The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period June 14 through August 10, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. In relevant part, Rule 59A- 4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written "plan of care." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue presented is whether Section V. B. 7. of the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan which is incorporated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Manor Pines Convalescent Center, LLC, operates a skilled nursing home located in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, known as Manor Pines Convalescent Center. Manor Pines currently participates in the Medicaid program and has been issued provider number 25417700. Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, administers the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (hereinafter "the Plan") which is incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010 and which establishes the methodology for determining reimbursement to nursing homes for the care provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. In accordance with the Plan, nursing homes participating in the Medicaid program are reimbursed by Medicaid on a per diem basis. The Medicaid per diem rate consists of four cost components: the operating costs component, the indirect patient care component, the direct patient care component, and a property component. Rates are calculated by following the provisions of the Plan and are cost-based in nature. Medicaid rates are normally set twice per year, once in January and again in July. The Plan contains numerous cost-saving mechanisms that are employed to limit a provider's actual costs. Examples of the cost-saving measures are class ceilings, cost ceilings, and targets. Each of those cost-saving measures uses a "lesser of" mechanism to ensure that a provider's Medicaid rate does not exceed the various mechanisms regardless of the actual costs to the provider. The class ceiling limits the amount that any facility in a particular class of providers can be reimbursed in an affected cost component. The class ceilings are based upon the size of the facility and the facility's geographic location. The cost ceiling caps the amount of costs that Medicaid will reimburse in any given component. The target limits check the amount of growth that Medicaid will reimburse a provider in any one component between rate semesters. Additionally, the Plan also contains a provision that is commonly referred to as the "low occupancy adjustment." According to Section V. B. 7. of the Plan, nursing homes are penalized in their reimbursement rates if they do not meet occupancy thresholds. In the version of the Plan in effect on January 1, 2006 (Version XXIX), the low occupancy adjustment provision reduced the reimbursement rate established for nursing homes for each of the reimbursement components (except the property component under the fair rental value system) that make up the nursing homes' Medicaid reimbursement rate. The Agency amended the low occupancy adjustment on July 1, 2006 (Version XXX). The effect of the amendment was that the adjustment no longer affected the direct patient care component and only affected the operating and indirect patient care components of the Medicaid per diem. The low occupancy adjustment is calculated by determining a low occupancy threshold and then reducing the established Medicaid per diem of any provider that does not meet that threshold. The low occupancy adjustment is a statement of general applicability that applies to all nursing homes in Florida that participate in the Medicaid program. In the January 1, 2006, rate-setting semester, Manor Pines' Medicaid per diem was limited by the low occupancy adjustment. Manor Pines was penalized $11.30 per patient day in the operating component, $25.40 per patient day in the direct patient care component, and $15.90 per patient day in the indirect patient care component. In the July 1, 2006, rate-setting semester, Manor Pines' Medicaid per diem was also limited by the low occupancy adjustment. At that time, Manor Pines was penalized $7.61 per patient day in the operating component and $10.23 per patient day in the indirect patient care component. It is illogical to adjust any component of the Medicaid nursing home per diem due to occupancy because the Medicaid per diem is determined based upon an allocation of costs that already factors Medicaid utilization in the methodology. Simply put, Medicaid's share of costs is limited in the per diem rate by a facility's Medicaid utilization. Further limiting those costs based upon occupancy creates a penalty that has no basis in law or fact. At the time of the final hearing in this cause, Manor Pines had been participating in the Medicaid program for four or five years after 35 years as a private-pay facility. Nearly two-thirds of all residents in nursing homes in Florida and in Broward County are Medicaid recipients. However, the low occupancy adjustment creates a disincentive to accept Medicaid residents because a nursing home affected by the adjustment loses reimbursement