Or around seven. Transcript (TR) at 581-585. Mr. Crain did not bond or insure any of the 15 potentially eligible caregivers. Mr. Crain explained the bonding procedure in the following testimony: [Q] [The plan] . . . talks about having people bonded, insured, and fully screened, correct? [A] Yes. [Q] Now, we've already talked about screening. How would you make arrangements to bond and insure someone? [A] If they were employed, to bond a person is a one-page form . . . [y]ou deliver to this insurance agency . . . down the road from my office . . . and putting a hundred dollars for every ten thousand dollars of bonding you want. . . . [Q] So, when in the process would you bond and insure someone? [A] The day or the day before they went out to the actual care. [Q] So actually, prior to having a request for services and actually arranging for somebody to go out, you wouldn't have gone through the trouble or expense of bonding or insuring, correct? [A] Correct. [Q] Who actually bears the expense of bonding and insuring? [A] The provider. [Q] You mean the worker? [A] Yeah. . . . TR at 585-586. The plan promised that access to discounted services included a guaranteed refund equal to 120 percent of membership if Home Care were unable to provide access to the discounted caregiver services promised in the plan. Mr. Crain wrote the refund language to state: 17. 120% money back guarantee. If [Home Care] cannot provide homemaker and companion services at the discounted rate as governed by this contract, the company shall pay the member all the fees paid plus an additional 20%. Due to severe, unprecedented, skyrocketing costs for caregivers, or an unforeseen increase in the demand for personnel, the company will make this refund. [Home Care] has a big responsibility to provide quality home care services to all of it's [sic] members. Even though management owners and outside professionals have thoroughly though [sic] out almost every variable in making this contract both beneficial to the customers and profitable for [Home Care], no one can predict the future. Therefore it is agreed by both parties that by entering into this contract that the legal remedy for [Home Care's] possible inability to provide the service at the discounted rate, is for [Home Care] to refund 120% of the member's fee after reviewing the case with legal counsel as provided for by [Home Care] regarding the unusual circumstances of the said member. Respondent Crain, Exhibit 1, at 7. The promise that access to discounted caregiver services includes a guaranteed refund of 120 percent of the membership fee is a false promise. The promise is not conditioned on any discernable legal standard or any other standard capable of objective measurement. Rather, the applicable standard is a subjective standard to be interpreted at the sole discretion of Mr. Crain. Mr. Crain willfully included the false refund promise in the plan. As Mr. Crain explained: The right to get a refund? After five days, they don't have a right to get a refund. [Q] Do you or have you, on behalf of the company, given refunds to persons beyond the five-day period? [A] Yes. [Q] Is that at your discretion? [A] Yes. [Q] Is there any particular policy or plan regarding when and how to give a refund and how much? [A] No. TR at 614. Mr. Crain is the sole arbiter of the entitlement to a refund and the amount of the refund to be paid. For example, Mr. Crain paid Ms. Muller 120 percent of her membership fee but paid only a prorated amount to Ms. Clareus.17 The promise to refund 120 percent of the membership fee is worthless. Mr. Crain willfully included the worthless promise in the plan. The refund obligation is owed solely by Home Care, and Home Care has not retained sufficient reserves to fund its contractual obligation.18 Mr. Crain withdrew virtually all of the $192,000 in membership fees to pay commissions, operating costs, and similar expenses. On June 19, 2006, Home Care had $946 in its bank account. The last refund obligation Home Care owes to the two unpaid purchasers in this proceeding will not expire until sometime in 2011. The corporate promise to refund 120 percent of the membership fee is worthless because it is an unfunded obligation to pay refunds from non-existent reserves. Mr. Carll did not exercise ordinary diligence, much less the reasonable skill and diligence required of an insurance agent, to examine the plan for misrepresentations and false promises. Mr. Carll willfully failed to independently examine the plan. As Mr. Carll explained during his testimony: Jim was constantly on the phone interviewing people, prospective caregivers, talking to -- even to home health care agencies that provide homemaker services, and it's my understanding that he had compiled a list of people who could be called in the event if someone requested for [sic] service. * * * [Q] When you had meetings with Mr. Crain, did you ask him questions? [A] Yes. [Q] What questions did you ask about the plan? [A] Oh, how does the elimination period work. You know, when do services begin? What do people have to do to get services? Questions of that nature. [Q] Anything else? [A] Just questions about, you know, well how to talk to these people and, you know, what to look for when you walk into a house. [Q] Did you ask Mr. Crain what ability he had to ensure that these third party contractors would provide their services for the fees he guaranteed in the plan? [A] Yes. [Q] Okay. What did you ask him? [A] I said, Well, how can we be sure that these people will get the services that they need when they ask for them? [Q] And? [A] He said that he had interviewed numerous people. He had a list of people that he could call . . . to provide [discounted services]. . . . [Q] Did you ask Mr. Crain what ability he had to . . . enforce that representation from them if, at some future time, he asked them to provide that service, and they said they no longer would? [A] I didn't ask him that question. [Q] So you didn't ask him if he had these people under legal contract for the term of the plan? [A] No. . . . I have a lot of faith in Jim Crain. TR at 358 and 422-424. Mr. Carll knew, or should have known, that the plan he sold included misrepresentations. Mr. Carll knew, or should have known, from the language of the plan that the refund promise is false. Each of the respondents is an insurance agent who enjoyed a fiduciary relationship which arose from previous sales of health insurance. Mr. Carll also enjoyed a fiduciary relationship that arose during the previously discussed consultative role he performed when he reviewed with plan purchasers their existing insurance. As Mr. Carll explained during his testimony: Well, a lot them, some of them were referrals, some of them were people we already knew. [Q] How did you know them? [A] That they had purchased insurance with us before. You know, a lot of them called the office. [Q] For what purpose did they call? [A] Well, they called the office looking for the agent that sold them insurance. TR at 360-361.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding the respondents guilty of violating Subsection 626.611(7), for the reasons stated herein, and suspending their licenses for 24 months from the date the proposed agency action becomes final. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 31st day of January, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's decision to deny the Petitioner's application for a renewal license for a home health agency on the basis of Section 400.471(10), Florida Statutes (2009),1 constitutes an agency statement of general applicability that has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are undisputed and found to be true: My Friend Home Care submitted its application to renew its home health license on or about November 7, 2009. On January 11, 2010, AHCA issued a Notice of Intent to Deny My Friend Home Care's application for a renewal license pursuant to Section 400.471(10)(d), Florida Statutes, which became effective on July 1, 2009. Section 400.471(10), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: The agency may not issue a renewal license for a home health agency in any county having at least one licensed home health agency and that has more than one home health agency per 5,000 persons, as indicated by the most recent population estimates published by the Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research, if the applicant or any controlling interest has been administratively sanctioned by the agency during the 2 years prior to the submission of the licensure renewal application for one or more of the following acts: * * * (d) Failing to provide at least one service directly to a patient for a period of 60 days. On May 13, 2009, a Final Order was entered by AHCA finding that My Friend Home Care failed ensure that at least one service was directly provided to a patient in a 60-day period. An administrative fine of $1,000.00 was assessed against My Friend Home Care, which paid the fine. My Friend Home Care operates a home health agency in Miami, Florida, and is subject to the provisions of Section 400.471, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the application filed by the Petitioner for licensure to operate a family day care home should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On December 11, 2006, the Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for licensure to operate a family day care home. The application included the following question: Has the owner/operator ever had a license denied, revoked, or suspended in any state or jurisdiction or been the subject of a disciplinary action or been fined while employed as a family day care home provider. The application clearly stated that falsification of application information was grounds for denial of the license. The Petitioner responded "no" to the question regarding whether a previous license had ever been denied, revoked or suspended. The Petitioner's response to the question was false. The Petitioner previously operated a licensed family day care home in Osceola County, Florida. The license was revoked in 2003 for the reasons set forth in a Notice of Revocation sent to the Respondent by certified mail dated August 6, 2003. There is no evidence that the Respondent did not receive the Notice of Revocation. The evidence is unclear as to the number of the revoked license number which appears as FO7OS0002 in the August 6, 2003, Notice of Revocation and as FO9OS0002 in the August 31, 2007, Notice of Denial at issue in this proceeding. Nonetheless, the evidence clearly establishes that the family day care home license held by the Petitioner in 2003 was revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for licensure to operate a licensed family day care home be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 14th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Evelyn Figueroa Figueroa Family Day Care Home 610 Gazelle Drive Poinciana, Florida 34759 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Copelan, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert Butterworth, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, Mildred Jones, doing business as Jones Family Day Care (Jones or Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 29, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent operated a licensed day care facility located in Orange County, Florida. On the date of the attempted inspection in this case, Respondent had six children enrolled in her day care program. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing and inspecting day care facilities throughout the State of Florida. As part of that responsibility, Petitioner routinely inspects day care facilities to assure compliance with rules and regulations that govern day care programs. On May 4, 2012, Petitioner’s agent, Luz Torres, inspected Respondent’s home. This was not Ms. Torres’ first visit to the home and, like all other visits, she approached the front door during regular business hours and knocked. Upon knocking, Ms. Torres was greeted by a female voice behind the door who advised that she could not let Ms. Torres into the home. The female, later identified as Christine Randall, refused Ms. Torres admission even after the inspector advised that it was required by law. Despite her efforts to enter the home, Ms. Torres was denied access. Ms. Torres could hear the sounds of children within the home but could not from outside the front door determine the identity or number of the voices. Ms. Randall did not advise Ms. Torres that Ms. Jones was in the rear of the property. Ms. Randall did not direct Ms. Torres to go to the rear of the property. Ms. Torres could not view the rear of the property from the front entrance. Ms. Torres’ efforts to reach Ms. Jones by telephone proved fruitless. Ms. Randall has not been screened or had a background check in years. Ms. Randall was not listed as a substitute caregiver for Respondent’s facility. Ms. Jones’ claim that only Ms. Randall’s two children were present on the date Ms. Torres attempted entrance has not been deemed credible. Ms. Jones also claimed Ms. Randall was present helping her prepare for her inspection. Had only two children been present, Ms. Randall could have easily admitted Ms. Torres, had her observe that the home was being prepared for inspection without other children present, and addressed her role as helper to Ms. Jones with only her own children present in the home. Instead, Ms. Randall denied access to the home and failed to direct Ms. Torres to the rear of the property (presuming Ms. Jones was, in fact, there). Ms. Wright’s suggestion that only Ms. Randall’s children were present on the date in question has not been deemed persuasive as Ms. Wright did not enter the home on that date, did not view the home for the entire time, and does not routinely know who is or is not in the home from her vantage as Respondent’s neighbor and friend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding Respondent committed a Class I violation and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefanie C. Beach, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Mildred Jones Jones Family Day Care Home 5027 Caserta Street Orlando, Florida 32819 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 David Wilkins, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marion Drew Parker, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Impose Fine dated March 3, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("the Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the Respondent and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The Respondent shall remit to the Agency, within ninety (90) days of this Final Order, the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). A check should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care 1 Filed November 9, 2009 11:58 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. Administration." The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS # 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this s3 day o tJ-?t?<: ,2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Care Administrat1 A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Ann Lisenby Parmer Lisenby Home Care, Inc. 412 North Cove Blvd. Panama City, Florida 32401 (U. S. Mail) Shaddrick A. Haston Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #2 Mail Stop Code #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this _6ay of /}6 , 2009. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 Ce1t1f1ecl Article Number SENDERS RECORD CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR March 3, 2009 ANN LISENBY PARMER LISENBY HOME CARE, INC. 412 N COVE BLVD PANAMA CITY, FL 32401 JFlORl AAGENCY F,OR HIcAl.lCH CARE AOMAINISlllATION Better Health Care for all Floridians oqJ521 CASE #: 2009002407 NOTICE OF INTENT TO IMPOSE FINE Pursuant to Section 400.474 (6) (f), Florida Statutes (F.S.), a fine of $5,000 is hereby imposed for failure to submit the home health agency quarterly report within 15 days after the quarter ending September 30. As required in section 400.474(6) (f), F.S., the agency shall impose a fine of$ 5,000. TO PAY NOW, PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN 21 DAYS AND MAil.ED WITH A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF INTENT TO: Agency for Health Care Administration Finance and Accounting, Revenue Section OMCManager 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Include License Number: 20651096 and Case Number: 2009002407 in check memo field. EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION OF RIGHTS FORM. Agency for Health Care Administration By: Anne Menard, Manager Home Care Unit cc: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#34 Tallahassee. Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myfl · • I EXHIBIT I No Theme Page 1 ofl HOME HEALTH AGENCY QUARTERLY REPORT For the Quarter July 1 to September 30, 2008 Send an e-mail with this information to home.ti_ alth@ahca.myflorida.com by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 to avoid a $5,000 fme. NAME OF HOME HEALTH AGENCY Lisenby home Care, Inc LICENSE# 20651096 STREET ADDRESS & CITY: 412 N. Cove Blvd, Panama City, Fl 32401 On September 30, 2008, there were _3_ insulin-dependent diabetic patients receiving insulin injection services from my home health agency. On September 30, 2008 there were _36_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency AND licensed hospice services. On September 30, 2008, there were a total of_77_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency. The following professional nurses (RNs or LPNs), whose primary job responsibility is to provide home health services to patients, received remuneration from my home health agency in excess of $25,000 between July 1, 2008 and September 30, 2008. NONE Name Florida License Number Insert additional names and license numbers if necessary. http://webmail.att.net/wm/en-US/toolbar/advnotheme.html 10/2/2008 psPS - Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1 • !:fQ!DtltltlJllSlgn.J.n Track & Confirm Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 7160 3901984813801355 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 9:48 AM on March 19, 2009 in PANAMA CITY, FL 32401. Track &Confirm Enter Label/Receipt Number. N..-o---t-i--f-i-·c-··d·-·o·-·n- - -Q. rn·t·i01J$------- ---- Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. (Bo>) Return Receipt (Electronic) Verify who signed for your item by email. ( tJo>) Copyright© 1999-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA '\:,_· J-i t;.-,pe ; :;•,· • l.\!!.'-'l·/•. ;- t' ip!;,,; http://trkcnfrm1.smi.usps.com/PTSinternetWeb/InterLabellnquiry.do 03/24/2009 STATE OF FLORIDA
The Issue Whether Life Care Center of Punta Gorda (Respondent), timely submitted its monthly nursing home quality assessment fee for February 2019; and, if not, whether a fine should be imposed for each day that the payment was delinquent.
Findings Of Fact AHCA, pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ is responsible for overseeing and administering the Medicaid program for the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was a Florida Medicaid provider authorized to provide nursing home services, and had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA. Respondent operates a nursing home facility as defined by section 409.9082(1)(b), and is required, pursuant to section 409.9082(2), to “report monthly to [AHCA] its total number of resident days, exclusive of Medicare Part A resident days, and remit an amount equal to the assessment rate times the reported number of days.” The monthly amount assessed pursuant to section 409.9082 is known as a “Quality Assessment Fee.” Section 409.9082(2) provides, in part, that AHCA “shall collect, and each facility shall pay, the quality assessment each month[, and [AHCA] shall collect the assessment from nursing home facility providers by the 20th day of the next succeeding calendar month.” Respondent’s Quality Assessment Fee for February 2019 was to be remitted to AHCA by March 20, 2019. It is undisputed that AHCA received payment of Respondent’s Quality Assessment Fee on April 12, 2019, and that this was the first instance where Respondent failed to timely remit payment of the fee to AHCA. In explaining why the Quality Assessment Fee was not tendered by the due date, Ms. Talbott testified that Respondent’s customary process is to remit payment by FedEx “so that . . . [there is] a tracking mechanism on it.” Ms. Talbott explained that her investigation revealed that the customary process for mailing payment to AHCA was not followed in the instant dispute because the accounts payable clerk, instead of using FedEx, and as a consequence of being distracted by a family emergency, inadvertently mailed the payment via the United States Postal Service, without requesting delivery confirmation. The accounts payable clerk did not testify during the final hearing and there is no specific finding of fact that the check was not delivered to AHCA because of any act(s) or omission(s) by the accounts payable clerk. The check that was purportedly mailed by the accounts payable clerk for payment of the Quality Assessment Fee was never received by AHCA, and Ms. Talbott credibly testified that the same was never returned to Respondent by the postal service. AHCA, by correspondence dated April 3, 2019, and mailed on April 9, 2019, informed Respondent that there was “an outstanding balance pertaining to a Quality Assessment Fee for February [2019],” and that payment of the same was due immediately. Respondent paid the Quality Assessment Fee on April 12, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order finding that Life Care Center of Punta Gorda committed its first offense of section 409.9082 and imposing a fine of $11,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 2019.
