The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Respondent, Willine Gracia, operated an assisted living facility without the required license, thereby engaging in unlicensed activity; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency responsible for the licensure of assisted living facilities (“ALFs”) in the State of Florida. See Ch. 429, Part I; and Ch. 408, Part II, Fla. Stat. As part of its responsibilities, the Agency serves as the enforcement arm regarding the licensed (and unlicensed) activity and operation of ALFs. See gen., Chs. 408 and 429, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 58A-5 and 59A-35. Respondent owns a house located at 4502 Conley Street, Orlando, Florida. In January 2016, the Agency received a complaint alleging the unlicensed operation of an ALF at the 4502 Conley Street location. The Agency maintains records of ALF licenses and license applications pursuant to chapter 408 and rule 59A-35. Keisha Woods currently serves as an Operations and Management Consultant in the Assisted Living Unit for the Agency. Ms. Woods testified that she searched the Agency’s databases on October 26, 2016, and November 9, 2016, and found no record that Respondent was currently licensed as an ALF or had ever applied to be licensed as an ALF. Tresa Johnston is a Senior Human Services Program Specialist, also known as a “surveyor,” for the Agency. Ms. Johnston investigated the complaint on behalf of the Agency. On January 14, 2016, Ms. Johnston visited Respondent’s house located at 4502 Conley Street, Orlando, Florida. Ms. Johnston arrived around 8:30 a.m. Respondent was not present. Ms. Johnston knocked at the front door. An individual who Ms. Johnston later concluded was residing in the house, greeted her at the door and allowed her entry. Upon entering the house, Ms. Johnston met three individuals who she determined were living in the residence. She observed that the house contained three bedrooms and one bathroom. The residents informed Ms. Johnston that they stayed in two of the three bedrooms. Ms. Johnston also found personal effects in the bedrooms and bathroom that belonged to the residents. In the house, Ms. Johnston observed a combined living room/dining room area in which she found a piano, a small refrigerator, and a microwave. In the refrigerator, Ms. Johnston discovered several frozen meals and drinks. In the bathroom, Ms. Johnston did not find any toilet paper. She also noticed that the bathroom was lit only by a nightlight. On the doorway to the kitchen, Ms. Johnston encountered a sign that read, “Do not enter kitchen at any time.” The residents informed Ms. Johnston that Respondent forbad them from entering the kitchen. Disregarding the sign and entering the kitchen, Ms. Johnston saw that the refrigerator was chained and locked. She found canned foods on the counter and packaged food in the pantry. Ms. Johnston also discovered a dead rat on the floor. Ms. Johnston found the house was extremely cold. All three residents were wearing coats. The residents advised Ms. Johnston that Respondent did not allow them to manage the temperature. Respondent arrived at the house around 9:10 a.m. Respondent was carrying a plastic bag containing medication for all three residents. Upon entering the house, Ms. Johnston testified that she saw Respondent take several prescription bottles out of the bag, pour a dosage of medication into the caps of each bottle, and instruct the residents to ingest the medication. The residents then placed some medications in a daily pill box for a one-day supply. Respondent observed that one medication bottle was empty. She shook it and advised one of the residents, “I owe you one of these. I have to refill it.” Respondent, after giving the residents their medication, put the medication bottles back into the plastic bag. Ms. Johnston also heard Respondent declare that she would have to return in the afternoon to give a resident her medication. Thereafter, Ms. Johnston interviewed Respondent. During this interview, Respondent informed Ms. Johnston that she: does not live at 4502 Conley Street; is not related to any of the three residents; provides housing, meals, and manages medications for all three residents; cooks two meals a day for the residents. (The residents are supposed to eat a frozen meal for their third meal); does not allow the residents into the kitchen; keeps the residents’ medications in a locked cabinet in her home because two of the residents cannot take care of their own medications without her assistance; and generally arrives at the 4502 Conley Street location between 9:00 to 9:30 a.m. each day. Respondent also called the residents her “clients.” Respondent explained to Ms. Johnston that her clients were referred to her by a local hospital. Respondent explained to Ms. Johnston that she is paid to lodge two of the residents through a payee. She was in the process of obtaining a payee for the third resident. On January 22, 2016, Ms. Johnston contacted Anthony Alexander, who is a Representative Payee for the Social Security Administration. At the final hearing, Mr. Alexander explained that the Social Security Administration designated him a payee for certain individuals who have been determined to be unable to manage paying their own personal expenses with