Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing by a Petition, however, Respondent failed to file any response to the Administrative Law Judge’s Order to Show Cause, which resulted in the Judge’s Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. (Ex. 2) This Order found that Respondent’s failure to file any response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause resulted in a finding that Respondent’s request for formal administrative hearing was deemed withdrawn and there were no remaining material disputed facts to resolve. Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Administrative Complaint are adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $1,000. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 1 Filed December 17, 2013 10:37 AM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this_'3 day of Deeerber 2013. poms Elizayeth Dudgk,\Secretary Ageficy for Heafth Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct_c of this Final Qrder was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this 3 otay of , 2013. CY i Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) 4 Deborah E. Leoci, Senior Attorney Tamas Kovacs, Administrator Office of the General Counsel SWOF, LLC, d/b/a Gulf Winds Agency for Health Care Administration 2745 East Venice Avenue (Electronic Mail) Venice, Florida 34292 (U.S. Mail) Elizabeth W. McArthur, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (Electronic Mail)
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against in employment by Tampa General Hospital by reason of Petitioner's age, national origin, or in retaliation because Petitioner had filed a complaint with EEOC against a former employer.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent on February 15, 1984, as a Pharmacy Technician assigned to the 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. shift (Exhibit 12). At this time Petitioner was also working at University Community Hospital and attending classes at the University of South Florida. In his application for this position, (Exhibit 8) Petitioner indicated he desired to work the night shift. However, Respondent does not hire employees for a particular shift and Petitioner accepted employment on the day shift. On May 21, 1984, Petitioner completed the Pharmacy Technician Training Program at Tampa General Hospital and was awarded a Certificate showing such completion (Exhibit 7). Petitioner was unable to work his assigned 40 hours per week with his other job and school and on October 5, 1984, he was transferred from permanent full-time (40 hours per week) to permanent part time (20 hours per week) at his request (Exhibit 13). Petitioner requested assignment to the night shift but there were few openings on the night shift as that popular shift was given to more senior (in length of service) employees. Petitioner was unable to be available 20 hours per week, and on November 6, 1984, he was transferred to a part-time position in the Pharmacy PRN pool. By letter dated November 21, 1984 (Exhibit 4), Petitioner resigned his position at Tampa General Hospital giving as a reason that he had not been assigned to the night shift and could not keep up with his schooling and other job working his assigned hours at Tampa General Hospital. During the latter stages of Petitioner's employment at Tampa General Hospital, his attendance at work became less frequent and he was considered somewhat unreliable by his supervisors and his coworkers. Although he was given a satisfactory performance rating in July, 1984 (Exhibit 5), shortly before his resignation, his supervisor was contemplating disciplinary action to improve Petitioner's performance or terminate his employment with Respondent. In late 1986, Petitioner suffered chest pains which he initially thought stemmed from heart problems. However, these were subsequently diagnosed as being of muscular skeletal origin (Exhibit 9). In February, 1987, Petitioner was dismissed from his position as Pharmacy Technician at University Community Hospital on allegations he was insubordinate. Petitioner called the office of the Director of Pharmacy at Tampa General Hospital, Monroe Mack, several times to inform him of his situation and tell him that he was trying to get some kind of worker's compensation. Petitioner requested Mack give him a letter of recommendation and provided a list of things he would like covered in the letter of recommendation (Exhibit 10). Mack accommodated Petitioner with a letter (Exhibit 3) dated July 13, 1987. Petitioner contacted Respondent's director of employee relations (Harris) to advise that he would like to return to work at Tampa General Hospital and to obtain Harris's assistance with Mack who had the authority to hire employees in the pharmacy department. On November 23, 1987, Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent requesting employment (Exhibit 6). In this application, he listed under "hours not willing to work" 7:30 a.m to 2:30 p.m. and indicated he was still pursuing his education. At Petitioner's request and with the help of Harris, a meeting was arranged with Mack in August, 1988. At this meeting Petitioner again iterated his desire to work the night shift and Mack told Petitioner that he would not rehire Petitioner as a pharmacy technician because his work had not been satisfactory when he earlier worked at Tampa General Hospital and his then co- workers and supervisors had recommended against his reemployment. Petitioner was born April 1, 1938, (Exhibit 6). Accordingly, when he was denied reemployment in 1988, he was 50 years old. The only