The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Adele "Nikki" Leon, holds Florida teaching certificate number 413436, covering the area of emotional disturbances and special learning disabilities. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. At all times material hereto, respondent was employed by the Dade County Public Schools, Palmetto Adult Education Center, as a part-time teacher, and was assigned to teach Adult Basic Education for the Elderly (ABE) at Snapper Creek Nursing Home. Pertinent to this case, respondent's assignment during September and October 1992, included the teaching of an ABE class at Snapper Creek Nursing Home each Tuesday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. According to respondent's attendance reports for that period, twenty-five residents were enrolled in the class. On September 15, 1992, Ivette Morgan, assistant principal of Palmetto Adult Education Center, at the request of Edward Gehret, principal of Palmetto Adult Education Center, visited Snapper Creek Nursing Home to evaluate the adult education program. During the course of that visit, as well as visits on September 22, September 29, and October 20, 1992, Dr. Morgan had an opportunity to observe respondent's Tuesday class. On those occasions, Dr. Morgan noted only four to six residents in the classroom. 4/ Dr. Morgan reported her observations regarding class attendance to Dr. Gehret who, at the time, had been involved with enrollment and attendance review for, inter alia, Snapper Creek Nursing Home. Based on that review, Dr. Gehret observed that respondent had routinely marked all twenty-five residents in her class as "present," which did not square with Dr. Morgan's observations. On October 22, 1992, Dr. Gehret met with respondent to review the discrepancies he perceived in her attendance report procedures. At that time, it was the School Board's policy to mark residents "present" for an ABE class if they appeared at any time during the class period, no matter how briefly; but if they never appeared, to mark them as "absent." 5/ Respondent advised Dr. Gehret that she was of a different perception, and understood that nursing home residents enrolled in an ABE class were not to be marked as "absent" but, rather as "present," whether attending or not, so long as they were still in the facility. Notwithstanding, following the meeting, respondent agreed to conform her attendance procedure to the policy Dr. Gehret outlined. Regarding the discrepancies in respondent's attendance reports, when measured against the School Board's policy, the proof demonstrates that for the attendance reporting periods of September 14-27, September 28-October 11, and October 12-25, 1992, respondent completed and signed the attendance report for her Tuesday class on which she marked as "present" nursing home residents Helen Ambler and Gertrude Monge. Ms. Ambler and Ms. Monge were not, however "present" during such periods since they had died September 2, 1992, and June 15, 1992, respectively. The proof further demonstrated that for the same reporting periods, respondent had marked as "present" nursing home residents Agaton Bolanio, Nazario Lopez, and Martin Ruiz. Mr. Bolanio, Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ruiz were not, however, "present" during such periods since they had been discharged from the nursing home on June 19, 1992, July 20, 1992, and May 14, 1992, respectively. Finally, based on Dr. Morgan's observations of respondent's Tuesday class on September 15, September 22, September 29, and October 20, 1992, wherein she observed no more than four to six residents in attendance, it is reasonable to conclude that a significant number of residents who were marked as "present," other than the residents heretofore mentioned, were likewise not "present" on those dates. Which residents and why they were not present was not, however, established of record. 6/ Regarding the ABE program and the preparation of enrollment and attendance reports at Snapper Creek Nursing Home, the proof demonstrates that the ABE program was under the direction of the nursing home activities director who, without the participation of the instructors, prepared the enrollment for each class. 7/ Accordingly, respondent would not necessarily have known the residents assigned to her class, and reasonably assumed that the list of residents she received from the activities director contained current residents of the nursing home. Likewise, respondent relied on the activities director to advise her when residents died, were discharged or were otherwise no longer able or interested in attending before removing them from the roll; however, such information was rarely provided by the activities director. Finally, absent advice to the contrary from the activities director, respondent did not consider a resident's failure to attend on a given day an absence, as in the traditional classroom setting, and routinely marked them "present." Such practice in the ABE program was reflective of the voluntary nature of the program, as opposed to compulsory attendence in the traditional school setting, and the unavailability of information, except from the activities director, as to the reason a resident did not attend. Notably, residents frequently did not attend because, inter alia, nurses aides failed to bring them to class or they were too ill to attend, as opposed to not wanting to attend the course any longer. That such was the procedure at Snapper Creek Nursing Home, and perhaps other adult education centers in Dade County, finds other support in the record apart from respondent's testimony. For example, another instructor, Evelyn Foster, during the times in question, carried Francies Lambrou as "present" on her attendance record until July 27, 1992, although she was discharged July 2, 1992; and carried Maria Diaz, Carmen Morela, and Lorenzo Legundo as "present" until at least October 9, 1992, although Ms. Diaz and Ms. Morela were discharged September 5, 1992, and Mr. Segundo was discharged September 24, 1992. Moreover, Dr. Morgan found it necessary, at sometime between September 15 and October 26, 1992, to give the activities director specific instructions on how attendance was to be recorded, and Dr. Gehret found it necessary to conduct a "rollbook workshop" at Snapper Creek Nursing Home for all instructors, as well as agreeing to urge the nurses aides to bring the residents who desired to attend to class. [Petitioner's exhibit 1, pages 17 and 21, and respondent's exhibit 12.] Finally, there is of record a memorandum of July 8, 1993, almost one year after the events at issue in this case, from Connie Gilbert, District Director, Division of Adult Education, Dade County Schools, to all adult education center principals, which suggests continued confusion in attendance procedures for off- campus classes and that the practice at Snapper Creek Nursing Home was not an isolated occurance. That memorandum provided, in part, as follows: SUBJECT: ATTENDANCE PROCEDURES Off-campus visitations have revealed problems and confusion about attendance procedures. Please inform all teachers of the following procedures: Students must be present in a teacher's class and participate in the class activities in order for the teacher to mark this student present in that class. * * * Please make sure that off-campus teachers understand that students present "someplace in the facility" can not be considered present in a particular class. Students must be physically present in a class in order to be marked present in that class. Given the proof, it must be concluded that respondent's failure to record attendance in accordance with school board policy was, more likely than not, a consequence of a misunderstanding of, or ignorance of, that policy. In this regard, it is observed that no state policy for recording ABE attendance was established of record, and no proof that any policy established by the school board had been reduced to writing or imparted to respondent, or any other adult education instructor, prior to the events giving rise to the issues in this case. Accordingly, it follows that there was no compelling proof that respondent, by completing the attendance reports in the manner she did, had any intent to deceive the school board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative compliant. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of May 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 18th day of May 1995.