their Social Security benefits. Mr. Alexander testified that in his capacity as Representative Payee, he made rental payments to Respondent for two of the residents Ms. Johnston found staying at Respondent’s house. Mr. Alexander recounted that he made the rental payments through direct deposit to Respondent’s bank account. Mr. Alexander further stated that he mailed weekly stipend checks for the two residents to the 4502 Conley Street address. Mr. Alexander represented that his records show that the stipend checks were cashed. In addition, Mr. Alexander testified that, as of the date of the final hearing, he is still paying rent to Respondent for one of the residents. He is also still mailing a weekly stipend check for that individual to 4502 Conley Street, Orlando, Florida. Based on her personal observations and the information provided directly to her from Respondent and the three residents of 4502 Conley Street, Ms. Johnston concluded that Respondent was engaged in unlicensed activity by operating an ALF without a license. Therefore, on January 14, 2016, Ms. Johnston issued Respondent a Notice of Unlicensed Activity (the “Notice”). The Notice instructed Respondent to immediately cease operating an ALF without proper licensure. On February 1, 2016, Ms. Johnston revisited 4502 Conley Street. Ms. Johnston again asked a resident permission to enter the house. This time she was denied entry. However, she saw that two of the three residents she met during her initial visit on January 14, 2016, were still in the house. Based on her observations, Ms. Johnston determined that Respondent was continuing to engage in unlicensed activity after receiving the Notice on January 14, 2016. Respondent was not present at the final hearing. However, in her Election of Rights she presented to the Agency, Respondent wrote: I Willine Gracia have never owned or operated a non license facility. . . . I’ve never promoted myself as such. However, I did have renters in my home and at times some of them came through Lakeside Behavioral. Each of these ladies were independent and did not require supervision and could live on their own without a caregiver. . . . I only offered meals to those ladies who wanted that. I did not provide anything more. . . . I do live at 4502 Conley Street and this is my personal home, which I can prove not a ALF or business. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the facts demonstrate that Respondent was operating an ALF as that term is defined in section 429.02(5). The evidence and testimony also establish that Respondent was engaging in this activity, without the proper license, from January 14, 2016, through February 1, 2016.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order finding that Respondent Willine Gracia operated an ALF without a license in violation of chapter 429. It is further recommended that the Agency impose an administrative fine in the amount of $18,000 against Respondent pursuant to section 408.812. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 9th day of December, 2016.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent’s Extended Congregate Care (ECC) license for the facility at 302 11th Avenue, Northeast, in St. Petersburg, Florida, should be renewed, and whether her license to operate that assisted living facility should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the denial letter dated April 16, 1998, and in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on December 15, 1998. Ms. Berthelot requested formal hearing on those issues, and this hearing ensued.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing and regulation of assisted living facilities in this state. Respondent Marlene C. Berthelot operated Four Palms Manor, a licensed assisted living facility located at 302 11th Avenue, Northeast, in St. Petersburg, Florida. Ann DaSilva had been a surveyor of assisted living facilities for the Agency for at least five years at the time of the initial survey in this matter that took place in December 1997. On that occasion, Ms. DaSilva, in the company of another surveyor, Mr. Kelly, inspected the facility in issue on a routine basis. At that time, Ms. DaSilva noted that with regard to at least one resident, there was no health assessment by the resident’s physician in the resident’s file. A health assessment should contain the physician’s evaluation of the resident’s capabilities and needs, as well as his or her initial status upon admission. In this case, Ms. DaSilva found that the health care provider had not addressed the skin integrity of the resident at the time of admission as should have been done. This is important because if the resident had had a skin problem or some other health problem, the resident might well not have been eligible to reside in the facility because facilities of this kind normally do not have the capability of treating pressure sore ulcers. Ms. DaSilva also found that the health assessment did not accurately reflect the resident’s status at the time of the survey. She found the resident was far less capable of doing what the health assessment said she could do, and the assessment was neither current nor accurate. The resident required assistance in all activities of daily living, and it was reported the resident fell out of