evidence submitted, which in any way relates to age discrimination, is the list of pharmacy technician personnel showing their age, race and gender (Exhibit 1). This shows that in 1988 the oldest pharmacy technician at Respondent working as a technician was 41 years old with the average age of the 33 technicians listed around 30 years old. The list also shows that 28 of the 33 are females and 10 are black. No evidence was submitted indicating in any manner or implying that older applicants had applied for work at Tampa General Hospital as pharmacy technicians and had been turned down for employment for any reason. No pattern of such discrimination was shown, nor was any evidence submitted, even suggesting that such a pattern was extant at Tampa General Hospital. Nor was any evidence submitted that Petitioner was not rehired at Tampa General Hospital in retaliation for filing.a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission against his former employer (presumably University Community Hospital).
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice filed by Yacob Morowati against Tampa General Hospital be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 23rd day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Yacob Morowati P. O. Box 270489 Tampa, FL 33688 E. John Dinkel, III , Esquire P. O. Box 1531 Tampa, FL 33601 Joe Harris Post Office Box 1289 Tampa, FL 33601 Margaret A. Jones Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 =================================================================
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, Intervenor's Motion for a Summary Recommended Order is granted. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for relief and dismissing its bid protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 8th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James G. Council, Esquire First Health Services Corporation 4300 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Barrett G. Johnson, Esquire Johnson & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 1308 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 William Roberts, Esquire Steven Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lloyd M. Weineman, Esquire Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20004-2595 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr., Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is responsible for administering the "Health Facilities and Health Services Planning Act," Section 381.493 through 381.497, Florida Statutes. The Act provides, inter alia, that health care facilities seeking to increase their bed capacity, to engage in construction of additional facilities, to make certain capital expenditures, or to convert facilities from one type of health care facility to another must obtain a Certificate of Need Section of the Department's Office of Community Medical Services. The Health Facilities and Health Services Planning Act was adopted by the 1972 Florida Legislature (Chapter 72-391, Laws of Florida), and as originally adopted, included a "grandfather clause" which exempted certain health care facilities from the requirement of obtaining a Certificate of Need. The grandfather clause was set out at Section 381.497, and provided: Sections 381.493-381.495 shall not affect any health-care facility project for which land has been acquired and preliminary construction plans have been prepared and filed with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services prior to July 1, 1973, or any ambulatory surgical center constructed or in operation by January 1, 1976. The grandfather clause became a source of frustration in administering the Act because many grandfathered projects were not being brought to completion, and it accordingly became difficult to estimate health care needs. The provision also caused Florida's program to be out of compliance with federal requirements. Accordingly, the 1978 Florida Legislature repealed the clause. Chapter 78-194, Section 3, Laws of Florida. In addition to repealing the grandfather clause, the Act provided, in Section 1: (2) On or before July 15, 1978, the department shall provide notice to each health-care facility project determined by the department to be exempt or grandfathered under the Health Facilities and Health Services Planning Act. If a health-care facility project has been previously notified in writing by the department that it is exempt or grandfathered under the Health Facilities and Health Services Planning Act, such notice shall be considered as valid evidence of inapplicability of Sections 381.493-381.495 to said project, and exemption from the Health Facilities and Health Services Planning Act. The Petitioner is President of Westchester General Hospital located in Miami, Florida. Westchester General Hospital has been in the process of planning and constructing a health care facility project which the Department concluded was exempt from the requirement of a Certificate of Need under the grandfather clause. Planning for the project commenced prior to July 1, 1973, but only acquisition of land and adoption of preliminary plans had been completed by the time that the Legislature adopted Chapter 78-194. The Department failed to notify Westchester General Hospital that the grandfather clause had been repealed prior to July 15, 1978, as required under Chapter 78- 194, Laws of Florida. Apparently, Westchester's preliminary plans had never actually been filed with the Department, and the Department therefore overlooked Westchester when it was accomplishing the notifications. Later it was determined that since Westchester had been previously advised that its project was exempt under the grandfather clause, the Department could not, under estoppel principles, change its position, and notice was ultimately provided in October, 1978. The repeal of the grandfather clause was effective under that Act on July 1, 1979. The Department initiated rule making to implement the repeal of the grandfather clause. The Department's rule 10-5.05, Florida Administrative Code, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on May 15, 1979, and became effective June 5, 1979. The rule requires that projects which had been subject to the grandfather exemption must be in continuous and physical construction by July 1. 