Findings Of Fact Respondents Jo Ann Cunningham, her husband, Ben G. Cunningham, and their partnership, Cunningham Real Estate, are eached licensed by petitioner as real estate brokers. They have offices in Clermont, Florida. In March of 1976, Orrin C. Barr spoke to respondent Jo Ann Cunningham by telephone from his home in Minnesota and inquired about the availability of orange groves. As a result of this telephone conversation, Mrs. Cunningham wrote Mr. Barr a letter, dated March 4, 1976, in which she recommended an orange grove. Of this grove, she wrote, in part: It is 10 years old, hamlin oranges, picked 17,000 boxes 1975-76, selling price $2,000.00 per acre or $160,000.00, owner wants cash. Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. Mrs. Cunningham inserted the figure 17,000 into the blank she had originally typed, because Mr. Cunningham told her that figure was approximately correct. The grove which Mrs. Cunningham recommended in her letter to Mr. Barr belonged to Hubbard Construction Company (Hubbard) at the time. Hubbard had entered into an agreement with Hi-Acres Groves, Inc. (Hi-Acres), under which Hi- Acres managed the property, fertilizing, spraying, picking fruit and selling the fruit to the Coca Cola Company. At the time Hubbard enlisted respondents' assistance in selling the grove, respondents were told they would be given the legal description and the price but no other information about the property. Mr. Barr and his partner, Reynold Anderson, travelled to Clermont from Minnesota and visited the grove with Mrs. Cunningham. After they had seen the property, Mrs. Cunningham introduced Messrs. Barr and Anderson to Irvin Barwick, general manager of Postal Colony Company, another Clermont firm in the business of managing orange groves. Out of the Cunninghams' presence, Messrs. Barwick, Barr and Anderson discussed citrus farming in general terms. On April 23, 1976, Messrs. Anderson and Barr signed an agreement, on behalf of Zaeco, Inc., to purchase the orange grove about which Mrs. Cunningham had written and which she had shown them. In July of 1976, on the morning of the day the transaction had been scheduled to close, Messrs. Barwick, Barr and Anderson drove out to the property. Mr. Barwick expressed the opinion that the fruit then on the orange trees would not fill more than 10,000 boxes. This raised a question in the minds of Messrs. Barr and Anderson as to whether they had been accurately informed about the grove's yield during the 1975-76 growing season. When Messrs. Barr and Anderson next saw Mrs. Cunningham, they asked her for verification of the 17,000 figure. She called Mr. Cunningham and asked him to verify the figure. Over the telephone, Mr. Cunningham told first his wife, then Mr. Anderson, that he might be unable to furnish verification, but that he would try. It was agreed at the closing that respondents' commission (six thousand dollars cash and a two year promissory note in the amount of ten thousand dollars), would be left with Arthur Roberts, the lawyer in whose office the closing took place, and would be disbursed to respondents only upon verification of the 17,000 figure. After the closing, Messrs. Barr and Anderson left Clermont. Mr. Cunningham inquired of Lester Austin at Hi-Acres' Clermont office about getting production and caretaking records for the grove. He understood from Mr. Austin that a company policy prohibited disclosure of such records without a release from the (former) grove owner, and that the records were kept at Hi-Acres' Forest City office. The following Tuesday, Mr. Cunningham visited Hubbard's offices and obtained a letter from Hubbard's president, J. Edward Greaves, authorizing release of production and cultivation records. When he arrived at Hi-Acres' Forest City office with the Greaves letter, Mr. Cunningham was introduced to Jean Suggs, to whom he gave the letter. In response to Mr. Cunningham's request, Mrs. Suggs consulted a computer printout and, on a scrap of white paper, wrote down the figure 9,431, which she said was the number of boxes of oranges the grove had yielded in the 1975-76 season. Mr. Cunningham then asked for stationery with Hi-Acres' letterhead and Mrs. Suggs gave him two or three sheets. Mr. Cunningham drove to his office from Forest City. When he arrived, he placed a yellow sheet of paper on a secretary's desk along with the stationery and cultivation records he had obtained from Mrs. Suggs. On the yellow sheet was written the figure 16,976. When Mrs. Cunningham learned what the yellow sheet purported to be, she said, "Frank Hubbard would shoot her doing business that way." On a sheet of Hi-Acres' letterhead, Mrs. Cunningham typed: July 13, 1976 INFORMATION requested by CUNNINGHAM REAL ESTATE Released by letter from Edward Graves [sic], Vice [sic] President, HUBBARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. 1975-76 Season Production EARLY & MID SEASON ORANGES 16,976 Boxes Bookkeeping Dept. Enclosures - Grove care records for all of 1975 and 1976 through sale of grove. Mr. Cunningham delivered this document to Arthur Roberts who, after seeing it, released the commission to Mr. Cunningham.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend Mr. Cunningham's registration as a real estate broker for a period of two (2) years. That petitioner suspend the registration of the partnership, Cunningham Real Estate, as a real estate broker for a period of two (2) years. That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint against Mrs. Cunningham. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of respondents' proposed findings of fact accurately reflects the evidence and has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the Commission records introduced in evidence reflect different addresses on Highway 50. Paragraph two of respondents' proposed findings of fact accurately reflects the evidence and has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that any partnerships would have had to have been with Zaeco, Inc., rather than Barr-Anderson. Paragraphs three, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, twelve and thirteen of respondents' proposed findings of fact accurately reflect the evidence and have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph four of respondents' proposed findings of fact accurately reflects the evidence and has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except for the exchange of proposed contracts. Paragraph nine of respondents' proposed findings of fact accurately reflects the evidence and has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the buyers did not refuse to close "until and unless the production figure of 17,000 boxes was verified." Paragraph ten of respondents' proposed findings of fact accurately reflects the evidence and has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except to the extent it is predicated on hearsay. Paragraph fourteen of respondents' proposed findings of fact accurately reflects the evidence and has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the mistaken belief of Mrs. Cunningham and Pat McGregor that the yellow sheet had the authentic production figure was based on what Mr. Cunningham had told them. Paragraph one of petitioner's proposed findings of fact accurately reflects the evidence and has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the Commission records introduced in evidence reflect different addresses on Highway 50 and neither Mr. nor Mrs. Cunningham testified that they were active firm members in those words. Paragraphs two, three and five of petitioner's proposed findings of fact accurately reflect the evidence and have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph four of petitioner's proposed findings of fact was not established by the evidence. Paragraph six of petitioner's proposed findings of fact accurately reflects the evidence and has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except for the amount of Hi-Acres' stationery given to Mr. Cunningham. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 George E. Hovis, Esquire Post Office Box 848 Clermont, Florida 32711 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Plaintiff CD 15380 vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3275 DOAH 78-886 BENJAMIN G. CUNNINGHAM LAKE COUNTY JOANN CUNNINGHAM and CUNNINGHAM REAL ESTATE Defendants. /
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of his race, color, disability/handicap, and/or age.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male who was 66-68 years of age at all times material. Petitioner worked successfully, in a variety of positions, for Respondent from March 20, 1999, until July 29, 2007. By all accounts, he was an excellent employee in each position. He has, at his own expense, trained for, and received, a security guard license and education as a fork lift operator. The published job description for employment as a Wal- Mart Garden Center Sales Associate, has, since May 2005, required, among other "essential functions," that one be able to: While moving within the department over uneven surfaces and moving up and down a ladder, frequently lifting, sorting, carrying, and placing merchandise and supplies of varying sizes, constantly lifting up to 50 pounds without assistance and over 50 pounds with team lifting. On March 3, 2006, Petitioner signed this job description, signifying that he possessed the ability at that time to perform all its essential functions. On a Saturday in July 2007, Petitioner was still working for Respondent as a Garden Center Sales Associate. Early that day, Petitioner and a cashier were alone in the garden center of Respondent's store at 13th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. Upon her request, Petitioner loaded 83 bags of top soil into a customer's truck without assistance. Later that same day, Petitioner's wrist began to hurt. The following Monday, Petitioner’s hand was swollen. He approached Store Manager Thomas Horton, and told Mr. Horton that he needed to see a doctor. Petitioner did nothing to alert Mr. Horton that he might have had an on-the-job injury. Mr. Horton orally authorized Petitioner to go to a doctor. Petitioner unilaterally selected Dr. Youssef W. Wassef to treat his wrist. There is no evidence of the workers' compensation process, pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, ever being invoked. On or about August 2, 2007, Dr. Wassef provided a note that said: Patient should not allowed [sic] to lift more then [sic] 15 lb. This note was provided to Respondent’s store personnel office by Petitioner at or about the same time he got it. According to the August 2, 2007, restrictions placed on Petitioner by his treating physician, Petitioner was unable to perform the essential functions of the Garden Center Sales Associate position. Petitioner testified that he last worked on July 29, 2007. On or about September 6, 2007, Petitioner delivered to his store’s personnel office another note from Dr. Wassef, stating: Patient should continue until further notice on full-time, light duties, no lifting or pushing. This note also placed medical restrictions on Petitioner which made him unable to fulfill the essential functions of his Garden Center Sales Associate position. It is unclear whether Petitioner was working or was on the equivalent of sick leave from Monday, July 30, 2007, until September 7, 2007. It is most probable, based on the evidence as a whole, that at least after receiving the August 2, 2007, doctor’s note, Wal-Mart did not allow Petitioner to work in the capacity of a Garden Center Sales Associate. Specifically, Mr. Horton testified that he “called back” Petitioner sometime during the back-to-school/college season, which “season” would have been in late August or early September, to work in a temporary position. The temporary position assigned Petitioner was described by Ms. Chewning, the store's Personnel Manager, as a “May I assist you?” position. In this temporary position, which lasted only a few weeks, Petitioner was only required to walk around and point out to inquiring shoppers their requested back-to-school/college materials. Wal-Mart did not require Petitioner to work outside his medical restrictions. When the back-to-school/college season ended, so did the temporary position. When the back-to-school/college season ended and the temporary sales associate position was eliminated, there were no positions available at Petitioner’s store that