The Issue [Case No. 79-2407] Whether the Department is entitled to reimbursement of certain Medicaid funds previously paid to a nursing home owner in the amount of $118,061.00, based upon a recommendation by the Department and subsequent determination by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, under Section 1122, Social Security Act, that Federal reimbursement of expenses attributable to the purchase of the nursing home should be withheld due to the Owner's lack of timely notice of intent to acquire the nursing home; [Case No. 80-467] Whether, based on the Section 1122 determination, the Department wrongfully disallowed and withheld payment to the nursing home owner, certain medicaid reimbursement funds in the amount of $101,348.00. Conclusions and Recommendation: Conclusions: Here, each party has the burden of presenting a preponderance of evidence in support of its affirmative claim. Each claim rests on the propriety or impropriety of imposition of Section 1122 penalties against the nursing home. Since the Department failed to present sufficient evidence justifying the imposition of Section 1122 penalties and the nursing home failed to establish the Section 1122 penalties were erroneously imposed, neither party sustained its burden of establishing entitlement to the relief requested. Recommendation: That the Department's Medicaid overpayment claim against the nursing home owner, in the amount of $118,061.00 be DENIED, and the nursing home owner's claim against the Department for $101.348.00 in Medicaid underpayments be DENIED. Background: On April 26, 1979, and May 2, 1979, Petitioner/Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("Department") notified Respondent/Petitioners, Lakeview Nursing Home, Robert Becht and R. B. Care, Inc., d/b/a Lakeview Manor and d/b/a Intercoastal Nursing Manor ("Owner") that a desk review of the annual cost report for the Lakeview Nursing Home (a/k/a Lakeview Manor) indicated that the nursing home had been overpaid $18,900.00 by the Department's Medicaid Program during the eight months, ending June 30, 1978, and that such overpayment should be returned to the Department. On October 8, 1979, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that, pursuant to a "Notice of Determination Under Section 1122" issued by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW") the Department had recalculated the nursing home's historic per diem rates and determined that the Owner had been overpaid $61,155.00 in Medicaid funds during the period ending June 30, 1978. On November 19, 1979, the nursing home Owner requested a formal hearing, under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the validity of the Department's overpayment claim. On November 30, 1979, the Department forwarded the Owner's request for a hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. [DOAH Case No. 79-2407] On January 10, 1980, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that an additional $56,906.00 should be repaid to the State of Florida--based upon alleged overpayment to the nursing home during the period ending June 30, 1979. On February 14, 1980, the nursing home Owner filed a Petition with the Department alleging numerous wrongful and negligent Department actions resulting in the withholding and underpayment of Medicaid funds to which the nursing home was entitled, demanding full payment, and requesting a formal Section 120.57 hearing. On March 12, 1980, the Department forwarded the nursing home Owner's Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. [DOAH Case No. 80-467] By Notice of Hearing, dated April 11, 1980, Case No. 80-467 was set for final hearing on May 29, 1980. By agreement of the parties, the two cases were subsequently consolidated for final hearing. At final hearing, the Department called John T. Donaldson, and offered Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9, into evidence, each of which was received. The nursing home Owner called as its witnesses, William McCaulley, Leonard Cordes, and Linda Zarecki, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 5, (Composite) and 6, each of which was received. At the request of the nursing home, and without objection by the Department, official recognition was taken of Rule 10C-7.48(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The nursing home further stipulated that the only allegations which it would pursue in the administrative hearing concerned whether the Department wrongfully withheld from the nursing home certain Medicaid funds to which its was entitled. Neither party submitted post-hearing proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an agreement with HEW, the Department administers the Medicaid Program within Florida which includes allocation and payment of Medicaid funds to nursing homes which provide health care to patients qualifying for Medicaid benefits. (Testimony of Donaldson, Petitioners Exhibit 5; Respondent's Exhibit 9) On November 1, 1977, Robert Becht, on behalf of R. B. Care, Inc. ("Owner") purchased a nursing care facility located at 208 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida, known as Intercoastal Nursing Manor. No evidence was presented to establish the purchase price paid for the facility. Subsequent to its purchase, the name of the nursing home was changed to Lakeview Manor, although Department correspondence frequently refers to it as Lakeview Nursing Home. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 9 [Composite]) On January 9, 1978, a representative of the Regional Health Care Planning Agency--Health Planning Council, Inc.--advised the Department's Bureau of Community Medical Facilities of an apparent change in ownership of the Intercoastal Nursing Home, noted that the new owner had not "sought, applied for, or received the necessary Certificate of Need for this change of ownership transaction," and asked for Department assistance in determining the present status of the nursing facility. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In response to the Health Planning Council's letter, the Department's Office of Medical Facilities sent a letter to the Nursing Home Owner, dated January 26, 1978. That letter enclosed Department rules which provided that, when certain expenditures have been incurred by a health care facility without prior notice of such expenditure being given to the designated planning agency (Office of Medical Facilities), that agency should notify the health care facility that such obligation was subject to review, that timely notice of the proposed expenditure was not given, and that the Agency proposed to recommend to the Secretary of HEW that the expenditure be disapproved. The nursing home was given 30 days to reply, or file the necessary application for approval of the expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home). The letter closed with the following: "You should understand that we must report the purchase of Intercoastal Nursing Manor to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on a no timely notice and that it may affect depreciation, interest, and fair returns on the project and reimbursement on the project." (Respondent's Exhibit 2) By letter dated March 22, 1978 (with copy to the nursing home Owner), the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities subsequently informed the regional office of HEW that notice had been given the nursing home Owner concerning the need to file an application for review of the November 1, 1977, acquisition of and change in ownership of the nursing home, but that it had failed to respond. The recommendation of the Office of Community Medical Facilities was attached to the transmittal letter; however, that recommendation was not offered into evidence by the Department. The letter of transmittal concluded that, because no application for approval was submitted by the nursing home Owner, there was "no indication on the HRA-45 of the amount of capital expended for the acquisition." (Respondent's Exhibit 3) During April, 1978, the Regional Health Administrator of HEW issued a "Notice of Determination under Section 1122--Reimbursement to be Excluded." The Notice was addressed to the nursing home Owner and concluded that reimbursement for expenses related to the capital expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home facility) would be excluded from payment for services provided under the Social Security Act based upon the finding that (1) the expenditure was subject to Section 1122, and (2) Notice of Intent to make the expenditure had not timely been given. By way of explanation, the regional administrator added that reimbursement would be "withheld for an indefinite period" because the State had been unable to make a finding that the expenditure conformed to applicable plans, standards, and criteria due to the failure to submit an application. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) By separate agreements entered into by the Department and the nursing home Owner on November 2, 1977, October 30, 1978, and September 5, 1979 (which enabled the nursing home to participate in Florida's Medicaid Program) the nursing home Owner expressly agreed to comply with state and federal laws and rules applicable to the Medicaid Program. The Owner also agreed that Medicaid cost reporting would be governed by the procedures and methods contained in the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15). The agreements relieve the nursing home from responsibility in "those instances of overpayment due to Agency [Department] errors in eligibility investigation and determination. . ." (Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) Section 2422 of HIM-15 describes the requirements concerning approval of capital expenditures imposed by Section 1122 of the Social Security Act. The Manual cautions providers desiring to make or having made expenditures subject to Section 1122 to familiarize themselves with the regulations and direct questions concerning its implementation to the designated planning agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 8) Notwithstanding having been sent repeated notices by the Department and HEW concerning the requirements of Section 1122, the nursing home Owner has not filed an application for approval of the capital expenditure associated with acquisition of the nursing home; neither has it contended that such capital expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Section 1122 and implementing HEW and Department rules. (Testimony of McCaulley, Donaldson) Despite the Department's withholding and disallowal of payment to the nursing home of expenses relating to the acquisition of the facility (due to the federal Section 1122 determination), the nursing home continued to qualify for and participate in the Medicaid Program. The nursing home provided efficient and satisfactory medical care to Medicaid patients during 1978, and 1979, and the Department does not assert otherwise. The three Medicaid participation agreements entered into during 1977, 1978, and 1979, do not directly address or purport to relieve health care facilities from compliance with Department rules and Section 1122. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) It is probable that the nursing home received actual notice of the requirement that certain capital expenditures by health care facilities must receive Section 1122 approval. Although the nursing home Owner's secretary since June, 1978, does not recall receiving the HEW Section 1122 Notice, she was not employed by the nursing home during the time the notice was issued, and she admitted that she could not testify that the owner had not received the HEW Notice. Moreover, her testimony did not address the earlier Department correspondence to the Owner concerning the need to obtain State and Federal Section 1122 approval, including the Department's Section 1122 recommendation to HEW. (Testimony of Zarecki, Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Between 1977 and 1979, the Department overpaid the nursing home $118,061.00 (which includes the $18,900.00 claimed by the Department in its May 2, 1979, letter) in per diem patient reimbursements which the nursing home was not entitled to under the Section 1122 Notice and Penalty. This overpayment was caused by the Department's failure to exclude that portion of per diem patient reimbursements attributable to the Owner's acquisition of the nursing home property. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 7) If the Section 1122 penalty was incorrectly recommended by the Department, and imposed by the HEW, the Department has withheld between November 1, 1977, and December 31, 1979, $101,348.00 which is now due and owing to the nursing home Owner. (Testimony of McCaulley, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Since January 2, 1979, the Owner has no longer owned or operated the nursing home in question. (Testimony of McCaulley, Cordes)
The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Alachua General Hospital, Inc., Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corporation and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., meet the requirements of law and should be approved based on application of the statutory review criteria or upon other considerations.
Findings Of Fact Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center is a community-based skilled nursing facility of 120 beds located in Ocala, Florida. Oakhurst has a history of high occupancy and is a superior rated facility. At hearing, Oakhurst acknowledged a number of inaccuracies in its application. Some staffing ratios were misstated. The data utilized to calculate financial ratios is different from the data set forth in the combined statement. The physical location of the facility was incorrectly identified. The application misstated the existing number of beds in the facility. Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health. As to the application of Oakhurst, utilization rates indicate that need exists for additional community nursing care services in Marion County. Oakhurst experiences full occupancy. Projected occupancy levels set forth in the Oakhurst application are reasonable. The evidence establishes that the need for additional beds exists and that the application of Oakhurst is consistent with the applicable district and state health plans. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. Approval of the Oakhurst application will increase the availability of community nursing care at a superior rated facility and will meet the projected need determined by the AHCA's determination of the fixed pool. Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's ability to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Oakhurst is a superior rated facility with a history of providing high quality care. There is no indication that the 60 bed unit addition will result in a decline in quality of care. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the Oakhurst application will result in probable economies and improvements in service from joint, cooperative, or shared health care operations. Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Since purchase by the current owners, Oakhurst's financial performance has been satisfactory. Losses experienced during the two years following the purchase are attributed to accelerated depreciation. The facility is currently profitable. Although there was evidence that insufficient funds are being generated to maintain the facility's physical plant, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Oakhurst is unable to maintain the facility. Projected occupancy rates are reasonable. Funds for capital and operating expenditures are available to Oakhurst. Notwithstanding current operation of the facility and availability of funds, Oakhurst's proposal is not financially feasible. Oakhurst's revenue projections are not reasonable. This finding is based on the credible testimony of expert Charles Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki opined that the Oakhurst application is not financially feasible in the short and long term and that the financial projections in the Oakhurst application are not reliable. Mr. Wysocki's testimony was credible and persuasive. Oakhurst's current Medicaid rate is $71.68. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicaid rates as follows: $77.41 during the construction year; $104.69 during operation year one; and $99.75 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicaid rates are unreasonable. Projected Medicaid rates are overstated and do not appear to account for Medicaid program rate ceilings. Medicaid program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates during years one and two. Oakhurst's current Medicare rate is $186.87. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicare rates as follows: $340 during the construction year; $361 during operation year one; and $328 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicare rates are overstated and unreasonable. Medicare program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates. Oakhurst's application overstated revenue projections related to private pay patients. Further, according to Mr. Wysocki, Oakhurst has underestimated expenses related to depreciation, amortization and property taxes. Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Approval of Oakhurst's application can be expected to have a positive competitive impact on the supply of services being proposed based on the fact that the addition of beds will increase the supply of appropriate placements. Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Although Oakhurst has historically participated in the Medicaid program, Oakhurst is currently not subject to Medicaid participation requirements. If the CON at issue in this proceeding is awarded, Oakhurst will be required to provide at least half of the expanded facility's 160 beds to Medicaid patients. Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. To the extent that such information is available, there is no evidence that these services are used inappropriately or inefficiently. Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the proposed new service. As to community nursing home beds, the AHCA has determined that a need exists for additional capacity in the planning area's nursing homes. It is likely that failure to meet projected need will result in difficulty in locating appropriate placements. The state health plan sets forth "preferences" which are considered in comparative evaluations of competing CON applications. Preference is given to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate is higher in the Alachua planning area than in the Marion planning area. Oakhurst is in the Marion planning area and has the highest occupancy in the planning area. Oakhurst meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds or propose the development of multi-level care systems. The Marion County Medicaid participation average is 72.93 percent. Oakhurst's application subjects the facility to a 50 percent Medicaid average. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Oakhurst intends to operate a separate 20 bed subunit specializing in skin and wound care. A distinct subacute care program targeted at a specific patient population is a specialized service. Oakhurst does not have specialized Alzheimer services. Oakhurst does not provide care to AIDS patients. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. The Oakhurst proposal does not address respite care or adult day care. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. These special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual room temperature controls, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. Oakhurst's application meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. No party proposes to offer any therapeutic programs which may credibly be identified as "innovative." Preference is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Oakhurst's projected rates exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, therefore Oakhurst does not meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states. HRS' evaluation of existing facilities shall consider, but not be limited to, current ratings of licensure facilities located in Florida. AHCA is the successor agency to HRS. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents than other applicants shall be given preference. Although FCC and Oakhurst propose reasonable staff levels, Alachua's hospital-based unit, by virtue of location, more closely meets this preference than FCC or Oakhurst. Preference is given to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants who document plans to will ensure residents' rights and privacy, to use resident councils, and to implement a well-designed quality-assurance and discharge-planning program. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst has higher administrative costs and lower resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. The district health plan sets forth preferences which are to be considered in comparative evaluations of CON applications. The first applicable district preference is directed toward providing geographic access to nursing home beds. None of the applications meet this preference. The second applicable district preference requires consideration of existing bed utilization. Based on the percentage of elderly population and utilization of existing beds in each area, relative priorities are established. Oakhurst is in a "high need" planning area. Existing nursing homes in the Marion planning area are experiencing occupancy levels between 80 and 90 percent placing Oakhurst in a "moderate occupancy" planning area. According to the preference matrix set forth in the district plan, Oakhurst is in a priority two planning area (high need and moderate occupancy.) The evidence establishes that Oakhurst meets this preference. The third preference relates to the conversion of acute care beds to skilled nursing use. Oakhurst does not intend to convert underutilized hospital beds into skilled nursing beds for step-down or subacute care. The fourth and fifth preferences apply to new facilities of at least 60 beds. No application meets these preferences. The sixth preference states that priority consideration should be given to facilities which propose to offer specialized services to meet the needs of the identified population. Oakhurst proposes to offer a subunit specializing in skin and wound care. Oakhurst meets this preference.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the application of Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center for Certificate of Need #7326 to be incomplete and withdrawn, GRANTING the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for Certificate of Need #7325 for the 60 remaining beds in the applicable fixed need pool and GRANTING the application of Alachua General Hospital for Certificate of Need #7320 to convert 30 existing acute care beds into a skilled nursing unit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 5th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6264 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Alachua General Hospital, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, irrelevant as to the AHCA's review of the proposals prior to notice of intended award. 16, 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 21-26. Rejected, subordinate. 30. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 32, 34. Rejected, subordinate. 42-50. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. The preferences set forth in the proposed finding are not those contained within Alachua's exhibit #1, which has been utilized in this Recommended Order. 52. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected, evidence fails to establish that therapy offered is "innovative." 62. Rejected, cumulative. 63-64. Rejected, subordinate. 72. Rejected as to SAAR, unnecessary. 73-76. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corp.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4,6, 8-51. Rejected, unnecessary, application rejected as incomplete and withdrawn from consideration. 52-54, 56-58. Rejected, irrelevant. Although it is true that the application contained the combined audited financial statements for the Harborside facilities, such statement fails to meet the requirement that the application contain an audited financial statement for the applicant. Harborside is not the applicant. 55. Rejected, irrelevant. The agency has cited no authority which would permit the waiver of the statutory requirement. 59. Rejected, immaterial. The document was admitted to demonstrate that the material required by law was not submitted with the CON application. Further consideration constitutes an impermissible amendment to the CON application and is rejected. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-91. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 93. Rejected, unnecessary. 102-143. References to Oakhurst application, rejected, unnecessary. Agency for Health Care Administration's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. 13-16. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 19. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, wherein the CON application sets forth such information. Rejected, unnecessary. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Comparison is inappropriate. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The CON application sets forth the information which the agency asserts was not provided. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence as related to applicable criteria for review set forth in the statute. 35. Rejected, not supported by credible evidence or the administrative rules cited in the proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Dean Bunton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald Sternstein, Esquire Frank Rainer, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH 215 South Monroe Street Barnett Bank Building, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Patti Jo Rossi, L.P.N., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is the agency in Florida responsible for regulating the practice of nurses pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 464, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Ms. Rossi is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 1317451. Ms. Rossi, at the times pertinent, was employed in her capacity as a licensed practical nurse by Palm Gardens of Vero Beach (hereinafter referred to as "Palm Gardens"). Palm Gardens. Palm Gardens was, at the times pertinent, a Florida licensed residential nursing home facility as defined in Section 400.021(13), Florida Statutes. Palm Gardens' facility included a wing, "A-Wing," which was devoted to the care of residents suffering from various forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. While employed at Palm Gardens, Ms. Rossi was assigned to A-Wing. Due to the tendency of some patients on A-Wing to "wander," A-Wing doors leading to the outside were equipped with alarms which sounded whenever a patient attempted to open them. Whenever an alarm was triggered, employees, including nurses, had to check to ensure that a resident was not leaving the unit. Part of A-Wing consisted of a room which was used as a dining room and day room (hereinafter referred to as the "Day Room"). There were four, floor-to-ceiling, windows at one corner of the Day Room located near an open area of A-Wing, which included a nurses' station. There was a single, heavy, self-closing door providing access to the Day Room. This door was normally propped open. During the pertinent period of time involved in this case, the door to the Day Room was slightly larger at the one corner than the door jam, which caused the door to stick if closed. Although the door could be opened, it took some strength to do so. The condition of the door was known to employees of A-Wing, including Ms. Rossi. Patient M.S. Among the patients on A-Wing was M.S., a female resident. M.S. was elderly, suffered from dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and was in relatively poor physical and mental health. M.S., whose date of birth was February 3, 1920, was totally dependant on the facility and employees of Palm Gardens for her care. M.S. was ambulatory, but not capable of providing the daily necessities of life, such as cleaning herself or dressing. M.S. was not oriented as to time or place, and lacked the capacity to consent. M.S. had a habit of wandering the halls of A-Wing and touching doors equipped with alarms, which would cause the alarms to sound. The Events of December 22, 2001.2 On December 22, 2001, Ms. Rossi was working the "swing shift" (from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) on A-Wing. During Ms. Rossi's shift, M.S. was wandering the wing, sometimes setting off door alarms. M.S. was not harming any other residents or causing any harm to herself. Out of frustration over having to respond every time that M.S. set off an alarm, Ms. Rossi took M.S. and placed her in the Day Room, closing the door as she left. By closing the door to the Day Room, Ms. Rossi effectively locked M.S. into the room. Ms. Rossi left M.S. in the Day Room without any supervision; no one was in the Day Room with her and no one was watching her through the windows between the room and the hall. M.S. for most of the time she was in the Day Room, was unsupervised by any employee of Palm Gardens. M.S. was too weak to open the door. She was, therefore, involuntarily confined to the Day Room. Three C.N.A.s observed M.S. in the Day Room, attempting to get the door open, and annoyed that she was unable to. One of the C.N.A.s let her out. Ms. Rossi told one of the C.N.A.s that she had placed M.S. in the Day Room, and said not to let her out again. Ms. Rossi then was seen placing M.S. back in the Day Room and closing the door. Again, M.S. attempted to get the door open to get out and was upset when she was unable to. M.S. was left in the Day Room for at least ten minutes, unsupervised and unable to leave, until a C.N.A. opened the door and released her. While she was not actually injured, M.S. could have been because she was unsupervised. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Rossi placed any other resident in the Day Room. Unprofessional Conduct. Ms. Rossi's conduct fell below the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. By placing M.S. in the Day Room, unsupervised and unable to leave without assistance, Ms. Rossi failed to protect her welfare and safety. Ms. Rossi's conduct constituted unprofessional conduct for a nurse. Involuntary Seclusion. Placing M.S. in the Day Room, unsupervised and unable to leave without assistance, constituted involuntary seclusion. Based upon the length of time that Ms. Rossi left M.S. in the Day Room constituted an "extended" involuntary seclusion. Ms. Rossi's Explanation. Ms. Rossi testified at hearing that she had not closed the door to the Day Room, but had only shut it three quarters of the way. This testimony is not been credited. Ms. Rossi's version of events is inconsistent with other, more credible witnesses. Jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department: Dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Patti Jo Rossi, L.P.N., violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing discipline as suggested in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 day 9th of March, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated Sections 400.23(4) and 400.141, Florida Statutes (1979), and Rule 100-29.50, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to correct alleged deficiencies in its nursing center; and whether Respondent should he penalized.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc. is licensed to operate southside Nursing Center at 40 Acme Street in Jacksonville, Florida and is under the direction and charge of a licensed administrator, Raymond R. Savage. The nursing home was built in 1965 and has been in operation since that date. It has 119 beds and is usually fully occupied with elderly people. On December 30, 1980 an Administrative Complaint was served on Mr. Savage notifying him that after 30 days from receipt of the complaint Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services intended to impose a civil penalty of $2,000 upon the nursing home for alleged violations of the statutes and rules of Florida pertaining to nursing homes. Respondent was cited for the following: Corridor to office windows have wired glass panels in aluminum frames with glass areas exceeding 1,296 square inches; Two doors between kitchen and the dining room do not have any automatic positive latching hardware and the window from the kitchen to the accounting office is wired glass in an aluminum frame exceeding 1,296 square inches; Eight skylights are not boxed in vertically with a one-hour fire rated sheathing and the steel roof structure is unprotected from fire through the plastic panels. The dining room and lobby have six built-in ceiling light fixtures; nurses station #2 has two built-in light fixtures and nurses station #1 has one built-in light fixture; arts and crafts room has two built-in fixtures, all of which compromise the one-hour fire rated ceiling assembly; and Smoke detectors have not been tested and logged in conjunction with the weekly fire alarm system tests. On January 9, 1981 Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At the bearing Petitioner called one witness and offered one exhibit which was entered as evidence. The Administrator, Mr. Savage, testified on behalf of Respondent. An inspector for Petitioner made an on-site inspection of the subject nursing home on September 6, 1979 and filed his report on September 15, 1979. He listed certain deficiencies and classes of deficiencies and designated the date of October 10, 1980 as the date by which the deficiencies must be corrected (Petitioner's Exhibit #1). Inspection on September 24, 1980 showed that tests of the smoke detectors were being made and logged as required and for which Respondent had been cited in violation (d), Page 2 supra, but no changes had been made as to violations (a) , (b) and (c). On both occasions the inspector informed Respondent's administrator of each alleged violation, but Respondent failed to change the structural deficiencies outlined by Petitioner. Respondent admitted that the violations of the Life Safety Code cited by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint existed and stated that they had existed since the building had been constructed. They were first called to his attention in 1978 but, except for the smoke detectors, he had not rectified the alleged deficiencies and felt they were no danger. He said that if he complied with the subject requirements of the statutes and rules the home would not look as good as it presently does. Mr. Savage noted that he had recently corrected the violation noted in (d) , Page 2 supra. Petitioner acknowledged that reports on tests of the smoke detectors as required by the statutes and rules were being made at the time of hearing. Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order, which instrument has been considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services assess a penalty against Respondent Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc., doing business as Southside Nursing Center, of $500 for each of the three (3) violations of Rule 100-29.50, Florida Administrative Code, prohibited and continuing on the date of the formal hearing. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Department of HRS 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Raymond R. Savage, Administrator Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc. d/b/a Southside Nursing Center 40 Acme Street at Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Stacey Health Care Centers, Inc., is licensed to operate Riverside Care Center, located at 899 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Florida, as a nursing home in compliance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. On July 9, 1986, James A. Bavetta, assistant area supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, made a visit of Riverside's facility and determined that Ralph Stacey, Jr., the administrator of record, was acting in the capacity of administrator for two facilities, the subject facility and another facility in Kentucky, without having a qualified assistant administrator to act in his absence. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ralph L. Stacey Jr., is a licensed nursing home administrator in the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. He has been licensed in Kentucky and Florida since 1974. At the time of Mr. Bavetta's visit and inspection during July, 1986, Ralph Stacey, Jr., was in Cincinnati, Ohio preparing the payroll for Stacey Health Care Centers. During this time period, Ralph Stacey, Jr., served as the administrator for the subject facility, Riverside Care Center, and another facility in Kentucky and did not have a qualified assistant administrator employed to act in his absence. However, once Mr. Bavetta issued his recommendation for sanctions, Petitioner, as part of its plan of correction, has employed a licensed administrator who is presently on staff and serves as Riverside's assistant administrator during the administrator's absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn it is RECOMMENDED: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) upon Stacey Health Care Centers- Inc., d/b/a Riverside Care Center, which amount shall be payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of Respondent's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3410 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard -Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner was in violation of 42CFR 483.25(l)(1), 42CFR 483.60(d), Rules 59A-4.112(5) and 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code, at the time of its annual survey in July 2000, and, if so, whether those violations were uncorrected at the time of resurvey in September 2000, in order to justify the issuance of a Conditional licensure rating.