1979. Rule 10-5.02(21), Florida Administrative Code, which became effective on the same date, defined continuous and physical construction to contemplate action beyond site preparation under final plans that had been approved by the Department. The Department had concluded that Westchester General Hospital's project which had been exempt from Certificate of need requirements under the grandfather clause was not under construction by July 1, 1979, as contemplated by Rules 10-5.05 and 10-5.02(21). Accordingly, an administrative complaint was issued, and proceedings respecting the complaint are pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The pertinent language of Rule 10-5.05 is as follows: Such projects [projects which had been exempt from Certificate of Need requirements under the grandfather clause] not subject to review shall forfeit such exemption from review unless the project is under physical and continuous construction, pursuant to final construction plans approved by the department, prior to 1 July 1979. The term "construction" as used in Rule 10-5.05, and as used elsewhere in rules relating to Certificate of Need requirements, is defined in Rule 10-5.02(21) as follows: "Construction" means the commencement of and continuous activities beyond site preparation normally associated with erecting, altering or modifying a health care facility pursuant to construction plans and specifications approved by the department under the provisions of Rules 10D-28, 10D-29, or 10D-38, Florida Administrative Code. This definition of "construction is not the definition that is typically followed in the architectural and construction industries. Typically in those fields, when construction is deemed to commence in connection with a given project is a question of the intention of the parties. Architects who testified at the hearing stated that construction is typically thought to commence either at the time that the contract is signed, or when the very first work, including site preparation, begins. The Department's definition which requires more than mere site preparation was chosen because of the Department's experience in administering the Certificate of Need program. Effective health care planning was being frustrated because health care providers whose projects had been grandfathered, or even providers who had received a Certificate of Need were undertaking site preparation, but were taking no further steps to complete the project. The Department sought to take a restrictive view of then construction of a project actually commences to assure that providers were not simply taking enough steps to maintain exempt status or to maintain a Certificate of Need without actually undertaking to complete the project. The Department concluded that activities beyond site preparation would demonstrate the the provider was sufficiently serious about the project to carry it to completion. The Department prepared an economic impact statement in support of Rules 10-5.05 and 10-5.02(21) as required by Section 120.54(2). Under the heading "Cost or Benefit to Persons Directly Affected," the economic impact statement provides: Persons most directly affected by the Certificate of Need program are the general population who ultimately pay for capital expenditures for health care facility projects through charges rendered for services provided. The incurrence of a capital expenditure (several thousand or several million dollars) for an unnecessary health care facility project, in the absence of this proposed amendments, would economically impact on the general public in an undeterminable dollar amount which would vary according to the total cost of the unnecessary project. The denial of a several thousand or million dollar capital expenditure for an unnecessary health care project would result in the general public's health care costs not being unnecessarily increased. These proposed amendments would enhance existing rules under which the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services denied (during 1975, 1976, 1977,and 1978) unnecessary projects totalling $145,306,100 which, had they been accomplished, would have adversely impacted on health care costs borne by the general public. The economic impact statement contains no estimate of costs to health care providers of the rules. The Department concluded that insofar as there were such costs (which it asserts there were not), the costs are the result of the statute which repeals the grandfather clause rather than of the rules. The Department did not consider the increased costs that a provider would incur because the project would be subject to Certificate of Need requirements rather than exempt under the grandfather clause. There are such costs, and they are susceptible of estimation. The Department did not consider these costs and made no effort to estimate them. The economic impact statement, under the heading "Estimate of Effect on Competition and Open Market," provides as follows: These proposed amendments will have no impact on competition and open market employment in that they do not address licensing requirements beyond those already established in existing statutes and rules. This statement would appear to be correct, because whether projects are exempt from Certificate of Need requirements or not, the projects must be taken into consideration in determining whether such Certificate of Need would be issued for other projects. The rules setting forth the planning criteria, rather than the rules relating to repeal of the grandfather clause, impact competition and the open market.