he could perform with his medical restrictions on lifting and pushing. Also, at that point in time, Mr. Horton began to lay off people in some positions. However, Petitioner remained on leave and was not laid off. Although Petitioner referred to a People Greeter position in his November 20, 2007, discrimination complaint before FCHR, there is no credible record evidence that Petitioner requested a Wal-Mart People Greeter position as an “accommodation” of his condition prior to filing his discrimination complaint or that a People Greeter position was vacant at any time material to this case. However, the published job description for employment as a Wal-Mart People Greeter has, since May 2005, required, among other "essential functions" that the incumbent be able to: Provide shopping carts to customers by pushing or pulling up to 10 pounds of pressure . . . Frequently lifting, placing and deactivating items weighing up to 10 pounds without assistance, and regularly lifting merchandise over 10 pounds with team lifting. Petitioner documented at hearing, via an old doctor’s report, that in 1991, he had severe arthritis in both his elbows and that surgery was contemplated at that time. However, there is no clear evidence that he had the surgery or, if he had the surgery, what was its outcome. There also is no persuasive evidence that Respondent’s personnel office or any Wal-Mart employee material to the instant case knew about this doctor’s report prior to the present litigation. Petitioner demonstrated at hearing that his elbows are visible in the short-sleeve shirts worn by Wal-Mart employees. He believes his elbows stick out farther than other people’s elbows, and he speculated that his superiors and store personnel office employees decided visually that he had a handicap because “my arms stick out” and because of a scar on one arm. The undersigned observed his demonstration. If there is a deformity, it is not substantial, and the scar is not visible without close inspection. Sometime in August-September 2007, probably during the back-to-school/college season, Mr. Horton observed Petitioner wearing what Mr. Horton believed to be a brace on Petitioner’s hand, but which was, in fact, a wristband. However, no evidence supporting Petitioner’s theory that any superiors or personnel office employees did, in fact, perceive him as disabled/handicapped was adduced. Petitioner denied ever being handicapped or unable to perform the essential functions of his job as a Wal-Mart Garden Center Sales Associate. Mr. Horton and Jennifer Chewning each credibly denied ever perceiving Petitioner as handicapped, even up to the date of the hearing. When he had been hired in 1999, Petitioner acknowledged receipt and understanding of the policies contained within Respondent’s Associates Handbook. Petitioner again acknowledged receipt and understanding of these policies on March 29, 2001, when he was issued a revised Associates Handbook. Wal-Mart regularly offers leaves of absence to any associate who has a medical condition that is not perceived by the employee or management as a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Florida Civil Rights Act, but whose condition prevents him from performing his job. Ms. Chewning testified that the Request for Leave of Absence form described below is used specifically for situations not covered by the ADA or by State disability laws.3/ The form upon which an employee may apply for such a leave of absence advises that the leave of absence is without pay; that there will be no accrual of benefits or seniority during the leave of absence; and that the employee must pay his own insurance premiums during this period. Grant of the requested leave is dependent upon the treating physician’s verification of the employee's medical condition. (See Finding of Fact 20.) Based on Petitioner's inability to perform the essential functions of any available position within the store in September 2007, Ms. Chewning offered Petitioner such a leave of absence. Petitioner disputes some of the contents of the Request for Leave of Absence form in evidence, which completed form Mr. Horton retroactively approved on September 21, 2007, for Petitioner to be on continuous leave beginning September 7, 2007, with a return date of December 31, 2007. However, Petitioner admits that he signed this form. The date beside Petitioner’s signature seems to be September 19, 2007. Petitioner’s signature on this form signifies that he was requesting “medical leave,” thereby acknowledging: A medical condition (including pregnancy and childbirth, and on-the-job Workers’ Comp. injuries) requiring time away from work. The Health Care Provider’s Section, below, must be completed and signed. Before returning, associate must submit a return- to-work statement/release from a Health Care Provider detailing restrictions, if any. . . . * * * . . . I fully understand Wal-Mart’s Leave of Absence Policy. Petitioner also agreed that on or about September 19, 2007, as reflected on the portion of this Request for Leave of Absence form which was filled-in by Dr. Wassef, Petitioner’s doctor had certified that Petitioner should begin medical leave on September 9, 2007, and continue through September 30, 2007. Petitioner asserted that on or about September 13, 2007, he delivered to someone other than Ms. Chewning in Respondent's personnel office another note from Dr. Wassef stating: Patient has partial permanent disability.[4] Does not need sick leave. He needs to continue to work full-time with limited lifting, pulling, and pushing. Petitioner asserted that on or about October 29, 2007, Petitioner delivered to someone other than Ms. Chewning in Respondent's personnel office the last note he had received from Dr. Wassef, which stated: Patient able to work full-time with limited lifting to 20 pounds. Ms. Chewning testified that neither the September 13, 2007, nor the October 29, 2007, medical notes contemporaneously reached either herself or Petitioner’s personnel file. According to the last medical note she received prior to hearing, Petitioner could not even perform the essential functions of a People Greeter position. (See Findings of Fact 10 and 13.) Reviewing Dr. Wassef’s September 13, 2007, and October 29, 2007, notes for the first time at hearing, she pointed out that, according to the most recent note, Petitioner was still medically restricted from performing some of the essential functions of his Garden Center Sales Associate’s position. (See Findings of Fact 3 and 22.) She has never received a medical release permitting Petitioner to return to full functioning as a Garden Center Sales Associate. Ms. Chewning testified that Wal-Mart has a policy that a medical leave of absence may not extend beyond one year. However, neither its printed non-ADA leave of absence policy in evidence nor the Request for Leave of Absence form in evidence specifies a one year maximum leave. More than a year after Petitioner’s leave began on September 7, 2007, and nearly 10 months after the leave was supposed to end on December 31, 2007, Wal-Mart has not taken steps to terminate Petitioner, because of the current litigation that began with Petitioner’s filing his complaint with FCHR on November 20, 2007. Ms. Chewning testified that, as of the date of hearing on October 15, 2008, Respondent had not terminated Petitioner; Petitioner remained on his approved unpaid leave of absence; and if Petitioner brings in a doctor’s note saying he can perform all the essential functions listed on his Garden Center Sales Associate’s job description, including but not limited to being able to lift 50 pounds, Wal-Mart will put Petitioner back in his Garden Center Sales Associate position, and he will retain his salary level, his accrued years of service, and all his benefits as they existed at the beginning of his leave of absence. Petitioner erroneously perceives himself as having been terminated and wants to go back to work, but he has not yet presented any doctor’s release that allows him to perform regularly the functions of a Garden Center Sales Associate. There is no evidence herein that under similar conditions Wal-Mart has treated any person of any race other than African-American differently than Petitioner has been treated. There is no evidence herein that under similar conditions Wal-Mart has treated any person of any age other than 66-68 years of age, differently than Petitioner has been treated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Loop’s Nursery & Greenhouses, Inc. (“Loop’s”), was entitled to be a dispensing organization under section 381.986, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules when its application was reviewed by Respondent, Department of Health, Office of Compassionate Use (the “Department” or “OCU”), in July through November 2015. Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes shall be to the 2015 version, as this case involves a backwards-looking, retrospective assessment of the Loop’s application.
Findings Of Fact In 2014, the Florida Legislature enacted the Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act, chapter 2014-157, Laws of Florida, codified in part at section 381.986, Florida Statutes (2014). The Department was directed by the new law to authorize the establishment of one DO in each of five enumerated regions within the State. The Department promulgated an application form, incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64-4.002, to be used by applicants seeking approval as a dispensing organization. In July 2015, Loop’s filed an application to become the DO in the Northeast Region, consisting of 18 primarily rural counties. The Loop’s application was comparatively reviewed with several other applications. In November 2015, the Department notified Loop’s that its application had received the third-highest score during the comparative review. San Felasco Nurseries, Inc. (“San Felasco”), received the highest score; Chestnut Hill Tree Farm, LLC (“Chestnut Hill”), received the second highest score. However, the Department notified San Felasco that its application was being denied on the basis of an alleged deficiency, leaving Chestnut Hill as the approved DO in the Northeast Region. Loop’s and San Felasco each timely filed a petition for formal administrative hearing to challenge their denials. Chestnut Hill filed an “approved applicant” petition in support of the Department’s decision. The three petitions were consolidated into a single case at DOAH. The Florida Legislature, in the 2016 legislative session, passed House Bill 307 (CS for CS/CS/HB 307) and House Bill 1313, which were signed into law on March 25, 2016, as chapter 2016-123, Laws of Florida (referred to herein as the “2016 Law”). The 2016 Law says, in pertinent part: Section 3. (1) Notwithstanding s. 381.986(5)(b), Florida Statutes, a dispensing organization that receives notice from the Department of Health that it is approved as a region’s dispensing organization, posts a $5 million performance bond in compliance with rule 64-4.002(5)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and expends at least $100,000 to fulfill its legal obligations as a dispensing organization; or any applicant that received the highest aggregate score through the department’s evaluation process, notwithstanding any prior determination by the department that the applicant failed to meet the requirements of s. 381.986, Florida Statutes, must be granted cultivation authorization by the department and is approved to operate as a dispensing organization for the full term of its original approval and all subsequent renewals pursuant to s. 381.986, Florida Statutes. Any applicant that qualifies under this subsection which has not previously been approved as a dispensing organization by the department must be given approval as a dispensing organization by the department within 10 days after the effective date of this act, and within 10 days after receiving such approval must comply with the bond requirement in rule 64-4.002(5)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and must comply with all other applicable requirements of chapter 64-4, Florida Administrative Code. (2) If an organization that does not meet the criteria of subsection (1) receives a final determination from the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Department of Health, or a court of competent jurisdiction that it was entitled to be a dispensing organization under s. 