bed because she could not stand. This situation was written up as Tag A-403. Tag A-403 was re-cited in a follow-up survey conducted on March 26, 1998. At that time the surveyor found that the health assessment did not address the resident’s method of medication administration. On admission, the resident was receiving no medications at all. After she began taking medications, the facility failed to get an order from her physician to indicate how the medications were to be administered, self or with help of staff administration. Tag A- 403 was cited for a third time in the October 1998 survey where the same deficiency, as cited in the March survey, the failure of the file to reflect how the resident’s medications were to be administered, was again cited. The record still did not indicate how the resident was to receive her medications. This tag was classified as a Class III deficiency and that classification appears to be appropriate. Tag A-406, which deals with the facility’s need for an evaluation of the resident’s ability to self-preserve in case of emergency, was also cited as a deficiency in the December 30, 1997, survey. There was no evidence in the file that such an evaluation was accomplished during the first 30 days after admission regarding this resident as is required by rule. Ms. DaSilva observed the resident in bed at 9:30 a.m., and the nurses’ notes reflected she was totally dependent and needed help with locomotion. The resident suffered from cerebral palsy with severe paresis (weakness) on one side. This situation raised the surveyor’s concern as to whether the resident could get out of the facility in the event of an emergency. No indication appeared in the records or documentation regarding this resident, and no supplement was provided upon the request of the surveyor. Ms. DaSilva also heard the resident call out for assistance, a call which remained unanswered because the one staff member on duty at the time was not in the immediate area. Ms. DaSilva observed that the resident was not able to stand without assistance but the facility’s paper-work indicated the resident could self-ambulate. This was obviously incorrect. When the facility administrator, Ms. Berthelot, was called by her staff manager, she came to the facility to assist in finding the requested paperwork, but was unable to locate in the file any evaluation of the resident’s capability to self-preserve. Tag A-406 was re-cited in the March 1998 survey because again there were two residents who had been in the facility for over 30 days without any evaluation of their ability to self- preserve. It was cited for a third time during the October 1998 survey when the surveyor found two other residents who had been in the facility for over 30 days but who had not been evaluated for their ability to self-preserve, and notwithstanding a request for such documentation, none was found or produced. This resulted in Tag 406 being classified as a Class III deficiency. At the March 26, 1998, survey, Ms. DaSilva cited Tag A-504, which deals with the requirement for direct care staff to receive training in patient care within 30 days of being hired. The Agency requires documentation of such training, and surveyors look at the files of the staff members on duty to see if the employee’s file contains certification of the proper training, appropriate application information, references, and like material. This information is needed to ensure that the employee is qualified to do the job. Here, examination of the facility’s files failed to show that the one staff person on the premises during the evening shift Monday through Friday, Employee No. 1, had had the proper training. It also appeared that Employee No. 3, who was hired to work alone on Thursday and Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday day shifts, also did not have any record of required training. This subject matter was again cited during the October 1998 survey. When Ms. DaSilva requested the file of the individual on duty, there was nothing contained therein to reflect the individual had had the required training. This was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. Tag A-505 was also cited as a result of the March 1998 survey. This tag deals with the requirement for staff who provide personal services to residents to be trained in providing those services. Ms. DaSilva asked for and was given the facility’s files but could find no evidence of proper training having been given. This subject matter was again cited as a result of the October 1998 survey. At the hearing, Respondent presented certificates of training in personal hygiene, medication policy and training, and direct care 2-hour staff training, given to all employees of all Respondent’s facilities. These certificates reflect, however, that the training was administered on April 22, 1998, after the March 1998 survey but before the October 1998 survey, though that survey report reflects the item was again tagged because of employees scheduled to work alone who did not have documentation of appropriate training. This was a Class III deficiency. As a result of the December 1997 survey, Ms. DaSilva also cited the facility under Tag A-602, which deals with medication administration, and requires staff who administer medications