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Deem Application Incomplete and Withdrawn from Further Review dated March 13, 2013 (Ex. 1), and the Administrative Law Judge’s Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and Dismiss Case As Moot (Ex. 2), the Agency for Health Care Administration finds concludes as follows: 1. The license of the Licensee/Transferor, License Number 5799, was revoked by Final Order dated March 8, 2013. 2. The change of ownership application filed by the Petitioner/Transferee is moot because the Licensee no longer has a license. 3. The Petitioner’s change of ownership application is therefore withdrawn from further review in accordance with the Administrative Law Judge’s order. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this 23 day of _ Marly , 2014. Sel retary th-Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party that is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek judicial review which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the agency clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. Filed March 31, 2014 3:56 PM Division of Administative Hearings CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy offhis Final Order was served on the below- named persons/entities by the method designated on this .$/-day of Space , 2014. Richard J. Shoop, Agency Cler Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Shaddrick Haston, Unit Manager Facilities Intake Unit Licensure Unit Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) John E. Bradley, Assistant General Counsel Arlene Mayo-Davis, Field Office Manager Office of the General Counsel Local Field Office Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Honorable June C. McKinney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Filing) Bernard P. Coniff, Esquire Counsel for Special Care, Inc. 760 Ponce De Leon, Suite. 101 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (U.S. Mail) HORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINSTRATION Pa RICK SCOTT ELIZABETH DUDEK GOVERNOR Better Health Care for all Floridians SECRETARY 1c, (OP 2% March 13, 2013 my wk eS CERTIFIED MAIL Bernard P. Coniff, Esq. Wilfred Braceras Special Care, Inc. 760 Ponce De Leon, Ste. 101 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 cense Number: 5799 Po} 300 LE 2°) Fy Certified Article Number 756 9008 9111 6923 4301 SENDERS RECORD NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEEM APPLICATION INCOMPLETE AND ENE EY DERM APPLICATION INCOMPLETE AND WITHDRAWN FROM FURTHER REVIEW Dear Sir/s: Your change of ownership (CHOW) application for a license is deemed incomplete and withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes (F.S.), which states that “Requested information omitted from an application for licensure, license renewal, or change of ownership, other than an inspection, must be filed with the agency within 21 days after the agency’s request for omitted information or the application shall be deemed incomplete and shall be withdrawn from further consideration and the fees shall be forfeited’. You were notified by correspondence dated 01/18/2013 to provide further information addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty-one days from the receipt of the Agency’s correspondence. Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on 01/24/2013. The requested information was reviewed by the Agency. However, your application is deemed incomplete and withdrawn from further consideration, The outstanding issues remaining for licensure are: Proof of Financial Ability To Operate Conclusion: The applicant has not met the following Statutory filing requirements for proof of financial ability to operate: ¢ The applicant failed to provide independent evidence that the funds necessary for startup costs, working capital, and contingency financing exist and will be available as needed as required under Section 408.810(8), Florida Statutes. Analysis: Staff reviewed the documents submitted by the applicant to demonstrate proof of financial ability to operate. Due to errors and omissions in the filing, staff is unable to evaluate the applicant’s financial ability to operate. Proof of Funding: The applicant did not provide adequate proof of ability to fund start-up costs, working capital, and required contingency funding as required by Section 408.810(8), Florida Statutes. : The inter-office omissions letter dated January 18, 2013, raised the following issues: 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#30 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at ahca.myflorida.com CYHIBIT 1 Mr. Braceras * BOYNTON BEACH ASSIS. LIVING FACILITY Page 2 03/13/2013 CHOW Purchase Price The applicant did not indicate the purchase price on Schedule 1. In addition, the applicant did not provide documentation of the purchase (purchase agreement, bill of sale, etc.) and did not provide