The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to immediately provide Destiny Smith with the developmental services to which she is entitled.
Findings Of Fact For the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2003, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Region IV, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, by agreement with the State of Florida, has agreed to permit the Department to provide services in a home and community-based setting to persons diagnosed with mental retardation or developmental disabilities. This was allowed as an alternative to receiving services in an institutional setting. It is referred to as the Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Program, or less formally, the "waiver" or "waiver program." The waiver provided that in "year three" of the program, 25,945 persons would be served, should the Florida Legislature appropriate sufficient funds to serve that number. If the appropriation is insufficient, then fewer persons will be served. Fiscal year 2000-2001 is "year three." Florida has elected to serve the number of individuals funded by the Florida Legislature, up to the number listed in the waiver agreement with HCFA, in fiscal year 2000-2001. Historically, all individuals eligible for developmental services have not received them because of insufficient funding. The Florida Legislature, when providing funding for this program in 1999, established priorities in the 1999-2000 General Appropriations Act, through the use of proviso language. Priorities for this funding, in order, are as follows: 1) Transitions for those requesting transfers from Intermediate Care Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled (ICF/DD) institutional placements; and 2) Meeting the needs of identified under-served participants in the Home and Community Based Waiver Services after accurately assessing the actual costs of each person's support plan. The Department implemented the 1999 appropriation for fiscal year 1999-2000 by promulgating a spending plan that directed the Department's districts to provide services to 15,984 persons pursuant to the priorities set by the Florida Legislature. The 2000 Florida Legislature appropriated funds to serve an additional 7,377 persons for a total of 23,360. This appropriation contained proviso language which was identical to that found in the 1999 General Appropriations Act. An addition to the proviso, however, stated that, "The Medicaid waiver services mix must be fully met for all eligible participants before funds are transferred to non-Medicaid covered services, with the exception of room and board payments." The Department implemented the 2000 appropriation by promulgating a spending plan that continued the previous year's spending plan. This plan stated that individuals who are new to the system after July 1, 1999, would only be served after those on the original waiting list are served, unless they have been determined to be in crisis pursuant to a crisis assessment tool. Petitioner applied for the general revenue individual and family support program. This program is in the category of "non-Medicaid covered services." The Department determined that Petitioner was eligible for developmental services on July 11, 2000. However, the Department further determined that Petitioner did not presently qualify for funds appropriated for fiscal year 2000-2001 because she became eligible after July 1, 1999, and because the program she sought was one which the Florida Legislature determined should be funded at the previous year's level. The crisis assessment tool is used to identify individuals who are in crisis situations. A crisis situation occurs when there is a court order mandating care; when there has been a determination that an individual is dangerous to himself, herself, or others; where there is abuse or neglect; where the person is homeless; when the person's caregiver can no longer provide for the person; or in other situations where there is a need to ensure the individual's safety and security. Petitioner does not meet any of the criteria on the crisis identification tool. As a result, she is not eligible for immediate service. At the time of the hearing there were individuals who were on the waiting list who were determined to be eligible prior to July 1, 1999 who have not yet been served. Only after those individuals are served can the persons eligible after July 1, 1999, be served. Petitioner may ultimately be provided developmental services, but this cannot occur until funds are available to the Department for that purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding that the Petitioner is not entitled to receive developmental services until the Department determines that funds are available for that purpose. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 8th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Destiny Smith 27619 25th Place Branford, Florida 32008 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a foster care license upon satisfactory evidence of financial ability to provide care for children placed in her home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the required courses through the Department and applied for a foster home license. She passed all home visits with flying colors and was recommended for licensure. Her application contained a family financial statement which reflected her monthly income as $660.00 and her estimated monthly liabilities (expenditures) as $625.62. The Department calculated Petitioner's residual income as $34.38 by deducting her usual expenses from her usual income. Because substitute care parents must have sufficient income to assure the stability and security of their own family without relying on foster care payments and must have sufficient income to cover four to six weeks of a foster child's care during anticipated lag time in receiving foster care payments, Petitioner's application was denied. The $660.00 Petitioner declared in her financial statement is made up of $460.00 monthly social security income plus $200.00 from unenumerated sources. Petitioner is not employed outside the home. Petitioner testified credibly that, as of the date of hearing on January 18, 2001, she had nearly $15,000.00 saved in her bank account, mostly as the proceeds of the "Black Farmers Settlement" of a class action lawsuit. In support of her testimony, Petitioner also had admitted in evidence an undated letter addressed to her, showing transmittal to her of a check for $50,000.00 "cash award," in the cases of Pigford et al. v. Glickman, and Brewington et al. v. Glickman. Petitioner also had admitted in evidence an AmSouth "Official Check," dated January 3, 2001, made out to her in the amount of $14,928.88. This appears to be a certified cashier's check she asked for in order to demonstrate her bank balance for the hearing. Petitioner further testified that she had made a deposit to her checking account. She had admitted in evidence an AmSouth customer receipt (deposit slip) showing an AmSouth account balance of $59.85 to which a $3,000.00 check had been deposited on November 1, 2000. The numbers on this item did not match those on her check cashing card or her voided check, which items were also admitted in evidence. However, there is no reason to believe the numbers would match, considering modern automatic banking safeguards. What, precisely, this receipt was intended to demonstrate is unclear. Much of Petitioner's $50,000.00 settlement monies went to pay for hip replacement surgery, and she is fully recovered. Prior to making her application and while she was still in training, that is, prior to November 29, 1999, the Department allowed Petitioner to take in some foster children on an emergency basis. The understanding at that time was that Petitioner would bear all the children's expenses with no reimbursement by any government program except for their medical aid. During this period, Petitioner frequently complained that she had no money to put gas in her car to bring a certain child or children to the Department office for their medical care or to see their case workers. As near as can be determined from this record, these events occurred in the fall of 1999 or early in the year 2000, but without information as to when Petitioner received her lump-sum class action settlement, it is impossible to assess whether these events occurred before or after Petitioner received her class action settlement. Petitioner's Lease for Voucher Tenancy, Section 8, Tenant-Based Assistance Rental Voucher Program, signed April 7, 2000, stated that she lives in the home with four other individuals: Irene Turner, Lionel Cook, Iman McCullough, and Christina Honeycutt. However, a June 26, 2000, Home Study Report concluded, based on visits in April and May 2000, that Petitioner lives alone. Iman McCullough, a foster child, lived in Petitioner's home for a short period in 1999, but by September 2000, she was living in another foster home. Christina Honeycutt, also a foster child, lived in Petitioner's home only briefly in 1999. Another individual listed on the April 7, 2000, lease as a resident of the home is Lionel Cook, one of Petitioner's sons. However, the June 26, 2000, Home Study Report stated that Petitioner did not know her sons' addresses or phone numbers and that she had stated she has no contact with them. The Petitioner's Section 8 rent is $30.00 per month, calculated on five residents in the home. It is conceivable that a change in the number of people in the home may alter the amount paid for rent. There was no evidence presented concerning how much per child Petitioner would receive if her application were granted. Petitioner testified that she hoped to have four children assigned to her. The June 26, 2000, Home Study Report recommended that she receive five children.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a foster home license at this time and without prejudice to reapply. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 1st day of March, 2001.