to be trained in appropriate methods. At the time of the survey, Ms. DaSilva observed a staff member pour medications from prescription bottles into her hand, take the medications to the resident, and give them to her. This staff member was not a licensed person and only licensed staff may administer medications. At the time, when asked by Ms. DaSilva, the staff member admitted she was not licensed and had not received any training in medication administration. Tag A-602 was again cited as a result of the March 1998 survey because at that time Ms. DaSilva observed a staff member assist a resident correctly, but when she looked at the records, she found the member had not received the required training. This has, she contends, a potential for improper medications being given which could result in possible harm to the resident. This Tag was again cited as a result of the October 1998 survey. On this occasion, Ms. DaSilva’s review of records or employees who had indicated they had assisted with medications revealed no evidence of appropriate training. Here again, the training was certified as having been given in April 1998, and Respondent contends that by the time of the October 1998 survey, the certificates were in the records. They were not found by the surveyors, however, and it is the operator’s responsibility to make the records available. This constitutes a Class III violation. Under the rules supporting citation Tag A-703, a facility must have an ongoing activities program into which the residents have input. On December 30, 1997, Ms. DaSilva interviewed the residents who indicated there was no activities program at Four Palms. Ms. DaSilva observed no planned activities taking place over the six to seven hours she was there. This deficiency was re-cited during the March 1998 survey. Again, Ms. DaSilva interviewed the residents who indicated they watched TV or walked. A calendar of activities was posted, but there was no indication any were taking place, and upon inquiry, a staff member indicated none were being done that day. The activities calendar provided by the staff member merely listed potential activities, but did not indicate when or where they would take place. Ms. DaSilva again cited the facility for a deficiency in its activities program as a result of the October 1998 survey. At this time, she observed no activities during the time she was at the facility. The staff member on duty reported that the planned activity was not done because she did not have time to do it. At that time, residents were observed to be lying on their beds or watching TV. The one staff person on duty was cooking, cleaning, or helping residents with care issues. This is a Class III deficiency.
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 granting Respondent renewal of a license to operate Four Palm Manor, an assisted living facility at 302 11th Avenue, Northeast in St. Petersburg, Florida; granting renewal of the ECC license for the same facility; and finding Respondent guilty of Class III deficiencies for Tags 403, 406, 504, 505, 602, and 703 on the surveys done on December 30, 1997, and March 26, 1998. An administrative fine of $100 should be imposed for each of Tags 403, 404, 504, and 505. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel L. Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Renee H. Gordon, Esquire Gay and Gordon, P.A. Post Office Box 265 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Cirilo Alvarez, at all times pertinent to the allegations in the complaint, operated an adult congregate living facility in Lake City, Columbia County, Florida, Briar's Haven Adult Care Center, under license number 03-12- 0128-BPS, issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In late July or early August, 1982, Respondent, who is a psychiatric nurse specialist and who works full time at North Florida State Mental Hospital (Hospital) at Macclenny, Florida, took Woodrow Harrison, an elderly patient at that institution, into his home, Briar's Haven Adult Care Center, on pass status from the Hospital for periodic short visits. Ultimately, on July 30, 1982, Harrison was released from Macclenny and began living full time at Respondent's facility. On August 3, 1982, Sharon Stucky, a registered nurse case manager for the North Florida Mental Health Center (Center) in Lake City, Florida, did an intake interview with Harrison, who had just been released from the Hospital and who was living at Respondent's facility. Mr. Harrison was brought into the Center by Respondent's wife. Records from the Hospital pertaining to Harrison, which came to the Center, reflected that he suffered from a seizure disorder and a diabetic condition. His medication consisted of 300 mg. of Dilantin daily and 30 mg. of phenobarbital daily, and he was to receive a daily insulin injection. At the time of his release from the Hospital, he was furnished with a thirty-day supply of these medications. On the afternoon of August 13, 1982, Mr. Alvarez went into the Center with Mr. Harrison and asked to see Ms. Stucky. Respondent indicated that Mr. Harrison was having many physical problems. Earlier in the day, he had taken Harrison back to Macclenny to have him readmitted for seizures, incontinence, etc., even though he was taking his medications, but