Findings Of Fact Tampa Health Care Center (Petitioner) is a licensed nursing home in Tampa, Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, Respondent surveys Petitioner to determine whether it is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If there are deficiencies, it determines the level of deficiency. When Respondent conducts a survey of a nursing home, it issues a survey report, commonly called by its form number, a "2567." The particular regulation, and the allegedly deficient practices which constitute a violation of that regulation, are cited in a column on the left side of the paper. After receiving the 2567, the facility is required to develop a plan of correction which is put in the right hand column corresponding to the alleged deficiency. The facility is required to develop this plan regardless of whether it agrees that it is in violation of any regulations, and it is prohibited from being argumentative. Respondent conducted its annual survey of Petitioner, ending July 27, 2000, and issued a 2567 survey report noting certain deficiencies. The deficiencies are designated as tag numbers. Among those noted were Tag F329, which is the shorthand reference to 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.25 (1)(1), and Tag F431, which incorporates 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d). Respondent rated these deficiencies as Class III deficiencies. Respondent conducted a follow-up survey on September 5, 2000, and determined that the deficiencies under tags F329 and F431 were uncorrected, and, as a result, issued a Conditional rating to the facility. On December 2000, Respondent conducted another follow- up survey and determined that all deficiencies had been corrected and therefore issued a Standard license to Petitioner effective that date. The 2567 constitutes the charging document for purposes of issuing a Conditional license. No other document was offered to describe the offenses, or deficiencies, which resulted in imposition of the Conditional license. The parties stipulated at the hearing that Tags F329 and F431 were the only ones at issue in this proceeding. In conducting its survey, Respondent uses a document developed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), called the State Operations Manual. It indicates guidance on how are to interpret regulations. TAG F 329 The 2567 from the July survey asserts, under Tag F 329, that the facility "failed to monitor psychotropic medications for 5 of 5 sampled residents." The regulation states that residents are to be "free from unnecessary drugs," and elaborates that a drug given without adequate monitoring is considered unnecessary. The guidelines establish that monitoring is expected only for residents on psychotropic medications. Therefore, for a violation to occur, there must first be a resident who is receiving psychotropic medications, and secondly, a lack of monitoring of the use of that drug. Respondent alleged and put on evidence that certain residents (numbers 1, 9, 19, and 21) identified in the July survey did not have "behavior monitoring records" in their files. Specific forms are not mandatory, and evidence of monitoring can be documented elsewhere in a resident's clinical record. Monitoring can be documented in nurses' notes, and those notes were not thoroughly reviewed, as Respondent's surveyors only had limited time for the survey. Respondent presented no evidence that Residents 9, 19, or 21 were receiving psychotropic medications. Petitioner presented evidence of numerous systems in place to monitor residents, including those receiving psychotropic medications. Residents are given a complete clinical assessment within 24 hours of admission; there is then a 14-day more thorough observation and assessment process, culminating in the development of care plans which address particular issues and direct staff to care for residents in particular ways. Nurses regularly document issues or concerns in nurses notes; a physician visits the residents at least once a month, which, as all drugs are ordered by the physician, includes review of the resident's medication. If necessary, a psychiatric evaluation is completed. Once a week a transdisciplinary team meets to discuss any residents "at risk," which includes those receiving psychotropic medications. Additionally, a consultant pharmacist reviews all residents' medications once a month. This review is to determine how well the resident is doing on the drug regimen. It includes reviewing nurses' notes, physicians' notes, the medication administration record, the record of dosages taken on an "as needed" basis, and discussions with nursing staff. The pharmacist reviews whether there are medications administered in excessive doses, in excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for use, or in the presence of adverse consequences. With regard to the September survey, Respondent alleged in the Form 2567 that "Residents numbers 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13 lacked Behavior Monitoring Forms in their records" and that all were on psychotropic medications which required monitoring. Respondent presented the testimony of Barbara Bearden who stated that Residents 3 and 4 were on psychotropic medications, and that there were no behavior monitoring forms. With regard to Resident 4, Respondent asserted that there was no assessment of behaviors in any records after August 14. Bearden acknowledged that both Residents 3 and 4 received reasonable doses, and that there was no reason to believe the level of medication was too high. Respondent's witness also asserted that there was no "AIMS" assessments, no initial assessment, and no indication of the reason for or effectiveness of the medications. These matters were not alleged in the charging document, which only asserted the lack of behavior monitoring forms. During her testimony, Respondent's witness acknowledged that there was no standard to determine how often there should be behavior monitoring. Marie Maisel testified for Respondent regarding Residents 9, 11, and 13. With regard to Resident 9, she testified that the resident received Restoril, a sleeping medication, and also Zoloft, an anti-depressant, and that there was no "systematic behavior monitoring." Sleeping medications do not require behavior monitoring, according to the State Operations Manual, and at deposition, the surveyor indicated that the only medication the resident received was Restoril. Petitioner therefore had no notice of the additional allegation regarding Zoloft and this fact cannot be considered. With regard to Resident 11, Maisel testified that the resident received Risperdal, a psychotropic medication, and that, in her opinion, the behavior monitoring was not adequate. At hearing the surveyor testified that Resident 13 was receiving Haldol and there was no systemic behavior monitoring. However, the witness acknowledged that when her deposition was taken, she did not know why Resident 13 had been cited. Petitioner therefore had no notice of these allegations regarding Resident 13. Petitioner presented evidence, including excerpts from the resident's clinical record, that Resident 3 had been assessed for drug use, and that behaviors were monitored. The resident had been admitted less than three weeks before the September survey, which means that an initial assessment had been performed, as well as the complete 14-day assessment, just prior to survey. Respondent admitted that it would be inappropriate to reduce medication soon after admission. There was a care plan which addressed the resident's use of Risperdal, and another which addressed the resident's ability to function with the activities of daily living. These care plans directed staff to monitor the resident's condition and behavior. Numerous nursing notes documented the resident's condition and behaviors. Resident 3 was not noted in the pharmacist's monthly report, meaning the review revealed no problems with medications. Furthermore, the resident's medications were significantly reduced while in Petitioner's care, and her condition improved dramatically, from being nearly comatose, to being alert and oriented, and needing only limited assistance with mobility. Resident 4 had been admitted just a month before the survey and had also just undergone an extensive assessment process. Her medications were also reduced from those she had been receiving on admission, and nurses notes clearly documented her condition and behaviors throughout the period up to the survey. These notes document not only the monitoring of behaviors, but the reason and need for the medication, as she exhibited combative behaviors. Resident 4 also did not appear on the pharmacist's report. With regard to Resident 9, Petitioner presented evidence that there was a care plan specifically addressing the resident's use of Zoloft, that there were other care plans which addressed behaviors and condition which required that the resident be monitored, and that there was periodic consideration of reductions. Resident 9 did appear on the pharmacist's report, suggesting consideration of a reduction in dosage; thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the system. Resident 11 had a care plan addressing her use of Risperdal, which required monitoring and other interventions. Monthly nursing summaries reflected that she was monitored, as did nursing notes. Generally, nurses notes indicate when there are problems or unusual occurrences, not when everything is routine. Petitioner also presented evidence with regard to Resident 13's use of Haldol, which showed the reason for its use (wandering, verbal abusiveness), numerous efforts to reduce the dosage, review by the pharmacist, a care plan to address its use, which required monitoring, and monthly summaries summarizing her condition and behaviors. Respondent presented sufficient evidence to show that Residents 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13, cited in the September survey, were appropriately monitored and were not receiving unnecessary drugs. TAG F431 Respondent charged in the September 2000 survey that several insulin vials in the medication room were not marked with the date they were opened. The regulation under Tag F431, 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d), requires that drugs be labeled "in accordance with currently accepted professional principles" and "the expiration date when applicable." The surveyor guidelines indicate that the critical elements of labeling are the name of the drug and its strength. Additionally, the guidelines advise that drugs approved by the Federal Drug Administration (F.D.A.) must have expiration dates on the manufacturer's container. Respondent's witness acknowledged that all insulin had the manufacturer's expiration date. Although there is a chance of contamination after opening a vial of insulin, it was acknowledged that it is customary to have a policy allowing use for six months after opening. Petitioner has a policy of discarding insulin 60 days after opening. While it is customary to write the opening date on the vial, a failure to do so will only reduce the amount of time it can be used, because of other systems in place. The pharmacy which dispenses the insulin puts a dispensing date on it, and the pharmacist reviews, monthly, stored medications. Within every three months, all medications are checked, and if there is no date of opening, the pharmacist looks to the dispensing date. If the vial was dispensed more than 60 days prior, it is given to the nurse for discarding. Instead of being able to be used for six months beyond the date opened, the medication is discarded sixty days, or at most ninety days, after it was dispensed. Writing the date opened on the vial is not an item encompassed by the regulation as explicated in the guidelines. Furthermore, there is no potential for harm, as there are redundant systems in place.
