Similar Cases - Case Laws -- eLawyers

Find Similar Cases by Filters

You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.

Find 49 similar cases

FORUM GROUP, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 87-000670 (1987)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-000670 Latest Update: Jun. 30, 1988

Florida Laws (4) 120.57, 213.75, 651.118, 90.704

# 1

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs HARBOUR HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, D/B/A HARBOUR HEALTH CENTER, 04-004635 (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Port Charlotte, Florida Dec. 27, 2004 Number: 04-004635 Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2008

The Issue Whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) lawfully assigned conditional licensure status to Harbour Health Center for the period June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004; whether, based upon clear and convincing evidence, Harbour Health Center violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 483.25, as alleged by AHCA; and, if so, the amount of any fine based upon the determination of the scope and severity of the violation, as required by Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004).

Findings Of Fact Based upon stipulations, deposition, oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and the entire record of the proceeding, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, AHCA was the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and the assignment of a licensure status pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2004). AHCA is charged with the responsibility of evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, AHCA is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, which states that "[n]ursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 C.F.R. §483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference." The facility is a licensed nursing facility located in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under Subsection 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2004), are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is, also, determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and which is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. To assist in identifying and interpreting deficient practices, surveyors use Guides for Information Analysis Deficiency Determination/Categorization Maps and Matrices. On, or about, June 14 through 17, 2004, AHCA conducted an annual recertification survey of the facility. As to federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged, as a result of this survey, that the facility was not in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25 (Tag F309) for failing to provide necessary care and services for three of 21 sampled residents to attain or maintain their respective highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. As to the state requirements of Subsections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2004), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that the facility had failed to comply with state requirements and, under the Florida classification system, classified the Federal Tag F309 non-compliance as a state Class II deficiency. Should the facility be found to have committed any of the alleged deficient practices, the period of the conditional licensure status would extend from June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004. Resident 8 Resident 8's attending physician ordered a protective device to protect the uninjured left ankle and lower leg from injury caused by abrasive contact with the casted right ankle and leg. Resident 8 repeatedly kicked off the protective device, leaving her uninjured ankle and leg exposed. A 2.5 cm abrasion was noted on the unprotected ankle. The surveyors noted finding the protective device in Resident 8's bed but removed from her ankle and leg. Resident 8 was an active patient and had unsupervised visits with her husband who resided in the same facility but who did not suffer from dementia. No direct evidence was received on the cause of the abrasion noted on Resident 8's ankle. Given Resident 8's demonstrated propensity to kick off the protective device, the facility should have utilized a method of affixing the protective device, which would have defeated Resident 8's inclination to remove it. The facility's failure to ensure that Resident 8 could not remove a protective device hardly rises to the level of a failure to maintain a standard of care which compromises the resident's ability to maintain or reach her highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being. The failure to ensure that the protective device could not be removed would result in no more than minimal discomfort. Resident 10 Resident 10 has terminal diagnoses which include end- stage coronary artery disease and progressive dementia and receives hospice services from a local Hospice and its staff. In the Hospice nurse's notes for Resident 10, on her weekly visit, on May 17, 2004, was the observation that the right eye has drainage consistent with a cold. On May 26, 2004, the same Hospice nurse saw Resident 10 and noted that the cold was gone. No eye drainage was noted. No eye drainage was noted between that date and June 2, 2004. On June 3, 2004, eye drainage was noted and, on June 4, 2004, a culture of the drainage was ordered. On June 7, 2004, the lab report was received and showed that Resident 10 had a bacterial eye infection with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bacteria. On June 8, 2004, the attending physician, Dr. Brinson, referred the matter to a physician specializing in infectious disease, and Resident 10 was placed in contact isolation. The infectious disease specialist to whom Resident 10 was initially referred was not available, and, as a result, no treatment was undertaken until a second specialist prescribed Bactrim on June 14, 2004. From June 8, 2004, until June 14, 2004, Resident 10 did not demonstrate any outward manifestations of the diagnosed eye infection. A June 9, 2004, quarterly pain assessment failed to note any discomfort, eye drainage or discoloration. In addition to noting that neither infectious control specialist had seen Resident 10, the nurses notes for this period note an absence of symptoms of eye infection. Colonized MRSA is not uncommon in nursing homes. A significant percentage of nursing home employees test positive for MRSA. The lab results for Resident 10 noted "NO WBC'S SEEN," indicating that the infection was colonized or inactive. By placing Resident 10 in contact isolation on June 8, 2004, risk of the spread of the infection was reduced, in fact, no other reports of eye infection were noted during the relevant period. According to Dr. Brinson, Resident 10's attending physician, not treating Resident 10 for MRSA would have been appropriate. The infectious disease specialist, however, treated her with a bacterial static antibiotic. That is, an antibiotic which inhibits further growth, not a bactericide, which actively destroys bacteria. Had this been an active infectious process, a more aggressive treatment regimen would have been appropriate. Ann Sarantos, who testified as an expert witness in nursing, opined that there was a lack of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice and that the delay in treatment of Resident 10's MRSA presented an unacceptable risk to Resident 10 and the entire resident population. Hospice's Lynn Ann Lima, a registered nurse, testified with specificity as to the level of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice. She indicated a high level of communication and treatment coordination. Dr. Brinson, who, in addition to being Resident 10's attending physician, was the facility's medical director, opined that Resident 10 was treated appropriately. He pointed out that Resident 10 was a terminally-ill patient, not in acute pain or distress, and that no harm was done to her. The testimony of Hospice Nurse Lima and Dr. Brinson is more credible. Resident 16 Resident 16 was readmitted from the hospital to the facility on May 24, 2004, with a terminal diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was receiving Hospice care. Roxanol, a morphine pain medication, had been prescribed for Resident 16 for pain on a pro re nata (p.r.n.), or as necessary, basis, based on the judgment of the registered nurse or attending physician. Roxanol was given to Resident 16 in May and on June 1 and 2, 2004. The observations of the surveyor took place on June 17, 2004. On June 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 16 underwent wound care treatment which required the removal of her sweater, transfer from sitting upright in a chair to the bed, and being placed on the left side for treatment. During the transfer and sweater removal, Resident 16 made noises which were variously described as "oohs and aahs" or "ows," depending on the particular witness. The noises were described as typical noises for Resident 16 or evidences of pain, depending on the observer. Nursing staff familiar with Resident 16 described that she would demonstrate pain by fidgeting with a blanket or stuffed animal, or that a tear would come to her eye, and that she would not necessarily have cried out. According to facility employees, Resident 16 did not demonstrate any of her typical behaviors indicating pain on this occasion, and she had never required pain medication for the wound cleansing procedure before. An order for pain medication available "p.r.n.," requires a formalized pain assessment by a registered nurse prior to administration. While pain assessments had been done on previous occasions, no formal pain assessment was done during the wound cleansing procedure. A pain assessment was to be performed in the late afternoon of the same day; however, Resident 16 was sleeping comfortably. The testimony on whether or not inquiry was made during the wound cleansing treatment as to whether Resident 16 was "in pain," "okay," or "comfortable," differs. Resident 16 did not receive any pain medication of any sort during the period of time she was observed by the surveyor. AHCA determined that Resident 16 had not received the requisite pain management, and, as a result, Resident 16’s pain went untreated, resulting in harm characterized as a State Class II deficiency. AHCA's determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In the context that the surveyor considered what she interpreted as Resident 16's apparent pain, deference should have been given to the caregivers who regularly administered to Resident 16 and were familiar with her observable indications of pain. Their interpretation of Resident 16's conduct and their explanation for not undertaking a formal pain assessment are logical and are credible.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding: The facility's failure to secure the protective device to Resident 8's lower leg is not a Class II deficiency, but a Class III deficiency. The facility's care and treatment of Residents 10 and 16 did not fall below the requisite standard. The imposition of a conditional license for the period of June 17 to June 29, 2004, is unwarranted. The facility should have its standard licensure status restored for this period. No administrative fine should be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Eric Bredemeyer, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308

CFR (1) 42 CFR 483 Florida Laws (4) 120.569, 120.57, 400.021, 400.23

# 2

WUESTHOFF HEALTH SERVICES, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 85-002868 (1985)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 85-002868 Latest Update: Jan. 26, 1987

Florida Laws (1) 120.57

# 3

DIVERSICARE CORPORATION, INC., D/B/A DESOTO MANOR vs. HEALTH CARE MEDICAL FACILITY XXVI, PARTNERSHIP, 84-000244 (1984)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-000244 Latest Update: Jun. 12, 1985

Findings Of Fact Heritage Hall is a partnership, domiciled in the State of Virginia, which owns and operates ten nursing homes in that state. Heritage Hall did not, at the time of the close of this record, own or operate, nor have under completed construction, any nursing home in Florida. Heritage Hall filed a "letter of intent to construct, own and operate a 60-bed nursing home in the counties of Collier, DeSoto, Highlands, and Lee. On July 15, 1983, Heritage Hall filed the specific Certificate of Need application at issue with HRS, requesting authorization to construct a 60-bed freestanding nursing home in DeSoto County. That application was deemed complete on September 15, 1983, and a free form decision was made to grant it by HRS on December 1, 1983. The proposed nursing home would be located in the vicinity of Arcadia, in DeSoto County, a subdistrict of HRS District VIII. Diversicare Corporation, Inc. d/b/a DeSoto Manor Nursing Home (DeSoto Manor), (Diversicare), owns and operates DeSoto Manor Nursing Home, an existing 60-bed nursing home facility located in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. On November 3, 1983, Diversicare filed a Letter of Intent with HRS announcing its intention to seek a Certificate of Need for an addition to its DeSoto County facility. It ultimately filed an application seeking authorization for a 36-bed nursing home addition on January 12, 1984. No additional information was requested by HRS and the application became complete by operation of law on March 15, 1984. That application is thus in a separate and later batch for purposes of Rule 10-5.08, Florida Administrative Code, and thus was not comparatively reviewed with the application in the case at bar as a competing application. On May 1, 1984, HRS notified Diversicare of its intent to deny its application for the 36-bed addition. Heritage Hall proposes to construct a 60-bed nursing home at a total cost of $1,597,293. This specific cost of construction, not including land acquisition cost, is proposed to be $1,070,740. The nursing home's cost of construction allocated on a per bed basis would be $26,622. Heritage Hall proposes to finance this project to a tax-exempt bond issue in an aggregate amount of $1,436,075, carrying a 10 percent interest rate with a 30-year maturity. Additionally, the Heritage Hall partnership would invest $161,218. Heritage Hall projects that once it begins operation of the proposed new nursing home, that a 97 percent occupancy level for the proposed 60 beds would be reached within six months. Included within that projection, Heritage Hall projects that 49 percent of the patient revenues would come from Medicaid reimbursement, that 10 percent would come from Medicare reimbursement, and that 40 percent of its revenues would be attributable to private paying patients, not included within any relevant government entitlement programs. The remaining one per cent of its patient revenue base would be charged off and attributable to bad debt, or indigent patients. Heritage Hall proposes charges for its Medicare and Medicaid patients to constitute $62.39 per day, and its charges for private paying patients would be $68.00 a day for a private room, and $65.00 per day for a semiprivate room. It proposes to staff its facility with five registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses (LPN), 17 nurses aides, and an administrative and miscellaneous employee staff of 16, for a total staff for a 60- bed nursing home of 44 employees. DeSoto Manor's present patient population is largely composed of Medicaid and Medicare patients, such that 84 percent of its revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare sources. Its private paying patients are a small minority contributing 16 percent of its total patient revenues. DeSoto Manor has consistently experienced 99 - 100 percent occupancy for all of 1983 and 1984, upon which is earned a net income for fiscal year 1983 of approximately $15,000. DeSoto Manor presently employs on its staff 2.2 registered nurses, 5.6 LPN's, 17.1 aides, and 17.4 administrative and miscellaneous employees, those figures being expressed in terms of full-time equivalent employees in those categories. DeSoto Manor's application filed in a later batch is not at issue in this proceeding, in terms of comparative review for the purpose of determining whether Heritages Hall or DeSoto Manor is entitled to a Certificate of Need for DeSoto County nursing home beds as a result of this proceeding. Such a proposal, however, to add additional beds to an existing nursing home, is worthy of consideration as an alternative means of providing nursing home services to the public in District VIII, and specifically the subdistrict of DeSoto County, pursuant to authority cited infra. In that vein, DeSoto Manor proposes to add 36 additional beds at a total cost of $767,337, including involving a construction cost of $541,280, which is equivalent to a $21,260 cost per bed for the proposed 36-bed addition. DeSoto Manor would require the equivalent of 17.3 full time additional staff members, if such an addition (a 36-bed addition) were approved and built. DeSoto Manor charges will be (on January 1, 1985) $45.56 a day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $47.00 a day for its private pay patients. If its 36-bed addition were installed, it would charge $49.31 per day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $53.00 a day for private paying patients. DeSoto County is a relatively small county geographically, located inland from the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico in District VIII. It is a rural county in character, as that term relates to its economic base being largely agriculture, and its low population density, with its population center being in the only sizable community of Arcadia, the county seat, located approximately in the geographic center of the county. It is surrounded by Sarasota, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. Highlands and Hardee Counties are in District VI, with Sarasota, Charlotte and DeSoto Counties being in District VIII, as are Lee, Collier, Glades and Hendry Counties. In 1987, DeSoto County is expected to have a population of 3,749 persons age 65 and over. The county is not experiencing a significant rate of growth at this time, nor is it expected to through 1987, the pertinent "horizon" year. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the nursing home bed need methodology, HRS computes a need for additional nursing home beds in its health care districts and sub-districts, first by determining "actual need" or the "area specific bed need allocation." The actual need for additional nursing home beds is computed by means of a population based formula embodied in that rule. The second step of the need/availability determination process involves determining how many beds above or below the actual need determined may be added before the utilization in the district or subdistrict falls below 80 or 85 percent. The actual need or "area specific allocation" is determined by multiplying the poverty ratio for the district or subdistrict by the statewide nursing home bed need ratio of 27 per 1,000 persons age 65 and older, and the population of the district or subdistrict age 65 and older, and then subtracting from this computation the number of existing nursing home beds within the district or subdistrict. Within District VIII, the poverty ratio equals 8.61 divided by 12.70, the relevant population of the district for the applicable year being 213,561, with the population for DeSoto County, as a subdistrict, being 3,749 persons age 65 and older. There were 3,671 licensed nursing home beds in District VIII at the time of the hearing, and there were 1,130 beds approved, but not yet licensed or open in the district. There were 60 licensed and operating nursing home beds in DeSoto County. There were 3,904 actually "needed" or allocated beds in District VIII, which, when added to those beds approved but not yet licensed and operating, total an aggregate of 4,801 licensed and approved beds in the district. Thus, there are 997 excess nursing home beds over and above those actually needed in District VIII by 1987, according to the population based formula used in the first part of the need/availability determination process embodied in the above-cited rule. There is an actual need in DeSoto County alone of nine additional nursing home beds by 1987, based upon the subdistrict actual need allocation determined by the first part of the above methodology process of 69 beds. The second part of the need/availability determination process computes how many additional beds can be added to a district or subdistrict before the occupancy rates of nursing home beds in the district or subdistrict fall below the applicable rule mandated percentage. In DeSoto County, the applicable percentage is 80 per cent, because the subdistrict of DeSoto County indicates some need for additional beds, although the district as a whole has excess beds with no additional actual bed need shown. Thus, based upon the entire applicable computation, 15 beds may be added to DeSoto County before utilization of nursing home beds in the county will drop below the threshold of 80 percent. It has thus been established that if 60 beds are added to the bed supply in DeSoto County, for instance by a grant of the instant application, the utilization of nursing home beds will decline to approximately 50 percent. Under the above rule methodology, HRS, in adhering to the requirements of that rule, would not normally grant a certificate of need when only a small number of additional nursing home beds are computed to be available under that formula, that is, for a new freestanding nursing home facility. It is undisputed that construction of a new nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered to be financially feasible. That rule of thumb does not apply, however, to the addition of beds to an existing, already-built parent facility, and it is undisputed that the addition of needed beds to an existing facility is more cost-effective in terms of construction costs and staffing, than the construction of a new facility. In its review process, with regard to the instant application and proceeding, HRS did not consider the alternative of adding new needed beds to the existing facility operated by Diversicare (DeSoto Manor), since the Diversicare application was not filed in the same batching cycle as the application at bar filed by Heritage Hall. Although the nursing home bed need determination formula reveals a maximum need of 15 beds for DeSoto County by 1987, HRS proposes to approve 60 beds in conjunction with the Heritage Hall application. In its review process, HRS took into account the fact that DeSoto and surrounding counties in District VIII were experiencing high occupancy rates as to existing licensed beds, and took the position then and in this proceeding that residents of DeSoto County needing nursing home care would have difficulty finding available nursing home beds. HRS failed to take into consideration, in its review process, the additional number of nursing home beds which had been approved in surrounding counties (as pertinent hereto, the surrounding counties of District VIII), but which were not yet licensed and actually operating. Thus, at the time of hearing there were 301 approved but not yet opened beds in Charlotte County, 97 approved but not yet operating beds in Collier County, 222 approved but not yet opened beds in Lee County and 597 approved but not yet operating beds in Sarasota County. Thus, the approved but not yet licensed and operating beds will result in an increase of 1,217 beds available, when open, to the residents of DeSoto and the adjacent counties of District VIII. 1/ The applicant and HRS seek to justify the approval of 60 additional beds in DeSoto County by reference to the high utilization rates being experienced in adjacent counties. As pertinent hereto, Charlotte County was experiencing an occupancy rate of 99 percent, Sarasota was at 88 percent occupancy, Lee County at 91.5 percent, with Collier County at 64.5 percent. Those figures do not take into account the latest nursing home District VIII occupancy figures as of June 29, 1984 which reflect the above-discussed additional approved, but not yet opened beds, and which result in the occupancy rates in these counties falling substantially. Thus, Charlotte is now experiencing only an 80.4 percent occupancy, for instance, with Sarasota County falling to a 78.5 per cent occupancy, with lowered occupancy rates resulting in Lee and Collier County as well with the addition of the approved, but not yet opened beds. These lowered occupancy rates resulting from the opening of these approved, but not yet licensed beds, were not considered by HRS at the time of its initial review, and free form grant of the certificate of need at issue. The opening of these hundreds of additional beds will continue to reduce occupancy in those counties and provide available beds to residents of District VIII and to residents of DeSoto County, to the extent those beds in the other counties are deemed accessible. HRS admitted at hearing that the availability of beds has increased in the district since its first review of the application. The financial feasibility of the Heritage Hall proposal depends upon an assumed 97 percent occupancy in its sixth month of operation, and projects that 40 percent of the revenues will be derived from private, paying patients. The 97 percent occupancy is an optimistic projection however, because only nine beds are shown to be actually needed in the county by 1987, and only 15 beds can be added before occupancy will drop below 80 percent. The addition of 60 beds would drop occupancy at DeSoto Manor and the proposed Heritage Hall facility, if built, to 50 percent. The Heritage Hall projection for revenues from private, paying patients which is 40 percent, is substantially more than the current revenue source from private, paying patients experienced by DeSoto Manor of 16 percent. In order to achieve such an occupancy rate in such a short time, and such a higher percentage of private, paying patient revenues, Heritage Hall must aggressively market its new facility and nursing home service so as to attract private, paying patients. Based upon historical evidence of record, it is likely that the patient base in DeSoto County itself will not support such a high percentage of private, paying patients and such patients will doubtless have to come from other areas or counties in the district, specifically the counties lying along the coast of District VIII. There is no evidence to establish that nursing home patients in the coastal counties have any inclination to seek nursing home care in DeSoto County, particularly because those coastal counties are already experiencing lowered occupancy rates, and nursing homes there need more patients. There is thus no demonstration that residents of the coastal counties in District VIII (or other adjacent counties for that matter) would travel to DeSoto County for nursing home care when there are empty beds available to them closer to their homes or the homes of their families in those counties. Heritage Hall proposes to recruit its staff from DeSoto County and the surrounding geographical area. DeSoto Manor however, itself is currently experiencing severe problems in recruiting registered nurses for its facility, in spite of repeated advertising and recruitment attempts. Potential staff members share a reluctance in becoming employed at DeSoto Manor, which lies in an isolated, rural area, and which must compete with the many nursing homes lying in the coastal areas in the other counties of District VIII for staff, and which areas offer more living amenities in general, than does the isolated, rural, small community setting in which DeSoto Manor is located. Indeed, other District VIII nursing home administrators have contacted the administrator of DeSoto Manor, in her capacity as administrator, as well as in her capacity as president of the Florida Health Care Association for District VIII, seeking assistance in obtaining additional staff for their facilities. Approval of the Heritage Hall application will, in effect, double the competition for staff members for nursing homes in DeSoto County, and will concomitantly, increase DeSoto Manor's present difficulties in obtaining and retaining appropriate employees. In calculating the financial impact which an additional 60-bed nursing home would have on the existing DeSoto Manor facility, DeSoto Manor assumed that the number of nursing home beds said to be available before occupancy dropped below 80 per cent, which includes the proposed 15 additional beds, would be full of patients and that these patients would be evenly split between the two nursing homes in the county. Thus, each nursing home would have approximately 37.5 patients in its respective 60-bed facility. In this event, and taking into account the concomitant reduction in staff, salaries and other per patient expenses because of a reduction in the number of patients, the proposed Heritage Hall facility would likely experience a net loss of approximately $232,587 for the first year of operation of its additional facility. DeSoto Manor's Medicaid reimbursement revenues would fall $31,722 below DeSoto Manor's actual cost of providing Medicaid patient care. Thus, in order to recover lost revenues and achieve a break-even profit and loss status, a significant increase in patient charges over existing charges would be necessary. The weight of such increase in patient charges would have to fall upon the private, paying patients in the revenue mix of each nursing home, because of the inflexible nature of the current Medicaid reimbursement scheme. In evaluating the DeSoto County population's accessibility to nursing home services, HRS admittedly did not take into account the provisions of Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which is the local health plan as it relates to nursing home planning adopted in the most current HRS rules. This local health plan provides for nursing home services to be available within a one hour travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of the residents of District VIII. The president of the District VIII chapter of the Florida Health Care Association, who is the administrator of DeSoto Manor, is aware of at least ten nursing homes within a one hour drive of Arcadia and at least three others within that radius which are under construction, a significant number of which are in District VIII. Arcadia is located in the center of DeSoto County. All counties surrounding DeSoto County in District VIII have substantial numbers of approved beds which have not yet been opened and at least Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, which are adjacent to DeSoto County have occupancy rates in the neighborhood of 80 percent or less. The applicant did not establish, in furtherance of its attempted justification of 60 additional beds for DeSoto County, the lack of accessibility to DeSoto County nursing home patients of beds in the adjoining counties of District VIII, especially Charlotte and Sarasota, inasmuch as it was not established that those nursing homes in those coastal counties are more than an hour's driving time from the center of DeSoto County. Although, as witness Straughn for HRS established, Sarasota or the more westerly parts of Sarasota County, are approximately 49 miles and roughly an hour driving time from DeSoto County, it was not established that there are not nursing homes available in closer parts of Sarasota County which are accessible in less than an hour's driving time to DeSoto County residents and/or patients. Indeed, witness Porter testifying after the hearing by deposition, established that most of the nursing homes in the coastal counties involved in this proceeding, are within "40 some miles" from the present DeSoto Manor facility and the proposed Heritage Hall facility. Indeed, witness Porter established that Port Charlotte, in the immediate vicinity of which are several nursing homes, and which county is experiencing now an 80.4 percent occupancy rate (with the above-mentioned numbers of approved but not yet installed beds) is only 25 miles from the proposed Arcadia location. Thus, the criteria of the above rule which HRS witnesses failed to take into account, encompasses nursing home beds available or approved in the coastal counties referred to, which are accessible to patients in DeSoto County.

Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the relevant legal authority, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING the application of Heritage Hall to construct a new 60-bed nursing home facility in DeSoto County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1985.

Florida Laws (3) 120.57, 90.202, 90.203

# 4

VENICE HOSPITAL, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 90-002738 (1990)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida May 02, 1990 Number: 90-002738 Latest Update: Aug. 30, 1990

Florida Laws (2) 120.57, 395.003

# 5

BEVERLY ENTERPRISES-FLORIDA, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 84-000022 (1984)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-000022 Latest Update: Aug. 29, 1985

The Issue The ultimate issue, by comparative hearing, is which applicant has submitted an application best meeting the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code. STIPULATIONS At the formal hearing, all parties stipulated that, as a matter of law and fact, there are 60 nursing hone beds needed to be allocated to one of the parties in these proceedings; that the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c)(4), (6), (10), and (11) Florida Statutes were not applicable to this case and that the parties need not demonstrate compliance therewith.

Findings Of Fact The stipulations immediately above are adopted in toto as a finding of fact. (See January 30, 1984 Order herein). It is typically more cost-efficient to add 60 beds to an existing nursing home than to construct a free-standing 60-bed nursing home. In comparing competing projects' costs, total cost per bed (including financing, development, and construction costs) is a more accurate indicator of true financial cost of a project than is cost per square foot. Also, cost per bed is more accurate reflection of what the community must pay for a nursing facility than cost per square foot, since cost per bed takes into account the financing, developing, and construction costs. By comparison, BEVERLY's cost per bed is $19,000, FLC's cost per bed is 21,083 and FLNC's cost per bed is .$18,335. 1/ BEVERLY is a for-profit corporation. By its revised CON application, it proposes a 60-bed addition to its existing 120-bed nursing home, Longwood Health Care Center, located in Seminole County, Florida. BEVERLY has operated the Longwood facility for only 3 years. It is operated under an assumption of lease. Dan Bruns, Director of Acquisitions and Development for BEVERLY, testified that the corporate resolution (B-3) is the authorization for BEVERLY's CON application but that exhibit does not reference the revised 60 bed CON application. Upon the lease terms at Longwood and the corporate resolution, BEVERLY's authority to carry through with a 60 bed addition is suspect. FLC is a six-person investment group which has as yet selected no site and has no firm commitment to a specific site or geographic area within Seminole County for its project. Indeed, the entity which will own the FLC project's physical plant has not yet been created. FLC's revised CON application proposes construction of a 120-bed facility with 60 skilled nursing home beds and 60 beds dedicated for an "adult congregate living facility" (ACLF). ACLFs are exempt from Florida statutory and Florida Administrative Code requirements of qualifying for a CON through Respondent HRS. An effect of this exemption is to make FLC's 60/60 plan generally cost-competitive in light of this order's Fact Paragraph 2, above. 2/ FLC's ACLF portion is designed to comply with all regulations for a skilled nursing facility. FLNC, is a not-for-profit corporation. FLNC is within the health and educational hierarchy of the Seventh Day Adventist faith. Under a recent lease, FLNC is currently operated by Sunbelt Health Care Systems, which operates 26 hospitals and 4 nursing homes, two of which are in Florida. FLNC proposes a 60- bed addition on the same level as its existing 104-bed nursing home in Forest City, Seminole County, Florida. This is to be accomplished by constructing on the north side of the existing nursing home a two story structure with 60 nursing beds on the second floor and the bottom or first floor to be shelled-in space. Shelled-in space in nursing homes is permitted by HRS policy and FLNC proposes this bottom or first floor will be designed to meet all construction and fire codes for a nursing home as well as for an ACLF. Since FLNC's property falts off severely to the north, this proposal constitutes the best and highest use of the property owned by FLNC from an architectural and design point of view. The roofing concept is energy-efficient and the top floor or proposed 60-nursing bed area will be accessible from the existing facility without ever leaving covered or heated space. There will be no significant emergency evacuation problem resulting from this FLNC design and no undue inconvenience to visitors utilizing the parking lot. FLC's and FLNC's proposals have the potential advantage for future "CON competitions" of conversion space if HRS ever allocates more nursing beds to Seminole County in the future. This aspect is immaterial to the issues presented by the present CON applications. BEVERLY is the largest nursing home corporation in the United States and encourages the inference to be drawn that its centralized management has the plus of "corporate giant" purchasing power enabling it to obtain best prices for commodities and to obtain the choicest of staff applicants. FLC asserts similar superiority in national recruitment and hiring practices although upon a much narrower base. Neither of these applicants' assertions was established as a significant variable by competent substantial evidence. FLNC makes no similar assertions. FLC further asserts that it is in an advantageous position with regard to quality of care because it is able to transfer nurses and much of its other staff from facility to facility among its several nursing homes. This assertion has some merit but its financial advantage is offset by FLC's pattern of staffing at a higher level than necessary, the costs of which must eventually be passed on to the patients. As to affirmatively demonstrating superior quality of care, it has limited weight as applied to the facts of this case. BEVERLY's projected total cost for the 60-bed addition is $1,140,000. On a per bed basis, that computes to $19,000 per bed. BEVERLY's total construction cost (including labor, material, contingency, and inflation) is $804,000 but an unknown amount per square foot. By this finding, BEVERLY's premise that its total projected construction cost computes at $50.77 per square foot and the other parties' contention that BEVERLY's cost is $61.84 per square foot are both specifically rejected. 3/ FLC's projected total cost of its facility is $2,300,000. BEVERLY's premise with regard to a contingency fund for FLC was not affirmatively demonstrated, but FLC somewhat arbitrarily allocates 55 percent of its total (or $1,265,000) to the 60-bed nursing home segment. On a per bed basis, this is $21,083 per bed contrary to FLC's assertion of $19,166 per bed. FLC's projected total construction cost of the total proposed facility (nursing wing and ACLF) is $1,488,800, which FLC breaks down as $818,840 or $44.82 per square foot within the nursing home segment/wing. This testimony is, however, somewhat suspect because FLC's architect, Monday, admitted he had not personally prepared these construction costs and because the figure set aside by FLC for land/site acquisition is pure speculation in light of FLC's failure to commit to a specific geographical location. Real property prices and availability are clearly notstatic, known factors, and fluctuations in price have not been adequately accounted for by this FLC estimate. Further, FLC admits its figures on the basis of 55 per cent, are not as accurate as using dollar figures. FLNC's projected total cost for its 60-bed nursing home segment/wing addition is $1,100,113. On a per bed basis, that computes to $18,335 per bed. FLNC's total construction cost is $854,913 or a projected $51.00 per square foot within the new nursing segment/wing addition. FLNC is the only applicant whose projected cost per square foot falls within the HRS' experience concerning average cost per square foot of nursing homes. BEVERLY's premise that FLNC should have allowed a contingency fund for adjustments in design and construction so as to comply with local ordinances, for sewerage connection, for drainage, for retainage walls and for a variety of other purely speculative construction problems which BEVERLY failed to affirmatively demonstrate would inevitably develop from FLNC's existing site or proposed project is specifically rejected. Also rejected hereby is BEVERLY's suggestion that FLNC's method of calculating fixed and moveable equipment costs together somehow camouflages FLNC's construction costs. While that may be the ultimate result of this method in some situations, both HRS regulations and good accounting practices permit fixed equipment to be broken out as either construction or equipment costs. It is not appropriate for the finder of fact to adjust a reasonably allowable calculation of an applicant in the absence of clear evidence rendering such reasonably allowable calculation inappropriate to specific circumstances. BEVERLY provided only an outline of its existing Longwood building on the site. It gives no elevations. (B-13) FLC submitted a schematic drawing (FLC-12) but did not submit a site plan. FLNC submitted both a site plan and a schematic drawing of its existing facility as well as its proposed facility (FLNC-11). Further, FLNC-2 (Table 16) shows FLNC's ancillary areas as adequate and available to that applicant's proposed 60 nursing bed addition. 4/ As stated, BEVERLY did not submit floor or site plans for its existing 120 nursing bed facility. Without such plans, it is difficult to analyze the existing ancillary areas or the proposed room relationships/configuration which will result from construction of the new 60 bed nursing segment/wing. BEVERLY proposes to add 60 beds to the Longwood facility by "repeating" a patient wing. The existing facility currently consists of right and left patient wings branching off from an ancillary area hub. The new 60-bed segment wing is planned to contain 28 semi-private (2 bed) rooms and four private (1 bed) rooms, but since there is no architect's design schematic drawing, blueline, etc., to establish precisely how the rooms will be laid out, to a degree, the configuration must be conjectured on whether a left or right wing is the wing repeated. Because of the lack of a clear architectural plan, there is no resolution of much conflicting evidence offered by BEVERLY's own expert witnesses including total square footage. Also, for its new proposed segment/wing, BEVERLY only submitted a site plan drawing so that particularly wanting is any valid method by which the undersigned may compare BEVERLY's application and proposed plans for its bathroom facilities to be located in the new 60 nursing bed segment/wing proposed for the BEVERLY Longwood facility with bathroom facilities proposed by the other two CON applicants. BEVERLY's architect, Fletcher, testified there will be two central baths in the new wing to serve the private rooms, but even he could not confirm the number of baths in the new wing. Therefore, much information concerning bathroom facilities is missing from BEVERLY's revised application. FLC's nursing home segment will amount to 18,270 square feet of new construction which computes to 305 gross square feet per bed unless the shared ancillary areas are considered. Because ancillary areas must be considered, the foregoing figures are reduced by 5,500 square feet to 12,770 square feet or a low of 212.8 gross square feet per bed in FLC's proposed nursing home segment/wing. FLNC's proposed 60 nursing bed segment/wing will amount to 16,763 square feet, or 279 gross square feet per bed. FLNC's existing ancillary facilities will also adequately and efficiently service the proposed 60 nursing bed segment/wing. One reason for this is that FLNC's existing ancillary facilities space is excessive by current licensure requirements. For instance, modern regulations require only 9 square feet per bed for the dining area. Due to Hill-Burton grant standards requiring 30 square feet when FLNC's existing facility was built, this and all other existing ancillary areas at FLNC were built considerably larger than if the existing facility were being constructed today solely to comply with HRS licensure requirements. FLNC's proposal takes advantage of this situation to reduce construction costs. FLC's floor plan is a "cookie-cutter" concept already successfully applied by this corporate applicant in several locations. In particular, it differs from BEVERLY's plan (or lack of plan) and FLNC's plan because it contemplates allocating four beds instead of two beds per toilet and provides a communal shower layout for the same four beds. FLNC's application plans contemplate 26 semiprivate (2 bed) rooms and eight private (single bed) rooms. Each room, regardless of designation, will have its own toilet. At FLNC, the maximum number of patients obliged to share a toilet or lavatory will be two. All three applicants meet the state minimum requirements of ratio of toilets to beds, but it is axiomatic that the two persons per toilet ratio as apparently proposed by BEVERLY and as definitely proposed by FLNC is a preferable factor in rating quality of care than is the four persons per toilet proposed by FLC. FLC's plan is less desirable for encouraging privacy, dignity, and independence of nursing home patients than are the other two plans. BEVERLY's proposed wing will be 100 per cent financed by a bank letter of credit with an interest rate of 13 percent over 20 years, however, this letter only references BEVERLY's original 120 new-bed CON application and is silent as to its subsequent (revised) 60-bed application. In short, its financing commitment is dependent upon BEVERLY's being named the successful CON applicant. FLC's financing situation involves a combination of equity and bank financing and is not firm. Its investment group will seek a loan for 90 percent of the amount needed from Barnett Bank. Financing is not solidly committed as to loan amount, loan term, or interest rate and is therefore inadequate. Analyses of "creditworthiness" of an applicant and "financial feasibility" pronouncements by a lending institution do not equate with a firm commitment to loan amount, term and interest. FLNC's financing is guaranteed up to $1,300,000 by a letter of commitment from the Florida Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists at 12 per cent interest for 20 years. The background of FLNC's relationship with this denominational financial "parent" provides an encouraging prognosis for long range as well as immediate success and stability of FLNC's project if it is the successful CON applicant. The projected Medicaid and Medicare utilization figures of all three of the applicants contain elements of speculation. 5/ Moreover, after a facility has been opened for 5 or 6 years there is a greater incentive to seek private pay patients because the reimbursement is higher than Medicaid. However, the actual commitment figures provided by the parties does provide a valid comparison factor. BEVERLY's commitment to Medicare is 2 percent. BEVERLY has not committed and is not prepared to commit a specific percentage of the stipulated 60 beds to Medicaid participation. Although BEVERLY's application projects 33 percent Medicaid in the second year of operation, its Director of Acquisitions and Development, Dan Bruns, could not definitely commit to continue admission of 83 percent Medicaid beds in the 120 + 60-bed configuration using Longwood. FLC has committed 10 percent of the total stipulated 60 beds to Medicare., FLC has committed 52 percent of the stipulated 60 beds to Medicaid participation, but in light of FLC's withdrawal from Medicaid participation at one of its facilities and subsequent transfer of Medicaid patients, FLC's commitment here may be viewed as revocable as well. Although FLNC does not project strong Medicare involvement, FUN will be Medicaid and Medicare certified and has committed 50 per cent (50 percent) of the beds in the total facility [existing beds (104) + proposed beds if it is the successful CON applicant (60) for a total commitment of 164/2 = 84 beds] to Medicaid participation. FLNC intends only to enlarge Medicare beds in its existing 104 bed facility. FLNC intends to seek Veteran's Administration Certification. Moreover, FLNC's existing facility was principally funded with Hill-Burton grant money and FLNC annually repays its original loan through delivery of free service to indigent persons. Among the three applicants, FLNC's Hill-Burton obligation, enforced by financial considerations, demonstrates both a strong (14 years) "track record" of FLNC's accessibility to the medically indigent and traditionally underserved in the community as well as a strong indicator of continued accessibility to this segment of the community. FLNC has the lowest charge rate of all three applicants while spending more dollars on patient care than the respective averages of the other two applicant's facilities and this ratio is significant in assessing and comparing both quality of care and availability to the medically underserved of the Seminole County "community." BEVERLY's existing Longwood facility has been a BEVERLY operation less than three years (since August, 1982) and has had a "standard" rating up through the date of hearing. FLC plans to construct an entirely new facility and so has no current license to review. All of its existing homes have standard ratings. FLNC's existing facility has been operating 14 years and has had a "standard" or equivalent rating except for a three months "conditional" rating before return to "standard". BEVERLY staffs all of its beds for skilled patients and commingles its skilled and intermediate patients. FLC staffs all its beds for skilled patients. Although HRS encourages "higher" staffing, this policy can increase costs to patients. FLNC's plan is to create a discreet intermediate wing which, although licensed for skilled beds, will be primarily used for intermediate level patients. Except as indicated infra geographic location of BEVERLY's Longwood facility and of FLNC within Seminole County is not a significant variable. FLC cannot be compared geographically because it has not yet selected a site. FLC proposes one administrator for the combined ACLF and nursing home. The administrator's salary will be allocated between the ACLF and the nursing home. FLC does not specify the proportion of salary attributable to the ACLF. FLNC has had the same administrator for fourteen years BEVERLY's Longwood facility and FLNC have established monthly in- service training for staff members. All three applicants project in-service training and volunteer activity programs if granted the CON. FLC has demonstrated its other existing nursing homes have the most varietal and aggressive patient activity programs utilizing outside community volunteers This and its in-service programs are part of an internal quality control system labelled "Quest for quality". FLC also embraces the idea of using numerous visiting contract consultants in a variety of disciplines such as psychology and nutrition. FLC nursing homes also are active members of a number of national quality control professional groups. By contract, the Orange County Board of Education uses FLNC's existing nursing home as a laboratory for nurses' aide training for the Apopka High School. Also, FLNC permits use of its existing facility as a laboratory for the geriatric training program of Florida Hospital's Licensed Practical Nurse School. These programs could be extended to include the proposed segment/wing and are symbiotic relationships significantly benefiting the quality of care of nursing home patients as well as the student interns. FUC participates with HRS in a program for those adjudicated to do community service in Seminole County. BEVERLY's recent creation of an assistant to the president slot to oversee quality of patient life is commendable, but located at the highest corporate level, and in another state, this benefit will be somewhat diluted at the point of delivery in Seminole County, Florida. This individual's first responsibility is to the corporate shareholders not to a specific nursing home's patients and staff. As to all three applicants, administrative complaints by themselves are both irrelevant and immaterial to this de novo proceeding. Particularly, complaints are immaterial unless they result in an adjudication. Dismissals and settlements without adjudication or admission of guilt are of no probative value. Moreover, in light of testimony of the HRS licensure representative that there is no nursing home in Florida which has not been cited at least once, deficiency ratings brief in duration in proportion to many years of operation are of little significance or probative value. 6/ BEVERLY and FLC contended that FLNC's affiliation with the Christian religious denomination of Seventh Day Adventists somehow diminishes FLNC's application. This position was not established by direct credible evidence on any of the strategic tangents it took at the formal hearing. Admission data provided for the existing FLNC facility indicates that whether measured by policy and statistics or by admissions, FLNC is not restricted by religious faith or affiliation. By this finding of fact, a convenient "draw" of FLNC from a nearby Seventh Day Adventist retirement center has not been ignored nor has evidence that many of the admissions drawn from this retirement community appear to be "repeaters" at the existing FLNC nursing home been ignored, but this corollary may be attributed to the natural proclivity of the retired and elderly to account for a large percentage of the nursing home beds consumed in any locality, and upon this analysis the 15 per cent to 20 per cent (15-20 percent) draw of FLNC from this source could be as much geographically as religiously induced. Failure to repeat attempts at placement of patients at FLNC color the credibility of the testimony of most witnesses who infer a religious barrier to placement of patients at FLNC. Teresa S. Shaw is Director of Social Services, Florida Hospital, Altamonte. In light of that acute care hospital being Part of the Seventh Day Adventist faith's health and educational hierarchy, somewhat greater weight might be placed on her analysis if she felt religion played a part in FLNC's acceptance or rejection of patients. However, she testified she did not know of FLNC's affiliation. This, together with the actual admissions data provided by FLNC, supports this finding of no religious barrier. Unavailability of beds at FLNC has no probative value for charges of religious discrimination either. 7/ Suggestions that the Seventh Day Adventist dietary restrictions against consumption of animal-protein and caffeine and against tobacco-smoking in its nursing homes somehow reduces the quality of nursing home care at FLNC are rejected as unproved. First, it was never established that smoking benefits quality of care, but in any case, FLNC, like all certified nursing homes, complies with the requirement of providing a smoking area. Second, consumption of caffeine and animal-protein can obviously create numerous health and sanitary problems for those incontinent patients who often comprise a large percentage of any nursing home population. Third, it was never established that caffeine or animal-protein benefits the quality of nursing home care. Moreover testimony of FLNC's administrator clearly indicates that at FLNC patients' diets are established by the attending physician and that patients' families may bring in items not normally served by FLNC if this supplementation is permitted on the diet prescribed by the attending physician. It is the physician, not the nursing home, that has ultimate dietary authority.

Recommendation After considering all submissions of counsel, and upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law determined after reviewing those submissions, it is, RECOMMENDED: That HRS issue a certificate of need for a 60-bed addition to FLORIDA LIVING NURSING CENTER, INC's Seminole County facility, with total project cost not to exceed $1,100,113.00 and area not to exceed 16,763 square feet and deny the other applications. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1985.

# 6

FLORIDEAN NURSING HOME vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 77-001413 (1977)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-001413 Latest Update: Feb. 09, 1978

Findings Of Fact The nursing home involved here is a licensed 55-bed skilled nursing home facility (SNF) which has been in continuous operation for approximately 32 years and since the inception of licensure requirements by the state, it has been licensed as such. Testimony introduced during the course of the hearing reveals that the facility has been continuously recognized as one of the few nursing homes in Florida giving exceptional care to individual patients. The State Department of health and Rehabilitative Services has recognized this factor in prior field examinations. Evidence reveals further that that facility took various safety precautions for patient inhabitants prior to mandatory requirements by law. Staff employees enjoy an excellent longevity record. For the most part, all employees have been retained until they reach retirement age. The facility has been operating under the same ownership and management for the past 32 years. Average patient age in the facility is 84 years and the average patient stay exceeds 17 years. The facility has operated on an approximate 98 percent occupancy rate since its inception. Various surveying teams and consultants testified as to the quality of the care provided by this facility, some of whom are involved in licensure and inspection by the Respondent and attest favorably to the quality of care provided. All of those testifying opined that any limitation in the square footage requirement would in no way interfere with the particular needs of the patients nor will it adversely affect the patients' safety and health care. (Testimony of doctors Gene Purdue, James J. Hudson and Janet Ryan, a Public Health Nurse and Consultant employed by Respondent's Licensure and Certification Division and Col. William Jones. Also see Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2) William "Bill" Dott, an employee of Respondent in charge of patient placement in comes for Dade County, testified that there were presently pending 84 patients requesting beds as of Friday, October 14, 1977 and based on the County's recent survey, only six beds were available. Based on stipulated statements respecting the testimony of Messrs. Kennedy, of the Dade County Fire Department and the Petitioner's accountant, it is concluded that the denial of the waiver to Petitioner would result in a decrease of approximately 15 beds leaving it in an uneconomically feasible position. A further examination of the code requirements of Dade County reveal that enlargements, renovations, damages by fire forcing repairs, alterations or improvements in excess of fifty (50) percent of a structure's then physical value before such damage and/or repair, shall be made to conform to each and every "new" requirement corresponding to the "existing" requirements with which the facility did not comply. Other repairs, additions, alterations etc., in amounts ranging between 25 but less than 50 percent of the then physical value of a nonconforming building requires a degree of compliance with the new requirements to be determined by the Department of Building and Inspection. The subject facility falls into the "nonconforming use" category. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare's Regional Director issued an all state letter (No. 2-76) dated January 30, 1976 advising of the development of waiver and variance criteria pursuant to Section 405.1134(a), (c) and (e). That letter provided in pertinent part that standard (e) of 405.1134, Patient Room and Toilet Facilities, provides for the granting of a "variance" from the regulations. In the case of granting variations to this standard, "the secretary (or in the case of a facility participating as a skilled nursing facility under Title XIX, the survey agency may grant them (variances) only 'for the facility that demonstrates in writing that such variations are in accordance with the particular needs of the patients and will not adversely affect their health and safety.' Hardship is not a factor in granting a variance. The facility is responsible for documenting that having more than four patients to a room or having less than required footage is in the best interest of the individual patients in that room, and does not adversely affect their health and safety. . ." As the variance in standard 405.1134(e), C.F.R. is based on the needs of the patients, the period of approval will depend on the situation remaining the same as when the variance was approved. The variance must be reapproved at the beginning of each new agreement cycle, and is not automatically granted for the full length of the agreement. (Respondent's Exhibit #1) By letter dated March 4, 1976, Messr. Joseph C. Thompson, Acting Chief of the Bureau of Health Facilities of the State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services wrote Mr. John E. Pikes, Director, Office of Longterm Care Standards Enforcement of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare - Region 4, addressed the concern that the State had with respect to compliance with the directives contained in the above referred to all state letter no. 2-76. He stated therein that by not granting a "variance" to certain existing nursing homes with patient rooms containing more than four beds would create problems in view of the "badly needed patient care in this state." Messr. Thompson stated in pertinent part that variances had been granted in the past based on written documentation received from providers of health care when all other pertinent guidelines satisfied SNF and/or ICF Federal Regulations. In response thereto, by letter dated April 1, 1976, Messr. Pikes, while expressing his concern with the State's problem with respect to granting variances according to the regulations and the impact of the availability of SNF beds, stated that since the regulations are very clear, the standards enforcement office could not propose any changes in its all state letter no. 2-76.

Conclusions Based on my examination of the pertinent rules and regulations and the entire record compiled herein, I conclude that the subject facility is entitled to a variance pursuant to Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations. The controlling provision of the above referenced statute provides in pertinent part that the secretary (or in the case of a facility participating as a skilled nursing facility under title IX only), or the survey agency may permit variations in individual cases where the facility demonstrates in writing that such variations are in accordance with the particular needs of the patients and will not adversely affect their health and safety. Turning to the record in this case, adequate evidence has been presented without any rebuttal that the granting of a variance to this facility is in accordance with the particular patient needs nor will it in any manner adversely affect their health and safety. Consideration was given to the fact that the nursing home Administrator, Mrs. Rice testified that approximately 50 percent of all of her patients were receiving medicaid; the numerous testimonial letters respecting the quality care provided by this facility including such recognition by the Respondent's licensure officials and the fact that the State has waived the strict requirements of the 80 square fee per bed requirement for those facilities not participating in the medicaid programs. Based on this record and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence by either the Department of Health Education and Welfare or the Respondent herein, I conclude that the Petitioner is entitled to a waiver and should be certified as a provider of skilled nursing home care under medicare provisions of the Social Security Act.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the Petitioner's appeal of the Respondent's denial of waiver and/or variance criteria for the subject facility pursuant to Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations, be sustained. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675

Florida Laws (1) 120.57

# 7

CHARLOTTE HARBOR HEALTHCARE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 02-001917 (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Punta Gorda, Florida May 03, 2002 Number: 02-001917 Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2003

The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance

Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this 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 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 13th day of February, 2003.

CFR (2) 42 CFR 483, 42 CFR 483.15(b) Florida Laws (4) 120.569, 120.57, 400.23, 409.175

# 8

ORLANDO CARE CENTER, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 85-002345 (1985)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 85-002345 Latest Update: Apr. 14, 1986

Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a nursing home facility located at 1900 Mercy Drive, Orlando, Florida. It is licensed by Respondent and certified to participate in the Medicaid Program. Prior to the rating at issue in this case, Petitioner was rated a "superior" nursing home by Respondent. The "standard" rating at issue in this case was for the period November 30, 1984 to February 28, 1986. The most recent rating for Petitioner, for the period after February 28, 1986, is "superior." Petitioner was deprived of increased Medicaid reimbursement due to its "standard" rating during the period in question. Additionally, Petitioner was deprived of the ability to hold itself out to the public as a "superior" nursing home for the period in question. The parties stipulated that Petitioner was qualified for a "superior" rating for the period in question, except for the factors considered by Robert Maryanski, former Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification, when he made the decision to give Petitioner a "standard" rating, effective November 30, 1984 until February 28, 1986. The factors considered by Maryanski which formed the basis of his decision were: a rating sheet and results of a survey conducted of Petitioner's facility on November 5 through 7, 1984, as well as follow-up visits on January 15 and February 1, 1985: a report of a complaint or surveillance visit conducted on February 1, 1985; a memo dated March 14, 1985 from Robert W. Smith, Area Supervisor of the Office of Licensure and Certification: concerns of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council as expressed by letter dated November 15, 1984 and concerns of Paul Snead, Jr., Respondent's District Administrator as expressed by memo dated November 26, 1984. In conducting its annual survey of Petitioner's facility, Respondent's surveyors, George Farrar and June Monaghan, identified seven Class III deficiencies which were corrected by the time follow-up visits were conducted on January 15 and February l, 1985. However, in conjunction with the February 1, 1985 follow-up visit, Respondent's surveyors also conducted an unannounced complaint or surveillance visit which identified eight additional deficiencies. No exit interview was conducted following this complaint or surveillance visit, and Petitioner was not informed of these additional deficiencies, or the fact they could affect their annual rating, until approximately a week later. Neither Farrar nor Monaghan, the surveyors who conducted the February 1 complaint or surveillance visit and who are still employed by Respondent, testified at the hearing. The only witnesses testifying at the hearing who were present during all or a portion of the February 1 visit were Charlotte Uhrig, Administrator of Petitioner's facility, Kathleen Wingard, Director of Operations for Petitioner's management company, and Linda Anderson, a licensed practical nurse employed by Petitioner. Uhrig and Anderson offered credible testimony to explain the deficiencies found during the complaint or surveillance visit, and their unrebutted testimony precludes any finding that the deficiencies reported by Farrar and Monaghan actually existed. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented, it is specifically found that during this visit on February 1, 1985: Petitioner did not violate a patient's right to privacy in treatment since only the patient's heel and back of the leg were exposed at the request of the surveyor; Petitioner took prompt action in terminating a Director of Nursing who violated its policies by allowing aides to do and chart dressings and treatments; Anderson's actions in attempting to give a patient two pills were reasonable and in accordance with proper nursing practice. The fact that the patient did not swallow the pills and the surveyor found them in a glass of water does not indicate any failure on the part of Petitioner to adhere to required nursing home procedures; The lock on a treatment cart was only broken for a couple of hours and was repaired as soon as possible. During the time the lock was broken, the cart was in the nurse's station and observable by nurses on duty; Stains on the walls were fully explained as the result of roof leaks which had recently been repaired and Petitioner was simply waiting for a good rain to insure the leak was fixed before repainting; There was no dust or soap residue on chair lifts, but rather a small amount of powder used on patients was identified by the surveyors; In-service training was promptly given to all aides about washing their hands after treating each patient; An unidentified cart noticed in the new linen room was simply the cart used to carry new linen to the laundry for washing before use; An unidentified, undated bottle of liquid on the medication cart was apple juice given to patients to assist them in taking their medication; The door to the janitor's closet was not left open, but rather the door had been closed but the lock had not engaged; In service training was promptly given to aides concerning leaving unattended bottles of germicide and cups of liquid soap in patients' bathrooms. In his memo dated March 14, 1985, Robert W. Smith recommended that Petitioner be given a "superior" rating for the time in question. Smith supervised nursing home surveyors including Farrar and Monaghan. Robert Maryanski was Smith's superior and had the final authority on rating decisions. Yvonne Opfell, Vice Chairperson of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council, testified that one-fourth of all complaints in the Orlando area the Council received in 1984 involved Petitioner's facility. The Council investigates every complaint received and found most complaints against Petitioner to be "not substantiated." However, several were found to be "substantiated" including one which was substantiated by Adult Protective Services involving an incident in August, 1984 in which a patient was allegedly dropped and suffered a broken arm. Henry McLaulin investigated this incident for Adult Protective Services and testified that Petitioner was less than cooperative with him in this investigation. However, based on the evidence received, including the testimony of Uhrig and Karen Skadering, a physical therapist who worked with this patient in August, 1984, it has not been proven that aides dropped the patient causing a broken arm. The patient was very weak and dependent, with brittle bones, and according to David Parsons, M.D., a patient in this condition could break a bone simply by turning over in bed through no fault of Petitioner's staff. As District Administrator of Respondent, Paul Snead, Jr. expressed his concerns about Petitioner's rating in a memo dated November 26, 1984. Snead testified at the hearing about these concerns and his feeling that Petitioner-should not be given a "superior" rating. He also admitted he has never visited Petitioner's facility. In addition to the incident in August, 1984 involving a patient's broken bone discussed above in Finding of Fact 9, Snead reported complaints about scabies at Petitioner's facility during 1984. Based upon the testimony of Charlotte Uhrig, Petitioner's Administrator, Bob Duncan, a pharmacist, Ruth E. Laughlin, senior community health nurse, and David Parsons, M.D., it is found that scabies did exist on several occasions during 1984 at Petitioner's facility. However, scabies is frequently found in nursing homes, even those rated "superior". It is a highly communicable parasitic condition which can be introduced into a nursing home by patients, family and staff. When the condition was diagnosed, Petitioner took action to eradicate the problem, but due to the lengthy three to six week incubation period and highly contagious nature of this condition, it did take repeated efforts to remove it from the nursing home. Petitioner's efforts were successful, and there is no evidence that the condition continued to exist after November, 1984.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner a "superior" rating for the period November 30, 1984 to February 28, 1986. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Suite 500, Day Building 605 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Douglas Whitney, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 912 Orlando, Florida 32801 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 4, 5. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 9, 10, 11. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 9, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and also as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57, 400.23

# 9

HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, D/B/A HEARTLAND OF MANATEE vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 84-003336 (1984)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-003336 Latest Update: Aug. 02, 1985

The Issue Whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County?

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the certificate of need application filed by HCR for a 120-bed nursing home to be located in Manatee County be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire LARAMORE & CLARK, P.A. The Bowen House 325 N. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire CULPEPPER, TURNER & MANNHEIMER P. O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (1) 120.57

# 10

Find Similar Cases by Filters

FORUM GROUP, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 87-000670 (1987)

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs HARBOUR HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, D/B/A HARBOUR HEALTH CENTER, 04-004635 (2004)

WUESTHOFF HEALTH SERVICES, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 85-002868 (1985)

DIVERSICARE CORPORATION, INC., D/B/A DESOTO MANOR vs. HEALTH CARE MEDICAL FACILITY XXVI, PARTNERSHIP, 84-000244 (1984)

VENICE HOSPITAL, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 90-002738 (1990)

BEVERLY ENTERPRISES-FLORIDA, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 84-000022 (1984)

FLORIDEAN NURSING HOME vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 77-001413 (1977)

CHARLOTTE HARBOR HEALTHCARE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 02-001917 (2002)

ORLANDO CARE CENTER, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 85-002345 (1985)

HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, D/B/A HEARTLAND OF MANATEE vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 84-003336 (1984)

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.