officials at the Hospital refused to admit him. Mr. Alvarez wanted him admitted to some facility in Lake City. Stucky, indicating she would have to talk with Harrison before taking any action, did so and felt she could see no change in his condition since her first interview of him on August 3, and she decided she could not justify having him recommitted to the mental hospital. Since Stucky wanted to find out if the seizures were the result of a physical problem, and she could not do a physical herself, she requested that Respondent take Harrison to a doctor for an examination. The Respondent again demanded that Harrison be admitted and, when Ms. Stucky refused, stated he would take Harrison to the hospital and leave him. Ms. Stucky talked with her supervisor to see if there was any way that Harrison could be readmitted to Macclenny, and it was determined there was not. When the information was related to Mr. Alvarez, he departed with Mr. Harrison. Respondent then took Harrison to the emergency room at Lake City's Lake Shore Hospital. After a chart was prepared on Harrison, Alvarez departed, leaving Harrison there without his medications. When Alvarez first took Harrison in, he was told there would be an hour wait before Harrison could be seen. Alvarez asked if Harrison could sit there and wait, and the person on duty said, "Yes." Once that was arranged, Respondent left without Harrison. According to a report of the doctor on duty, Harrison was confused and incapable of giving a complaint or history. As a result, evaluation of him was difficult, and his well-being was compromised. Respondent subsequently made no effort to get Harrison's drugs to him by delivering them to Ms. Stuckv, nor did he inquire where Harrison was. Respondent's actions in dropping Mr. Harrison off at the Lake Shore Hospital unsupervised, and only calling to check on his status somewhat later, constitute an intentional abandonment which could have seriously affected Harrison's health, safety, and welfare. Somewhat later the same day, Respondent called Lake Shore Hospital to find out what Harrison's status was, but Harrison had already been placed in another adult care facility by Ms. Stucky when the hospital called her and told her of Harrison's situation. Respondent did not make any other calls. Ms. Stucky visited Harrison daily at this new facility and administered his insulin shot. He appeared to be doing well there and wanted to remain, but on August 17, 1982, he was readmitted to Macclenny, where he currently resides. Harrison is incapable of taking care of himself. He has a poor memory and is somewhat retarded and childlike, according to Stucky. He has no concept of time and could not administer his medicines to himself. He could not understand the need to take his medicine or remember to take it if he could. Since Mr. Harrison was dropped off at Lake Shore without either his medicines or a change of clothing, Stucky made several telephone calls to the Respondent to retrieve them. Mr. Alvarez was always out when she called, and Stucky talked with several different females who answered the phone and with whom she left messages requesting him to call her back. Alvarez did not return any of the calls, but he states he never received them. This is rossible since, he says, neither his mother nor his wife, two of the people at home who may have received the original calls from Stucky, speaks much English. Respondent provided Mr. Harrison with all the clothes he had except those he was wearing when he came from Macclenny. Upon the advice of individuals at Macclenny who he could not remember to identify, Respondent applied for Social Security benefits to support Harrison while he was at Respondent's facility. Because Harrison had no family, Respondent sought the counsel of the legal aid office in Lake City to see if he could be appointed Harrison's legal guardian and was told he could not. In late January or early February, 1983, Respondent received one Social Security check in the amount of $1,900 made out to Harrison and Mrs. Alvarez. This check was not cashed because Harrison was no longer with the Respondent, but was returned to the Social Security Office. Harrison's medicines that were in Respondent's possession when Harrison was taken to the hospital were discarded. Respondent worked with Harrison at Macclenny for about a year before taking him to his own facility. During that time to his knowledge, Harrison never had any seizures. Respondent gave him his medications at Macclenny and knew he needed drugs. When he took Harrison to his facility, he took Harrison's drugs as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order revoking the Adult Congregate Living Facility License of Cirilo Alvarez, doing business as Briar's Haven Adult Care Center. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 1st day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2002 NW 13th Street, 4th Floor Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Cirilo Alvarez Post Office Box 2392 Lake City, Florida 32055 Mr. David H. Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the request for an administrative hearing filed on Petitioner’s behalf on November 4, 2014, to contest Respondent’s proposed denial of an application to change ownership of a licensed assisted living facility should be dismissed with prejudice because of Petitioner’s abandonment of its challenge.