381.986, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules, such organization and an organization that meets the criteria of section (1) shall both be dispensing organizations in the same region. During the operations of any dispensing organization that meets the criteria in this section the Department of Health may enforce rule 64-4.005, Florida Administrative Code, as filed on June 17, 2015. The 2016 Law thus effectively approved the applications of Chestnut Hill and San Felasco by legislative fiat, declaring the Department’s preliminary agency action to be final. Those two entities withdrew their petitions for formal administrative hearing and, upon accomplishing certain preliminary requirements, were to be granted licenses as DOs in the Northeast Region. The petition filed by Loop’s remained as the only challenge to the Department’s decision vis-à-vis the Northeast Region DO applications, resulting in the hearing at issue in this Recommended Order. (Both San Felasco and Chestnut Hill attempted to intervene in this action, but because the result in this case would have absolutely no bearing on the status of their DO licenses, their petitions to intervene were denied for lack of standing.) Loop’s was left to prove that its application should have been approved instead of one or both of the now-approved applicants. It is unclear why the Department takes such an aggressive adversarial stance against Loop’s in this proceeding. Should Loop’s prove that its application should have been approved rather than one of the other applicants, OCU would issue a DO license to Loop’s. If Loop’s fails to meet its burden of proof, OCU would not issue a license. That is the extent of OCU’s status in this matter. Notwithstanding, OCU fervently opposes approval of Loop’s as a DO in the Northeast Region. The Applicant Loop’s was founded in 1949 as a greenhouse and was organized as a corporation under the laws of Florida in 1970. It has operated a certified nursery for well over 30 years and has done so pursuant to a valid Certificate of Registration issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“DACS”) pursuant to section 581.131, Florida Statutes. Loop’s is a Florida greenhouse pioneer, having led the industry in advanced cultivation practices, such as drip irrigation and the use of blackout shade cloths to maximize yield. Today, Loop’s specializes in greenhouse-grown flowering potted plants. It has cultivated more than 400,000 plants annually since the early 1980s. Loop’s is operated by a qualified nurseryman, David Loop. Loop’s currently has 650,000 square feet of state-of-the- art greenhouses. The greenhouses are fully automated, with features including automatic temperature and humidity controls. The primary Loop’s nursery is operated in a 150,000 square foot greenhouse located in Jacksonville, Florida, and there is another 500,000 square feet of specialized greenhouses located in St. Johns County, Florida. Loop’s has plenty of space available in which to cultivate medical marijuana, pending development and approval of a security system for the nursery. Loop’s expressed its intention to use a subsidiary corporation or division (Loop’s Dispensaries, LLC) to operate the dispensing functions of its proposed project, if approved. This plan was in deference to the federal government’s refusal to recognize the legitimacy of medical marijuana and to keep the marijuana cultivation separate and apart from the other Loop’s cultivation processes. OCU’s contention that use of the LLC constitutes a “material misrepresentation” in the application is unfounded. Loop’s was overt and transparent concerning this contingency. Further, no mention was made of this perceived misrepresentation in OCU’s denial letter following review of the Loop’s application. The Application Form The application form for applying to be a DO identifies a number of statutory and rule requirements which must be met, including three basic criteria: a) Possess a valid certificate of registration issued by DACS; b) Show that the nursery is operated by a Florida nurseryman as described in section 581.011; and c) Prove continuous operation as a nursery for at least 30 continuous years. Loop’s generally satisfies each of those criteria. The application form is divided into four parts: Part I requires the applicant to provide basic information about itself. Part II requires the applicant to document its compliance with requirements which are mandated by statute. Part III requires the applicant to provide OCU with information addressing all items listed in rule 64-4.002. There are five substantive subparts in the application: Cultivation (constituting 30 percent of the weighted score), Processing (30 percent), Dispensing (15 percent), Medical Director (5 percent), and Financials (20 percent). These subparts are further broken down into sub-subparts, and weights or percentages are assigned to each of those. Part IV of the application addresses the application submission process, including payment of the application fee. It is clear Loop’s at least minimally meets the requirements set forth in the statute and rule and identified within the application. It has the ability to cultivate, process and dispense medical marijuana (or has set forth a reasonable proposal for doing so in its application). It has a qualified medical director. There is, as set forth below, some concern about the Loop’s financial statements, but Loop’s is generally stable and meets minimal financial requirements. However, Loop’s has the burden in the present case to show that it satisfied the requirements to such an extent that it, rather than Chestnut Hill or San Felasco, should have received the highest point total upon comparative review.1/ Looking at Part I of the application, Loop’s provided the requisite information dictated by the application form, as did--presumably-–the other applicants. There appears to be no dispute that all three applicants sufficiently satisfied Part I. As to Part II, Loop’s provided its DACS certification and submitted successful level 2 background screens for all of its owners and managers. OCU suggested that some individuals who may be involved with the Loop’s operation, if approved, should have undergone level 2 background screening. There is no persuasive evidence, however, that such persons were “owners or managers” as contemplated by statute and rule so as to be subject to the background screening. Loop’s raised a legitimate question as to whether competing applicant Chestnut Hill satisfied the requirement to have “operated for 30 continuous years as a registered nursery,” as required by section 381.986(5)(b)1. Chestnut Hill was formed as a limited liability company in Florida on August 29, 2005. By law, Chestnut Hill became a corporate “person” at that time. See § 607.01401(19), Fla. Stat. Thus, argues Loop’s, Chestnut Hill could not have operated a registered nursery for 30 years because it has not been in existence for 30 years. The Department takes the position that a “nursery” may be certified by DACS and, even if the nursery ownership changes its name or corporate structure, the “nursery” will continue to be certified. “Nursery” is defined in section 581.011(20) as “any grounds or premises” used for growing nursery stock. A DACS letter dated August 4, 2015, addressed to Loop’s states: “According to the Department’s records, your nursery has operated as a registered nursery since May 1, 1963 and has a current inventory of 951,781 plants.” A DACS letter to San Felasco dated July 6, 2015, states: “According to the Department’s records, your nursery has operated as a registered nursery since October 23, 1973 and has a current inventory of 561,200 plants.” DACS issued a letter dated August 3, 2015, to Chestnut Hill which states: “According to the Department’s records, your nursery has operated as a registered nursery since November 23, 1981 and has a current inventory of 406,337 plants.” OCU interpreted the statutory requirement in section 381.986(5)(b)1. to mean that if the applicant operated a registered nursery (rather than itself being a registered nursery), that would satisfy the requirement. OCU reputedly relied upon the DACS certification of the nursery premises to deem Chestnut Hill compliant with the 30 year requirement. Again, no one from Chestnut Hill was called as a witness to explain this conundrum. Comparative Review The five subparts in Part II of the application addressing the statutory criteria were carefully considered by OCU in its comparative review of the applicants. OCU’s process for reviewing the applications is set forth below. Applicants were to submit their applications and a $60,000 filing fee to OCU no later than July 8, 2015. At that point the applications were initially reviewed for completeness by OCU Director Bax. If any items or responses were missing from an application, Bax would send the applicant an omissions letter, giving the applicant an opportunity to supplement its application. In the case of Loop’s, Bax noted that Loop’s had not provided proof of operating a registered nursery for 30 continuous years and the financial statements provided in the application had not been audited. Loop’s timely provided the missing items requested by the Department. Once the applications were deemed complete, three individuals evaluated and scored the applications comparatively. The scorers were: Christian Bax; Patricia Nelson, a member of the Statewide Drug Policy Advisory Council; and Ellyn Hutson, a certified public accountant. Nelson and Hutson were appointed by the State Surgeon General. Instructions for scoring the applications were provided by the Department’s general counsel, Nicole Geary. Pursuant to those instructions, the scorers performed their comparative evaluations independently, not communicating with one another during the review process. They were, however, allowed to make inquiries to certain experts in various areas within the applications outside the scorer’s knowledge or expertise. The scorers each assigned scores on the various sections of the application and compiled the scores in a spreadsheet. The three spreadsheets were then consolidated into a single spreadsheet and the scores were totaled. San Felasco received the highest aggregate score–-3.9750; Chestnut Hill received the second highest score-–3.7917; and Loop’s received the third highest score-–3.5708. Each applicant’s score was an aggregate score totaling all sections of the application. Scoring higher in one section (e.g., cultivation) would not necessarily mean the applicant had the highest aggregate score. The application as a whole had to be scored higher than the others in order to be approved. (See, however, ALJ Van Laningham’s September 8, 2016 “Informational Order on the Multi- Criteria Evaluation, etc.,” entered in Plants of Ruskin, Inc. v. Dep’t. of Health, DOAH Case No. 15-7270, wherein he calls into question the entire process by which OCU “scored” the competing applications, deeming the so-called scores to actually be rankings and thus inconsistent with the statutory mandate.) At final hearing, Loop’s called one of the scorers, Bax, to discuss his evaluation and review of the applications, but did not call the other two scorers. The findings and conclusions reached by the other two scorers were not addressed. Nor were principals from the competing applicants called in order to compare or discuss their applications. Thus, Loop’s attempted to prove that its application was superior by affirming the appropriateness of its own application, superficially presenting portions of the competing applications, and showing that only one of three scorers deemed its application superior. That is not a legitimate or appropriate comparison. As to the technical and technological ability to cultivate, Loop’s provided ample proof that it has that ability. Loop’s will rely in part on assistance from CW Botanicals (i.e., the Stanley brothers), and will utilize some of that entity’s policies and procedures.2/ Although it has no experience cultivating cannabis, Loop’s is very skilled in cultivating other flowering plants. With the help of CW Botanicals, Loop’s undoubtedly would be able to successfully cultivate cannabis. It is the intention of Loop’s to cultivate the specific strain of medical cannabis known as “Charlotte’s Web.” That strain was developed by the Stanley brothers and has proven effective in treating many conditions, especially severe, intractable epilepsy. There are many strains of medical marijuana, however, as evidenced by the fact that the Stanley brothers themselves grow hundreds of different strains. San Felasco proposes to cultivate a strain known as Anovia Medical; Chestnut Hill plans to grow one known as Green Solutions. Other than its notoriety, there was no competent evidence that Charlotte’s Web is superior to any other strain. The Loop’s proposal to cultivate Charlotte’s Web is based entirely on an oral agreement with Ray of Hope, an entity which holds the rights to Charlotte’s Web in Florida. There is no binding written agreement between Loop’s and Ray of Hope. Nothing prohibits Ray of Hope from granting other Florida growers the right to use that strain as well. The suggestion that Loop’s could comply with the cultivation requirement better than the other two applicants is purely speculative. Loop’s pointed out that Chestnut Hill was a tree farm and that San Felasco dealt with outdoor plants. Both are operating registered nurseries within the State, even if they are not currently growing marijuana. However, each of those applicants presumably submitted plans for cultivating medical marijuana in some fashion. No competent evidence was presented to infer that the proposals of Chestnut Hill and/or San Felasco were inferior to Loop’s, or, conversely, that the Loop’s proposal was superior to those applications. Loop’s provided an expert to explain the nature of the Loop’s plan for securing its operations and personnel. The plan was well-developed and seemed to address all of the issues Loop’s would face once it began cultivation. There were, however, some glitches pointed out in the Loop’s plan, e.g., its 24-hour on-site security was to be provided by a single individual who, presumably, would need to sleep sometimes. But again, there is no evidence that the security plans proposed by the other two applicants are in any way inferior. The same is true of the three applicants’ ability to maintain accountability of their raw materials and finished products. Loop’s had a good plan for doing so, but did not specifically demonstrate how its plan was superior to the others. As for a reasonably located infrastructure to dispense the product, Loop’s reasonably showed that it had a broader (geographic) distribution plan than its competitors. However, there is no requirement that a DO dispense its product statewide, only that each DO must cover its designated region, in this case the Northeast Region. Thus, the fact that the other applicants did not propose as wide a distribution of its product as Loop’s is not consequential. In the Loop’s application, 12 distinct dispensing sites are proposed. Eight of those sites have been clearly identified, but zoning and other approvals have not yet been obtained. San Felasco proposes six sites for dispensaries; Chestnut Hill proposes only one, with an option for one more. It is clear Loop’s intends to distribute its product on a wider scale than San Felasco or Chestnut Hill, but there is no requirement for doing so. (The application form does include references to such things as being centrally located to several populated areas and proximity to patient populations, but those are examples of what an applicant might want to show OCU. There is no statutory mandate for those items). The statutory and rule provisions relating to dispensing of the cannabis product does not say that ability to distribute more product is necessarily better. Further, Loop’s did not explain how its product would successfully compete with the DOs approved in the other regions around the State. So, in total, Loop’s did not prove that its distribution plan was superior to the other applicants’ plans. As for transportation of the product to its dispensaries and users, Loop’s plans to use a high-roofed van with a refrigerated cargo space and a lockbox or safe. The van appears to be a very competent means of transporting the product. San Felasco proposes the use of one armored van and several small Prius-model automobiles. Chestnut Hill plans to use two Prius automobiles to transport its product. Each applicant’s proposal seems adequate for their projected distribution of medical marijuana. In the area of financial ability to maintain operations for two years, Loop’s cast some reasonable doubt as to the showing Chestnut Hill made to satisfy this requirement. There was no similar failing noted for San Felasco. Loop’s own financial ability to operate is somewhat suspect due to the conditional nature of its audited financial statements. Loop’s initially submitted a “reviewed” financial statement with its application. A reviewed statement is one prepared internally and then reviewed by a certified public accountant for general correctness. OCU asked Loop’s to submit an audited financial statement instead, and Loop’s complied with that request. The audited financial statement was prepared by Steven Hand, a self-employed CPA whose major business was doing business evaluations. The Loop’s audit was the only one he had prepared since 1998. Mr. Hand was familiar with Loop’s and had some history with the company. He was asked, on extremely short notice, to prepare an audited financial statement for Loop’s. The amount of time he had to prepare the statement was probably insufficient, but he did the best he could in that time. Mr. Hand did not do a written audit plan before commencing the audit although that is a requirement for a bona fide audit. Mr. Hand said that he had a “plan” of sorts based on his conversations with Mr. Loop, but such oral discussions are not sufficient under GAAS to constitute a plan. The audited financial statement he issued did not have the requisite headings required by GAAS, but the financial statement was generally acceptable as to content. Again, failure to include the headings is a violation of GAAS, but the violation seems minimal in this context. Mr. Hand could not issue an unqualified (a/k/a unmodified or clean) opinion regarding the Loop’s financial situation. That is because he was unable to verify the inventory due to his having been engaged to do the work more than a year after the audit period. The verification of accounts receivables was done by Loop’s, not by the CPA, another violation of auditing guidelines. Thus, Mr. Hand issued a “qualified” opinion, i.e., a much weaker opinion that those submitted by the competing applicants. There is no evidence of record as to the validity or appropriateness of the audited financial statement submitted by San Felasco in its application. Thus, no comparison of information contained therein can be made. Some concerns were raised by Loop’s about Chestnut Hill’s finances related to the way that entity valuated its inventory. Further, only the balance sheet on Chestnut Hill’s financials was audited; the auditor issued a disclaimer as to the income statement portion of the financial report. But, ultimately, the auditors were able to issue a valid audited financial statement for the entity. San Felasco was alleged to have a suspect financial ratio which could have an effect on its ability to continue operations for two years, as required by statute. But no discreet comparison between the Loop’s financials and those of the competing applicants was presented at final hearing. Loop’s has retained a qualified physician to act as its medical director and to supervise the DO’s activities. There is no evidence the physician is better than the medical directors proposed by the other parties. The evidence at final hearing was abundantly clear that low THC, high CDB marijuana can have enormously successful results in children with significant medical conditions. The stories of how this drug has helped children overcome debilitating seizure activity were miraculous in nature. It is difficult to conceive how such a beneficial medication could be objected to by some uninformed persons or groups.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Health, Office of Compassionate Use, finding that Petitioner, Loop’s Nursery & Greenhouses, Inc., failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that its application to become a distributing organization in the Northeast Region should have been approved, and therefore, denying Loop’s application to become a dispensing organization in the Northeast Region. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2016 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 2016.
The Issue Does Respondent Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. (Horizon) owe Petitioner Richard Sapp, d/b/a Sapp Farms (Sapp Farms) $5,484.50 as alleged in the Amended Complaint filed herein by Sapp Farms?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Sapp Farms was a "producer" as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes, of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Tomatoes come within the definition of "agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. Horizon is a Florida Corporation, owned entirely by Donald E. Hinton, and located in Sydney, Florida. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Horizon was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Horizon was issued License Number 10584, supported by Bond Number 58 84 19 in the amount of $16,000 written by Gulf Life Insurance Company, as Surety, with an inception date of September 26, 1998, and an expiration date of September 25, 1999. By Invoice numbered 1262, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 6, dated June 18, 1999, with a shipping date of June 16, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon several varieties and sizes of tomatoes in 25-pound cartons at an agreed-upon price of $9.00 per 25-pound carton for 267 cartons and $8.00 per 25-pound carton for 104 cartons for a total amount of $3,235.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. By check dated July 3, 1999, Horizon paid Sapp Farms $1,415.00 on these tomatoes leaving a balance owing of $1,820.00. By Invoice numbered 1263, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 10, dated June 22, 1999, with a shipping date of June 22, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon 122 25-pound cartons of extra large pink tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton, 51 25- pound cartons of large pink tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton, and 296 25-pound cartons of 125-150 count Roma tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton for a total invoiced price of $3,752.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. Sapp Farms has not been paid for these tomatoes. By Invoice numbered 1272, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 15, dated June 24, 1999, with a shipping date of June 23, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon 70 25-pound cartons of extra large tomatoes at an agreed upon price of $8.50 per 25- pound carton for a total price of $595.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. Sapp Farms has not been paid for those tomatoes. Sapp Farms agrees that it owes Horizon $682.50 in freight charges. See Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 12 and the Amended Complaint filed by Sapp Farms. Horizon contends that it did not agree to purchase the tomatoes at an agreed upon price per 25-pound carton but agreed to "work" the tomatoes with Horizon’s customers and to pay Sapp Farms based on the price received for the tomatoes from its customers less any freight charges, etc. Additionally, Horizon contends that it made contact or attempted to make contact with Sapp Farms regarding each of the loads and was advised, except possibly on one load, by either Mark Davis or Richard Sapp that a federal inspection was not necessary and to "work" the tomatoes as best Horizon could. The more credible evidence is that neither Mark Davis nor Richard Sapp was timely advised concerning the alleged condition of the tomatoes. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to show that the condition of the tomatoes when delivered to Horizon’s customers had deteriorated to a point that resulted in rejection by Horizon’s customers. The more credible evidence shows that neither Mark Davis nor Richard Sapp advised Horizon that there was no need for a federal inspection or that Horizon could "work" the tomatoes with Horizon’s customers. The more credible evidence is that Horizon agreed to purchase Sapp Farms’ tomatoes at an agreed-upon price and that upon those tomatoes being loaded on Horizon’s truck, Horizon was responsible to Sapp Farms for the agreed-upon price. Sapp Farms timely filed its Amended Complaint in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, and Horizon owes Sapp Farms for tomatoes purchased from Sapp Farms on Invoice numbered 1262, 1263, and 1272 less the partial payment on Invoice numbered 1262 of $1,415 and freight charges of $682.50 for total amount due of $5,484.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order granting Sapp Farms relief by ordering Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. to pay Sapp Farms the sum of $5,484.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Sapp Sapp Farms 4720 Gallagher Road Plant City, Florida 33565 Donald E. Hinton, Qualified Representative President, Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. 1839 Dover Road, North Post Office Box 70 Sydney, Florida 33587 Michael E. Riley, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk and Caldwell A Professional Association Post Office Box 1050 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issues presented in this action concern the Petitioner's failure to renew the Respondent's Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration for the year 1981. The refusal to renew the certificate is premised upon the alleged failure on the part of the Respondent to furnish Felix Munoz and others with an itemized statement of deductions made from their payments for rent, and loans owed to the Petitioner, and by doing so purportedly acting contrary to Subsection 450.33(7), Florida Statutes. In addition, it is alleged, as a ground for refusal to renew the certificate, that Raul Saldivar, Jr., failed to distribute when due all monies or other items of value entrusted him by third persons for such purpose in violation of Subsection 450.33(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 385-4.08(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by receiving payroll checks payable to Arnulfo Ramirez, Esteban Guerraro, Carmen Cruz, Juan Cruz, Santos Martinez, and Leonel Flores; further, that Respondent took the payroll checks in the absence of the farm workers, endorsed and deposited the checks to his bank account. FINDINGS OF FACT 1/ In the years 1979 and 1980, the Respondent had been granted a Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration from the State Department of Labor and Employment Security in keeping with the terms and conditions of Chapter 450, Florida Statutes. When Saldivar applied for the renewal of his Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration for 1981, he was refused renewal for the reasons set forth in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. The Respondent has, in all other respects, complied with the necessary conditions for his relicensure. Beginning in August, 1979, and continuing into 1980, the Respondent was a member of a partnership known as R & S Sons. Particularly in the year 1980, Saldivar, as a member of the partnership, was involved in providing farm labor employees to various tomato growers (Corkscrew Growers, Greener's Farm, C & G Farms, Johnson's Farm, Harvey Brothers, and R & S Sons, which was the partnership farm.) There was no written contract between the growers and Saldivar. Each grower would pay Saldivar for transporting the farm laborers to the growers' farms, and in addition, pay Saldivar for running a labor camp, that is, the place at which the farm laborers resided when they were not employed picking tomatoes. This latter item was the payment for rent for the laborers. The Respondent was also paid by the growers for the units of tomatoes picked by the laborers on an increment payment basis known as a "bin." The Respondent maintained a list of farm laborers through the device of a time card for each employee that worked for a week or mere for one of the growers. Those farm employees had Social Security cards and the growers furnished Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage for the benefit of the farm laborers. There were approximately 200 farm laborers in the category being provided by the Respondent's organization. The drivers of the tomato hauling trucks worked for the growers but the trucks belonged to the Saldivar organization and the picking buckets were also provided by this latter group. The farm laborers were paid by checks issued by the various growers. They were made up from time records maintained by the Respondent's organization. The check had attached to it a stub indicating the amount of pay, and the amount of Social Security deductions and the stub was available to be maintained by the employee. The information placed on the time records was gained from field supervisors who were employees of the growers. (Although the growers had field supervisors immediately in charge of the farm laborers, Saldivar was the overall coordinator for the activities of these laborers.) No withholding amount was taken out of the checks of the laborers other than Social Security. The payroll records of the Respondent would indicate the net earnings and gross amount paid to each farm laborer. Payment to the farm laborers was made at the farm labor camp managed by the Respondent. The process for disbursing the checks was to call the laborer by name and Saldivar would hand the check to the laborer. One of the farm laborers who lived at the Saldivar camp and picked tomatoes for a grower in the area was Felix Munoz. Munoz arrived at the Saldivar camp in August, 1979. Saldivar, at that point, loaned Munoz money to pay for Munoz's transportation to Florida. There was no repayment of the travel loan for a period of time for reason of unavailability of work for Munoz. In late September, Munoz began to repay the loan, and the method of repayment was at the time wherein the Respondent disbursed the payroll check from the grower to Munoz. Munoz would in turn endorse the check over to the Respondent and receive cash in the face amount of the check, and then give the Respondent some of that cash as repayment for the loan. Munoz was not provided a statement of the amount repaid on the loan. Respondent did have the amount written on a piece of paper over which he had control. The same loan arrangements for transportation that were involved with the laborer Munoz occurred with other farm laborers living in the Saldivar camp, and the same method was utilized for handling the manner of repayment of the indebtedness, and for recording the matters of the indebtedness. Munoz and other farm laborers also paid the Respondent rent for living at the Respondent's farm labor camp and the rent was paid from the proceeds of the checks for their efforts as tomato pickers. Munoz and others were not given statements of the amount they had paid to Saldivar for rent. Arnulfo Ramirez, Esteban Guerrero, Carnen Cruz, Juan Cruz, Santos Martinez and Leonel Flores were farm laborers who arrived at the Saldivar camp in December, 1979. These individuals, as with others spoken to above, were loaned money to pay for their transportation costs to Florida. The Respondent loaned them the money, and they in turn, agreed to repay the transportation loan from salaries earned and by the method identified before. These individuals had left the area of the State when the growers issued their last paycheck. Therefore, Respondent picked up the paychecks from the growers, and acting on the advice of counsel, endorsed the farm laborers' names to the checks and deposited them in the Respondent's account and the proceeds were used as credit against the transportation loans owed by these individuals.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should deny Petitioner's application for renewal of its standard assisted living facility license with a limited mental health component.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is responsible for licensing and regulating assisted living facilities in Florida pursuant to Part III, Chapter 400, Florida Statutes (2001). Pursuant to that responsibility, the Agency is authorized to conduct surveys and follow-up surveys, to make visits and inspections of assisted living facilities, and to investigate complaints. Oakland Manor is an assisted living facility located at 2812 North Nebraska Avenue, in Tampa, Florida, licensed and regulated pursuant to Part III, Chapter 400, Florida Statutes (2001), and Rule Chapter 58A-5, Florida Administrative Code. The facility's license has a limited mental health component. Rory and Lisa McCarthy have owned and operated Oakland Manor since about December 1999. Mrs. McCarthy is the administrator of the facility. Between the dates of December 14, 2000 and September 18, 2001, the Agency conducted three appraisal visits, a moratorium monitoring visit, a complaint investigation, and a biennial license renewal survey of the facility. The Agency noted the results of these inspections on a form referred to as Agency Form 3020-0001 ("Form 3020"). The Form 3020 is the document used to charge assisted living facilities with deficiencies that violate applicable law and rules. The Form 3020 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number. Each tag of the Form 3020 includes a narrative description of the allegations against the facility and cites the relevant rule or law violated by the alleged deficiency. In order to protect the privacy of the residents, the Form 3020 and this recommended order refer to the subject resident by a number rather than by a name. There are 24 tags at issue in the proceeding, some having been cited as repeat or uncorrected deficiencies. An uncorrected deficiency is one that was previously cited and has not been corrected by the time designated or by the time of the Agency's follow-up visit. A repeat deficiency is one that the facility has been cited for and that has been corrected, but after the correction, the deficiency occurs again. Section 400.419, Florida Statutes, requires that the Agency assign a class rating to the deficiencies alleged in its Form 3020. The classification rating assigned to a deficiency is based on the nature of the violation and the gravity of its probable effect on facility residents. On December 14, 2000, the Agency conducted an appraisal visit of Oakland Manor. As a result of this visit, the Agency cited the facility with four Class III deficiencies, including a Tag A519 deficiency for failure to maintain minimum staffing to meet the residents’ needs, a Tag A1001 for failure to provide a safe environment, Tag A1024 for failure to provide beds for two residents, and Tag A1033 for failure to provide each bathroom with a door in good working order to ensure privacy for residents. The Agency conducted a second appraisal visit of Oakland Manor on March 12, 2001, and cited the facility for seven deficiencies, including three uncorrected deficiencies from the December 14, 2000, visit. According to the Form 3020 for the March 12, 2001, appraisal visit, the uncorrected deficiencies were cited as Tag A519, for failure to provide minimum staffing; Tag A1001, failure to provide a safe environment; and Tag A1024, for failure to provide clean, comfortable mattresses. In addition to the alleged uncorrected deficiencies, the Agency cited the facility for four new deficiencies under Tag A210, Tag A212, Tag A523, and Tag A1004. Tags A519, A523, and A1001 were rated as Class II deficiencies. The other tags cited were rated as Class III deficiencies. Because the Agency found new violations of Tags A519, A1001, and A1024, and deficiencies under those same tag numbers were identified in December 2000, the Agency deemed those violations or deficiencies to be uncorrected deficiencies. On March 13, 2001, the day after the second appraisal visit, the Agency entered an Order of Immediate Moratorium ("Order"). The Order was based on the alleged violations cited from the March 2001 appraisal visit and stated that the conditions at the facility presented a significant threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents. Under the Order, Oakland Manor was prohibited from admitting any residents. On June 13, 2001, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation based on a complaint that the Agency had received. The Form 3020 summarizing the Agency's findings during the June 13, 2001, investigation did not cite Oakland Manor for any continuing violations, but alleged that there was a violation of Tag A1114, relating to staff records standards. The A1114 deficiency was assigned a Class II violation. The Agency conducted a biennial license and limited mental health renewal survey on June 28, 2001. This survey is required for continued licensure. As a result of the biennial survey, the Agency cited Oakland Manor with the following ten deficiencies, none of which had been previously cited: Tags L200, L201, L202, L203, L400, A525, A634, A1005, A1101, and A1103. All of these tags were assigned Class III ratings. On September 18, 2001, the Agency conducted an appraisal/monitoring visit. As a result of this visit, the Agency cited Oakland Manor with two violations, Tag A519, related to staffing standards, and Tag A1004, related to physical plant standards, both of which were assigned Class III ratings. Because Oakland Manor was cited for deficiencies under Tag 519 during the March 12, 2001, visit, the Agency noted that the deficiency of Tag A519 was a repeat violation. The Form 3020 for each survey or visit indicated when each alleged violation should be corrected. In some cases, a specific date was given. In other instances, the correction was to be implemented "immediately." DECEMBER 14, 2000, APPRAISAL TAG A519 Tag A519 requires a facility to maintain the minimum staffing hours set forth in Rule 58A-5.019(4), Florida Administrative Code. Because Oakland Manor had a resident census of 26 in November 2000 and through the first two weeks of December 2000, the facility was required to have minimum staff hours of 294 per week. Based on a review of the facility's staffing schedule for the time in question, the Agency surveyor properly concluded that the facility did not maintain the required minimum staff hours of 294 in November 2000 and the first two weeks of December 2000. As a result of this finding, the Agency properly cited Oakland Manor with a Tag A519, Class III deficiency. DECEMBER 14, 2000, APPRAISAL: TAG A1001 The second violation for which Oakland Manor was cited was a Tag A1001 deficiency, which requires that assisted living facilities "be located, designed, equipped, and maintained to promote a residential, non-medical environment, and provide for the safe care and supervision of all residents." See Rule 58A- 5.023(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The violation was rated as a Class III deficiency. The allegation that Oakland Manor failed to meet the requirements of Tag A1001 is based on the following observations noted on the Form 3020: there were electrical wires and light fixtures hanging loose from the ceiling in the hallway on the first floor; the residents' room walls were dirty, the rooms had a foul odor and the smell of urine; the floors of the facility were dirty; residents were observed smoking in their beds; the toilet tank lid was missing; and discharge water from the washing machine in the breezeway was running over the walkway in the patio area. At the time of the survey, one resident's room had dirty walls and also had a foul odor. The floors of the facility were dirty and had food particles on them, and the facility had an "unpleasant odor." Also, two residents were observed smoking in their bedrooms, despite the facility's no smoking policy. Contrary to the observation noted on the Form 3020, there were no light fixtures hanging loose from the ceiling, nor had that situation ever existed. At hearing, there was no evidence presented by the Agency that there were light fixtures hanging loosely from the ceiling. The electrical wires, referred to in the Form 3020, were slightly visible and coming from a 9-foot ceiling. However, there were wire nuts on the wires and, thus, the wires were not a danger to the residents. There was water coming from the washing machine as noted by the Agency surveyor. Mr. McCarthy does not deny that allegation, but the water coming from the washing machine was "feed" water going into the machine and not "discharge" water as noted in the Form 3020. This problem was resolved the following day when Mr. McCarthy purchased and had a new washing machine installed. The surveyor observed one toilet that did not have a toilet tank lid. The owners do not dispute this, but the lid was not "missing" as noted on the Form 3020, but had likely been removed by one of the residents. When a resident removes the toilet tank lid, staff members routinely replace the lid. The surveyor was unaware of any regulation that requires the facility to secure the lids to prevent the residents from removing them. DECEMBER 14, 2000, APPRAISAL: TAG A1024 The third alleged violation for which the facility was cited was Tag A1024, which refers to the physical plant standard set forth in Rule 58A-5.023(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code. That standard requires that each resident bedroom or sleeping area, where furnishings are supplied by the facility, shall at a minimum, be furnished with, among other things, a clean comfortable bed with a mattress. It is alleged that this standard was not met as evidenced by the observation that the mattress in Room No. 10 was torn, and the filler appeared to be coming out of the mattress. The undisputed testimony was that the torn mattress was not being used by any resident of the facility, but was a mattress that was not being used. The Notice of Intent to Deny mischaracterizes the surveyor's findings under Tag A1024 as "failure to provide beds for two residents." This allegation was not addressed or proven by the Agency. DECEMBER 14, 2000, APPRAISAL: TAG A1033 The fourth alleged violation, cited under Tag A1033, relates to the physical plant standard set forth in Rule 58A- 5.023(5), Florida Administrative Code. That standard requires that each bathroom have a door in working order to assure privacy and that the entry door to the bathrooms with a single toilet is required to have a lock which is operable from the inside by the resident, with no key needed. The Agency alleged that this standard was not met in that the bathroom door on the first floor was not operable because the door was missing the striker plate that keeps the door tightly closed into the frame. The Agency noted that as a result of this alleged defect, residents using that bathroom did not have privacy. Based on Mr. McCarthy's testimony, there was a door leading into the bathroom, which had a working lock. In addition, the door with the missing striker plate had a hook and eye that allowed the door to be secured from the inside. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL TAG A519 Tag A519 requires the facility to meet the minimum staffing required by Rule 58A-5.019(4), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the resident census of 25 for March 4-12, 2001, and the surveyor's review of the staff work schedule for that week, Oakland Manor was cited for a Tag A519 deficiency. According to the facility's staff work schedule, there were 208 total staff hours for that week and not the required minimum staffing hours. The Form 3020 stated that the "[l]ack of adequate staffing has resulted in a malfunctioning sewage system which poses an immediate risk to the residents, staff, and public." In making this allegation, the Agency apparently assumed that the residents caused the sewage system problems and that if there had there been adequate staffing, these problems would not have occurred. The Agency then alleged that the malfunctioning sewage system posed an immediate risk to the residents, staff, and public. However, these assumptions and allegations are not supported by any evidence. There is no evidence that the sewage system problems were caused by the residents and/or lack of staffing. Moreover, there is nothing in this record which supports the claim that the malfunctioning sewage system posed an "immediate risk" to the residents, staff, or public. Clearly, there was a Tag A519 deficiency in that the facility failed to maintain the weekly minimum staff hours required. Also, because the facility had been cited for a Tag A519 deficiency during the December 14, 2000, appraisal, the Agency properly found that the Tag A519 deficiency, cited during the March 12, 2001, appraisal was an uncorrected deficiency. However, in this instance, the violation did not "directly threaten the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the facility residents." Accordingly, the violation is not a Class II deficiency, as alleged by the Agency, but is a Class III deficiency. MARCH 12, 2001 APPRAISAL: TAG A523 As stated on the Form 3020, Tag A523 requires that, notwithstanding the minimum staffing ratio, all facilities have enough qualified staff to provide resident supervision, and provide or arrange for resident services in accordance with resident scheduled and unscheduled service needs, resident contracts, and resident care standards. See Rule 58A- 5.019(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency alleged that Oakland Manor failed to meet this standard. The determination that Oakland Manor failed to meet the standard required by Tag A523 was based on the surveyor's observation and interview with the facility administrator. On the day of the survey, from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 11:00 a.m., the surveyor noticed that there was a strong odor of sewage coming from the basement area and standing water on the basement floor. The surveyor learned from the administrator that the matter came to her attention that morning and that a plumber had been called and had corrected a similar problem a week earlier. Mr. McCarthy explained that the lift station malfunction and the overflow of sewage into the basement had occurred the day of the Agency inspection. After a plumber came to the facility to repair the lift station and was unable to do so, an electric company was called and came out and immediately repaired the lift station. The Form 3020 notes that when the lift station backed up the week before, the plumber found t-shirts, garbage bags, bandannas, and a stick of deodorant clogging up the lift station. From this alleged statement, the surveyor erroneously concluded that some of the residents had thrown these and possibly other items into the lift station. In view of this assumption, the surveyor alleged on the Form 3020 that: The lift station back up is occurring due to a lack of supervision of qualified staff to provide resident supervision and allowing the residents to freely access the lift station in the yard and put items in it. The size and accessibility of the lift station also poses a threat to residents due to the possibility of a fall while throwing in inappropriate items. The lift station was in the yard of the facility, but the residents do not have free access to the lift station, except the top external lid of the lift station. The residents can not remove the lid covering the lift station because the lid is made of steel and weighs over 200 pounds. Accordingly, the residents can not throw items in the lift station and, thus, there is no threat to the residents "due to the possibility of a fall while throwing" items into the lift station, as alleged by the Agency. The Agency deemed the Tag A523 violation as a Class II deficiency and required that the facility correct the deficiency immediately. The Agency failed to establish this allegation. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A1001 The standards of Tag A1001 are stated in paragraph 20. Based on the surveyor's observations, Oakland Manor was again cited for a Tag A1001 deficiency. Tag A1001 was deemed by the Agency to be an uncorrected deficiency and designated a Class II violation. In the Form 3020, the Agency listed the following 12 alleged facts as the basis for the cited deficiency: Two large ladders were lying on the floor in the hallway, partially blocking access through the hallway. The bathtub and shower in the first floor shower room were badly stained and mildewed. In Room No. 1, the toilet was not working and there was an accumulation of feces in the toilet bowl. In Room No. 3, there were piles of dirty laundry, trash, and cigarette ashes in the middle of the room. The wall and floors throughout the facility were dirty. In Room No. 8, there was an electric space heater in front of full length curtains. In Room No. 10, there were cigarette butts on the floor and the resident in the room was observed smoking, although smoking is not allowed in the facility. In the second residential building, the first bathroom had a dirty floor and the vinyl was very worn and there was no lid on the "toilet back." In the second residential building television room, there was a resident smoking even though there is a no smoking sign posted. There was a strong sewer odor emanating from the facility basement and the basement had standing water. The staircase to the second floor of the main building was covered with dirt and grime. The overhead light in the second floor hallway was not working and the staircase was very dark. The ladders, referred to in the Form 3020, were not lying on the floor but were leaning against a recessed part of the wall in the hallway. They were not blocking the passageway and, even with the ladders in the hallway, there was enough room for a 215-pound man to walk through the hall into the adjacent room. The reason the ladders were in the hall was that Mr. McCarthy was painting the facility. At the end of each day, when Mr. McCarthy was finished painting, he stored the ladders in an office in back of the kitchen or in a shed in the back of the facility. The surveyor reported that the bathtub and shower in the first floor shower room were badly stained and mildewed. Mrs. McCarthy testified that the shower stall is made of heavy marble and is original to the 100-year-old house and that many of the stains can not be scrubbed off. The substance the surveyor described as mildew was shampoo. The toilet in Resident Room No. 1 was described in the Form 3020 as having an accumulation of feces and not working. The toilet was stopped up, but was working and was put back into flushing order that same day, immediately upon the problem being called to her attention. The residents in that room placed female products in the toilet and caused it to stop up. However, the toilet was functioning in all respects when it was not stopped up. In Resident Room No. 3, there were piles of dirty laundry, trash, and cigarette ashes in the middle of the room. This was not disputed. Every shift, staff is suppose to sweep, mop, and make sure that the room is cleaned out, but sometimes the residents put their laundry on the bed. The walls and floors throughout the facility were dirty as reported in the Form 3020. In an effort to keep the walls clean, they are painted every three or four months. The Agency surveyor observed a space heater in Room No. 8, which she characterized as a fire hazard. However, the heater was not plugged in and was not in use at that time. When the heater is in use, it is in the middle of the room and not near the curtain. In Room No. 10, the surveyor observed cigarette butts on the floor and the resident in the room was observed smoking, even though the facility had a no smoking policy and all residents were given copies of that policy, upon admission. In Oakland Manor’s second residential building, the surveyor observed that the floor was dirty and the vinyl was torn, and there was no lid on the toilet back. Mr. McCarthy confirmed that the vinyl was worn and did not dispute that the floor was dirty. At the time of the Agency inspection, the worn dirty vinyl was in the process of being replaced. With regard to the toilet backs, the residents remove the toilet tank lids, but they are always put back on. The Agency surveyor observed a resident smoking in the television room, even though there was a “No Smoking” sign posted in the room. At Oakland Manor, smoking in violation of the house rules is a continuing problem that the administrator and staff make efforts to correct. The Agency surveyor observed that there was standing water in the basement and a strong sewer odor coming from the basement. Other facts related to this observation are discussed in paragraphs 35 and 36. Mrs. McCarthy does not dispute this allegation, but the problem was promptly correctly. Mr. Carthy corrected the problem within 48 hours; he went into the basement and “squeegeed” all the standing water and otherwise treated the floor to dry it and deodorize it. The surveyor determined that the overhead light in the second floor hallway of the main house was not working. She reached this conclusion after she first observed the dark hallway and then tried to turn on the light and was unable to do so. There is no indication that the surveyor asked facility staff to turn on the light or inquired as to how the switch worked. The light operates by a three-way switch, and although there are two switches, only one of them turns on the light. Also, there are two lights in the stairwell so that if one light is burned out, the other one still works, but it does not appear that the inspector knew how to operate the three-way switch. No testimony was presented by the Agency regarding the allegation concerning the staircase to the second floor of the main house. Based on the Agency’s findings in the paragraph 40-d, e, and j, above, the facility was properly cited for the Tag A1001 deficiency. This was an uncorrected deficiency. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A1004 Tag A1004 requires that all windows, doors, plumbing, and appliances in assisted living facilities be functional and in good working order. See Rule 58A-5.023(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. According to the Form 3020, Oakland Manor failed to meet this standard as evidenced by windows in the facility that were not functional and in good working order and failing to promptly repair broken glass, which "may result in injury to residents or staff." The surveyor observed the following: a large window pane in the front door was broken, the lower window pane in the dining room window was covered over with plywood, the first floor rear bathroom window was hanging off the hinge and the screen was missing; and the window pane of the outside door leading to the ramp was broken and covered with a garbage bag. The owners do not dispute that the pane in the front door was broken, but testified that the material was not glass, but Plexiglas. The door had been broken by one of the residents the day of the survey. Mr. McCarthy replaced the Plexiglas pane the same day and, four or five days later, replaced the entire front door with a solid door. As to the allegation that the lower half of the dining room window was covered with plywood, that there was not a glass pane in the lower part of the window. Rather, the plywood was placed there instead of the glass and was put in with trim molding and sealed with caulking. It appears that the window was designed that way to serve as a "fixed" window. The Agency acknowledged that window had been like that before the McCarthys purchased the facility. Moreover, the Agency had not previously indicated that this was a violation of any regulation. Although the Agency offered no suggestions to address its concern with the “fixed” window, Mr. McCarthy replaced the plywood with Plexiglas in an attempt to comply with the Agency requirements. The surveyor's observation regarding the first floor rear bathroom window was reversed. There was a screen on hinges that opened and closed and the top hinge of the screen was pulled out and hanging over a bit. However, the screen was there and the window was functional. Mrs. McCarthy does not dispute that the outside door had a broken glass pane that was covered with a garbage bag. The glass pane had been broken out earlier that day and the entire door was replaced within a day or so of the Agency's appraisal visit. The observations noted in paragraph 61 constitutes a violation of Tag A1004. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A1024 The Tag A1024 requires that each resident room in an assisted living facility be furnished with, among other things, a clean comfortable mattress. See Rule 58A-5.023(4)(e)1., Florida Administrative Code. According to the Form 3020, the Agency alleged that Oakland Manor failed to comply with this standard in that "the facility did not provide appropriate beds for two residents." No mention is made in the Form 3020 of which residents did not have appropriate beds. The alleged Tag A1024 deficiency was based on the two reported observations of the surveyor. First, the Form 3020 notes that in Room No. 10, the surveyor observed "a medical crutch being used as a mattress support on one bed." Second, the surveyor noted her observation that in Room No. 4, there was "a ripped mattress with the filling coming out of the rips." The owners testified that the crutch was not being used to support the mattress and that bed was not being used by any of the residents. Mr. McCarthy did not know why the crutch was under the mattress, but it was not there for support because of the construction of the bed. As to the second observation, the owners do not dispute that the mattress also in Room No. 4 was ripped. However, the bed with the torn mattress was not being used by anyone and has been replaced. Finally, there were appropriate beds for all the residents because at the time of this survey, there were 26 residents and 32 beds. This testimony was not disputed by the Agency. Tag A1024 was deemed by the Agency to be an uncorrected deficiency and was designated as a Class III violation. The Agency gave the facility until March 15, 2001, to correct the deficiency. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A210 Four additional new violations were cited as a result of the Agency's March 12, 2001, appraisal visit. These violations or deficiencies were assigned Tag A210, Tag A212, Tag A523, and Tag A1004. Tag A210 requires compliance with the standards set forth in Rule 58A-5.024, Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that assisted living facilities maintain the records prescribed therein "in a form, place and system ordinarily employed in good business practice and accessible to the department and [A]gency staff." Rule 58A-5.024(1)(m), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the facility maintain all fire safety inspection reports issued by the local authority having jurisdiction or the State Fire Marshal within the past 2 years. In an interview, which occurred during this visit, the facility administrator advised the Agency surveyor that the fire inspection reports were not on the premises, but at the administrator's home. Based on this statement by the administrator, the Agency properly concluded that this standard was violated because the fire inspection records were maintained at the owner/administrator's home, and were not in a place accessible to Agency staff as required by the applicable rule. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A212 The Tag A212 relates to facility records standards. According to the Form 3020, Oakland Manor failed to meet this standard in that it violated Rules 58A-5.020(3) and 58A- 5.024(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code. The former rule requires that "copies of inspection reports [relating to food hygiene] issued by the county health department for the last two years . . . be on file in the facility." The latter rule requires that all sanitation inspection reports issued by the county health department within the past two years be maintained in a form, place, and system ordinarily employed in good business practice and accessible to department or agency staff. The Form 3020 indicates and it is undisputed that the most recent copy of the sanitation inspection report was not on the premises, but at the administrator's home. MARCH 13, 2001, ORDER OF IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM On March 13, 2001, the day following the Agency’s March 12, 2001, appraisal visit to Oakland Manor, the Agency imposed a Moratorium on Admissions to the facility, which has remained in effect. JUNE 12, 2001, MORATORIUM MONITORING VISIT TAG A528 In the Notice of Denial, the Agency alleged that a Moratorium monitoring visit was made to Oakland Manor on June 12, 2001, during which the facility was cited for violating Tag A528. The Agency failed to establish this violation. JUNE 13, 2001, COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION TAG A1114 On June 13, 2001, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation of Oakland Manor. As a result of the investigation, the Agency alleged that the facility violated Tag A1114 by failing to include in an employee’s file documentation of compliance with Level 1 screening. The standards under Tag A1114 are set forth in Section 400.4275(2), Florida Statutes, and Rules 58A-5.019(3) and 58A-5.024(2)(a)3., Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant Rule 58A-5.019(3), Florida Administrative Code, a Level 1 screening is required for all employees hired after October 1, 1998, to provide personal services to residents. Also, personnel records for each staff member should include documentation of compliance with Level 1 background screening for all staff. See Subsection 400.4275(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A-5.024(2)(a)3., Florida Administrative Code. Mr. and Mrs. McCarthy did not dispute this allegation. According to the Form 3020, the employee in question had been hired by the facility on or about May 15, 2001. Mrs. McCarthy told the surveyor that she had applied for the background screening about two weeks prior to the June 13, 2001, complaint investigation, but it had not yet been received. Later that day, the administrator provided the surveyor with a copy of an arrest report from the Tampa Police Department. The arrest report did not satisfy the standards required under Tag A1114. The deficiency constituted a failure to comply with the requirements of Tag A1114, and was properly designated a Class II deficiency. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY TAG L200 Tag L200 requires assisted living facilities with a limited mental health license, such as Oakland Manor, to have a copy of each mental health resident’s community living support plan. See Subsection 400.4075(3)(a), Florida Statutes. In addition, Tag L200 requires that the mental health case manager and the mental health resident, in conjunction with the facility administrator, prepare the community living support plan within 30 days of admission to the facility or within 30 days after receiving the appropriate placement assessment. See Subsection 400.402(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A.5.029(2)(c)3.a., Florida Administrative Code. According to the Form 3020, the surveyor reviewed the file of Resident 1, a limited mental health resident who was admitted to the facility on November 23, 1993, and did not find the resident’s community living support plan. The resident’s record did have the annual community living support plan, but the surveyors simply missed or inadvertently overlooked the document. There was a community living support plan in Resident 1’s file that was signed by the resident, the resident’s counselor, and the former facility administrator, and dated February 17, 1999. Attached to the community living support plan were progress notes, with the last entry dated October 14, 1999. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY TAGS L201, L202, L203, AND L400 Oakland Manor was cited for violating standards under Tags L201, L202, L203, and L400, all of which relate to community living support plans. Tag L201 requires that the community living support plan include the components enumerated in Rule 58A- 5.029(2)(c)3.a.(i)-(vi) and (viii), Florida Administrative Code. Tag L202 requires the assisted living facility to make the community living support plan available for inspection by the resident, the resident’s legal guardian, the resident’s health care surrogate, or other individuals who have a lawful reason to review the plan. See Subsection 400.4075(3)(c), Florida Statutes. Tag L203 requires that the community living support plan to be updated annually in accordance with See Rule 58A- 5.029(2)(c)3.a.(vii), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, Tag L400 requires the facility to assist the mental health resident in carrying out the activities identified in the individual’s community living support plan. See Subsection 400.4075(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The alleged deficiencies cited under Tags L201, L202, L203, and L400 were all based on the surveyor’s finding that the file of Resident 1 did not contain a community living support plan. In light of the finding in paragraph 80, that the annual community support plan was in the resident’s file, the Agency did not establish the deficiencies listed under Tags L201, L202, and L400. Oakland Manor failed to comply with the standards of Tag L203, in that the community living support plan had not been updated annually as required by the foregoing rule. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY: TAG A525 Tag A525 was assigned to Oakland Manor based on the Agency's determination that for two facility employees, scheduled to work alone on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, there was no documentation that they had received first aid training. This alleged deficiency constitutes a failure to comply with the staffing standards in Rule 58A-5.019(4)(a)4., Florida Administrative Code, which requires that at least one member who is trained in first aid and CPR be in the facility at all times. Oakland Manor was properly cited for a violation of Tag A525 which was designated a Class III deficiency. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY: TAG A634 The Agency assigned a Tag A634 deficiency to Oakland Manor based on its determination that Oakland Manor failed to meet the medication standards set forth in Section 400.4256(1), Florida Statutes. That provision requires the facility to advise the resident or the resident's guardian or surrogate that the resident may receive assistance with self-administration of medication from an unlicensed person and that such assistance will not be overseen by a licensed nurse. As support for this violation, the Form 3020 noted that based on a review of three residents' files, there was no documentation that the facility had informed the residents as required by Section 400.4256, Florida Statutes. The facility does inform residents appropriately, based on documents included in the admissions package. However, the surveyors did not look anywhere except the residents’ files for that documentation. The residents also signed a letter giving their informed consent to comply with the Agency regulations, and a copy of that letter was faxed to the Agency soon after the citation. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY: TAG A1005 As part of this survey, the Agency assigned a Tag A1005 deficiency, alleging that the facility failed to meet the physical plant standard required by Rule 58A-5.023, Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that all furniture and furnishings be clean, functional, free of odors, and in good repair. This deficiency was based on a surveyor's observation of the main bathroom on the first floor of the main building. During a tour of the facility, the Agency surveyor observed human excrement on the bathroom floor, on the outside of the toilet bowl, and on the toilet seat. The surveyor also observed that an adult brief, filled with human excrement, had been thrown against the wall. After this was brought to the administrator's attention, the bathroom was cleaned immediately. However, several hours later, when the surveyor returned to the area, human excrement again had been smeared on the toilet seat. A few minutes prior to the surveyor returning to the bathroom, a resident exited the bathroom. Therefore, it is very likely that the resident who was in the bathroom soiled the toilet seat after it had been cleaned. The facility staff has a regular cleaning schedule and, pursuant to that schedule, the bathrooms are checked and cleaned several times, as necessary. However, the residents are entitled to their privacy in the bathrooms and staff does not check the bathroom every time a resident uses it. Tag A1005 was designated a Class III deficiency, and the facility was required to and did correct this deficiency immediately after it was discovered. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the Agency did not properly cite the facility for a violation of this tag. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY TAGS A1101 AND A1103 The Agency cited Oakland Manor for a Tag A1101 deficiency for failure to adhere to the staff record standards in Rule 58A-5.024(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that the personnel records of each facility staff member contain the verification of freedom from communicable disease, including tuberculosis. The Tag A1101 deficiency was based on a review of eight personnel files, which revealed three files that contained no documentation that the respective employees were free from communicable disease. The three employees, for whom there was no documentation, had been hired two or three months prior to the June 28, 2001, re-licensure survey, on March 20, April 4, and April 20, 2001. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY TAG A1103 The Agency cited Oakland Manor for a deficiency under Standards of Tag A1103. That tag requires that, within 30 days of being hired, a facility staff member must "submit a statement from a health care provider, based on an examination conducted within the last six months, that the person does not have any signs or symptoms of a communicable disease including tuberculosis." See Rule 58A-5.019(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The rule further provides that such "freedom from tuberculosis must be documented on an annual basis." The Tag A1103 deficiency was assigned based on the Agency's review of the personnel files of eight of the facility’s staff members. The Form 3020 states that the files of four employees, W.W., L.M., J.V., and M.J., hired July 5, 1992, November 1999, April 23, 2001, and March 20, 2001, respectively, did not contain documentation of freedom from tuberculosis, obtained from a test in the last 365 days. The Agency's finding that the facility failed to comply with the staffing standards in Rule 58A-5.019(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, is well-founded as it relates to the staff members employed on July 5, 1992, and November 1999. However, the requirement that freedom from tuberculosis must be documented annually can not be the basis for the Tag A1103 deficiency, as it relates to the two employees hired on March 20, 2001, and on April 23, 2001, only two or three months from the date of the survey. SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, APPRAISAL VISIT TAG A519 On September 18, 2001, the Agency conducted an appraisal visit of the facility and cited it for a Tag A519 deficiency, which relates to failure to maintain minimum staffing standards required in Rule 58A-5.019, Florida Administrative Code. The cited deficiency was based on the fact that the facility census was sixteen. In accordance with the foregoing rule, on the day of the September visit, the resident facility was required to have a weekly minimum of 253 staffing hours, but the facility only had 208 hours. Based on its review of records proved by the facility, the Agency properly concluded that the facility did not meet the minimum staffing standards for the first two weeks of September 2001. The Agency designated the Tag A519 as a Class III deficiency and properly noted that this was a "repeat deficiency." SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, APPRAISAL TAG A1004 Tag A1004 requires that the windows, doors, plumbing, and appliances of the facility be in good working order. See Rule 58A-5.023(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency found that Oakland Manor was in violation of this standard. According to the surveyor, the basis for this alleged violation was that "certain light fixtures throughout the facility were being maintained in an unsafe manner" and that "numerous bare (uncovered by globe or shade) light bulbs were observed, specifically in the dining area and in the main building bathrooms." The Agency concluded that the "unprotected bulbs are in danger of being broken, putting the residents at risk." Although the Agency cited the facility for the exposed light bulbs, the surveyor testified that there is not a specific tag that addresses the hazards of a light bulb, but the designated Tag A1004 “was the best available citation, quite frankly.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the survey reports to delete and/or modify the deficiencies described in the Forms 3020 that are not supported by the record and granting Oakland Manor's application for renewal of its assisted living facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: A. S. Weekley, Jr., M.D., Esquire Holland and Knight LLP 400 North Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Eileen O'Hara Garcia, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Sebring Building, Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lisa McCarthy, Administrator Oakland Manor ALF 2812 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