Recommendation Based of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the July 27 and September 5, 2000, survey reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F329 and F431, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia J. Hakes, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Wellington Specialty Care and Rehab Center sufficient to support the change in its licensure status to a conditional rating.
Findings Of Fact Wellington is a nursing home located in Tampa, Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The Agency is the licensing agency in the State of Florida responsible for regulating nursing facilities under Part II of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On September 10, 1998, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at Wellington in a matter unrelated to the issues that are the subject of this proceeding. On that same date, the Agency also conducted an appraisal survey that focused on six areas of care for which Wellington had been cited as deficient in past surveys. After the investigation and survey were completed, the Agency determined that there was no basis for the complaint, and further determined that Wellington was not deficient in any of the six areas of care which were the subject of the appraisal survey. Notwithstanding its findings that the complaint against Wellington was unfounded and that there were no deficiencies in the targeted areas of care being reviewed, the Agency determined that Wellington was deficient in an area not initially the subject of the September 1998 survey. Specifically, the Agency found that Wellington had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to two residents at the facility in violation of the regulatory standard contained in 42 C.F.R. s. 483.25(h)(2). Based on its findings and conclusions, the Agency issued a survey report in which this deficiency was identified and described under a "Tag F324." The basis for the Agency’s findings were related to observations and investigations of two residents at the facility, Resident 6 and Resident 8. During the September 1998 survey and complaint investigation, the surveyors observed that Resident 6 had a bruise on her forehead and that Resident 8 had bruises on the backs of both of her hands. Resident 6 suffered a stroke in May 1998 and had left-side neglect, a condition that caused her to be unaware of her left side and placed her at risk for falls. Moreover, Resident 6's ability to recall events was impaired. The Agency's investigation revealed that Resident 6 sustained the bruise on her forehead when she fell from the toilet on August 31, 1998. The Agency determined that Resident 6 fell because she was left alone by the staff of the facility and further concluded that Wellington was responsible for causing this fall. The Agency believed that given Resident 6's left-side neglect, the facility staff should have known not to leave the resident unattended during her trips to the toilet. The Agency suggested that Wellington should have provided constant supervision to Resident 6, although it acknowledged that such supervision may have created privacy violations. In making its determination and reaching its conclusions, the Agency relied exclusively on an interview with Resident 6, notwithstanding the fact that her ability to recall events was impaired. Since Resident 6 was admitted to the facility in May 1998, Wellington appropriately and adequately addressed her susceptibility to falls, including falls from her toilet. After Resident 6 was initially admitted to the facility in May 1998, she received occupational therapy to improve her balance. In late June 1998, following several weeks of occupational therapy, Wellington’s occupational therapist evaluated Resident 6’s ability to sit and to control the balance in the trunk of her body and determined that the resident was capable of sitting upright without support for up to 40 minutes. Based upon that assessment, Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy on June 25, 1998, and her caregivers were provided with instructions on how to maintain her balance. At the time Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy, a care plan was devised for her which provided that the facility staff would give her assistance in all of her activities of daily living, but would only provide stand-by assistance to Resident 6 while she was on the toilet, if such assistance was requested. In light of the occupational therapist's June 1998 assessment of Resident 6, this care plan was adequate to address her risk for falls, including her risk for falls while on the toilet. Wellington also provided Resident 6 with appropriate assistance devices. In Resident 6's bathroom, Wellington provided her with a right-side handrail and an armrest by her toilet to use for support and balance, and also gave her a call light to alert staff if she felt unsteady. These measures were effective as demonstrated by the absence of any falls from the toilet by Resident 6 over the course of June, July, and August 1998. The Agency's surveyor who reviewed Resident 6’s medical records was not aware of and did not consider the June 1998 Occupational Therapy Assessment of Resident 6 before citing the facility for the deficiency. Resident 8 was admitted to Wellington in February 1998 with a history of bruising and existing bruises on her body. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Resident 8 was taking Ticlid, a medication which could cause bruising and also had osteopenia, a degenerative bone condition that could increase Resident 8's risk for bruising, making it possible for her to bruise herself with only a slight bump. After observing the bruising on the backs of both of Resident 8's hands during the September 1998 survey, the Agency asked facility staff about the bruising and also reviewed the resident’s medical records. Based on her interviews and record review, the Agency surveyor found that these bruises had not been ignored by Wellington. Rather, the Agency found that when facility staff initially observed these bruises on Resident 8's hands, (1) staff had immediately notified Resident 8's physician of the bruises; and (2) the physician then ordered an X-ray of Resident 8 to determine whether there was a fracture. The X-ray determined that there was not a fracture but that there was evidence of a bone loss or osteopenia, which indicated that Resident 8 had an underlying structural problem which could increase the resident's risk for bruising. The Agency surveyor found nothing in Resident 8's medical record to indicate that the facility had investigated the bruising on the resident’s hands, identified the cause of the bruising, or identified any means to prevent the bruising from reoccurring. Based on the absence of this information in Resident 8's records, the Agency cited the facility for a deficiency under "Tag F324." The Agency's surveyor made no determination and reached no conclusion as to the cause of the bruising. However, she considered that the bruising on Resident 8 may have been caused by the underlying structural damage, medication, or external forces. With regard to external forces, the surveyor speculated that the bruising may have occurred when Resident 8 bumped her hands against objects such as her chair or bed siderails. During the September 1998 survey, when the Agency surveyor expressed her concerns about the cause of the bruising on Resident 8's hands, Wellington’s Director of Nursing suggested to the surveyor that the bruising could have been the result of the use of improper transfer techniques by either Resident 8’s family or the facility staff, or Resident 8’s medications. Despite the surveyor's speculation and suggestions by the facility's Director of Nursing, the Agency surveyor saw nothing that would indicate how the bruising occurred. In fact, the Agency surveyor's observation of a staff member transferring Resident 8 indicated that the staff member was using a proper transfer technique that would not cause bruising to the resident’s hands. The Agency surveyor made no other observations and conducted no investigation of the potential causes of the bruising on Resident 8's hands. During the September 1998 survey, after the Agency surveyor inquired as to the cause of the bruises on Resident 8's hands, the facility conducted an investigation to try to identify the potential causes for the bruising. The investigation was conducted by the facility’s Care Plan Coordinator, a licensed practical nurse who was also the Unit Manager for the unit on which Resident 8 was located. Included in the Care Plan Coordinator's investigation was a thorough examination