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the applicant for a change of ownership of a licensed assisted living facility. By Notice of Intent to Deny, Respondent gave Petitioner notice that its application would be denied, subject to Petitioner’s right to contest the denial in an administrative hearing. A timely request for an administrative hearing involving disputed issues of material fact was filed on behalf of Petitioner. However, after filing the hearing request, Petitioner took no further action to avail itself of the hearing it requested. Petitioner failed to comply with requirements specified in the Initial Order, the Order regarding designation of a representative for the corporation, or the Order of Pre- Hearing Instructions. Petitioner failed to appear at a duly- noticed deposition. Petitioner failed to respond in opposition to a Motion to Dismiss that took the position that Petitioner had abandoned its hearing request. And finally, Petitioner failed to appear at the final hearing that Petitioner had requested. Based on Petitioner’s failure to appear and offer evidence, there is no evidentiary basis on which findings can be made regarding whether Petitioner’s application for change of ownership is entitled to approval. Petitioner did, in fact, abandon its hearing request, but did not do so responsibly, with sufficient notice so that costs would not be incurred convening a hearing when Petitioner apparently did not intend to appear. Throughout the pendency of this proceeding, Petitioner has been allowed to operate the assisted living facility for which it applied to change ownership. As of the hearing date, Petitioner still had not relinquished the facility’s operating license. Despite the fact that Petitioner expressed to Respondent that Petitioner did not intend to appear at the hearing it requested, Petitioner only communicated a vague intent to relinquish the license to Respondent at some unspecified point in the future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, issue a final order: (a) dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s request for an administrative hearing; denying Petitioner’s change of ownership application; and imposing such requirements for the orderly transfer of any residents and relinquishment of the assisted living facility license as is necessary or appropriate. Jurisdiction is reserved for consideration of Respondent’s motion for sanctions against Petitioner, which will be resolved by separate final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 30th day of January, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Teresita A. Vivo, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Maritza Perez Guided Management, Inc. 5434 Adams Morgan Way New Port Richey, Florida 34653 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stuart Williams, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact On or about July 18, 1988, Petitioner's representatives learned that Respondent's daughter was operating an ACLF, as defined in Part II of Chapter 400 Florida Statutes without having a license from Petitioner for such a facility. The facility was located at 1217 East 139th Avenue, Tampa, Florida. One of the residents in the facility at the time of Petitioner's employees' discovery of its unlicensed status had been recently transferred there from Respondent's licensed facility. Respondent knew her daughter's facility had been licensed by hotel and restaurant regulatory authorities. She also believed her daughter had obtained licensure from Petitioner for the operation of an ACLF. Testimony of Petitioner's witnesses that Respondent was aware of the absence of the facility's licensure by Petitioner is not credited in view of the testimony of Respondent and others to the contrary; also, Petitioner's employees did not include any incriminating statements of Respondent professing knowledge of such unlicensed status in their initial investigative reports in the matter. Uncontroverted testimony of Katherine H. Echevarria, a registered nurse of thirty years experience who holds a master's degree in nursing and is presently associated with research efforts of the College of Nursing at the University of South Florida, establishes that Respondent has a natural ability to lead and establish programs for disadvantaged older adults who are residents of Respondent's ACLF. Echevarria's testimony further establishes that Respondent possesses the character and competency required to operate her facility and provide continuing adequate care to residents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's application for renewal of her license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 15th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5455 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed. Addressed. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-2. Adopted in substance. Unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Haman, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Arnold D. Levine, Esquire 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 1600 Tampa, Florida 33601-3429 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