proof of available funding to complete the purchase transaction. Please provide supporting documentation indicating the availability of funds to complete the purchase. Proof may include account statements of the purchaser prior to purchase. If the purchase has already been completed (an executed bill of sale exists) please provide documentation of the transfer of funds including canceled checks, and or electronic funds transfer receipts. if the applicant borrowed any of the funds for the purchase from an institution or individual, please disclose the amount borrowed, the identity of the lender, and documentation supporting the loan. While the applicant did indicate a purchase price of $30,000, it again did not provide proof of CHOW price, potentially significantly understating its. funding requirement. Working Capital, and Contingency Financing Working capital as defined on Schedule 1 as the largest cumulative cash need from year one or two, from Schedule 7, Projected Cash Flow Statement, Line 21 of the application. In its application, the agency listed its largest cumulative cash need as $0. However, the correct figure, according to the applicants’ Schedule 7, as filed, is $62,182. In addition to providing funding for start-up costs and working capital requirement, all applicants are required by law to provide for contingency financing. Contingency financing as defined in Section 400.471(2}(e), Florida Statutes, and applies to all agency licensure and requires an applicant’s access to contingency financing in addition to funding anticipated cash flows. The purpose of contingency financing is to provide funding for unanticipated, extraordinary occurrences that the applicant cannot project. The contingency financing should cover at least one-month’s average operating expense over the first year of operations. This funding should be in addition to the funding for working capital and Start-up cost on Schedule 1. On Schedule 1, the applicant calculated its contingency funding requirement as $0. However, based on the financial projections in the application, the total annual operating expense in year one is $1,240,565; therefore, one month’s average operating expense would be $103,380. Note: the amounts above are based on the application as filed. The amounts may change due to the financial and application omissions in this notice. Together, the combined total working capital, and contingency funding requirement for the applicant is $165,562, as filed. In its initial application, the applicant did not complete the working capital or contingency funding components of the minimum funding requirement calculation. The only amount listed were pre- opening costs of $66,375. In its response to omissions, the applicant included those omitted items and adjusted pre-opening costs, which appears to have incorrectly contained the purchase price instead of it being listed separately. Because the applicant did not provide any documentation proving the purchase had been completed, and confirming the purchase price, the purchase price must be added to the minimum funding requirement. Mr. Braceras BOYNTON BEACH ASSIS. .O LIVING FACILITY Page 3 03/13/2013 As a result, the minimum funding requirement, as filed in its omission response, is $213,965 ($60,000 purchase price + $50,780 working capital + $103,185 contingency funding). Insufficient Proof of Funding The applicant did not indicate any source of funds on Schedule 1, and did not provide any supporting documentation as evidence that any required financing exist and are available for immediate use, as directed in the instructions to Schedule 1. Failure to provide proof of ability to fund the minimum funding requirement will result in denial of the application. Pursuant to Schedule 1 instructions, please provide independent, certifiable documentation of the existence and availability of these funds, Examples of documents that support funding include: * copies of current bank statements for accounts owned by the proposed agency, * letters of commitment from a bank or other independent lending source, * or a copy of a line of credit agreement indicating credit line and available credit and any restrictions, * parent company audited financial statements (Note: unaudited financial statements will not be considered as proof of funding ability). In addition, if submitting more than one document as Support for funding, attach a Separate schedule that clearly lists each item, including: Name of the financial institution Cutoff (balance) date Last four digits of the account/identification number Ending balance For a line of credit, along with the above, provide total credit line and available credit Note: any parent company or personal funds pledged to the applicant must meet the above criteria and the owner of the funds must provide a binding letter of financial commitment pledging the funds to the applicant. Note: already paid pre-opening costs being claimed must be supported by paid invoices, receipts, etc. All receipts must be accompanied by a separate schedule prepared in an orderly fashion that recaps the nature of the expenditure, amount, and that ultimately ties to the amount claimed as pre-paid expense on Schedule 1. Receipts received alone, without an orderly analysis attached will not be considered as @ source of funding. As its source of funds the applicant provided bank statements proving $143,760 (one statement indicating $4,916, and the second indicating a balance of $138,844). In addition, the applicant included a copy of a check in the amount of $30,000. Staff is unsure of the nature and relevance