The Issue Whether Responded violated Subsections 464.018(1)(n) and 464.204(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of certified nursing assistants pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes (2004). Bonhomme is a certified nursing assistant (C.N.A.) licensed by the Department under Certificate No. CX 1100000012785. The incident at issue in this proceeding took place on April 21, 2003, when Bonhomme was employed as a C.N.A. at Imperial Health Care Center (Imperial), where E.O. was a resident. Nicole Joseph (Joseph), a C.N.A., was assigned to care for E.O. E.O. spends a good deal of her time sitting in a wheelchair at the nurses' station in "A" Hall. E.O. speaks very little English, and communicates mostly in German. When she needs to go to the restroom, she will usually yell, "Hello," and the C.N.A. will come and get her, take her to the restroom, and assist her in using the facilities. On April 21, 2003, E.O. indicated that she needed to use the restroom, and a nurse paged Joseph to come and get E.O. Joseph was busy assisting another resident when the page was made, and Bonhomme took up the task of taking E.O. to the restroom. Bonhomme began to wheel E.O. down the hall towards E.O.'s room. Joseph came out of the other resident's room and followed Bonhomme and E.O. into E.O.'s room. While Bonhomme was taking E.O. to her room, Bonhomme would shake E.O.'s wheelchair from side to side, upsetting E.O. and causing her to scream in German. When they were inside E.O.'s room, Joseph began to remove the foot plates from the wheelchair so that E.O. could access the toilet from the wheelchair. E.O., still upset, began to kick Joseph. E.O. carries a small red pocketbook containing pens, pencils, and paper. She uses the writing materials to assist in communicating with others who do not speak German. E.O. becomes very upset when anyone touches her pocketbook. Joseph wheeled E.O. into the bathroom and placed E.O.'s pocketbook on top of the toilet. Bonhomme took the pocketbook and threw it on the floor. Her actions upset E.O., who began to scream. Joseph took the pocketbook and replaced it on the toilet tank top. Again Bonhomme took the pocketbook and threw it on the floor. Joseph picked up the pocketbook and placed it on E.O.'s bed within E.O.'s sight. After Joseph placed the pocketbook on the bed, E.O. began to calm down. Joseph got E.O. situated on the toilet and returned to another resident's room to assist that resident, leaving Bonhomme in the bathroom with E.O. Finemy Cange (Cange), a C.N.A. employed by Imperial, was caring for a resident in the room across the hall from E.O.'s room. Cange saw Bonhomme take E.O. into her room and later heard E.O. screaming in her bathroom. Cange went to the storage room to get a nightgown for a resident. On returning from the storage room, she continued to hear E.O. yelling. Cange, carrying the nightgown, and another C.N.A., Catherine George, went into E.O.'s room. Cange found Bonhomme standing in front of E.O. in the bathroom, making faces at E.O. This was upsetting to E.O. Bonhomme took a rubber glove that was in the bathroom, filled it with water, and bounced it on E.O.'s head. E.O., still seated on the toilet, became more upset and continued to yell. Cange told Bonhomme that placing the glove on E.O.'s head was not funny. Bonhomme quit bouncing the glove on E.O.'s head and placed the glove in the sink. Joseph, who was assisting another resident, heard E.O.'s continued screaming. She left the other resident and returned to E.O.'s room. She saw Bonhomme with the water-filled glove, but did not know that Bonhomme had bounced it on E.O.'s head. Next Bonhomme took the nightgown from Cange, threw it on E.O.'s head and turned out the lights. Cange turned the lights back on. At this juncture, Joseph told Bonhomme to leave. Joseph got E.O. off the toilet, dressed her and returned her to the nurses' station, where she left her. E.O. was visibly upset. She was pointing to her head, crying, and talking in German. The nurse at the nurses' station contacted Suzanne Salyer (Salyer), the director of nursing at Imperial. Salyer questioned Bonhomme and Joseph, but they denied anything happened. Both C.N.A.'s were suspended pending an investigation. The following morning Joseph went to Salyer and told her what happened. Salyer is a registered nurse and is qualified as an expert in nursing and the duties and responsibilities of C.N.A.'s. It is her expert opinion that C.N.A.'s should take care of the residents as if they were family and that placing a nightgown on a resident's head, placing a water-filled glove on a resident's head, and turning off the light after placing the nightgown on the resident's head are actions which fall below the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practices. Bonhomme was aware that the actions were prohibited. When she began working at Imperial, she signed a Resident's Rights Agreement that provided that a resident has the right "[t]o be free from verbal, physical or mental abuse, corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion." Bonhomme has not had her certificate disciplined prior to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Louvedor Bonhomme violated Subsection 464.204(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), by violating Subsection 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2002); imposing an administrative fine of $100; requiring Louvedor to attend continuing education classes as specified by the Board of Nursing; and placing Respondent on probation for two years under conditions as specified by the Board of Nursing. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Bonnie Isaac, R.N., held License No. 52845-2 as a Registered Nurse. Said license having been suspended for a period of ninety (90) days pursuant to the lawful order of the Board signed February 18, 1976. Said order of suspension was transmitted to and received by Bonnie Isaac on February 27, 1976. Subsequent to the receipt of said order, Bonnie Isaac continued to perform duties which can only be performed by licensed nurses in the course of her employment at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Dade City, Florida. Bonnie Isaac did not return her certificate of licensure and renewal certificate to the Board, but said renewal expired on March 31, 1976 pursuant to law. The license of Bonnie Isaac was not reinstated at the end of ninety (90) days although she requested that her license be returned to her by her letter of June 25, 1976 to the Florida State Board of Nursing. The license of Bonnie Isaac, suspended by lawful order of the Board effective February 27, 1976, had not been reinstated as of the date of hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the probation of Bonnie Isaac expressed in Board's order dated February 18, 1976 for nine (9) months following the ninety (90) day suspension of Respondent's license be set aside and the license of Respondent be suspended for one year from the initial date of suspension, February 27, 1976, said license to be reinstated with the full benefits and privileges thereof on February 26, 1977. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 218 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Bonnie C. Isaac, R.N. Route 11, Box 735 A Lakeland, Florida 33801