on each Medicaid resident in its facility. The low occupancy adjustment is illogical because it creates this disincentive to admit Medicaid residents. The adjustment is illogical because a facility attempting to increase its occupancy to escape the adjustment must admit two Medicaid-eligible individuals for every individual that is not Medicaid-eligible. Yet, each Medicaid-eligible patient causes the facility affected by this adjustment to lose more money. The effect, therefore, of this adjustment is that it actually and illogically hampers the facility's ability to increase its occupancy and ultimately escape the penalty. The Legislature has created five different diversion programs that are designed to divert people eligible for nursing home care from nursing homes to home- and community-based services. One of the major diversion projects has helped to reduce nursing home occupancies in Broward County. It has created a reduction in the overall need for nursing home beds in Broward County despite increasing population and, therefore, has created increased competition for nursing home residents among the nursing home community. The low occupancy adjustment forces nursing homes to recruit and retain residents in their facilities, contrary to the legislative intent enumerated in the various diversion statutes. The low occupancy adjustment illogically imposes a penalty based upon occupancy when the Legislature is actively creating programs designed to reduce nursing home occupancies. Nursing homes are required to provide minimum staffing hours to their residents. During the January 1 and the July 1, 2006, rate semesters, Manor Pines complied with those minimum staffing requirements. The costs, as stated in the direct care component of the January 1, 2006, rate sheets, accurately reflect the costs associated with complying with the minimum staffing requirements. The low occupancy adjustment has created a situation at Manor Pines where in order to meet the minimum staffing requirements, Manor Pines has had to reduce staff in other areas, has had to forego completing certain repairs brought on by recent hurricanes, and has cancelled numerous projects at the facility that were intended to improve and enhance the facility in the eyes of prospective nursing home residents, such as replacing crank beds with electric beds. The addition of new nursing home beds in Florida has been under a moratorium for years and will be for, minimally, four more years unless modified by law. Despite increasing population, there has been no corollary increase in nursing home residents. The statistics demonstrate the success of the legislative programs to divert residents from nursing homes, and they render the Agency's low occupancy adjustment a penalty, unsupported by reason.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent failed to provide appropriate emergency care for a nursing home resident in respiratory distress in violation of 42 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 483.25 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect as of the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the State of Florida. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 830 West 29th Street, Orlando, Florida (the facility). Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of the facility on September 14, 2001. The survey cited the facility for a deficiency described in F309, and rated the deficiency with a scope and severity of "G" and Class II, respectively. The deficiency classifications authorized in Subsection 400.23(8) range from Class I through Class IV. Class I deficiencies are not relevant to this case. The statute defines the remaining classifications as follows: A Class II deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services. . . . A Class III deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines will result in no more than minimal physical, mental or psychosocial discomfort to the resident or has the potential to compromise the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being as defined. . . . A Class IV deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident. . . . Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the state of Florida to adhere to federal regulations found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, Rule 59A-4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. The "G" rating adopted by Petitioner for the scope and severity rating of the deficiency alleged in F309 is a rating authorized in relevant federal regulations. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated. Applicable state law authorizes Petitioner to change a facility's licensure rating from standard to conditional whenever Petitioner alleges that a Class II deficiency exists. Petitioner alleged in the survey report that a Class II deficiency existed at the facility and assigned a conditional rating to the facility's license. The conditional rating was effective September 14, 2001, and continued until substantial compliance was achieved. When Petitioner proves that a Class II deficiency exists, applicable law authorizes Petitioner to impose a civil money penalty. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent seeking to impose a fine of $2,500.00 and subsequently filed an Amended Administrative Complaint. The allegations on which both the change in license status to a conditional license and the proposed fine are based are set forth in F309. The deficiency alleged in F309 is set forth on CMS Form 2567, entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" (the 2567). The 2567 that Petitioner used to charge Respondent with the deficiency described in F309 involved only one resident. In order to protect this resident's privacy, the 2567, F309, the Transcript, and all pleadings refer to the resident as Resident 1. F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25. In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Use F309 for quality of care deficiencies not covered by 483.25(a)-(m). F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 CFR Section 483.25 because: Based on interview and record review the facility neglected to provide appropriate emergency care for [Resident 1] in respiratory distress and failure. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the Manual). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The facility admitted Resident 1 to the pediatric long-term care unit on November 20, 2000. The admitting diagnosis was cerebral palsy, pneumonia and convulsions, a tracheostomy, and a gastrostomy. Resident 1 could breathe on her own and was being weaned from the trach. She could breathe through her nose at times. She was not on a ventilator but could breathe room air. At all times, Resident 1 was making respiratory effort. Resident 1 was on an apnea monitor. Resident 1 had three stomas. Stomas are the openings for the tracheostomy tube. Her throat structures were very frail. She had received numerous throat reconstructions. She had significant scar tissue and a granuloma at her stoma sites. A granuloma is a tumor-like growth. The granuloma was vascular, and the blood vessels were easily broken. Resident 1 was spastic as a result of her cerebral palsy. On September 7, 2001, at 2:50 a.m., Resident 1's apnea monitor alarm sounded. Staff immediately responded to find that Resident 1 had pulled out her tracheostomy tube and was bleeding profusely. Facility staff called 911 and notified the treating physician and the parents. An ambulance was dispatched to the facility at 2:51 a.m. on September 7, 2001. While awaiting the ambulance, the Registered Nurse on duty (RN) could not detect an apical or radial pulse. The RN did not administer CPR. Rather, the RN established an airway by successfully replacing the tracheostomy tube. Securing a patent airway was the first thing that the RN should have done for Resident 1 under the circumstances. No oxygen can be given without a patent airway. It was difficult for the RN to visualize the trach opening because of the profuse bleeding. The RN was able to tactilely reinsert the tube. Vital signs taken by the RN showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. CPR is not appropriate when vital signs are present. The ambulance and EMT personnel arrived shortly after the RN reinserted the trach tube. At 2:56 a.m., EMT personnel took over the care of Resident 1. EMT personnel worked on Resident 1 for 23 minutes before transporting her to the hospital. Resident 1 died at the hospital at 3:35 a.m., 38 minutes after the EMTs took responsibility for her care. EMT personnel generated EKG strips indicating that Resident 1's heart was beating at some point after they took over. Two sets of x-rays subsequently taken at the hospital substantiate that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel took over her care. EMT personnel removed the trach the nurse had inserted and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. Removing the trach eliminated the airway that the RN had established for Resident 1 before EMT personnel arrived. The endotracheal tube was 22 centimeters long and significantly longer and larger than the regular trach tube used for Resident 1. The physician's order for Resident 1 stated that nothing should go past 6 centimeters into Resident 1's trach. It took the EMTs three attempts to get the endotracheal tube placed. The EMTs should have hyperventilated Resident 1 before placing the endotracheal tube. They did not do so. The x-ray taken at 3:42 a.m. in the hospital, shows that the endotracheal tube was improperly positioned in Resident 1's lung. All steps taken by the RN were appropriate for Resident 1 under the circumstances. Petitioner failed to show a nexus between any act or omission by the facility and the harm to Resident 1. The care plan for Resident 1 called for suctioning of her tracheal tube. Care plans are to be followed under normal circumstances. Emergency procedures take precedence in critical situations. Suctioning for Resident 1 was appropriate under normal circumstances when she had a patent airway. If Resident 1 did not have an airway, the first priority is to establish an airway. The RN first established a patent airway for Resident 1. It would have been inappropriate for the RN to suction Resident 1 before establishing an airway because it would have sucked out the air remaining in Resident 1's lungs. Suctioning also could have caused a vasovagal response that could stop the heart and could have caused tissue damage. After the RN opened an airway for Resident 1, the next priority would have been for the RN to check for vital signs. The RN checked Resident 1's vital signs after opening an airway, and the vital signs showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. The presence of vital signs made it inappropriate for either the RN or EMT personnel to administer CPR. CPR is appropriate only in the absence of vital signs. When EMT personnel arrived, they continued the same procedure that the RN had followed. EMT first established an airway by removing the trach tube used by the RN and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. The resident had vital signs after placement of the trach and CPR was inappropriate. F282 relates to failure to implement a care plan. Respondent was not cited under F282. Petitioner stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation that both the conditional license and fine were based on F309 alone.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in F309 and the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the Administrative Complaint, and changing Respondent's conditional license to a standard license effective September 4, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, Room 3106 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. Post Office Box 2011 2180 Park Avenue, North Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Fountainhead Nursing and Convalescent Homes, Inc., Respondent, was licensed by the Department of HRS, Petitioner, as a nursing home. On a survey of the nursing home facilities conducted on April 8 and 9, 1980 five Class II deficiencies and twenty Class III deficiencies were reported on HRS Form 553D entitled Classification of Deficiencies for Nursing Home Licensure Requirements (Exhibit 1). These were designated HRS-1, 3, 14, 15 and 20 on Exhibit 1. Because of these Class II deficiencies Respondent was assigned a "C" rating. HRS-1 is a deficiency correctable within 72 hours. HRS-3, 14 and 20 are Class III deficiencies erroneously characterized as Class II deficiencies.
The Issue Whether Respondent’s nursing home license should be disciplined, and whether Respondent’s nursing home license should be changed from a Standard license to a Conditional license.
Findings Of Fact Bayside Manor is a licensed nursing home located in Pensacola, Florida. On June 14, 2003, Resident No. 4 climbed out of her bed without assistance to go to the bathroom. She fell to the floor and sustained a bruise to her forehead and lacerations to her cheek and chin. Her Foley catheter was pulled out with the bulb still inflated. The fall occurred shortly after Resident No. 4 had finished eating. No staff was in her room when she climbed out of her bed. She was found on her side on the floor by staff. According to the June 14 Bayside’s Nurses' notes, Resident No. 4 stated, "Oh, I was going to the bathroom." In the hour prior to her fall, Resident No. 4 was seen at least three times by nursing assistants, which was more than appropriate monitoring for Resident No. 4. On June 20, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey of Bayside Manor’s facility. In its survey, AHCA found one alleged deficiency relating to Resident No. 4. The surveyor believed that Resident No. 4 should have been reassessed for falls by the facility and, based upon that reassessment, offered additional assistive devices and/or increased supervision. The surveyor also believed that the certified nursing assistant had left Resident No. 4 alone with the side rails to her bed down. The deficiency was cited under Tag F-324. Tag F-324 requires a facility to ensure that “[e]ach resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents.” The deficiency was classified as a Class II deficiency. On October 9, 2001, and January 14, 2002, Bayside Manor assessed Resident No. 4 as having a high risk for falls, scoring 9 on a scale where scores of 10 or higher constitute a high risk. In addition to the June 14, 2002, fall noted above, Resident No. 4 had recent falls on November 30, 2001, April 19, 2002, and May 12, 2002. Resident No. 4's diagnoses included end-stage congestive heart failure and cognitive impairment. She had periods of confusion, refused to call for assistance, and had poor safety awareness. Resident No. 4 had been referred to hospice for palliative care. Because hospice care is given when a resident is close to death, care focuses on comfort of the resident rather than aggressive care. Additionally, the resident frequently asked to be toileted even though she had a catheter inserted. She frequently attempted to toilet herself without staff assistance, which in the past had led to her falls. Often her desire to urinate did not coincide with her actual need to urinate. She was capable of feeding herself and did not require assistance with feeding. Bayside Manor addressed Resident No. 4’s high risk of falls by providing medication which eliminated bladder spasms that might increase her desire to urinate and medication to alleviate her anxiety over her desire to urinate. She was placed on the facility’s falling stars program which alerts staff to her high risk for falls and requires that staff check on her every hour. The usual standard for supervision in a nursing home is to check on residents every two hours. The facility also provided Resident No. 4 with a variety of devices to reduce her risk of falling or any injuries sustained from a fall. These devices included a lap buddy, a criss-cross belt, a roll belt while in bed, a low bed, and a body alarm. Some of the devices were discontinued because they were inappropriate for Resident No. 4. In December 2001, the roll belt was discontinued after Resident No. 4, while attempting to get out of bed, became entangled in the roll belt and strangled herself with it. On May 6, 2002, the low bed and fall mat were discontinued for Resident No. 4. The doctor ordered Resident No. 4 be placed in a bed with full side rails. The doctor discontinued the low bed because it could not be raised to a position that would help alleviate fluid build-up in Resident No. 4’s lungs caused by Resident No. 4’s congestive heart failure. Discontinuance of the low bed was also requested by hospice staff and the resident’s daughter to afford the resident more comfort in a raised bed. The fact that placement in a regular raised bed potentially could result in an increase in the seriousness of injury from a fall from that bed was obvious to any reasonable person. The May 5, 2002, nurses’ notes indicate that there was a discussion with Resident No. 4’s daughter about returning the resident to a high bed for comfort. On balance, the placement of Resident No. 4 in a regular raised bed was medically warranted, as well as reasonable. The placement in a regular bed with side rails was not noted directly in the care plan but was contained in the doctor’s orders and was well known by all the facility’s staff. There was no evidence that directly mentioned the regular bed in the formal care plan was required or that the failure to do so had any consequence to Resident No. 4’s care. Even a lack of documentation clearly would not constitute a Class II deficiency. Moreover, the bed with side rails was not ordered to protect or prevent falls by Resident No. 4. The facility does not consider a bed with side rails of any sort to be a device which assists in the prevention of falls. Indeed rails often cause falls or increase the injury from a fall. In this case, the rails were ordered so that the resident could more easily position herself in the bed to maintain a comfortable position. Again, the decision to place Resident No. 4 in a regular raised bed with side rails was reasonable. The focus is on comfort as opposed to aggressive care for hospice residents. The evidence did not demonstrate that Bayside Manor failed to adequately supervise or provide assistive devices to Resident No. 4. There was no evidence that reassessment would have shown Resident No. 4 to be at any higher risk for falls, since she was already rated as a high risk for falls. Nor did the evidence show that reassessment would have changed any of the care given to Resident No. 4 or changed the type bed in which she was most comfortable.
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 restoring the Respondent’s licensure status to Standard and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 3rd day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanna Daniels, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by Petitioner and was so licensed at all times here relevant. On 6-7 August 1979 Petitioner conducted a survey (inspection) of Respondent's facility and upon completion submitted HRS Form 553D (Exhibit 1). This report of inspection listed no Class I deficiency, one Class II deficiency and 19 class III deficiencies. The Class II deficiency noted was that medications are being administered not in accordance with physician's orders. On Exhibits 1 and 2, five examples of this Class II deficiency are listed where specific drugs or other medications were not recorded, not administered in accordance with physician's orders. Or in which the incorrect dosage was administered and/or recorded as having been given. At a follow-up inspection on or about September 27, 1979, the results of which are memorialized in HRS For 553E (Exhibit2), the Class II deficiency is noted as corrected. By letter dated December 17, 1979 Petitioner notified Respondent that despite Respondent's representations made at an informal conference on 6 December 1979 the "C" rating would stand and advised Respondent of his right to appeal by requesting an administrative hearing within 30 days. Such a request was duly made which let to the instant proceedings.
Recommendation DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of June 1980. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire District XI Legal Counsel, HRS 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Barry D. Schrieber, Esquire Suite 301, County National Bank Building 801 Northeast 167th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what sanction(s), if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent operates a 120-bed Skilled Nursing Facility located at 1990 S. Canal Drive, Homestead, Florida 33035 (Facility) pursuant to a license issued by the Agency. At all times material to the instant case, Edwin Coelho was the administrator of the Facility; Linda Howell was the LPN clinical coordinator at the Facility; Diane Doyle was the Facility's staff educator and infection control nurse; and Isela Palacios and Rosa Romero were Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) on the Facility's staff. At all times material to the instant case, E. H. was a resident of the Facility. On July 8, 2004, prior to her admission to the Facility, E. H. suffered a spiral/oblique fracture of her right distal tibia and fibula. Such a fracture is "usually caused by some sort of torque on the bone." At the time of her injury, E. H. was an 89-year-old woman with osteoporosis2 who had been "nonambulatory for nine years." Her bones were "very fragile" and "brittle" and "subject to easily be[ing] fractured" as a result of mere "movement." E. H. was treated by Felix Stanziola, M. D., an orthopedic specialist. Because of E. H.’s age and condition, Dr. Stanziola treated E. H.'s fracture conservatively by "align[ing] the bones and then put[ting on] a [long leg] cast." No surgery was performed. In August of 2004, E. H. became a resident of the Facility. Her right leg was still in a "long leg cast" at the time of her admission. On September 1, 2004, E. H. was transported from the Facility to Dr. Stanziola's office, where Dr. Stanziola removed her "long leg" cast and put her in a "short leg cast." On September 29, 2004, E. H. was again transported from the Facility to Dr. Stanziola's office. During this visit, Dr. Stanziola determined that the "fracture was healed" and, based on this determination, removed the cast he had put on E. H.'s leg the previous visit. Because E. H. was experiencing "knee pain" as a result of "severe arthritis," Dr. Stanziola "ordered physical therapy" for her. Throughout her stay at the Facility, both before and after the cast was removed, E. H. was nonambulatory and bedridden, requiring "total care" except for feeding.3 Facility staff had to reposition her in bed every two hours "because she could not reposition herself." When she needed to be moved either out of, or back onto, her bed (and the need arose "virtually every day"), Facility staff used a Marisa "sling lift" (Marisa) to make the transfer. This was "the safest way to move her." Other non- weight bearing residents in the Facility were also moved using a Marisa. A Marisa is a mobile, electric lift consisting of a U- shaped base and an upright post, on which is mounted a curved arm with a "tilting spreader bar." A head and body support sling, which "cradles" and supports the resident above the knees, is attached to the "tilting spreader bar." The operating controls are located on the back of the upright post. There is also a "remote" device that can be used to operate the lift. In making a transfer using the Marisa, the curved arm is first positioned over the resident. Then, two Facility staff members, situated in front of the resident, with the aid of a "Maxislide," slide the sling "right up under [the resident's] buttocks so it supports [the resident] from the knees back." To do this, the resident's "legs have to be lifted manually," but "only a very small amount." During the lift, the resident's lower legs (beneath the knee), which are unsupported, can swing freely. At all times material to the instant case, the Facility had policies and procedures in place that its staff were to follow in making a "patient lift/transfer." These policies and procedures included the following, among others: Every precaution is used to safeguard the patient when making a mechanical or manual lift, transfer or move. Plan any lift, transfer or move ahead of time. Have the proper equipment or personnel on hand. Ensure everyone involved in the task understands his or her role in the transfer, lift or move. Arrange the environment as necessary. Make sure there is appropriate space to maneuver and work in to ensure a safe lift, transfer or move. * * * Prior to using a mechanical lifting device the nurse will ensure proper planning for the transfer/lift has been accomplished and will request assistance [when] required for any difficult lift/transfer. CNAs Palacios and Romero received training in these policies and procedures prior to December 8, 2004. E. H. received a shower every other day in the shower room, which was two rooms down the hallway from the room E. H. occupied at all times material to the instant case. In the shower room, she was bathed while seated in a shower chair (which had wheels) by "shower CNAs." The shower chair that was used did not have a footrest, nor any other device or feature to prevent E. H.'s lower legs from swinging freely when being wheeled in the chair. The "shower CNAs" had to lift E. H.'s legs to bathe them properly. On December 8, 2004, CNA Palacios, with the assistance of another CNA, used the Marisa to transfer E. H. from her bed to a shower chair. The transfer was safely accomplished, without incident, like every prior transfer of E. H., since her arrival at the Facility, had been. CNA Palacios then wheeled E. H. in the shower chair to the shower room, where the "shower CNAs" bathed E. H. After bathing E. H., the "shower CNAs" placed a "covering" on her and wheeled her into the hallway, where CNA Palacios was waiting. CNA Palacios then wheeled E. H. back to E. H.'s room. E. H. had remained in the shower chair the entire time she had been out of her room. E. H.'s room (which she shared with another resident) was a "standard" 12-foot by 24-foot semi-private room with a small bathroom (having just a sink and toilet). When E. H. returned from her shower on December 8, 2004, in her room (taking up floor space) outside the bathroom, were: two beds (eight feet by three feet); two night stands (18 inches by 30 inches); two wardrobe closets (23 inches by 22 inches); two "over the bed" tables; a reclining chair (30 inches by 30 inches); a television stand (24 inches by 14 inches); an oxygen concentrator; a high back chair (22 inches by 26 inches); E. H.'s wheelchair; and the shower chair in which E. H. was seated. These were the same items that had been present in the room earlier that day when E. H. had been moved (safely, with the Marisa) from her bed to the shower chair. On Respondent's side of the room (the "A" side, which was closest to the door) were one of the beds, one of the nightstands, one of the "over the bed" tables, both of the wardrobe closets, the high back chair, the wheelchair, and the shower chair (with E. H. in it). The remaining items were on the other resident's side of the room (the "B" side). The high back chair was located against the wall next to the wardrobe closets (which were to the left as one entered the room). The high back chair was in the room, not for E. H. or her roommate to sit on, but for visitors to use. After wheeling E. H. back into the room in the shower chair, CNA Palacios went to get the Marisa, which was "right outside the door" to the room. There, she met CNA Romero, who volunteered to help CNA Palacios transfer E. H., with the Marisa, from the shower chair to E. H.'s wheelchair. CNA Palacios then went back into E. H.'s room with the Marisa, followed by CNA Romero. The Marisa was positioned so that its curved arm was over the shower chair in which E. H. was seated. CNAs Palacios and Romero then secured E. H. in the sling and the lift began, with CNA Palacios at the controls and CNA Romero next to E. H. (who was facing in the general direction of the door). The wheelchair (into which E. H. was to be placed) was between the shower chair and the high back chair. During the lift, E. H.'s roommate (who was behind a privacy curtain) asked for CNA Palacios' assistance. CNA Palacios responded that she would "be there in a minute," after which she continued to focus her attention on operating the Marisa and completing the lift. Before the lift was completed, CNA Romero advised CNA Palacios that there was blood on the floor directly below E. H.'s right leg. Up until that point in time, nothing unusual had occurred during the lift, such as E. H. bumping into or hitting something or expressing discomfort. Upon being told about the blood, CNA Palacios turned off the Marisa. CNA Romero then removed the covering that the "shower CNAs" had placed on E. H.'s legs. It was apparent that E. H. had suffered a compound fracture (that is, a fracture where "the bone was protruding through the [skin]") of her right lower leg. There was considerable bleeding. The blood was dripping onto the floor in the area beneath the injured leg. There was no blood anywhere else inside or outside the room (other than on E. H. and CNA Romero's pants). Once E. H.'s injury was discovered, nurses were summoned to the room. After the nurses had stabilized E. H.'s leg, the Marisa was turned on again and E. H. was moved back onto her bed. It was not until she was on the bed that E. H. first gave "any indication of discomfort." Emergency rescue workers were called. After they arrived on the scene, E. H. was transported to the hospital by helicopter. X-rays revealed that that E. H. had a "new" spiral/oblique fracture "just above" where she had fractured her leg on July 8, 2004. Shortly after E. H. was taken to the hospital, the Facility began an investigation to determine what had happened to cause her injury. LPN Howell was the staff member put in charge of the investigation. Among the individuals LPN Howell interviewed as part of her investigation were CNAs Palacios and Romero. CNA Palacios was interviewed within an hour of the incident. CNA Romero was interviewed within two and half hours of the incident.4 Both CNAs told LPN Howell that they did not know how E. H. had been injured. CNAs Palacios and Romero were subsequently asked to give written statements about the incident. The written statement CNA Palacios provided read as follows: She came back from the shower on the chair. I put the sling on her back. Rosa help[ed] me. We put the machine Maris[]a [to] get her up. The Mari[]sa pick[ed] her up in the air. Then we put her in the wheelchair. Then we notice[d] blood on the floor. I went out to get nurse [G]eorge. Everybody went to help. I did not hear her foot bump or hit anything. The written statement CNA Romero gave read as follows: I, Rosa Romero was assisting Isela Palacios transferring a resident in . . . Room 304 A from the shower chair to the wheelchair with the hoyer l[i]fter and her leg got caught in it. We didn't notice she was hurt until she was s[it]ting in the wheelchair when we saw lot[s] [of] blood on the floor. Isela and I w[ere] helping each o[ther] and we did everything the right way, the way [it] is supposed to be [done]. Notwithstanding the assertion CNA Romero made in her written statement that E. H.'s "leg got caught in it," there is "nothing [in the Marisa] to get caught in."5 After completing her interviews on December 8, 2004, LPN Howell spoke to her supervisor, Facility Administrator Coelho, who also serves as the Facility's risk manager. Facility Administrator Coelho told LPN Howell that he "was going to check things out himself." To this end, he participated in several "reenactments" of what had transpired in E. H.'s room after she had come back from her shower on December 8, 2004, in an effort to ascertain how E. H. may have injured herself. The "reenactments" took place in E. H.'s room. "[I]tems [in the room] were placed" where, according to CNAs Palacios and Romero, they had been at the time of the incident. Facility Administrator Coelho played the role of E. H. "[O]ne of the CNAs" operated the controls of the Marisa and, using the machine, lifted Facility Administrator Coelho out of the shower chair and into E. H.'s wheelchair. This was done "about three times." At no time did Facility Administrator Coelho come close to "hit[ting] anything inside" the room. The Facility administration submitted required reports concerning E. H.'s injury. LPN Howell prepared the "Federal 5-day Report," which Facility Administrator Coelho reviewed and discussed with her before its submission. This report contained the following "findings of facility investigation": After completion of interviews, the area and equipment involved were checked. It is determined that the area was crowded due to the size of the resident, the size of the shower chair, the size of the w/c, the size of the Marisa lift and the furniture along with the constant request of the other resident in the room distracted the staff when the resident was moved to position the Marisa sling over the w/c. The procedures in place at the time for safety of both residents and staff were being followed but a lack in focus or concentration led to the injury.[6] There is no evidence of intent to do harm on the part of the staff members involved. The staff members were suspended without pay for 5 days and have returned to work effective 12-13-04.[7] Facility Administrator Coelho authored an "Administrative Incident Report," in which he stated that the Facility administrations's investigation revealed "no definitive reason for the accident," but that it "was assumed that in turning the resident while she was on the sling her leg got caught on the high back chair" in the room. He added that the Facility administration was taking action to remove high back chairs from rooms of residents who "ha[d] to be lifted." The high back chairs were removed from E. H.'s room and the rooms of other residents who "ha[d] to be lifted" on or about December 10, 2006. The Facility administration did so only out of an abundance of caution, not because it had determined with any certitude that the presence of the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, constituted a hazardous condition that resulted in E. H.'s injury. Prior to the incident on December 8, 2004, there had never been a problem at the Facility in lifting E. H. or any other resident in a room with a high back chair. The lifting of residents in rooms set up like E. H.'s had "happened all the time in [the] building" without any resident getting injured. At no time during this period had the Facility been cited by the Agency, during any life safety inspection, for failing to comply with requirements concerning the design and equipping of residents' rooms.8 Having the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, did not unreasonably expose E. H. to the risk of accidental injury while being lifted with the Marisa. Even with the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, there was adequate space for trained Facility staff, acting in a reasonably prudent manner in accordance with Facility policy and procedure, to lift E. H. with the Marisa (as had been done in the past) without E. H.'s bumping into something and injuring herself. It is unclear exactly what caused E. H. to suffer a compound fracture of her right lower leg on December 8, 2004.9 What is clear is that this injury was not the result of her having gotten her leg "caught" in the Marisa or on the high back chair while being lifted from the shower chair. During the lift, her leg did not hit against any object in the room.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of June, 2006.