of the check as no explanation was given for it. However, the funding shortfall is $70,205 and even if the $30,000 check were proof of some prepaid costs, the minimum funding requirement would still be under funded by $40,205. : Since the proven funding is less than the required funding the applicant has not met the provisions of Section 408.810(8), Florida Statutes, and has not proven the financial ability to operate. Mr. Braceras BOYNTON BEACH ASSIS._D LIVING FACILITY Page 4 03/13/2013 Residential Group Care Inspection Report (DOH Form 4029 Please provide a copy of this report from your county health department. The report must be satisfactory and have a current date. EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, ES, you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28- 106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. Sincerely, Shaddrick Haston, Manage) Assisted Living Unit SH/Pottere ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SPECIAL CARE, INC., Petitioner, vs. Case No. 13-1450 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO RELINQUISH JUR[ISDIC]TION AND DISMISS CASE AS MOOT Respondent's Motion to Relinquish Jurfisdic]tion and Dismiss Case as Moot ("Motion") came before the undersigned on June 10, 2013, in which the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Respondent" or “ACHA") asserted that there are no disputed material facts before the undersigned in this matter. ACHA contends that license number 5799, which Special Care, Inc.,*/ is seeking with its change of ownership application, has been revoked by final agency action. Respondent further contends that since license number 5799 ceases to exist, all collateral matters regarding the license are moot, including sufficiency of an application for Petitioner, which is the issue before the undersigned. On June 17, 2013, Special Care, Inc. filed Petitioner's Objection to Respondent's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and Dismiss Case as Moot ("Response"). In the Response, Petitioner did not dispute the material facts of Respondent's Motion stated in paragraphs two through six. Petitioner only alleged duress by Respondent as the reason for Petitioner's submission of a change of ownership application instead of an initial licensure application. After careful consideration of the pleadings, and there being no disputed issues of material fact to be resolved by the Division of Administrative Hearings since Petitioner's change of ownership application is moot because license number 5799 does not exist, it is, therefore, EXHIBIT 2 ORDERED that: 1. The Motion is granted. 2. The final hearing scheduled for July 10, 2013, is canceled. 3. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Agency for Health Care Administration for entry of a final order. The file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is closed. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COHN, JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 19th day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Agency served a Final Audit Report on the Petitioner, Fortune Dental Associates, Inc. The Final Audit Report alleged that the Petitioner received $3,870.00 in Medicaid overpayments for dates of service during the period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011. The Final Audit Report also applied a fine in the amount of $774.00 and assessed costs in the amount of $52.69. 2. Petitioner filed a petition for an informal hearing (Exhibit 2), admitting the allegations of fact contained in the Final Audit Report, but requesting to be heard at an informal proceeding. 3. Based on the Petitioner’s petition, this matter was referred to an Informal Hearing Officer and an informal hearing was held on September 20, 2013 pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Fla. Stat. During the course of the hearing, the Informal Hearing Officer determined that the Filed May 30, 2014 11:32 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Petitioner had raised disputed issues of material fact and this case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings so that a formal hearing could be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (Exhibit 3). 4. On February 26, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Lifting Abeyance and Requiring Status Report (Exhibit 4), which required both parties to confer and advise the Court of the status of the hearing and mutually agreeable dates by March 24, 2014. 5. On or about March 24, 2014, the Agency filed the Agency’s Status Report and Request for Order to Show Cause (Exhibit 5). The motion alleged that the Petitioner was not in compliance with the Court’s Order, which required conferral for a joint status report. The motion further alleged that the Petitioner appeared to have abandoned the litigation. Based on the foregoing, the Agency requested that the Administrative Law Judge enter an Order to Show Cause. 6. On or about April 7, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Agency’s motion and entered an Order to Show Cause (Exhibit 6), requiring the Petitioner to explain why the Petitioner’s request for hearing should not be dismissed. 7. On or about April 30, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction (Exhibit 7) based on the Petitioner’s failure to provide a response to the Order to Show Cause. 8. The Petitioner has abandoned its petition for hearing in this cause.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Final Audit Report dated June 5, 2013, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) finds and concludes as follows:
