The Issue Whether Respondent should be granted licenses to operate two residential group homes for developmentally disabled individuals.
Findings Of Fact On October 22, 1999, the Department issued to Community Opportunities, Inc., a temporary license to operate Skyline ("Skyline" or "Skyline Group Home"), a residential group home for developmentally disabled clients in Pasco County, Florida, which is located in the Department's Suncoast Region. Four months later, in February 2000, the Department issued a standard license to Community Opportunities, Inc. From February 2000 through early August 2002, Skyline Group Home operated under that standard license. In May 2002, the Department investigated an abuse complaint concerning a 21-year-old male resident at the Skyline Group Home who was diagnosed as mentally retarded with Intermittent Explosive Disorder. His past history included incarceration for attempting to stab his father and, while at Skyline, 14 behavior incidents ranging from exposing himself to violent behavior towards staff and other residents at the group home. On or about May 3, 2000, this resident, while a passenger in a van for the group home, took the vehicle's keys from the seat where they were left by a staff person, started the van, ran over the staff person twice, and ran the van into a house and a telephone pole, before being stopped. Following the Department's investigation, the report was classified as verified for inadequate supervision, caretaker present. The investigation referred to in paragraph 2 also found that the Skyline Group Home was inadequately staffed, with employees working for weeks at a time with no days off. At the time of the investigation, the van driver, who was injured in the incident, described in paragraph 2 had not had a day off for almost two months prior to that incident. On August 4, 2000, the Department met with representatives of Community Opportunities, Inc., due to safety issues with the operation of the group home. Following this meeting, on or about August 11, 2000, Skyline's licensure status was changed from standard to conditional. At that time, the Department requested that the facility submit plans of corrective action. On August 28, 2000, the Department investigated an abuse complaint concerning a mentally retarded, female resident of the Skyline Group Home. This resident was found walking on a gravel road with no shoes and dressed only in a nightgown. It was estimated that it would have taken 8 to 10 minutes to walk to the location where the resident was found. This elopement from the group home occurred 3 times in a three-hour period. As a result of the investigation, it was also learned that Skyline Group Home staff members were dropping off residents at school before teachers arrived, thereby leaving the developmentally disabled clients unattended. In addition, the investigation revealed that staff at the Skyline Group Home could not be reached during the day when emergencies or problems with medications arose, staff members failed to document significant events as required, and faxed requests for medication from the school to the group home went unanswered. This report was classified as verified for inadequate supervision and medical neglect. The investigation found systemic problems associated with the group home. Although the Department gave Community Opportunities, Inc., time to correct the problems, the problems were never corrected. As a result of those failed attempts, the Department closed the Skyline Group Home on September 30, 2000. On September 21, 2000, the Department sent a letter to Ernie M. Beal, Jr., Executive Director of Community Opportunities, Inc., notifying him that the license for the Skyline Group Home would not be renewed. Community Opportunities, Inc., did not challenge the Department's proposed action and two months later, the Department issued a Final Order affirming the denial of Community Opportunities, Inc.'s, relicensure. The reasons for nonrenewal of Skyline's license included the facility's failure to maintain adequate staff at the group home; failure to take reasonable precautions to assure that the residents were not harming themselves or others; incidents involving injury to staff; inadequate corrective action plans to address deficiencies; and numerous violations of the licensure standards under Rule Chapter 65B-6, Florida Administrative Code. On or about September 12, 2002, the Department received licensure applications for two developmentally group homes, Skyline Group Home in Dade City, Florida, and Harvill Group Home located in Lithia, Florida, both of which were located in the Department's Suncoast Region. The applications were submitted by Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., and signed by Pamela Beal, Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"). Ernest Beal, Jr., Chief Operating Officer, was listed on both of the applications as the person who would operate and supervise the facilities. Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc. is a non- profit corporation. Ernest M. Beal, Jr., is its president and Pamela Beal is its vice-president, secretary, treasurer, and CEO. The Board of Directors of Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., is comprised of Pamela Beal and Ernest Beal, Jr., and Felicity Lennox, who was also on the Board of Directors of Communities Opportunities, Inc. Ernest M. Beal, Jr., is the president and CEO of PEJUS, Inc., which on January 1, 2000, purchased the assets of Community Opportunities, Inc. PEJUS, Inc., then conveyed its interest in the former Community Opportunities, Inc. to Your Friends & Neighbors, Inc. Qualification documents for Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., were filed with the Secretary of State on or about January 29, 2001, and the corporation was authorized to transact business in Florida on that date. Petitioner's, Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc.'s, corporate office is at the same address as Community Opportunities, Inc., located at 1515 Magnavox Way, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Moreover, when calling Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc.'s phone number, one is greeted by a recorded message which states the names Your Friends & Neighbors, Inc., Community Opportunities. Inc., and PEJUS, Inc. Your Friends & Neighbors, Inc., is an Indiana corporation founded in 1985 by Ethyl Beal and Pamela Beal. Community Opportunities, Inc., is an Indiana corporation owned by Ernest Beal, Jr., which owned the Skyline Group Home in September 2000, when the license for Skyline was not renewed. The two applications for licensure submitted by Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., on September 12, 2002, were almost identical to the application for the Skyline Group Home submitted by Community Opportunities, Inc., in July 1999. There were no significant differences in the 1999 application and the 2002 applications. In fact, the services to be provided, the program description, and the staffing pattern were almost identical. Notwithstanding these similarities, the applications submitted in 2002, proposed to serve clients with developmental disabilities more severe than those served at Skyline Group Home pursuant to the 1999 application. By letter dated October 2, 2002, the Department notified Pamela Beal, CEO of Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., that the licensure applications had been denied. The notice cited all the reasons the Department did not renew Skyline's license in September 2000. Those reasons included the incident involving the vehicle resulting in injury to staff; neglect of the residents; failure to correct problems through corrective action plans; insufficient staffing ratio; lack of reasonable precautions to ensure residents' safety; failure to ensure timely medical treatment to residents; and failure to properly report injuries. Despite the violations cited in the notice of denial, at the final hearing, the Department clarified that its concern with the subject applications was not with the direct care staff, but with the fact that the proposed model would not meet the needs of the clients with developmental disabilities that Petitioner wanted to serve.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order confirming the decision not to issue Petitioner's group home licenses for Skyline and Harvill. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2003, 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 30th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela J. Beal 1515 Magnavox Way Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804 Ernie Beal, President Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc. 4505 Club House Drive Marietta, Georgia 30066 Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 314 Largo, Florida 33778-1630 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Rules 7D-30.04, 7D-30.06, 7D-31.01(2), 7D-31,01(4), 7D-31.01(5), 7D-31.01(12), 7D-32.01 and 7D-32.02, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority and are arbitrary and capricious?
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact were stipulated to and are hereby adopted: The following is a Florida non-profit corporation, whose address is 115 N. Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The FMHA is organized and maintained for the benefit of its members, which includes approximately 950 mobile home park owners and operators. A substantial portion of these members own or operate parks which contain 10 or more lots and therefore are subject to regulation by the Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Department of Business Regulation. The Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Department of Business Regulation is delegated the authority pursuant to Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, to regulate mobile home parks, including the powers to enforce and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Chapter and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, including the authority to impose a civil penalty against a mobile home park owner for any violation of the Chapter, or a rule or regulation of the Division. Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, was enacted by the Florida Legislature as Chapter 84-80, was signed by the Governor and filed in the office of the Secretary of State on June 4, 1984. Rules 7D-30, 7D-31, and 7D-32, Florida Administrative Code, are rules of the Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Department of Business Regulation, which were properly adopted in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is a trade association the members of which are engaged in business in the mobile home industry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner has members who are mobile home manufacturers, retailers, equipment suppliers and servicers, owners and operators of mobile-home rental parks, developers of mobile home parks and subdivisions, insurance firms and lending institutions. The Petitioner has 1,020 members who develop mobile home parks and subdivisions or are owners and operators of mobile home rental parks. As stipulated to by the parties, approximately 950 of the Petitioner's members are owners and operators of mobile home rental parks. The Petitioner's members are involved in the rental of between 300,000 and 350,000 mobile home spaces. A substantial number of the Petitioner's members are subject to regulation by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), the "Florida Mobile Home Act." In July of 1984, subsequent to the effective date of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), the Bureau of Mobile Homes was created as a part of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes. Dr. Faye Mayberry has been, and continues to be, the Chief of the Bureau of Mobile Homes. Following the enactment of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), the Bureau of Mobile Homes concluded that there was a need to clarify certain portions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), and a need to establish procedures necessary for the filing of prospectuses and other documents. Therefore, the Bureau initiated a process to determine what rules needed to be adopted. The Bureau also received numerous inquiries from mobile home owners and mobile home park owners concerning Chapter 723. The Bureau first looked at Chapter 723 in-house and looked at the nature of inquiries it had received and then drafted a conceptual approach to part of the rules. The conceptual draft, at the invitation of the Bureau, was reviewed by representatives of the Petitioner and the Intervenor. A meeting was held with the Respondent to discuss the conceptual approach. The Respondent left the meeting with the impression that the conceptual approach was not that far off. Following its discussions of the conceptual approach with the Petitioner and Intervenor, the Respondent drafted rules pursuant to Chapter 723. Four workshops, in three locations in Florida, were conducted to receive public input on the draft rules. Advance notice of the workshops was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Representatives of the Petitioner had notice of, and participated in, the workshops. Subsequent to the public workshops, in October of 1934, the Respondent published proposed rules under Chapters 7D-30 and 7D-31, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. In November of 1984, the Respondent published proposed rules under Chapter 7D-32. After publication of the proposed rules in the Florida Administrative Weekly, requests for a public hearing were received by the Respondent and public hearings were held. Representatives of the Petitioner attended these hearings and had an opportunity to provide input on the content of the proposed rules. Revisions were made to the proposed rules based upon suggestions from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee and comments made by the public during the hearings held by the Respondent. The revisions were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly in January of 1985. As revised, the rules contained in Chapters 7D-30 and 7D-31, Florida Administrative Code, became effective on January 10, 1985. The rules contained in Chapter 7D-32. Florida Administrative Code, became effective on February 6, 1085. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee did not file any challenge to the rules after they became effective. A substantial amount of input and work went into adopting Chapters 7D-30, 7D-31 and 7D-39, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner had notice of the promulgation of the rules at issue and has been involved in the development and distribution of information it believed was necessary to assist its members in complying with the requirements of Chapter 723. The Petitioner has distributed memoranda, conducted seminars, distributed prospectuses and communicated with representatives of the Respondent in an effort to assist its members in complying with the requirements of Chapter 723. The Petitioner provided definitions of terms for use in prospectuses and notices required by Chapter 723 and for use in complying with the Respondent's rules. The Petitioner has attempted to assist its members in preparing a prospectus which could be filed with the Respondent and would meet the requirements of Chapter 723. Toward this end, the Petitioner prepared a sample or model prospectus and conducted a seminar on the model prospectus on December 17, 1984. The seminar was conducted in Orlando, Florida, and was attended by over 600 people. In the model prospectus the Petitioner provided three alternative methods of providing for future rental increases to be included in a prospectus. The model prospectus discussed at the December 17, 1984 seminar was for use by those mobile home parks with 100 or more rental spaces. The Petitioner also prepared a model prospectus for mobile home parks with 26 to 99 rental spaces which it distributed in June of 1985. This model prospectus was sent to all members of the Petitioner. A large number of the Petitioner's members used the model prospectus prepared by the Petitioner. Information provided to members by the Petitioner was developed by the Petitioner based in part upon its discussions with the staff of the Respondent. The Petitioner received questions from its members concerning certain aspects of the Respondent's rules and Chapter 723 which the Petitioner attempted to answer. A substantial number of the Petitioner's members advertise their mobile home parks. Mr. Neil Kullman is a member of the Petitioner and is the President of Florida Leisure Communities. Florida Leisure Communities owns and operates 3 mobile home parks in Florida. Florida Leisure Communities waits for the Respondent to approve advertising materials it files with the Respondent because it has decided that it does not want to risk using an advertisement which may be found to be defective by the Respondent. Florida Leisure Communities does not wait for approval of its advertisements by the Respondent because it believes that it is required to do so by the Respondent's rules. Time delays have been experienced in getting advertisements approved. A substantial number of the Petitioner's members have rental agreements in existence at mobile homes parks which have anniversary dates or renewal dates which would allow increases in rent. Most of the rental agreements have renewal dates or anniversary dates of July 1 or January 1. The Petitioner provided information to its members in March of 1985 and August of 1985 concerning the Petitioner's understanding of what constitutes an effective notice of lot rental increase. In explaining how members can provide a concise explanation of the reason for a proposed lot rental increase, the Petitioner told its members the following in a memorandum distributed in March of 1985: You need only to provide a concise explanation of the reason for the proposed change. Be brief! You should only include a list of factors (for rent increases), or a short plain statement for the change in services or rules or regulations. Important! As for rent increases, the rule limits the factors you may consider to those specifically identified in the prospectus. If the homeowners go to mediation or arbitration, or to court, then only those factors identified in the prospectus can be used to justify the reasonableness of the increase. Also, you should only place on the notice of increase the category of factor used to determine the rent increase level. For example: Operating costs; Prevailing market rent; Prevailing economic conditions; or Consumer Price Index (CPI). Be sure to list only those factors which are necessary to fully justify the rent increase. In August of 1985 the Petitioner provided the following guidance to its members with respect to how to provide a concise explanation of the reason for a lot rental increase: 4. You need only to provide a concise explanation of the reason for the proposed increase. Be brief! You should only include a list of factors, or a short plain statement of the reason or reasons for the increase. For example, a response might be: "The reasons for the increase are increased operating costs, prevailing market rent, and prevailing economic [sic] conditions, as set forth in the prospectus." You need not to go [sic] into great detail as to the specific costs which may have increased during the course of the year which you may want to take into consideration, or do you need to explain what is intended to mean [sic] by prevailing market rent or prevailing economic conditions. You need only to include a concise explanation of the reasons for the increase. The recommendation of the Petitioner to its members concerning how to provide a concise explanation of an increase in lot rental was basically that the member refer to factors which might cause a rental increase as provided in the member's prospectus. In the model prospectus recommended by the Petitioner to its members in June of 1985, the Petitioner recommended that the following explanation of the manner in which lot rental could be increased should be used by its members: is as follows: Increase in Lot Rental The manner in which lot rental will be increased, Definitions. As used in this Section VIII: "Lot rental" means all sums paid or to be paid by the mobile home owner in consideration of leasing or renting a mobile home lot or lots in the Park. Such sums include any and all rents, special use fees, pass-through charges, installation and set-up charges, and other fees, charges and assessments imposed by the Owner. "Special use fees" mean those separately itemized amounts for specific services or privileges which are charged in addition to rent, including, but not limited to, such charges as guest fees, pet fees and entrance fees. "Pass-through charges" are defined as those amounts, other than special use fees, which are itemized and charged separately from the rent and which represent the mobile home owner's share of costs charged to the Park Owner by any state or local government or utility company. Notice of Increase. The mobile home owner shall be notified of any increase in the lot rental at least 90 days prior to the effective date of such increase. Lot Rental-Increases. General. The lot rental and each of the categories of charges current Iv or hereafter comprising a part of the lot rental are subject to periodic increases by the Owner. However, except for increases resulting from the imposition of pass-through charges, the lot rental will not be increased more frequently than annually, except for initial tenancies which commence after the beginning of the annual rental term. Factors Affecting Increases. Factors which may affect the level of increases in lot rental are as follows: Increased costs, which refers to any increases experienced by the Owner since the delivery of notice of the last increase in the lot rental in the total costs arising out of the ownership, operation and management of the Park. Prevailing Market Rent--Refers to the lot rental imposed in mobile home parks comparable to this Park, or the lot rental willingly paid from time to time by new residents of this Park. A park will be deemed comparable if it is located in the same general vicinity as this Park, and offers similar densities, amenities and services. Prevailing Economic Conditions--are intended to refer to those factors which bear on the economic viability of a real estate investment and which would be considered by a prudent businessman in establishing the base rent and other charges or any increase in the amount thereof. These factors may include: the costs attendant to the replacement of this Park in the economic environment existing at the time of any rental increase, including land acquisition costs, construction costs, and losses associated with the operation of a park prior to full occupancy, and the level at which the lot rental must be established in order that the Park Owner will realize a reasonable return on the costs referred to in this clause (1); the level of interest rates and other financing charges associated with construction, interim and permanent financing; (3) the availability of alternative forms of real estate investment capital; (4) the levels of the Consumer Price Index, defined as the United States Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average--All Urban Consumers, 1967 100, or, in the event of the discontinuation of publication of the Consumer Price Index, then an alternative index which has been reasonably related to the Consumer Price Index in evaluating economic conditions, and which has been, or can reasonably be expected to be, generally accepted as a replacement index for the Consumer Price Index; (5) the level at which the lot rental must be established in order that the Owner will realize a reasonable return on the "Owners's Equity"; for this purpose, the "Owner's Equity" refers to the fair market value of the Park from time to time, less existing mortgage indebtedness; (6) other economic factors which might reasonably be expected to affect-either the value of the Park, the rate of return available to the Owner of the Park at the existing level of rent, the present value of the real estate investment in the then current economic conditions, and which would be taken into consideration by a prudent businessman in considering the amount of rental increase required in the Park in order -to realize a rate of return similar to other at risk real estate ventures from the then current value of the Park. To the extent permitted by law, the mobile home owner may also be required to bear, in the form of increases in the lot rental, the costs incurred by Owner in installing capital improvements or performing major repairs in the Park. Additional Considerations The reasons for the increase in lot rental or other fees and charges will be set forth in the notice of increase. Only those factors set forth in the notice will be relied upon by the Park Owner as justification for the rent increase. The Park Owner reserves the right to amend this Prospectus or any Exhibit thereto from time to time to the extent permitted by law to conform with changes in relevant statutory provisions or changes in relevant rules of the Department of Business Regulation, or any other agency having jurisdiction over the operation of this mobile home park. An increase in one or more of the above- described factors may result in an increase in the mobile home owner's rent or other charges. Tenants assuming the remaining portion of a tenancy as prescribed by Section 723.059(3), F.S., are hereby notified that upon the expiration of the assumed tenancy, the Park Owner expressly reserves the right to increase lot rental amount in an amount deemed appropriate by the Park Owner with such increase being imposed in the manner disclosed in the Prospectus delivered to the initial recipient. A number of the Petitioner's members used the notice of lot rental increase recommended by the Petitioner and the portion of the prospectus quoted in finding of fact 33. The Respondent advised some of the Petitioner's members that the notice recommended by the Petitioner was deficient under the Respondent's rules. The notice was deficient because the Respondent determined that the notice did not provide a concise explanation of the reason for a lot rental increase. The notice used by several members of the Petitioner stated that the reason for the increase was "prevailing market conditions and economic conditions." The Respondent notified members that used this explanation that it was deficient. The Respondent also told those members that "the explanation must include the specific changes in the factors described in the prospectus under prevailing market conditions and economic conditions which were the reasons for the change." The Petitioner challenged the Respondent's interpretation of its rules concerning notices in Leon County Circuit Court. The Court advised the parties to work things out following a preliminary injunction hearing. Representatives of the Petitioner and the Respondent met and discussed the problem with the Petitioner's notice and the Respondent subsequently indicated that several examples of a concise explanation for lot rental increases proposed by the Petitioner were acceptable. The method of increasing rent provided in existing rental agreements at various mobile home parks varies. Because existing tenants have different anniversary dates or renewal dates, if notice of a lot rental increase affecting some tenants is given to all tenants of a park, it is more costly to the park owner. It is possible, however, to mail one notice of rental increase to all tenants of a park at the beginning of each year. Florida Leisure Communities has filed a prospectus for all three of its mobile home parks in Florida. The prospectuses have been approved by the Respondent. At the Colonnades, a Florida Leisure Communities park, 156 lots have been completed and 19 of those lots have been occupied. Improvements to be made by Florida Leisure Communities are specified in the prospectus for the parks. In order to keep pace with market conditions and provide different improvements, a new prospectus has to be filed with the Respondent. At Brittany Estates, another Florida Leisure Communities park, after a prospectus had been distributed to all tenants, a tornado destroyed 50 mobile homes. Most of the tenants of the 50 homes voluntarily terminated their leases. Mr. Bernie Covington is vice-president and director of the parks of Angeles Real Estate Management Company (hereinafter referred to as "Angeles"). Angeles owns and operates 13 mobile home parks in Florida. Angeles has filed a prospectus for Heritage Village, a 436 site park. The prospectus had not been approved or distributed as of the date of the hearing of these cases. Heritage Village owns and operates its own sewage treatment plant and water system. Heritage Village will be required, however, to tie into the County's water and sewage system at substantial costs. Existing leases with tenants of Heritage Village allow the park to pass the impact fees ($1,250.00 for sewage and $1,149.00 for water, per site) and the cost of tieing into the force main ($30,000.00 to $35,000.00) on to the tenants. The cost of tieing into the force main may not be passed on to the tenants under the Respondent's rules, however. Angeles has also filed a prospectus for Pleasant Living Mobile Home Park which has 218 tenants. The prospectus had not been approved or distributed as of the date off the final hearing of these cases. Angeles would now like to provide a secure area for storage of boats, RVs and cars and charge a fee for this service. The prospectus being reviewed by the Respondent, however, does not indicate that a secure area will be provided.
The Issue Whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner a standard developmental disability group home license because her facility is a "mobile home" as defined in Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner decided that she wanted to operate a group home for developmentally disabled clients. She wanted to locate the home on property that she owns at 630 South East 10th Street, Williston, Florida. Petitioner conferred with Respondent's staff before deciding whether to construct a site-built home or an off-site built home on the property. Respondent's licensing specialist referred Petitioner to Respondent's fire inspector. Respondent's fire inspector recommended that Petitioner consider using a Palm Harbor Home with certain improvements to the windows, floors, and roof. Specifically, the improvement included special strengthened roofing, special strengthened flooring, wallboard rather than plastic walls, fire alarms and detectors in every room, as well as wider windows. Petitioner decided to buy a four-bedroom/two-bath unit with over 2,000 square feet from Palm Harbor Homes. The home was manufactured by Palm Harbor Homes at its Plant City, Florida, factory in 2001. Each section of the home had a seal certifying that it was built in compliance with the Federated Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard Act. With the upgrades that Petitioner requested, the home cost Petitioner approximately $80,000. The home complies with or exceeds the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development standards. Petitioner took the house plans and pictures of the home to Respondent's licensing specialist who approved the home. The supervisor of the licensing specialist concurred because he was under the impression that the home was a "Jim Walter-type" modular home that met the criteria for group homes. Petitioner's fire inspector also approved the home. The fire inspector concluded that the home meets the high standards of the 2001 Fire Protection Code. In the meantime, Petitioner followed through with completing the paperwork for her application. Petitioner, with the help of Respondent's staff, proceeded to develop the required budget and paperwork for a Medicaid waiver. Petitioner's licensing specialist and fire inspector approved Petitioner's home, finding that it was suitable as a group home. Respondent granted Petitioner a conditional license on June 1, 2001. This license allowed Petitioner to operate for six months. In July 2001, Petitioner's first client moved in the home. Petitioner received several more client referrals. In September 2001, a second licensing specialist inspected Petitioner's group home. The second licensing specialist, who was not involved in issuing Petitioner's conditional license, conducted the routine inspection in anticipation of Petitioner receiving a standard developmentally disabled group home license. The licensing specialist concluded that the home was in fact a "mobile home," which cannot qualify as an approved structure for a group home. The licensing specialist took pictures of the home and of the State of Florida Installation Certification Label attached to the home. This label certifies as follows: [T]hat the installation of this mobile home to be in accordance with Florida Statutes 320.8249, 320.8325 and Rules of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle Construction. Respondent's staff sought clarification from Respondent's headquarters regarding the status of Petitioner's home. By letter dated September 18, 2001, Respondent advised Petitioner that "mobile homes" as defined by Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes, shall not be used for group home facilities. Respondent did not issue a standard license to the Petitioner. Petitioner's home, although a very high quality "manufactured home," still is a type of mobile home under Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's home meets all other licensing standards for developmental disability group homes except for the standard at issue in this case. On or about December 20, 2001, Respondent's district office staff requested a one-year waiver for Petitioner's group home. The written request indicates that Respondent's staff intended to seek a waiver for this home annually until a proposed rule allowing licensing of manufactured homes was promulgated. Respondent granted Petitioner the waiver on or about January 8, 2001. The waiver is valid through the 2002 licensure period. However, there is no guarantee that the Department headquarters will always grant the waiver.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner a standard developmental disability group home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 12th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel Mutch, Esquire Mutch & Brigham, P.A. 2114 Northwest 40th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32605 Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact In April, 1993, Respondent took over operation of a residential facility known as the Linton Group Home. From that date until May 31, 1995, Respondent and her staff cared for developmentally disabled children in that facility on a permanent basis. The facility was located in Marion County, Florida. The facility operated in accordance with Chapter 393, Florida Statutes and in Chapter 10F-6, Florida Administrative Code. Historically, Respondent had assisted her mother in running the group home in the years 1987 and 1988 on a part-time basis. Respondent's involvement with the group home became permanent in 1989. The group home was opened by Respondent's mother in 1985. Respondent began operating the group home when her mother died. Respondent and two or three employees routinely worked at the group home. Respondent's principle income in the time period at issue was derived from the operation of the group home facility. Following a facility inspection by Petitioner's employee conducted on May 8, 1995, to consider license renewal, the group home was granted a conditional license for the period June 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995. The license was not renewed beyond June 30 based upon the allegations previously described. The decision not to renew the facility license for the annual period was made on June 29, 1995 and notice was provided to Respondent. As of June 30, 1995, seven boys were in residence in the group home ages 13 to 18, with varying levels of disability concerning their level of function both physically and mentally. The clients residing in the facility required and had been given constant supervision. However, they were not a threat to run away from the home. At relevant times, in the event that a client was home from school someone was available to supervise the client. At relevant times Respondent's personal residence was one and a half miles from the group home. Respondent lived there with her children and husband, Willie Smith. The children were not those of Respondent and Mr. Smith. When Respondent took over ownership and operation of the group home she and other existing employees at the facility had been qualified to provide direct services to the clients through a background screening process. To successfully complete the background screening a prospective direct service provider must submit a fingerprint card, and affidavit on good moral character, undergo screening by local law enforcement, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the FBI through use of the fingerprint card and prior to October 1, 1995 scrutiny by the Petitioner concerning the State child abuse registry. At relevant times Respondent understood that she was responsible for securing all the necessary information to do a background screening. She further understood that she had seven days from the time at which a person was employed at the group home to submit the background screening information for assessment. For a time she did not realize that the operator was responsible for paying a fee for processing the fingerprint card. When the May 8, 1995 inspection was made Respondent became aware that a fee was assessed for that process. At relevant times Respondent was aware that appropriate background screening was necessary to maintain the group home license to operate the facility in Florida. Respondent understood that if background screening information was not submitted that an existing license to operate the facility could be revoked or the license could be denied upon the annual request for renewal. In relevant times to the proceeding Hilda Spotts worked in the Petitioner's Developmental Services Program Office. That office serves developmentally disabled children ages 3 to adult and is involved with group homes in which those children reside. Ms. Spotts was involved with the licensure of group homes in District 13, to include Respondent's group home. In June, 1994, Respondent called Ms. Spotts to inform Ms. Spotts that Respondent had married Mr. Smith. In that conversation Ms. Spotts asked Respondent for information to perform a background assessment on the husband to include a fingerprint card and a completed HRS Form 1651 which is associated with the screening process. Ms. Spotts did not receive the information to perform the background screening in 1994. Instead, there was a second conversation in which Respondent told Ms. Spotts that the husband would not be involved in the daily activities of the group home as an employee of the home. On that occasion Ms. Spotts gave a packet to the Respondent that would be needed to perform the background assessment. However, Ms. Spotts told the Respondent that Ms. Spotts would check with another employee of Petitioner to see if the husband needed to complete those forms. The conversation was concluded on the basis that Ms. Spotts would inform the Respondent concerning the necessity for Mr. Smith to undergo background screening. Within the first six months of the marriage between Respondent and Mr. Smith, the husband did not work at the group home. His employment began before the May 8, 1995 survey at which the Respondent stated that the husband was doing lawn work and maintenance at the group home. At that time Respondent held to the opinion that the situation with her husband was no different than other maintenance people who worked at the group home and who were not required to have background screening conducted. Later Ms. Spotts called the Respondent to tell her that the husband did not need screening but Ms. Spotts reminded the Respondent that the husband needed to be listed for purposes of the annual license review. The next annual review beyond that point in time was performed on May 8, 1995. Ms. Spotts had made the determination that the husband did not need screening at that time based upon her analysis and conversations with personnel at Petitioner's District 3 office in Gainesville, Florida. Ms. Spotts had further stated that if the husband began working in the home he would need to be screened. Respondent added Mr. Smith to the list of employee names on Form 1651 in the annual renewal application dated April 20, 1995 and signed by Respondent. This was consistent with the request by Ms. Spotts that Respondent report Mr. Smith's name on the annual renewal request. Beyond those persons who were working at the group home when Respondent became the owner/operator, Respondent submitted three additional names for background screening. Among the persons who were screened was Brenda Wilson whose screening information was submitted to Pat Joyner an employee of Petitioner at District 3 who is responsible for background screening compliance in that district and District 13. Ms. Wilson was qualified and there exists no dispute concerning her background. Ms. Joyner performs background screens based upon the availability of the person's name, date of birth, social security number and fingerprints. Another employee for whom Respondent submitted background screening information was Sam Graham. This information was sent to Ms. Spotts. Mr. Graham worked for only one week at the facility. No response was received concerning his background screening. Before information was submitted for background screening on Mr. Graham Respondent was told by Ms. Spotts that the Petitioner's Districts had been separated. That referred to Districts 3 and 13. In fact in approximately the spring of 1994 five counties were separated from District 3 and placed within District 13. Marion County was among those counties. After the District separation, Ms. Spotts told Respondent that in the future that the Linton Group Home would not have any dealings with District 3 and that Respondent should deal with District 13. At that time Ms. Spotts did not tell the Respondent where to send screening requests. Respondent assumed that the screening requests should be forwarded through Ms. Spotts in that Ms. Spotts, had provided Respondent with forms needed to perform the background screening. Another employee for whom information on background screening was submitted was Michael Ivey. The information for Michael Ivey was sent to District 13. Before that information was sent Respondent did not call Ms. Spotts to ask where to send the information. Respondent again operated on the assumption that the Linton Group Home was no longer under the regulatory auspices of District 3 in Gainesville as Ms. Spotts had indicated. Therefore Respondent thought that the information for Mr. Ivey should be sent to Ms. Spotts in Belleview, Florida, where Ms. Spotts had her office. Ms. Spotts has no record of receiving the background screening information on Mr. Ivey, nor does the Petitioner. Prior to the submission in the Ivey case requests for background screening had been sent to the District 3 office in Gainesville, Florida, responsible for background screening. Mr. Ivey worked at the Linton Group Home as a direct service provider from late December, 1994 until mid May, 1995. The record of submission of materials to perform the background screening on Mr. Ivey are as reflected in the files maintained by the group home and examined by Ms. Spotts in the May 8, 1995 inspection for license renewal. In that file there is a copy of a document referred to as a law enforcement check which establishes that Mr. Ivey's record was cleared by the Alachua County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Ivey had also executed an affidavit contained in his personnel file at the group home related to his good moral character. In the group home the files is a copy of the Form 1651 shows that Michael Ivey signed as a applicant for the background screening check and included his name, date of birth and social security number together with his present address. The second part of Form 1651 that is "to be completed by employer, HRS representative or facility requesting background check" and characterizes the nature of the employment was not executed nor signed. Moreover, the requestors name, telephone number, street address, county in which the requester is located and the date upon which the applicant had been employed was not executed. There are occasions in which Petitioner's employees and counselors submit requests for background screens as opposed to that information being requested by the employer. However, it was necessary for Respondent to execute the Ivey documents as the requesting employer in that no prior arrangement had been made to have Ms. Spotts or some other employee for the Petitioner execute the form as a requesting entity. Although it may have been appropriate to assume that the proper place to transmit the request for background screening for Mr. Ivey was through Ms. Spotts, it would be inappropriate to assume that Ms. Spotts would understand or be expected to complete Form 1651 to include information as the requestor for background screening. The practice of not executing Part II to Form 1651 which calls for the employer or an HRS representative or the facility to request the background screening check and sign that request was a practice that Respondent had learned from her mother who formerly operated the Linton Group Home. That practice was carried forward in the submission of the Ivey request for background screening. Respondent did not believe that she needed to indicate that she was requesting the background screening for Mr. Ivey by indicating that Respondent was the employer. Notwithstanding the fact that Part II to Form 1651 was not routinely executed, it was the custom by the Linton Group Home to send other information with the request for background screening to indicate that the screening request related to employment with the Linton Group Home. Related to the request for background screening Respondent acknowledges that the expectation was that information would be returned from Petitioner indicating whether the employee had cleared screening. Within the group home files inspected on May 8, 1995, was found a copy of Mr. Ivey's fingerprints. The law enforcement check made by Alachua County bore an address for Petitioner in Wildwood, Florida. The fingerprint card bore an address for Petitioner in Gainesville, Florida. Both addresses were affixed to forms provided by Petitioner. Although information for Mr. Ivey's background screening had Petitioner's address at Wildwood, Florida, and Gainesville, Florida, on the forms provided by the Petitioner, Respondent recognized that the information for background screening on Mr. Ivey was to be sent to one location. She chose to send it to Ms. Spotts. Respondent was aware that compliance information concerning the background screening request was customarily received from the background agencies notifying the Respondent whether an employee had a "cleared" background. Nonetheless, Respondent did not receive information concerning clearance for Mr. Ivey beyond the clearance by the Alachua County Sheriff's Office which was received on December 7, 1994, the same date that the law enforcement check form provided to that department was signed by Mr. Ivey. In the May 8, 1995 inspection the information that was found concerning background screening for Mr. Ivey did not indicate that he had been cleared by appropriate authorities by placing a stamp on all pertinent requests with the word "clear". The exception being the return from Alachua County Sheriff's Office. When Ms. Spotts conducted the May 1995 inspection at the group home, she asked Respondent about the person or persons who was responsible for conducting repair work at the home. Respondent answered that her husband performed those duties. Respondent indicated that her husband worked both inside and outside the group home, to which Ms. Spotts responded that the husband needed to be screened during this relicensure. Respondent told Ms. Spotts that the husband cut grass at the group home. Respondent told Ms. Spotts that Respondent's husband was repairing walls and halls inside the house. In discussion concerning the need to do a background check for the husband the Respondent told Ms. Spotts that the husband did work at the home when the children were not there. In response Ms. Spotts told the Respondent that children might come back from school while the husband was there. Following this conversation about the need to have the husband checked for his background Ms. Spotts was persuaded that the Respondent had agreed to those arrangements. Those remarks were followed by correspondence dated May 16, 1995, in which Ms. Spotts informed Respondent that the Respondent needed to have a complete background screening check performed on the husband. With this correspondence Ms. Spotts enclosed a local law enforcement check form and advised the Respondent to sign the background check form and have her husband sign and return the executed information within ten days with an appropriate fee of $32.00 for processing the fingerprint card. The correspondence reminded the Respondent that the issue of background screening for the husband was important and needed prompt attention. Respondent received the correspondence. Respondent did not send Ms. Spotts the background screening information as requested. Ms. Spotts had in mind promptly processing the information on the husband to facilitate granting the Respondent a 90-day license pending the processing of information about the husband's background. When Ms. Spotts conducted her inspection Mr. Ivey was present on that day. After Ms. Spotts had examined the information in the personnel file for Mr. Ivey that has been described she asked the Respondent about Mr. Ivey's employment status. Respondent indicated that Mr. Ivey had been employed since January, 1995. Ms. Spotts noted that there was no abuse registry clearance information or local information other than Alachua County Sheriff's Office information or FBI information concerning clearance of Mr. Ivey available in the records at the group home. The group home is expected to maintain clearance information. Petitioner does not maintain clearance information concerning group home employees. In response to Ms. Spotts' questions about Mr. Ivey's status Respondent told Ms. Spotts that Respondent had sent the clearance request forms to Ms. Spotts. The information sent by Respondent to Ms. Spotts when seeking background screening for Mr. Ivey included an application form provided by HRS, an affidavit of good moral character, a Sheriff's statement, a fingerprint card, HRS Form 1651 and information concerning rules of the Linton Group Home. On May 8, 1995, when Ms. Spotts informed Respondent that the information related to Michael Ivey's background screening was incomplete this was the first time that Respondent realized the deficiency. Ms. Spotts' view is that information concerning background screening and clearance for employees in a group home is sent to Ms. Joyner in District 3, whereas information concerning the owner/operator clearance goes to Ms. Spotts at District 13. It is not clear that Respondent understood this distinction. It is not clear whether the Ms. Spotts eventual instruction to Respondent to send background information to screen employees to Ms. Joyner occurred before or after information was sent to Ms. Spotts related to screening for Mr. Ivey. Notwithstanding the special disposition of the background screening for the husband which was requested in May, 1995, to be processed through Ms. Spotts to accommodate the issuance of a 90-day license to the Respondent, earlier in 1995 Ms. Spotts had told the Respondent that the background screening for employees at the group home should be processed through Ms. Joyner. Ms. Spotts was not sure what the Respondent's understanding of the appropriate place to send background screening information for employees prior to this 1995 conversation. Not finding sufficient information concerning Mr. Ivey, Ms. Spotts asked the Respondent to re-submit the request for clearance for that employee. As with the information pertaining to the husband, Respondent was instructed to send the information to Ms. Spotts to accommodate the issuance of a 90-day license pending the processing of information about Mr. Ivey's background. Respondent did not re-submit information for background screening for Mr. Ivey. Ms. Spotts provided Respondent with necessary forms to submit for background screening for employees. At the end of May, 1995, Ms. Spotts called Respondent to inquire concerning the submission of background screening information for the husband and Mr. Ivey. Respondent told Ms. Spotts that the husband had gone to Nevada around May 19, 1995, and that Mr. Ivey had quit on that date. During this conversation at the end of May, Respondent told Ms. Spotts that Respondent was not sure when the husband would return from Nevada. In fact, Respondent knew that her husband was in jail based upon the domestic violence complaint that Respondent had placed against her husband. In this conversation Respondent did not wish to talk with Ms. Spotts because Respondent had visitors in her home. She did not tell Ms. Spotts about the husband's incarceration in this conversation because she did not want the people who were visiting and standing in the room where she was on the phone to hear that her husband was in jail. In the conversation in late May, 1995, Ms. Spotts told Respondent that Respondent had 30 days to "rectify the problem" or loose the license for the group home. This is taken to mean obtaining background information for the husband and Mr. Ivey. In a subsequent conversation around June 7, 1995, the Respondent told Ms. Spotts that the husband had been in jail and was no longer living in the family home. Respondent also told Ms. Spotts that the Respondent was involved with paying for a motel in Ocala, Florida, for the husband's residence. In this conversation, Respondent informed Ms. Spotts that her husband had been in jail because of a domestic dispute. Respondent also told Ms. Spotts that she did not know when she could get the necessary information from the husband to process the background screening requested by Ms. Spotts. The problem which Respondent explained to Ms. Spotts concerning the background screening for the husband was the inability to get a copy of the husband's fingerprints. Respondent remarked in that conversation that the husband had been doing a little work around the house and working in the yard. Respondent also remarked that she did not think that it was necessary to have background screening but she would have it done when her husband was released from jail. Respondent made no mention concerning the possibility that her husband would return to work at the group home. The husband was released from incarceration on June 8, 1995 and returned to jail on June 13, 1995 and was released again on August 25, 1995. In the June 7, 1995 conversation, Respondent asked if Elsa Alvarez from the Petitioner agency had contacted Ms. Spotts about the pending investigation of Respondent and her children associated with the domestic violence case. In the conversation the Respondent told Ms. Spotts that the Respondent had a restraining order against her husband but that the restraining order did not pertain to the husband and his ability to access the group home. Ms. Spotts suggested that the restraining order be modified to place the additional prohibition on the husband. Respondent indicated that she would pursue this suggestion with her lawyer. The restraining order was never modified to prohibit the husband from having access to the group home. Once Ms. Spotts found out that the Respondent had acted to restrain or enjoin the husband from acts directed to the Respondent she asked that a copy of the injunction be posted at the group home. Respondent complied with that request. In addition to placing the May 31, 1995 restraining order on a bulletin board at the group home, Respondent told the staff members that her husband was not to "come around". Given the pendency of the background screening for the husband, a conditional license was issued to the group home effective June 1, 1995, with a 30-day license period. The basis for this decision was premised upon Ms. Spotts' belief that the husband would return from his trip to Nevada and be employed at the group home. On June 5, 1995, Ms. Spotts sent Respondent correspondence indicating that the license for the group had been renewed for the 30-day period pending completion of the background information on Respondent's husband. That correspondence indicated that a meeting would be held with the Respondent on June 13, 1995, to discuss the future licensing of the group home beyond the expiration of the conditional license. Respondent received this correspondence. The correspondence was sent before Ms. Spotts became aware that Respondent's husband had been placed in jail. Ms. Spotts continued to insist on a background check on Mr. Smith because she was persuaded by the June 7, 1995 conversation with the Respondent that the Respondent and the husband would reconcile their differences. Throughout the licensing process Ms. Spotts is without knowledge concerning the husband staying in the group home or serving or supervising the clients at that home. Ms. Spotts is not aware of any complaints about Mr. Ivey while he served as a provider at the group home. Respondent's husband never stayed at the group home or had any direct contact with the residents clients. In addition to the work previously described, the work that he did at the group home included changing air- conditioning vents, and light bulbs and one plumbing repair. The husband also moved a bed at the group home while the Respondent was in attendance. On June 13, 1995, Ms. Spotts was informed that the Respondent was getting a dissolution of the marriage to Mr. Smith. In that conversation Respondent told Ms. Spotts that the Respondent did not want the husband around her daughters in their family home. In that connection, the husband's background had been checked in association with the domestic violence situation in the Respondent's home, during which it was discovered that the husband was on the child abuse registry for sexual abuse. Before that time Respondent was unaware that her husband had been named in the abuse registry. That discovery contributed to the decision by the Respondent to seek dissolution of their marriage. Ms. Spotts in conjunction with Carole Perez, Program Administrator for Developmental Services at District 13, decided to not hold the June 13, 1995 meeting to discuss further licensure in view of problems perceived with the background screening related to Mr. Ivey and Respondent's husband, having in mind the high level of dependency by the clients that were served by the group home, some of whom were unable to communicate. In their opinion those circumstances demanded providers who met all necessary requirements to include background screening. In determining to deny license renewal Ms. Spotts and her supervisor Carol Perez were concerned about Respondent's honesty in cooperating with Petitioner in having a background screen performed on the husband, and whether the cooperation was not forthcoming as a means by Respondent to avoid the possibility that the husband would not be cleared and the possibility that Respondent's husband would have continuing contact with the group home. The Petitioner in the person of Ms. Spotts and Ms. Perez decided to cancel the June 13, 1995 meeting to consider license renewal after consultation with representatives of the children and families program who were conducting an investigation about the group home. Respondent was notified of the cancellation. The children were removed from the home and placed in other licensed facilities or returned to their respective homes on June 20, 1995. At hearing Respondent admitted that there was a possibility that the husband would have returned to her personal home following his incarceration. That possibility ended when the Respondent learned for the first time that her husband was a confirmed child abuser as recognized by the child abuse registry in Florida. This knowledge came about based upon an investigation into the domestic violence situation that has been described. Respondent's husband had been incarcerated based upon the alleged domestic violence against Respondent. That circumstances arose in May, 1995, before Respondent's husband was served with an injunction for protection. The service was made on May 22, 1995. On May 31, 1995, an injunction order for protection was entered in the Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Marion County, Florida. In operative terms the injunction enjoined and restrained the husband from threatening, assaulting, harassing or otherwise physically or mentally abusing the Petitioner. The order was not intended to enjoin the Respondent's husband from contact with her. The order describes that those parties (husband and wife) could have peaceful, non-threatening, nonviolent contact. The court had entered a preliminary injunction on May 20, 1995, as modified by the May 31, 1995 order. On June 19, 1995, Respondent petitioned for dissolution of marriage from Mr. Smith. On August 14, 1995, the final judgement of dissolution was entered. The final order dissolving the marriage kept in place the injunction entered on May 31, 1995, and awarded exclusive possession of the personal residence to Respondent and enjoined her former husband from coming to that premises. Respondent assumed that the necessity to obtain background information ended when the Respondent made the decision to seek dissolution of the marriage. At present Respondent does not have the Linton Group Home in her control.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which grants Respondent permission to renew the group home license upon the payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer 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 14th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX CASE NO. 95-3741 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraph 1 is acknowledged in the preliminary statement to the recommend order. Paragraph 2 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the sentence pertaining to the affidavit of good moral character. The affidavit was available. Paragraphs 4 through the first two sentences in Paragraph 16 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence in Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 17 through 23 are subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 11 through 25 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire HRS District 13 Legal Office 1601 West Gulf-Atlantic Highway Wildwood, FL 34785 Frederick E. Landt, III, Esquire 445 NE 8th Avenue Post Office Box 2045 Ocala, FL 34478 Sandy Coulter, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be subject to administrative penalties, up to and including revocation of its group home license, for non-compliance with the residential facility requirements of Chapter 393, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the licensing and operation of foster care facilities, group home facilities, and residential habilitation centers. Respondent holds a group home facility license. The group home is located in Lake City, Florida. Ms. Amanda Houston is the operator of the group home. Ms. Houston is responsible in that capacity for compliance with statutes and rules relating to residential facilities. At all times material here, A.D. was a vulnerable 17-year-old female who resided at the group home. A.D. is mentally retarded and has significant behavior issues. Ms. Nigeria Taiwan Wills was a trusted employee of the group home for four or five years. On October 8, 2008, Ms. Wills was responsible for the supervision and care of the group home's disabled residents. On October 8, 2008, Ms. Wills began her shift at 2:00 p.m. and worked until 8:00 p.m. During at least part of that time, Ms. Wills was the only staff member present in the home. On October 8, 2007, while under the supervision of Ms. Wills, A.D. suffered significant injury to her buttock area. The next morning, Ms. Houston arrived at the group home around 6:30 a.m. Ms. Houston woke A.D. who dressed herself. Ms. Houston gave A.D. her medications. Ms. Houston did not notice any difference in A.D.'s demeanor. A.D. seemed normal in every way. The group home had four residents. Three of the clients, including A.D., rode a bus to school. On October 9, 2009, the bus arrived to pick up the clients at 8:10 a.m. It left the facility at 8:20 a.m. Ms. Houston was not aware of A.D.'s injury before the bus picked her up. On October 9, 2008, Ms. Wills visited the group home around 11:00 a.m. to pick up a piece of paper that she had left there the night before. While at the group home, Ms. Wills casually mentioned to Ms. Houston that she had an incident with A.D. the night before, that it was no big deal, and that she would tell Ms. Houston about it when she returned to work her shift that evening. Ms. Wills then left the group home. Ms. Wills did not have a home phone. All supervisory employees of the group home are trained to keep notes during every shift to record chronologically all events occurring at the group home. If an injury of any kind occurs, an employee is supposed to immediately fill out an incident report and call Ms. Houston. Ms. Houston knew that Ms. Wills had not filled out an incident report the night before. Ms. Houston read Ms. Wills' notes from the night before and, finding no reference to an incident with A.D., mistakenly assumed that whatever had happened truly was no big deal. This was not an unreasonable conclusion given Ms. Wills' long-term employment with no complaints and A.D.'s history of stealing and other behavior problems. In the mean time, Ms. Lanitra Sapp, a child protective investigator for the Department of Children and Family Services, received a call from A.D.'s school. Ms. Sapp subsequently visited the school, interviewed A.D., and observed bruising to her buttocks and upper thigh. Ms. Sapp concluded that the bruising was consistent with physical abuse. Ms. Sapp then took A.D. to her office. When A.D. did not get off the bus after school, Ms. Houston called the school, A.D.'s mother, and A.D.'s waiver support coordinator. Ms. Houston was unable to locate A.D. until she received a call from Ms. Sapp, asking Ms. Houston to go to Ms. Sapp's office. At Ms. Sapp's office, Ms. Houston and her husband, Adam Houston, first learned about A.D.'s injury. Mr. and Mrs. Houston were shocked at the degree of A.D.'s injury as reflected in photographs. After a short meeting, A.D. voluntarily rode with the Houstons to the group home. Ms. Sapp followed in her car. When the Houstons and Ms. Sapp arrived at the group home, the police were already there. Ms. Wills was also there. Ms. Houston left A.D. in the car with Mr. Houston before going into the group home. Ms. Wills talked to the police and Ms. Sapp in separate interviews. At some point, Ms. Wills told the police that she had spoken to Ms. Houston about the incident that morning. Ms. Houston admitted to the police and Ms. Sapp that Ms. Wills had made a reference to an incident that morning. Ms. Wills never admitted that she spanked A.D. with a belt. Ms. Houston placed Ms. Wills on administrative leave just before the police handcuffed her and took her to jail. Immediately thereafter, Ms. Houston prepared and sent an official incident report to Petitioner and A.D.'s waiver support coordinator. A.D. wanted to remain at the group home. Her mother and waiver support coordinator agreed. A.D. remained in that environment until March 2008, when Respondent lost its status as a Medicaid waiver provider. Ms. Houston never let Ms. Wills return to the group home. Instead, Ms. Houston paid Ms. Wills for one week of earned wages and one week of vacation time. This was the final pay check for Ms. Wills. Within days, Ms. Houston took A.D. to see her pediatrician for a medical evaluation. A week or so later, Ms. Sapp took A.D. for an evaluation by the Department of Children and Family Services child protection team. The Department of Children and Family Services subsequently issued a report containing verified findings of failure to protect against Mr. and Ms. Houston and maltreatment/physical injury against Ms. Wills.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent's license is not subject to discipline for failure to protect. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 29th day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Waldman, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 1621 Northeast Waldo Road Gainesville, Florida 32609 Lloyd E. Peterson, Jr., Esquire 905 Southwest Baya Drive Lake City, Florida 32025 John Newton, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 James DeBeaugrine, Executive Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issues are (1) whether the group home facility license of Smooth Living, Inc. (Smooth Living), should be revoked; and (2) whether the application of Smooth Living for a license to operate a second group home facility should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Background The Agency is charged with regulating the licensing and operation of group home facilities pursuant to chapter 393, Florida Statutes. Section 393.063(19), Florida Statutes, defines a group home facility as "a residential facility licensed under [chapter 373] which provides a family living environment including supervision and care necessary to meet the physical, emotional, and social needs of the resident." When Case No. 17-3921FL arose, Smooth Living held a license to operate a group home facility at 200 South Arcturas Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Its owner and president is Willie Sams, a former Agency employee. The license became effective on March 1, 2017, and by its terms, was set to expire on February 28, 2018. For the reasons described in the Complaint, the Agency seeks to revoke the license. On February 23, 2017, Smooth Living also submitted an application for a new (expansion) license to operate Smooth Living Group Home II at 1321 Oxford Court, Clearwater, Florida. Willie Sams is designated as the owner of the new facility. As part of its review of the application, the Agency conducted a search of Department of Children and Families (DCF) records. The search revealed verified findings of neglect against the owner in 2017. In Case No. 17-3922FL, the Agency proposes to deny the application for the same reasons set forth in the Complaint. The Alleged Violations Smooth Living is a behavior-focused facility that serves more difficult or challenging clients. Its full capacity is six residents. According to Mr. Sams, "most" of the residents are what he characterizes as "kids," presumably meaning they are less than 18 years of age. Because its clients have significant behavioral issues, Smooth Living must ensure that staffing requirements, both in terms of numbers and male/female makeup, are maintained at all times. The importance of appropriate staffing was impressed upon Mr. Sams by an Agency inspector in January 2017, after a staffing incident occurred. The Complaint and Notice allege that three incidents occurred at the facility in February, March, and April 2017, which resulted in verified findings of neglect against Mr. Sams. The incidents also form the basis for allegations that the licensee/applicant violated various statutes and rules. After each incident occurred, Smooth Living submitted to the Agency an Incident Reporting Form, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65G-2.010(5)(a) and (b). Count I Count I alleges generally that on the morning of February 26, 2017,1/ staff inspected a room shared by two male residents, C.B. and E.A., both minors, and observed "[C.B.] engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with [E.A.]"; E.A.'s shirt was ripped; and there were several scratches on E.A.'s neck. The Complaint alleges that the incident was not reported to the Florida Abuse Hotline until 2:00 p.m. that day. It also alleges "most staff members" were not aware of C.B.'s history of inappropriate sexual behavior. Finally, it alleges that a DCF investigation resulted in verified findings of neglect of a child against Mr. Sams, a Class I violation, the most serious type of violation by a group home. Besides the verified finding of neglect, the Complaint alleges the actions violate applicable rules and statutory provisions. The record shows that in April 2016, C.B. was placed in the Smooth Living facility. When the first incident occurred on February 26, 2017, C.B. shared a room with E.A., a nonverbal minor. Mr. Sams and the group home manager, Ms. DiPino, acknowledged that C.B had a history of inappropriate sexual behavior, including frequent attempts to masturbate in the common area of the home. Also, Ms. DiPina reported that C.B. had a history of placing his hands onto another person's "private area over clothing." Ms. Stanganelli, a former DCF child protective investigator, added that before C.B. came to Smooth Living, he had "performed oral sex on other minor children" in other homes. Given this background, C.B.'s behavior analyst service plan plainly indicated that he had a history of "inappropriate sexual behavior [with] other peers." The fact that C.B. was funded by the Agency at a moderate rather than a high risk level does not mean that his history of inappropriate sexual behavior could be ignored. Although C.B.'s behavior normally would require him to be placed in a private room, his behavior plan, effective July 11, 2016, did not have this requirement. It provided that he "needs to be under visual supervision at all times except while in the bathroom or bedroom by himself" and that he "should never be in a bedroom with another peer with the door closed at any time." Although C.B.'s behavior analyst visited the home each week and was aware that he shared a room, the analyst did not recommend any change to this arrangement. Ms. Jackson, a direct care staffer when C.B. was a resident, testified that the door to C.B.'s room was always "cracked" so that staff could peek into the room without disturbing the residents. A resident with a history of inappropriate sexual behavior should have his room checked by a staff member more frequently than other residents. This was confirmed by Ms. Jackson, who acknowledged that C.B. "required more supervision" and "needed more checkups than normal." Therefore, it was appropriate to check the room every 15 to 20 minutes, rather than the usual 30 to 45 minutes. At hearing, both Ms. Jackson and Mr. Sams testified that bed checks on C.B.'s room were made every 15 or 20 minutes. This time frame was contradicted by Ms. DiPino, who performed bed checks on the night the incident occurred, and Ms. Floyd, the other staffer on duty. In her interview with the DCF investigator, Ms. DiPino stated that C.B's room was checked every 30 to 45 minutes, while Ms. Floyd stated she was told to make checks every 30 minutes. Their statements are accepted as being the most credible on this issue. While making a random check on C.B.'s room around 5:00 a.m. on February 26, 2017, Ms. DiPino and Ms. Floyd observed C.B. performing oral sex on E.A. This was the first known time that C.B. engaged in sexual behavior towards his roommate. After pulling C.B. off of E.A., the employees observed that E.A. had a ripped shirt and scratches on his upper shoulder area. Smooth Living's Incident Reporting Form filed with the Agency shortly after the incident also confirms that C.B. sexually assaulted his roommate. The form states, however, that bed checks on the room were made every 20 minutes, even though the group home manager on duty that evening stated otherwise. The Complaint alleges that Smooth Living did not immediately notify the Florida Abuse Hotline following the incident. There is no evidence as to when notification was actually given. On February 27, 2017, Ms. Stanganelli, who testified at hearing, began her investigation of the incident. During the investigation, she interviewed the residents, staff, and owner. All statements made by the employees were in the course of their employment. After Ms. Stanganelli completed her investigation, she recommended that a finding of inadequate supervision on the part of Mr. Sams be verified. Count II Count II alleges that on March 29, 2017, C.B., then sharing a room with G.M., "destroyed several personal items belonging to [G.M.] as well as bedroom furniture." It further alleges that later that day, an altercation between the two ensued, and C.B. "receive[d] skull lacerations which required treatment at a hospital emergency room." It goes on to allege that only one staff person, Mr. Bryant, was on duty and responsible for supervising four residents with significant behavioral issues, and that a DCF investigation resulted in verified findings of neglect of a child against Mr. Sams. Finally, it alleges that after the incident, C.B. was required to sleep on a couch in the living room for a month. Like Count I, the Complaint alleges the actions by the home violate a number of rules and statutes. The record shows that on March 29, 2017, C.B. was sharing a bedroom with G.M., a minor. According to Smooth Living's Incident Reporting Form, C.B. destroyed personal property of G.M.; an altercation between the two ensued later that day; C.B. suffered a two-inch laceration on the back of his head; and C.B. was taken to an emergency room for medical treatment. The form does not address the issue of whether the facility was properly staffed when the incident occurred. At hearing, Mr. Sams characterized the destruction of the room as a tantrum. He added that later that day, G.M. punched C.B. "real quick" before staff could intervene but they were quickly separated. An investigation by the Agency revealed that C.B.'s destruction of the room was "massive," only Mr. Bryant was present at that time to oversee four residents, and the staff member was unable to physically restrain C.B. from destroying the property. While C.B. continued to destroy the room, the staffer stood by "trying to keep the other clients out of the way so that C.B. would not hurt them." These facts are drawn from statements made by Mr. Bryant to Ms. Liles, an Agency inspector. Count III Count III alleges that, due to a history of violent behavior, G.M.'s behavior plan restricted access to weapons and cell phones and required daily checks of his backpack and bedroom. It alleges that on April 27, 2017, G.M. threatened a student at school with a pair of scissors and showed the student a picture of him (G.M.) holding a gun; and a search of G.M.'s backpack at school revealed a pair of scissors and two cell phones. The Complaint further alleges that later on that day, a search of G.M.'s bedroom revealed he had a pellet gun, cell phone, knife blade without a handle, scissors, a water gun, a razor blade wrapped in paper, a foot-long key chain, a screwdriver set, a sewing kit with needles, and material used in constructing an explosive device. It also alleges that Mr. Sams was unaware of the behavior plan, other staffers "knew very little about the supervision requirements found within [G.M.'s] behavior plan," and Mr. Sams admitted that the facility was short-staffed at times. Finally, the Complaint alleges a DCF investigation resulted in verified findings of neglect of a child against Mr. Sams. Again, the Complaint alleges that these actions violate numerous rules and statutes. G.M.'s behavior plan was in the process of being modified shortly before the incident occurred and did not become final until May 1, 2017, or three days after the incident. Prior to May 1, G.M.'s behavior plan did not restrict access to weapons or cell phones, and it did not require bedroom and backpack inspections when he left for school each day and when he returned. Mr. Sams testified that it only required a room check each morning after G.M. left for school. The evidence shows that on April 27, 2017, Mr. Sams received a call from the school principal advising that G.M. was being sent home because he had a gun in his possession, he was threatening students, and he was having "behavior concerns." As it turned out, G.M. had been expelled from school for those actions. After G.M. returned to the facility, a search of his room revealed that he had in his possession the items described in the Complaint. The search was conducted in the presence of Agency personnel and a DCF investigator. An Agency inspector noted that no one on the staff was "taking it seriously to actually do the searches the way they should have been done." And after expressing surprise to learn that scissors were found in G.M.'s guitar case, Mr. Sams stated "he would never have thought to look in the guitar case." He also acknowledged that the facility was short-staffed during that period of time. Even though G.M.'s plan required only a morning search of his room each day, a thorough search of his room by staff should have uncovered the contraband. The DCF investigator testified that the investigation was closed with verified findings of maltreatment/inadequate supervision against Mr. Sams. Mr. Sams contends that no contraband was in the room when G.M. left for school and that all items must have been obtained from outside the home. He further surmises that the items were hidden by G.M. after he returned from school. However, these assertions are simply speculation, without evidentiary support. Mr. Sams also pointed out that the gun was merely a broken pellet gun, but in today's environment, even a fake gun can be threatening to other residents and staff. In Agency interviews with staff that day, members of the staff acknowledged that they did not routinely check backpacks of residents when they left the facility in the morning for school and when they returned that afternoon. Comprehensive inspections are especially important for a resident who exhibits signs of violent behavior. Smooth Living's Incident Reporting Form is somewhat vague. The form acknowledges that DCF advised Mr. Sams that it intended to close the investigation with a verified finding of inadequate staff supervision. DCF also informed him that "staff [should] start looking for another job because [the facility] would be closed down in a couple of months." However, the form fails to include any information regarding the items uncovered during the search of G.M.'s room or acknowledge that staff failed to perform a thorough search of his room in the morning, as required by the behavior plan. Based on the violations associated with the three incidents, Smooth Living closed its facility in June 2017. If its appeal in this case is successful, Smooth Living presumably intends to reopen the facility. The Abuse Reports, Statements, and Incident Reports To support the allegations, the Agency relies upon the abuse reports on the theory they are business records and admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Pet'r Ex. 3 and 11. At hearing, it also relied on employee/owner statements made to Ms. Stanganelli and two Agency employees, Ms. Liles and Ms. Leitold, and statements contained in the Incident Reporting Forms filed with the Agency after each incident. Smooth Living objects to each category of statements/documents on the ground they constitute hearsay, not subject to an exception. To lay a foundation for the business record exception, Ms. Stanganelli testified that 1) she prepared the abuse reports and 2) they were prepared near or at the time the events occurred. There is no testimony that these reports are kept in the ordinary course of DCF's business, or that it is a regular practice of DCF to make such a record. Also, no showing was made that she is a qualified person to make those assertions. As to statements made by employees to the DCF and Agency, they concern a matter connected to a duty within the scope of employment. The statements by Mr. Sams to DCF and the Agency, and his written reports to the Agency after each incident, are obviously statements made by an adversary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order revoking Smooth Living's license in Case No. 17-3921FL and denying its application for a new license in Case No. 17-3922FL. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of March, 2018.
Findings Of Fact CHS is an existing provider of home health care services in Pasco and Pinellas Counties, HRS District V, and has provided such services since 1981. CHS offers a wide range of nursing services including nurses specializing in I.V. therapy, oncology, geriatrics, obstetrics, pediatrics, and orthopedics; licensed practical nursing services; nursing assistants; home health care aides; and respiratory therapy services n the home. These services are offered solely to private payors. Only home health care providers who have been issued certificates of need are licensed and eligible to serve Medicare and Medicaid patients whose care is paid for under whose programs. CHS is applying for a certificate of need in order to be eligible to provide home health care which is paid for pursuant to Medicare and Medicaid procedures. At the time CHS' application was first considered Respondent found the application not to meet the requirements of a need methodology rule which was subsequently declared invalid. The present denial is alleged to be bared solely on statutory criteria. CHS presented one expert witness who calculated need for additional home health care services using a formula suggested by he U.S. Department of Human Services but which was never adopted as a rule by any agency. Pursuant to this formula, which takes into consideration the projected population of the service area, the age cohorts of the population, the population's historical and projected utilization of home health and related services, he service area's hospital discharge rate, and nursing home utilization data, an unmet need for services for 62,541 potential home bed health care patients in 1985, with 13,960 in Pasco and 49,581 in Pinellas Counties, was found. Based on the historical utilization of home health area services by patients in District V, the existing licensed home health agencies, of which there are 12, are projected to serve 25,424 patients in 1985 Exhibit 3). This would leave a potential unmet need for some 28,000 patients in District V. However, serious questions were raised as to the efficacy of the assumption in the formula since this methodology was never adopted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has not been tested by empirical verification, and the definition of home health services used in this formula is not limited to part-time or intermittent services. Home health care providers differ from other medical care providers principally in the fact that the capital outlay in establishing home health care is minimal. This is so because such care is personal service oriented with little tangible property required. As an example, CHS employs some four or five full-time employees and maintains a list of approximately 350 nurses and aides that can be called to provide the home health care services needed. Accordingly, there is no large fixed payroll to meet when work is slack and services can be increased by any home health care provider simply by employing nurses as the jobs arrive and stop their pay when the care is no longer needed. There is no large overhead to be concerned with in this type operation. CHS is financially capable and has the personnel resources to provide the proposed service. CHS has a line of credit with a commercial bank of $100,000, has the organizational ability to operate as a home health care provider, and has personnel available to provide all services needed. CHS proposes to serve all Medicaid patients who apply for services and to provide services throughout District V as needed. No evidence was presented that patients needing home health care are unable to get such care from existing providers. CHS presently serves private pay patients and holds itself out as able to provide all home health care required within District V. No evidence was presented that those 12 licensed home health care providers in District V are unable to provide all authorized Medicare and Medicaid home health care needed. Since any of them can increase the availability of services simply by employing additional personnel to provide such services as needed actual need for additional certificate of need holders will be difficult to prove. CHS presented evidence that when its private pay patients who are Medicare eligible are hospitalized and subsequently discharged from the hospital needing home health care, the hospital usually refers these patients to a licensed home health care provider who can be compensated by Medicare. This results in CHS losing these patients. Home health care providers get approximately one-half of their patients referred to them by a doctor and one-half referred by a hospital. This ratio is accurate for Petitioner and for the licensed home health care providers The advent of diagnostic relate groupings (DRGs) could impact on home health care providers, but no evidence was presented (if available) of the actual impact DRGs will have on nursing homes or on home health care providers.