The Issue Did the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) improperly deny funds to Maurice Parkes for the purchase of bottled water?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of administering the Medicaid Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Program (Medicaid Waiver Program), the Family care program, and the provisions of in-home subsidies. Petitioner is a developmentally disabled child who lives in his family's home and receives numerous services from the Department for his developmental disability, medical, and physical problems. The services presently being furnished to Petitioner are funded through the Medicaid Waiver Program. The bottled water at issue is not funded through the Medicaid Waiver Program and would have to be funded through General Revenue funds. General Revenue funds appropriated by the legislature for the fiscal year 2001-2002 to the Department have largely been moved to the Medicaid Waiver Program to obtain the benefit of federal matching funds, which are provided at the rate of 55 cents for each 45 cents of state funds. The use of General Revenue Funds to obtain matching federal funds for the Medicaid Waiver Program allows the Department to service some of those developmentally disabled clients that are presently eligible for the Medicaid Waiver Program but have not been receiving services due to lack of funding. There are no uncommitted funds in the General Revenue category of the Developmental Services' budget that could be used to fund the purchase of bottled water for Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to provide him with bottled water. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2002, 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 9th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 100 Largo, Florida 33778-1630 Maurice Parkes c/o Erika Parkes 2229 Bonita Way, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue at hearing was whether Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services correctly denied Petitioner Michelle King's application for emergency assistance to needy families with dependent children under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the single mother of a son, three and one-half years old. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was a full-time employee of a state agency. Her income was approximately $1,150 per month. She received no child support for her son. Her rent at Azalea Gardens Apartments was $385 per month. Petitioner's child attended day care at the Child Development Center of Central Florida Community College (CFCC Lab School). The child's father paid the cost of day care in the amount of $245 per month. In June of 1995, the child's father suffered an injury and was unable to work. He no longer paid the day care bill. At the same time, Petitioner had to pay some medical bills for her son. As a result, Petitioner was behind on her day care payments. On July 7, 1995, Petitioner's landlord notified her that she had until July 12, 1995 to pay her rent and late fees. At that time, Petitioner owed rent in the amount of $385 together with a $22 late fee and two dollars per day until the rent was paid in full. On July 25, 1995, Petitioner's landlord notified her that she had until noon the next day to pay $443 in rent and late fees to avoid eviction proceedings. In the meantime, Petitioner contacted Respondent seeking assistance to pay her delinquent rent, utilities and day care costs. Respondent's caseworker initially referred Petitioner to the Salvation Army and other local charities. However, there were no community resources available to meet Petitioner's past due bills. On the advice of Respondent's caseworker, Petitioner applied for cheaper housing at Hilltop Manor Apartments and for a cheaper day care program. Petitioner was placed on waiting lists for federally subsidized housing and child care programs. On July 31, 1995, Petitioner applied for emergency assistance for needy families with children under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act. The application requested retroactive payment of one month's rent in the amount of $455 and prospective payment of day care cost for two months in the amount of $945. While Petitioner's application was pending, she was able to pay her landlord enough money to forestall eviction. However her total debt increased. The application was amended to include a request for three months day care cost and additional late fees for failure to pay rent in a timely manner. Petitioner's lease at Azalea Garden Apartments expired at the end of August, 1995. About that time, Petitioner learned that she would be able to move into Hilltop Manor Apartments at a significantly lower rental. She informed Respondent's caseworker about her success in securing more affordable housing. Petitioner anticipated moving into her new apartment on September 1, 1995. She withdrew her child from day care and sent him to visit with his father while she made the move. By letter dated September 1, 1995, Respondent's caseworker informed Petitioner that her application for funding had been denied because she was no longer living at Azalea Gardens Apartments and her son no longer attended day care at the CFCC Lab School. This letter did not advise Petitioner that she was entitled to a hearing if she believed Respondent improperly denied her application. Petitioner was able to move into her new home on or about September 4, 1995. She enrolled her child in a day care program near her residence. Petitioner forfeited her security deposit at Azalea Gardens Apartments when she moved out. She continues to owe an undetermined amount of money to Azalea Gardens Apartments and the CFCC Lab School. Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Disposition dated September 8, 1995, as a formal determination that she was not eligible for emergency assistance. This notice explains that Petitioner was not approved because she was able to make other arrangements for housing and day care. The notice also advised Petitioner of her right to a hearing.
Findings Of Fact 1 In either April or May, 1983, HRS District III, Respondents in this case, advertised a request for proposals to operate a spouse abuse shelter in a subdistrict of HRS District III in accordance with the following schedule: The request for proposal (RFP) package was to be picked up by 5 p.m., May 20, 1983; the applicant was to notify HRS of its intent to submit a proposal by 5 p.m., May 20, 1983; and the proposal was to be filed with HRS no later than 5 p.m., June 3, 1983. The contract in question was for the period July 1, 1983 through June 30, 1984. Linda Tucker, President of the Petitioner's Board of Directors, found out about the solicitation from her Vice President, Alice Mulrooney, who had received word of it through an administrative letter sent to her in her capacity of an officer on the County Rape Council. Ms. Tucker and Ms. Mulrooney both telephonically spoke with Carol Laxton, the HRS official in Gainesville who was stewarding this solicitation. It was not clear which of the two spoke with her first. Ms. Tucker spoke with Ms. Laxton on May 20, 1983, and requested to be furnished with a copy of the RFP. Both Tucker and Mulrooney indicated they told Ms. Laxton that Petitioner was not yet incorporated. Both agree Ms. Laxton advised them the requirement for incorporation could be waived and that the proposal should be submitted anyway, including a letter from Petitioner's lawyer to the effect that the incorporation papers had been forwarded to the office of the Secretary of State. On May 25, 1983, Petitioner contacted representatives of the Hernando County Commission relative to county funding of at least a portion of that local source of matching funds required to make up at least 25 percent or the overall proposed operating budget as required by Florida Statutes and as set out in the proposal. At that time, Petitioner was advised that while the Commission supported the Petitioner's proposal in concept and fully hoped to lend its financial support, it could not officially do so until after the county's budget hearings were completed and it was determined that the requested funds were in fact available. A letter to this effect was submitted to Ms. Laxton by the Chairman of the Commission on June 7, 1983. In the interim, before the proposal was submitted, both Ms. Tucker and Ms. Mulrooney discussed this possible defect, as well, with Ms. Laxton. Again, both ladies contend Ms. Laxton advised them this criterion could be waived, as well. Petitioner submitted its proposal on time. However, at the time of submittal, the Petitioner was not in fact incorporated. The proposed corporate charter was forwarded to the Secretary of State on June 2, 1983 (a letter to this effect was sent the same day to Ms. Laxton by Petitioner's attorney), and approved on June 13, 1983. Also, at the time of submission, the proposal listed as budgeted resources donated land and two homes having a rental value of $4,800 per year as an in-kind resource, $182 as cash client contributions and $3,750 as a cash contribution by the Hernando County Commission. It is this last funding source that was committed in theory only and was not firm. Taken together, the three sources totaled $8,732, which would be slightly over 28 percent of the total yearly budget of $31,052. However, since the commitment from the County Commission was not firm and was contingent on funds being available, it could not be considered; and the remaining sum of $4,982 is only 16 percent of the budget. Ms. Laxton admits talking with both Tucker and Mulrooney on several occasions about the proposal and the difficulties they were having. They indicated to her they were having problems getting incorporated, but that their attorney was working on it. She admits telling them to send whatever they had, which included a status letter from their attorney. She also admits stating to them that some requirements of the RFP could be waived, but does not think incorporation was one and is sure she did not tell them the matching funds requirement could be waived. After hearing the evidence presented and considering it along with its relative probabilities and improbabilities, it is found that the Petitioner's representatives may have reasonably inferred the incorporation requirement could be waived. However, it is unlikely that Ms. Laxton would have even inferred anything as significant and sensitive as a matching fund requirement could be waived. If Ms. Tucker and Ms. Mulrooney inferred that from Ms. Laxton's comments, it was unfortunate, but in error. In fact, the County Commission did ultimately approve a commitment to Petitioner in the amount of $3,750. They have also received additional cash contributions of $2,300 and additional in-kind contributions of $5,000. None of these latter resources were in hand or firmly committed by the June 3, 1983 proposal submission deadline, however. At the present time, Petitioner is operating a shelter without Respondent's funds. They have requested assistance from the successful bidder, but have been turned down. There is, however, substantial but non-financial community support for Petitioner's operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's protest be rejected. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: LINDA TREIMAN, ESQUIRE 11 NORTH MAIN STREET BROOKSVILLE, FLORIDA 33512 JAMES A. SAWYER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1000 N.E. 16TH AVENUE BUILDING H GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32601 MR. DAVID PINGREE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: By Order of the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, dated September 14, 1987, it was determined that Petitioner owed $1,560.40 in back child support payments which had been assigned to the state of Florida by the mother of the child on February 1, 1983, for assistance received by her from the state of Florida. Additionally, Petitioner was ordered to pay: (a) child support in the amount of $178.00 per month; (b) %15.00 per month on the arrearage and; (c) $5.00 per month clerk's fee for a total of $198.00 per month. Subsequent to this circuit court order, Respondent moved to intercept Petitioner's 1987 federal income tax refund, and Petitioner protested. An informal administrative hearing was held and the Respondent entered a Final Order wherein it was agreed between the parties that Petitioner owed $1,020.40 in past-due child support payments as of March 22, 1988. Although this figure of $1,020.40 cannot be reconciled with the Clerk's records in Pasco County, it is the figure agreed upon by the parties as being due as of March 22, 1988, and was used to intercept the Petitioner's 1987 federal income tax refund. On October 7, 1988, Petitioner, by order of the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, was granted custody of the child for which he had been paying child support, and was no longer required to pay child support for the child. There is evidence that Petitioner had custody of the child in September 1988, but the Order states that "custody is to be upon the signing of the order". This order did not address the issue of current child support or past-due child support. Subsequent to March 22, 1988, the Petitioner was obligated to pay child support for the months of April 1988, through September 1988, for a total of $1,068.00. ( Six months at $178.00 per month). An Income Deduction Order entered by the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, required Petitioner's employer to deduct $198.00 per month from Petitioner's salary and remit same to the Clerk's office for the payment ordered by the court on September 14, 1987. Respondent's employer accomplished this by rendering payment in bi-weekly amounts of $91.75. During the period from March 22, 1988, through October 7, 1988, Petitioner should be given credit for monies deducted by his employer and remitted to the Clerk's office in the net amount of $1,301.25 (Fifteen payments of $91.25 minus $75.00 Clerk's fee). Two biweekly payments remitted by Petitioner's employer during this period were improperly entered into the Clerk's record but were corrected between October 24, 1988 and November 14, 1988. The 15 payments for which Petitioner has been given credit take into consideration the 2 payments improperly entered into the Clerk's record. Respondent should be given credit for $365.60, the amount Respondent received as a result of the 1987 federal income tax refund intercept. Respondent should also be given credit for the following: (a) HLA blood test refund of $210.00 and; (b) Clerk's refund of fees of $65.00. The total amount owed by Petitioner as of October 7, 1988 was $2,088.00 ($1,020.40 arrearage as agreed by the parties and set forth in Respondent's Final Order plus $1,068.00 child support payments Petitioner was obligated to pay between March 22, 1988 and October 7, 1988) minus a credit of $1,941.85 ($1,301.25 employer payments, plus $365.60 tax intercept credit, plus $210.00 HLA credit, plus $65.00 Clerk's credit) for a net amount owed of $146.55 ($2,088.40 total amount owed after March 22, 1988 minus a total credit of $1,941.85).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conlusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner owes the state of Florida the sum of $146.55 in past-due child support payments, and providing for Respondent to intercept Petitioner's 1988 federal income tax refund for the amount of $146.55 unless Petitioner pays this amount to the Respondent prior to the Respondent filing a federal income tax refund intercept with the Internal Revenue Service, in which case no tax refund intercept would be necessary. RESPECTFULLY submitted and entered this 28th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0277 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. No posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact were submitted by the Petitioner. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Immaterial since the was an agreement as to the amount of arrearage owed as of March 22, 1988. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 12.-13. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Powers, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Judith Greene, Esquire CANDICE A. MURPHY, P. A. P. O. Box 4815 Clearwater Florida 34618 Roy K. Kalbach 512 12th Avenue Leisure Hills Brooksville, Florida 34610
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint and the Notice of Intent to Deny letter, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named party pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Notice of Intent to Deny and Administrative Complaint with their Election of Rights form to Dora Home Care Inc. (Composite Ex. 1) The Election of Rights forms advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Upon full execution of this Agreement, Dora Home Care, Inc. shall pay $20,866.00 to the Agency, with $10,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days after the entry of the Final Order, and the remainder within six (6) months of the entry of the Final Order. In the event.the entire payment is not paid within 180 days of the entry of the Final Order, Dora Home Care Inc. will pay interest as allowed by law on the unpaid amount. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” 1 Filed August 12, 2013 2:31 PM Division of Administrative Hearings and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 3. The revocation claim in the Administrative Complaint [AHCA No.: 2012000134; DOAH No.: 13-0840] is withdrawn. 4. The denial of the renewal application [AHCA No.: 2012013492; DOAH No.: 13-0709] is withdrawn and the application shall no longer be denied. If the Agency has not already completed its review of the renewal application, it shall resume its review of the application. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 5 day of Avyeat , 2013. Elizabeth trig ecg Ageficy for Heatth Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct_copy of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this [oust Auger » 2013. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 2 [Jan Mills Facilities Intake Unit (Electronic Mail) Shaddrick Haston, Unit Manager Assisted Living Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Revenue Management Unit Alba M. Rodriguez Office of the General Counsel _ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Stuart M Lerner Brian J. Perreault, Esq. Lydecker Diaz 1221 Brickell Avenue - 19" Floor Miami, Florida 33131 (U.S. Mail)