of the potential causes suggested by the Agency's surveyor. The Agency surveyor’s speculation that the bruising was caused when Resident 8 hit her hands against her chair or bed siderails was ruled out as a cause for the bruises because Resident 8 was unable to move around in her bed or chair. More importantly, there were no bedrails on Resident 8's bed and her chair was a heavily padded recliner. Also, as a part of her investigation, the Care Plan Coordinator observed the transfer techniques employed by both Resident 8's family members and facility staff. During these observations, she did not see any indication that the techniques used were improper or would otherwise cause Resident 8 to bruise her hands. Based upon her thorough investigation, the Case Plan Coordinator determined that there were no identifiable causes of the bruising and, thus, there were no care plan interventions that the facility could have implemented then or in September 1998 to prevent the bruising suffered by Resident 8. Instead, the Care Plan Coordinator reasonably concluded that the bruising was most likely an unavoidable result of Resident 8's medications and her osteopenia. The Agency is required to rate the severity of any deficiency identified during a survey with two types of ratings. One of these is "scope and severity" rating which is defined by federal law, and the other rating is a state classification rating which is defined by state law and rules promulgated thereunder. As a result of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Tag F324 deficiency a scope and severity rating of "G" which, under federal regulations, is a determination that the deficient practice was isolated. The Tag F324 deficiency was also given a state classification rating of "II" which, under the Agency’s rule, is a determination that the deficiency presented "an immediate threat to the health, safety or security of the residents." Because the Agency determined that there was a Class II deficiency at Wellington after the September 1998 survey, it changed Wellington’s Standard licensure rating to Conditional, effective September 10, 1998. At the completion of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Class II rating to the deficiency although the surveyors failed to determine and did not believe that there was an immediate threat of accidents to other residents at Wellington. In fact, at the time of the September 1998 survey, the number of falls at Wellington had declined since the last survey. The Agency returned to Wellington on November 6, 1998, to determine if the facility had corrected the Tag F324 deficiency cited in the September 1998 survey report. After completing that survey, the Agency determined that the deficiency had been corrected and issued Wellington a Standard License effective November 6, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order issuing a Standard rating to Wellington and rescinding the Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 6800 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact The parties present at the hearing stipulated to the following facts which are hereby entered as findings of fact: All letters of intent submitted by the applicants involved herein with the exception of FCC were timely filed on or before December 15, 1984 and the relating applications by these applicants were timely filed on or before January 15, 1985. As a result, these applications addressed a January, 1988 bed need planning horizon. All applications, as mentioned above, were deemed complete by DHRS and were reviewed under a January, 1988 bed need planning horizon. All applications as cited above, were preliminarily denied by DHRS based on a lack of need and notice of these denials were timely published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All unsuccessful applicants herein thereafter timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of their applications. The application filed by FCC for CON number 2738, filed by the applicant in July, 1983, and addressing a July, 1986 bed need was initially denied by DHRS in November, 1983. FCC thereafter timely filed a petition for formal, administrative hearing contesting the denial of this application and on January 10, 1985, DHRS and FCC entered into a stipulated settlement in which DHRS agreed to grant CON Number 2738 to FCC. This CON was issued to FCC on January 19, 1985, for 91 community nursing home beds and on March 15, 1985, a Final Order was entered by DHRS confirming the grant off CON Number 2738 to FCC. FCC's original application under CON Number 2738 was for a 120 bed community nursing home to be located in Indian River County, Florida. DHRS's initial denial of FCC's application was based on a lack of bed need at the time. When DHRS entered into the stipulation with FCC reversing its position and granting a CON to FCC for 91 community nursing home beds, it did so on the basis of bed need figures utilizing statistics relating to the subsequent January, 1988 bed need planning horizon even though FCC's application did not pertain to that planning horizon. In fact the beds taken and awarded to FCC came from the fixed pool of beds that, under the DHRS rule in effect at the time, was reserved for applicants in the January, 1985 batching cycle with a planning horizon of January, 1988. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), F.A.C., sets out the bed need rule methodology for determining projected need for new or additional community nursing home beds. Pursuant to this rule, need is projected three years into the future. The methodology provided in this rule is clear and reasonable. If this methodology is followed precisely as set forth in the rule and utilizing the DHRS statistics available to personnel in the health care professions, such as its semi-annual nursing home census report as well as the Florida population estimates and projections by DHRS district and county, a net bed need of 116 additional beds in Indian River County is established for the period January, 1988. This figure does not, however, include an award of 91 beds to FCC under CON Number 2738 by DHRS under the terms of its settlement and those 91 beds are included within the 116. The expert testifying for the applicants herein concluded that the award of the 91 beds to FCC outside its planning horizon was erroneous and improper and based on no calculation of bed need appropriate to the applicant's original July, 1986 planning horizon and it was so found. In this case, DHRS, by awarding beds to FCC from a subsequent planning horizon is implementing a bed need policy which establishes a "planning horizon" three years from the date the Petitioners' applications were filed but updating all available data to that existing as of the date of the final hearing. This would include July, 1986 population data, current licensed beds, current approved beds, and the latest occupancy rate. The procedure followed by DHRS here is, however, a DHRS policy interpretation rather than a literal interpretation of the rule and the DHRS expert was unable to establish or in any way justify DHRS' policy of updating all data to the date of hearing in contravention of the terms of its own rule. If the unjustified and unsubstantiated DHRS policy were accepted and utilized here, calculations would reflect a surplus of 70 nursing home beds in Indian River County for the January, 1988 planning horizon as opposed to the more reasonable and rational bed need of 116.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT Certificate of Need Number 2733, previously issued to Florida Convalescent Centers be rescinded and that the 91 beds relating thereto be returned to the January, 1988 planning horizon fixed pool. It is further recommended that the Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services remand the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a comparative hearing to evaluate the pending applicants within that batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific ruling pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by National Health Corporation, FMSC and Forum 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the actual calculations outlined in the formulas which are incomplete. 2 & 3 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-6 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 7-13 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 14 Not a Finding of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Health Care and Retirement Corporation Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the citation of the rule which is incomplete. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated. 5-9 Accepted. 10 & 11 Accepted. 12 Rejected as not the best analysis. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Beverly Enterprises 1-3 Accepted. 4-6 Incorporated into Findings of Fact. 7 & 8 Accepted. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. & 11 Accepted. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. Cumulative to other findings. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. Incorporated in Finding of Fact. 16-20 Legal Argument not a Finding of Fact. 21-22 Cumulative to other evidence of record. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by DHRS 1-3 Accepted. 4-8 Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9 Accepted as to the calculation including the 91 beds available to FCC. Rejected as to the propriety of the award and the reason. Copies Furnished: William Page, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Rodriguez, Esquire, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