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, before applying for licensure as a registered nurse in Florida, Petitioner had suffered the denial of an application for licensure as a practical nurse in the state of Virginia, and, if so, whether Petitioner's failure to disclose that fact in her Florida application was a knowing misrepresentation; finally, if either or both of the forgoing questions are answered in the affirmative, whether Respondent has grounds to deny Petitioner's pending application for a nursing license.
Findings Of Fact On October 15, 2012, Petitioner Yolette Tema ("Tema") signed an application for licensure as a registered nurse, which she mailed to the Department of Health for review by Respondent Board of Nursing (the "Board"). Item No. 9 of the application sought information about the applicant's disciplinary history. Four subparts (lettered A through D) asked questions that called for a "yes" or "no" answer, which the applicant was to give by marking the applicable check box. The first question ("9A") was: Have you ever been denied or is there now any proceeding to deny your application for any healthcare license to practice in Florida or any other state, jurisdiction or country? Tema answered, "No." In Item No. 10 of the application, there appeared above the signature line the following declarations: I recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 456.067, 775.083, and 775.084, Florida Statutes. I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice as a Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida. Tema's signature manifested her agreement with the foregoing declarations. Despite having acknowledged the hard consequences of deceit, Tema's negative answer to the question of whether she ever had suffered the denial of an application for licensure was false. In fact, in June 2011, the Virginia Board of Nursing had denied Tema's application for licensure as a practical nurse, on the ground that she had provided false information in an effort to obtain a license by fraud, deceit, or material omission. Tema had received timely, contemporaneous notice of the Virginia Board of Nursing's final decision, and she was fully aware of that disposition at all times relevant to this case. When she completed the Florida application in October 2012, therefore, Tema knew that her response to question 9A was false. Because the information Tema failed to disclose obviously would have hurt her chances of obtaining a license in Florida, the undersigned disbelieves Tema's explanation for the material omission, which was that she simply made a mistake.1/ Instead, the undersigned infers that Tema intentionally omitted the damaging fact of the Virginia denial in hopes that the Board would not discover it.2/ The Board did, however, discover the Virginia decision while reviewing Tema's application. Based on that past denial and Tema's present failure to disclose it, the Board determined that Tema's Florida application should be denied. The Board's preliminary decision was communicated to Tema through a Notice of Intent to Deny dated February 11, 2014. Determinations of Ultimate Fact Tema is guilty of having an application for a license to practice nursing denied by the licensing authority of another state, which is a disciplinable offense under section 464.018(1)(b), Florida Statutes.3/ Tema is guilty of attempting to procure a license to practice nursing by knowing misrepresentation, which is a disciplinable offense under section 464.018(1)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order denying Tema's application for licensure as a registered nurse. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 10th day of September, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters under consideration here, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a practical nurse, under license #0692631. Cynthia J. Pagonis entered University Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 11, 1983, for a routine laparoscopy to be performed the following morning. Early on the morning of the day of her surgery, April 12, 1983, Respondent, who was one of her nurses, came into her room with two other nurses, one of whom gave her a shot. While this was done, Respondent stood back and observed. Somewhat later, he again came back into her room with a rolling table onto which he told her to climb so he could take her down to the operating room. By this time she was somewhat drowsy from the shot. She asked Respondent what was in it and he told her, whereupon he wheeled her to surgery. After the procedure, that afternoon, Ms. Pagonis recalls him entering her room several times. One time, he checked her I.V. bottle--other times, he did nothing for her and, sleepy as she was, this concerned her because she wanted to sleep and Respondent's visits disturbed her. During this period, other nurses also came in to check her blood pressure or do something else, but Respondent never did anything--just looked. On the final visit, he came in and said he wanted to check her bandage. With this, he lowered her blanket to below her waist to the extent that her pelvic area was exposed. She was wearing a short hospital gown and nothing else. By this time, several hours after surgery, the anesthetic had worn off so that she knew exactly what was happening. After looking at her bandage, in this case no more than a Band-Aid, he pulled the cover back up and, without warning, bent over and kissed her on the cheek. She was upset when he pulled the blanket down because she felt it was inappropriate for him to do it when her dressing had been checked by another nurse shortly before. She also did not think it was appropriate for a male to be in her room without a chaperone. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, he told her he would be off for a few days and for her to take care of herself. Then he left. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, she got angry. She had said nothing to him to lead him on. She had asked him what cologne he was wearing and when he told her, she said it smelled nice, but nothing more. Mr. Pagonis entered his wife's room on the morning of her surgery, both before and after the operation. When he was there before she was taken to the operating room, he saw Respondent in the room and Respondent asked him to leave so they could get his wife ready for the operation. When he came back later, after this incident, he found her nervous and upset. She looked to him as if she had been frightened. When she told him what had happened, that this "black male nurse had repeatedly come into her room and was doing nothing" for her, and that he had pulled down her covers and "got his eyes full," Mr. Pagonis became angry and went out to look for Respondent. He could not find Mills, however, and went through the nursing chain of command until he got to Mrs. Davis, the Director of Medical Nursing, to whom he told the story. Mrs. Davis found Mr. Pagonis to be upset, but rational and controlled. He was, in her words, restrained, gentlemanly, and "quite heroic" about the whole situation. Mrs. Davis was first contacted about the incident, while in her office, by a call from the floor nurse on Mrs. Pagonis' floor. The nurse alerted her that Respondent had made advances to a patient. She immediately went up to that floor and met with Mr. Pagonis, whom she then took downstairs to her office where he told her what his wife had related. She then went back up to Mrs. Pagonis' room, in an effort to be fair to everyone, to see how alert Mrs. Pagonis was and how accurate her observations were. Mrs. Davis found her alert, and a clearheaded woman who, in her opinion, had been free of the effects of anesthesia for quite awhile. Mrs. Pagonis told her what had happened, that Respondent had made an unnecessary check of her I.V., since another nurse had just checked her, and then checked her dressing, as described. Mrs. Davis verified that another nurse had recently checked on Mrs. Pagonis and, after checking the incision, concluded that because it was so minor, there was no legitimate need for Respondent to have done so also. In her professional opinion, based on service as a licensed practical nurse since 1971 and as a registered nurse since 1974, the way in which Respondent checked Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate. The incision and dressing here were so small, it was not necessary to expose the patient all the way to the mons pubis, as Respondent did. In addition, a male nurse should always have a witness present in a situation such as this. As for the kiss, it is a rare situation when it is appropriate for a nurse to kiss a patient. This may be done only in the care of a very old, very young, very sick, long-term patient, where the parties had a long-standing relationship, and the action would be therapeutic. Under the circumstances here, Respondent's kiss of Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate and unprofessional, notwithstanding Respondent's claim he did it, "but only as a friendly gesture." Mrs. Davis requested Mr. Pagonis to make a written statement. When this was done and signed, Mrs. Davis called for Respondent, who, she found, had signed off his regular shift, but was working overtime. She located him and took him back to her office, where she questioned him about the incident. At first he denied it, but subsequently admitted he had kissed Mrs. Pagonis and pulled down her covers, although he claimed he did this in an appropriate manner. She then sent him back to work and thought about the situation for a while. Having made her decision to discharge the Respondent, she prepared the appropriate paperwork, called him back to her office, and did so. The next day, Mills called her and told her he understood why she had done what she did, told her he loved her, and thanked her. During the period he worked at that hospital, she never had any other difficulty with Respondent. He was cooperative and would come in for extra duty when called. She bad received no direct complaints about his relationship with other patients; and though she was not his immediate supervisor, she understood that his performance of his nursing duties was satisfactory. Somewhat later in the year, in June 1983, Respondent was employed as a Float Nurse at the Jacksonville Convalescent Center, specifically on June 19 and 20, 1983. On those days it was, according to Carol R. Hadnot, Director of Nursing at the Center, his responsibility to change the dressings on certain patients. Respondent was present for duty on those dates. During this period, Fay K.F. Bennett, also a nurse at the Center, as a part of her duties, checked the dressing on several of the patients whose dressings were due to be changed. She found that the dressings had not been changed and that the Patients' charts bore initials and date for the last change, a day or two before. The initials on the charts were D.M., which could have been Respondent or Doris Minard. That initial is not significant, however. What is significant is that there was no note on the chart showing that Respondent had changed the dressings during his duty period as he was required to do. This information was reported to Mrs. Hadnot. It is the general policy at Jacksonville Convalescent Center to counsel an employee before taking discharge action here. This was not done here because before Respondent could be counseled, allegations that Respondent had made sexual advances to three nurses' aids were reported to her. She then discussed the situation with the faculty administrator. They decided that because he was still a probationary employee, the allegations described were sufficient to discharge Respondent without counseling, and this was done.
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse be revoked.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on his nursing license.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Cecil Harold Floyd, was at all times material hereto a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued a license numbered PN 0960631. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse by the North Shore Senior Adult Community in St. Petersburg, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was assigned to care for Patient M.F., a patient in the skilled nursing section of the North Shore Senior Adult Community. On February 26-27, 1996, Respondent worked as the charge nurse on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. On February 27, 1996, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Respondent wrote in the nurse's notes that Patient M.F. was lethargic and having difficulty swallowing; that the patient's bottom dentures were out; and that the patient's tongue was over to the right side. In this entry, Respondent also noted "will continue to monitor." After Respondent completed his shift on February 27, 1996, Conchita McClory, LPN, was the charge nurse in the skilled nursing facility at North Shore Senior Adult Community. At about 8:10 a.m., Nurse McClory was called by the CNA who was attempting to wake up Patient M.F. Upon Nurse McClory's entering Patient M.F.'s room, she observed that the patient was sleeping, incontinent, and restless and that the right side of the patient's face was dropping. Based on these observations, Nurse McClory believed that Patient M.F. may have suffered a stroke and she immediately called 911. Following the 911 call, Patent M.F. was taken to Saint Anthony's Hospital in Saint Petersburg, Florida. Prior to coming to this country, Conchita McClory had been trained and worked as a registered nurse in the Philippines. However, Ms. McClory is not licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida. Saint Anthony's Hospital's records regarding Patient M.F. indicate that the patient had a history of multiple strokes beginning in 1986. The Department’s Administrative Complaint against Respondent included the following factual allegations, all of which were alleged to have occurred on February 27, 1996: At approximately 6:00 a.m., Respondent recorded in the nurse’s notes that Patient M.F. was lethargic and having difficulty swallowing; the patient's bottom dentures were out; and the patient's tongue was over to the right side. Respondent also noted in the nurses' notes that Patient M.F. should continue to be monitored. Patient M.F.'s roommate told Respondent that she believed that M.F. had suffered a stroke because she could not swallow and her speech was slurred. At about 8:00 a.m., Patient M.F.'s roommate went to the nurses' station and requested that a certified nurse's assistant check on M.F. Patient M.F. was found paralyzed on her left side, soaked in urine and unable to speak. There was no evidence presented to support the factual allegations referenced in paragraph 9b and 9c above and included in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1999, 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 6th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Bernstein, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Allied Health - Medical Quality Assistance 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Cecil Harold Floyd 1680 25th Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713-4444 Ruth Stiehl, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Angell Care of Hialeah, Inc., d/b/a Hialeah Convalescent Home (Hialeah), is a nursing home licensed under the authority of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On April 26, 1985, Hialeah submitted its license renewal application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), to renew its nursing home license for license year August 1, 1985 to July 31, 1986. The Department issued Hialeah Standard License No. 2134; however, by letter of September 30, 1985, the Department cancelled Hialeah's standard license, and replaced it with Conditional Rating License No. C-985. The Department's action was premised on its assertion that the results of a survey concluded by its Office of Licensure and Certification on August 1, 1985, established a conditional rating. Hialeah filed a timely request for formal administrative review of the Department's action. Hialeah asserted that the Department's action downgrading its license from standard to conditional was unwarranted and that, as opposed to a standard rating, it was entitled to a superior rating. At hearing, the parties stipulated that if this de novo review of the Department's action, which was premised on the deficiencies found in the survey conducted by its Office of Licensure and Certification, resulted in a finding that Hialeah was qualified to receive a standard rating, as opposed to a conditional rating, then it should receive a superior rating. Accordingly, the issues in this case are resolved to the validity of the deficiencies noted by the Office of Licensure and Certification. Deficiencies noted by the Department: Pertinent to these proceedings, 1/ the survey conducted by the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification classified the deficiencies noted at Hialeah into ten major categories, and listed the deficient nursing home licensure requirement number (NH) and applicable statutory or code provision violated, 2/ as follows: Administration and Management (1) NH 3 10D-29.104(1)(b), F.A.C. (2) NH 21 10D-29.104(5)(d)1g, F.A.C. (3) NH 25 10D-29.104(5)(d)4, F.A.C. (4) NH 26 10D-29.104(5)(d)5, F.A.C. Patient Care Policies NH 57 10D-29.106(2), F.A.C. Physician Services (1) NH 60 10D-29.107(2)C, F.A.C. Nursing Services (1) NH 77 10D-29.108(3)(c)16, F.A.C. (2) NH 80 10D-29.108(5)(b)6, 13, 15a & b, 16b & i, F.A.C. Dietary Services (1) NH 125 10D-29.110(3)(g)2; 10D-13.24(1)(4), F.A.C. Maintenance (1) NH 352 10D-29.122(1)(a), F.A.C. (2) NH 357 10D-29.122(1)(f), F.A.C. Infection Control (1) NH 365 10D-29.123(3)(a), F.A.C. Disaster Preparedness (1) NH 404 10D-29.126(5), F.A.C. Statutory Requirements (1) NH 405 Section 400.165, Fla. Stat. Life-Safety (1) NH 241 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (2) NH 250 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (3) NH 251 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (4) NH 269 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (5) NH 273 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (6) NH 277 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (7) NH 295 10D-29.121(10)(e), F.A.C. With the exception of the deficiencies listed for NH 3 (administration and management), NH 60 (physician services), and NH 250, NH 251, NH 269, NH 277, and NH 295 (life safety), Hialeah concedes that the deficiencies noted by the Department were appropriate. 3/ Accordingly, resolution of the question of which rating should be accorded Hialeah is dependent upon the propriety of seven disputed deficiencies. The Administration and Management Deficiency: The deficiency noted as NH 3 found: The provision for the resident's rights to privacy during treatment and care was not routinely adhered to. On the morning of July 24, 1985, staff members were observed attending to residents in rooms 7 and 8 of the Center Court while other residents were in the rooms and without the use of the portable privacy curtains. Chapter 400, Part 1, F.S. 10D-29.104(1)(6), F.A.C. Section 400.022(1)(h), Florida Statutes, accords a nursing home resident a right to privacy during treatment and care. Hialeah's failure to use available portable privacy curtains while patients were being bathed violated their right to privacy, and NH 3 was properly cited. The Physician Services Deficiency: The deficiency noted as NH 60 found: There was no documented evidence to verify that staff incident reports were reviewed by the Medical Director. 10D-29.107(2)C, F.A.C. Rule 10D-29.107(2), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: Responsibilities of the Medical Director . . . shall include, at a minimum, the following: * * * (c) Reviewing reports of all accidents or unusual incidents occurring on the premises and identifying to the facility Administrator hazards to health and safety . . . . The proof in this case established that the Medical Director did review all incident reports; Rule 10D-29.107(2), F.A.C., does not require documentation. Accordingly, deficiency NH 60 was not substantiated. The Life-safety Deficiencies: The life-safety surveyor noted the following disputed deficiencies: NH 250: One required-stairway from the second floor discharges internally at the first floor and is not enclosed or separated to provide exiting directly to the exterior. This is a repeat deficiency. Architectural plans must be submitted to Jacksonville Plans and Construction Section for approval, indicating physical changes required to this deficiency, prior to corrective action . . . . * * * NH 251: The southwest exit door to 27th Street was locked and exit lights were removed. This created a dead end area with only one means of exiting for the south portion of the center court. This is part of a repeat deficiency form (sic) 1984 survey. * * * NH 269: a storage closet in the activities office is not protected by the automatic sprinkler system. * * * NH 277: The following air conditioning deficiencies were found: 1. The heat sensor for the air conditioner unit located on the first floor at the dining room did not activate properly when tested. NH 295: Rooms where soiled linen is stored and soiled utility rooms are not exhausted to the exterior in accordance with Table II. 4/ Hialeah asserts that the Department has waived or deleted deficiency NH 250, or is estopped from counting it as a deficiency for rating purposes. Hialeah's assertion is unpersuasive. The record reveals that during the October 24, 1984 life-safety survey, Hialeah was cited for the same deficiency, NH 250/K32, that is subject matter of these proceedings. 5/ In response to Hialeah's request for a waiver of this deficiency, the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) advised Hialeah by letter of January 28, 1985: We have reviewed your request for a waiver of items K-32 . . . cited as deficiencies to you. Based on this review we concur with the State Agency's recommendation to deny this request. We expect you to submit an accept- able Plan of Correction to these deficiencies to the State Agency within 15 days of the date you receive this letter. We are notifying the State of this action. Notwithstanding the unequivocal denial of Hialeah's request for waiver, a life- safety follow-up inspection on April 17, 1985, revealed that the deficiency had not been addressed or corrected. As of April 26, 1985, the date Hialeah submitted its renewal application which is the subject matter of these proceedings, a plan of correction had still not been submitted nor had the deficiency been corrected. 6/ At this juncture, faced with an uncorrected deficiency from its last survey, Hialeah submitted its second request for waiver of NH 243/K 32. 7/ Hialeah's request for waiver, dated May 23, 1985, was forwarded by the Department's Miami office to the Director of its Office of Licensure and Certification on July 23, 1985, with a recommendation of denial predicated on HCFA's previous action. Before the Department acted, however, the results of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 survey were published and the same deficiency cited. On October 30, 1985, the Department responded to Hialeah's May 23, 1985 request for waiver, as well as the results of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 survey. That letter provided: A thorough review has been made of the citations found in OPLCM report of life safety deficiencies found during the survey conducted July 29 - August 1, 1985. As a result of that survey NH 250; NH 277 item #2, NH 282, and NH 219 will be deleted from the report . . . . Your letter of July 23, 1985 (sic) addressed to Alvin Delaney requesting waivers of items K 32 . . . cannot be granted and corrections must be made . . . . However, by letter of December 12, 1985, the Department advised Hialeah that: the indication . . . (in my letter of October 30) . . . that NH 250 citation related to a second floor stairway would be deleted as a deficiency was an error . . . and that deficiency must be corrected. Hialeah's assertion that NH 250 was waived or deleted by the Department is contrary to the evidence. Hialeah's assertion that the Department is estopped from raising that deficiency because of its delay in passing on Hialeah's "second" request for waiver is equally unpersuasive. Hialeah knew of the deficiency because of the October 24, 1984 survey, knew by letter of January 28, 1985, that the deficiency would not be waived, and took no action to correct the deficiency. The fact that the Department erroneously advised Hialeah that NH 250 was deleted did not prejudice Hialeah since such announcement was made after the current survey. Further, that letter affirmatively advised Hialeah that K 32 (the federal equivalent) could not be waived. In sum, NH 250 was properly cited as a deficiency. Hialeah asserts that NH 251 was improperly cited because it had complied with an "alternative plan of correction," approved by the Department, which allowed the 27th Street exit to remain locked so long as staff carried keys to the exit. The proof supports Hialeah's assertion. Since staff do carry keys, NH 251 was improperly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 269 was improperly cited because the closet in question measured less than 100 square feet is unfounded. The closet was created by erecting a partition in an existing room, and was used for the storage of activity supplies, including combustibles, for nursing home residents. The life-safety code required that the subject closet be sprinkled, and the Department had no policy which deviated from the code. Accordingly, NH 269 was properly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 277(1) was improperly cited because the heat sensor was not correctly tested is unfounded. At the time of inspection the heat sensor was properly tested and failed to function. Therefore, NH 277(1) was properly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 295 was improperly cited, because cited on a consultative visit, is not supported by the record. NH 295 was cited as a result of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 life-safety inspection, not a consultative visit, and its citation was proper. Conditional vs. Superior Rating: The parties have stipulated that if Hialeah meets the requirements for a standard rating that it is likewise entitled to a superior rating. To qualify for a standard rating Hialeah must have no more than 20 Class III deficiencies and no more than 5 Class III deficiencies in the specific areas delineated by Hialeah's Exhibit 20, Item 3. While each of the cited deficiencies are Class III, and the number of deficiencies correctly cited do not exceed 20, Hialeah amassed more than 5 deficiencies in the area designated by Rules 10D-29.119, 10D-29.121, 10D-29.123, and 10D-29.125. Accordingly, Hialeah does not qualify for a standard or superior rating but, rather a conditional rating.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a registered nurse should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 6, 1988, Ms. Melegrito was convicted of two counts of fraud in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1395 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. On or about January 6, 1989, Ms. Melegrito was convicted of four counts of Medicaid fraud in violation of Sections 32.1-314 and 18.2-95 of the Code of Virginia. Both convictions involved the same set of facts. On or about August 3, 1989, the Florida Department of Professional Regulation and/or the Board filed an Administrative Complaint, Case No. 0107472 against Ms. Melegrito’s license as a registered nurse, charging a violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1988), for the convictions set forth in paragraph one above. On or about October 27, 1989, the Virginia Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Melegrito’s nursing license as a result of the convictions set forth in paragraph 1 above. On or about December 21, 1990, the Board filed its Final Order in Case No. 0107472, placing Ms. Melegrito’s license on probation for a term concurrent with the probation imposed by the federal court and requiring her to comply with the terms of her federal probation. On or about June 25, 1993, Ms. Melegrito’s license to practice nursing in New York was revoked. On or about July 19, 1994, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or the Board filed an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Melegrito’s license in Case No. 92-11440, alleging a violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1994), for unprofessional conduct including a departure from or failure to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice. On or about September 14, 1994, Ms. Melegrito was found guilty of violating federal probation and sentenced to four years in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Ms. Melegrito failed to make restitution as required by the terms of her probation. On or about November 28, 1995, the Division of Administrative Hearings issued a Recommended Order in Case No. 92-11440, finding that Ms. Melegrito violated Subsection 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and recommending suspension for three years followed by three years of probation and a $1,000.00 fine. On or about April 30, 1996, the Board filed a Final Order in Case No. 92-11440, imposing suspension for three years followed by three years of probation and a $1,000.00 fine. On or about December 13, 1996, the Agency for Health Care Administration and/or the Board filed an Administrative Complaint, Case No. 95-00886, against Ms. Melegrito’s license, charging Ms. Melegrito with a violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(l), Florida Statutes, for violating the Final Order in Case No. 0107472 by violating the terms of the federal probation. On or about September 4, 1998, the Board filed a Final Order in Case No. 95-00886, revoking Ms. Melegrito’s license for seven years. If Ms. Melegrito desired to reapply for licensure at the end of her revocation period, she was required to demonstrate her safety to practice as well as proof of completing continuing education courses and paying a $250.00 fine and $251.12 in costs. On or about February 24, 1999, Ms. Melegrito was convicted of felony criminal mischief and trespass in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida. On or about August 18, 2000; July 27, 2001; and December 9, 2004, the Virginia Board of Nursing denied Ms. Melegrito’s petitions for reinstatement of her nursing license. The denial by the Virginia Board of Nursing in 2004 was based in part on Ms. Melegrito’s misrepresentations concerning her licensure status at two job interviews, engaging in the unlicensed practice of nursing in 2003, and misrepresentations on her application for reinstatement by failing to disclose her previous disciplinary history and criminal history.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Ms. Melegrito’s application for licensure as a registered nurse. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 18th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald D. Siebens, Esquire Office of the Attorney General One Mack Center 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Maria C. Melegrito 3137 Honeymoon Lane Holiday, Florida 34691 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Rick Garcia, MS, RN, CCM, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Patricia Dittman, Ph.D(C), RN, CDE, Board Chair Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be suspended or revoked, or whether the licensee should be put on probation or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Nancy L. Hunter, is a registered nurse who holds license #87366-2. On March 30, 1979, the Petitioner Board filed an administrative complaint against Respondent, seeking to place on probation, suspend or revoke Respondent's license. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. Prior to the hearing, Petitioner Board withdrew the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint, and the hearing proceeded on the remaining allegations, numbered 1 and 2 in the complaint. On or about February 7, 1979, Respondent attempted to have filled a prescription for Ionamin, a Class IV controlled drug generally used as a weight control measure, at the pharmacy in the Women's Hospital in Tampa, Florida. The prescription had been written by Respondent in the name of Eli Rose, M. D. Dr. Rose did not authorize the writing of this prescription, although he had previously written prescriptions for the same drug for the Respondent who had had these prescriptions filled at the hospital pharmacy. Respondent had been a patient of Dr. Rose and had used the drug previously, legitimately obtained, for her personal use as a weight control measure. Respondent Hunter acknowledged the forgery of the prescription for Ionamin, which she uttered to Mr. Eladio Quinomes, registered pharmacist at the Women's Hospital. Almost immediately after the uttering of this prescription, Respondent was confronted with the fact of the forgery and admitted the same. Respondent was suspended from her position and has not practiced her profession since that date. Petitioner submitted no memorandum of law. Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact, and this instrument was considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this Order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of the Respondent, Nancy L. Hunter, be suspended for a period of three (3) months from the date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 R. Kimber Martin, Esquire Suite 500 Flagship Bank Building 315 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Florida State Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive, East; Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent for violation of statutory provisions regarding the practice of nursing. By Administrative Complaint the Respondent was charged with unprofessional conduct and with being unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0711261. Respondent was employed at Humana Hospital Cypress in Pompano Beach from on or about October 10, 1988, until on or about March 10, 1989. During her employment at Humana Hospital Cypress, Respondent was absent from her duties without giving notice on four occasions, was absent with notice on one occasion, and was on sick leave on five different occasions. These absences constitute an excessive number of absences. The pattern of the absences also raises concerns as to whether the absences are caused by behavioral problems. During her employment at Humana Hospital Cypress, Respondent was observed while on duty by several Charge Nurses (Dysen, Fabella, and Keough) to be extremely nervous; jumpy; on the verge of tears or crying when asked what was wrong; to be constantly complaining about being tired and hungry; to be frequently looking very tired, taking naps during lunch break, and not waking up in time for duty; to be frequently flailing her arms around, talking verbosely in high volumes, and speaking about subject matter inappropriate at a nurse's station; and exhibiting generally unpredictable and worrisome behavior. Lynn Whitehead, R.N., has been a staff nurse on the Substance Abuse floor of Humana Hospital Cypress for approximately six years. During February of 1989, Nurse Whitehead spoke to Respondent after Respondent had a hysterical crying reaction to learning that she failed the Telemetry Nursing course. During Nurse Whitehead's discussion with Respondent, Respondent admitted to Nurse Whitehead that Respondent used drugs and had been to some rehabilitation group meetings in the past. Respondent's behavior in her discussions with Nurse Whitehead - extreme anxiety, pacing, upset, complaints of hunger and exhaustion - along with Respondent's excessive absences, were consistent with drug abuse behavior based on Nurse Whitehead's knowledge and experience. On or about February 28, 1990, Respondent was asked by Nurse Fabella to submit to a urinalysis based on Fabella's observation of Respondent's erratic and unusual behavior which led Nurse Fabella to suspect that drug use might be involved. Respondent refused to submit to a urinalysis and stated the reason was because she knew marijuana would show in her urine. Nurse Fabella counseled Respondent about her erratic behavior, excessive absences, refusal to submit to a urinalysis, and unprofessional nursing conduct, on or about February 28, 1989. Subsequent to the counseling by Nurse Fabella, Respondent failed to keep an appointment with Nurse Cruickshank to discuss her situation and the decision was made to terminate Respondent. Amy Mursten, Investigative Specialist for the Department of Professional Regulation, interviewed Respondent for the purpose of conducting an investigation into her behavior and suspected drug abuse. Ms. Mursten discussed the Intervention Project for Nurses which could help rehabilitate the Respondent and save her nursing practice, but Respondent refused this help and denied having a problem. On at least two occasion, Respondent failed to act professionally or responsibly towards a patient and would have given inappropriate dosages or types of medications to the patients had someone not intervened. The Respondent's behavior patterns described above constitute a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. The Respondent's behavior patterns described above demonstrate an inability to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of use of drugs or narcotics or as a result of her mental condition.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order in this case concluding that Respondent has violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by engaging in unprofessional conduct, and has violated Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by being unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients. It is further recommended that the Board's final order suspend Respondent's license until Respondent has demonstrated to the Board that Respondent is able to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients and, once Respondent has demonstrated her ability to so practice, place Respondent on probation for a period of one year subject to such requirements as may appear to the Board to be necessary to assure that Respondent continues to practice with reasonable skill and safety to patients. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30 day of April 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30 day of April 1990.
The Issue The matters presented for consideration in this instance concern an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent seeking to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's license, in particular, against her license as a Registered Nurse. The substance of the Administrative Complaint is contained in five (5) counts. Count I to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about March 10, 1981, Respondent signed out a controlled substance, to wit: two (2) ampules of Demerol, between the approximate hours of 7:00 P.M. to 7:15 P.M. for a patient, DeFrisco [sic]. DeFrisco [sic], reputedly states that she did not receive the Demerol. Based upon the foregoing alleged facts, Respondent has purportedly violated Subsection 464.018 (1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by making a false report of record which she knew was false and in addition has violated Subsection 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to conform with the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. 1/ Count II to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about March 5, 1981, the Respondent administered a controlled substance, to wit: Demerol, in excess of that ordered by the attending physician and for that reason violated Subsection 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), in that she failed to conform with the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. 2/ Count III alleges that the Respondent wasted, without a witness, certain controlled substances, in violation of hospital policy, as follows: On 2/28/81 Dilaudid, 1 mg On 2/23/81 Demerol, 100 mg. On 2/22/81 Demerol, 50 mg. On 2/16/81 Demerol, 100 mg. On 2/22/81 Morphene Sulphate 3 mg. On 1/28/81 Demerol, 25 mg. On 1/22/81 Demerol, 100 mg. Based upon these alleged facts, the Respondent purportedly violated Subsection 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to conform with minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about March 5, 1981, Respondent signed out a controlled substance, to wit: Demerol, at approximately 9: 02 A.M., and at 12:15 P.M., for the use of patient Theodora Durham. It is further alleged that patient Durham states that she did not receive the above mentioned Demerol. Based upon those alleged facts Respondent purportedly violated Subsection 464.018(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), in that she made a false report of record which she knew was false. Further, Respondent, based upon those facts, has allegedly violated Subsection 464018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1919), by failing to conform with minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice Count V alleges that on or about April 12, 1981, the Respondent reported to her place of employment, Beaches Hospital, under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it affected her body coordination Further, it is contended that Respondent's supervisor; Joyce Strarnes, did not allow her to complete her work shift because she, Respondent was unable to function safely and to conform with minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice Based upon these allegations, the Respondent has purportedly violated Subsection 464018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), for failure to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice, in which case actual injury need not be established. 3/
Findings Of Fact This case is presented for consideration based upon the aforementioned Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing, against the Respondent, Rebecca Lael Calhoun. The Petitioner, agency, is a regulatory body which has been granted the authority by the State of Florida to license, regulate and discipline those persons who practice nursing in the State of Florida. The Respondent Rebecca Lael Calhoun has been issued a license to practice as a Registered Nurse in the State of' Florida and at all times pertinent to this Administrative Complaint, has held that license issued by the Petitioner. Calhoun was employed at St. Luke's Hospital, in Jacksonville, Florida, between the months of December, 1980, and March 10, 1981. Her position with that institution was that of Registered Nurse. On March 10, 1981, the Respondent worked at the St. Luke's Hospital on Ward 1-C. In that capacity, she had responsibility for the medication cart where controlled substances and other medications were kept for patient use. One of the patients who was on Ward 1-C on March 10,1981, and for whom controlled substances and other medications were made available by physician's orders was one Barbara L. DiFrancesco. On that date, DiFrancesco had an operative procedure known as dilatation and curettage performed and after the procedure, was brought to room 161, which was a room on the ward where the Respondent was on duty. It was 4:30 P.M. when the patient was placed in that room. After DiFrancesco returned to her room, between the hours of 4:30 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. on March 10, 1981, she did not receive any form of controlled substance, in particular, Demerol. The Demerol was in fact removed from the hospital inventory in DiFrancesco's name and Respondent knew that the patient did not receive the Demerol. Nonetheless, the Respondent documented that the patient DiFrancesco had the substance withdrawn for the patient's benefit and had received such a controlled substance. The false documentation was discovered by Kathleen Lawson, Assistant Director of Nursing at St. Luke's Hospital who was investigating possible "discrepancies" on the part of the Respondent in the recordation of entries on the controlled substance forms kept by the hospital. On the evening of March 10, 1981, Lawson checked the controlled substance form at approximately 7:00 P.M., which pertained to Ward 1-C where the Respondent was working. This controlled substance form may be found as a part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. (The entries on that form pertain to the time of the sign-out, name of patient, room number, nurse's signature, dosage amount, amount of wastage, if any, and signature of a witness to wastage, and the description of the medication or controlled substance signed out by the practitioner) Lawson's review of the controlled substance form on March 10, 1981, at around `1:00 P.M. did not indicate that Demerol had been signed out for the benefit of DiFrancesco; however, when Lawson returned to Ward 1-C at approximately 7:15 P.M. on that same evening, she observed an entry on the controlled substance form which had been made by the Respondent. This entry indicated that Demerol in the amount of 50 mg. had been signed out for the benefit of DiFrancesco at approximately 5:30 P.M. When confronted with the discrepancy of having failed to make a timely entry of the sign-out of the controlled substance, Demerol, for the benefit of the patient DiFrancesco, that is to say the fact that the 7:00 P.M. check revealed no sign-out and a 7:15 P.M. check revealed a sign-out post-timed to 5:30 P.M.; the Respondent was than asked to perfect all necessary documentation to conform all records on the question of the administration of a controlled substance for the benefit of the patient DiFrancesco. In response to this request, the Respondent made an entry on the nurse's notes portion of the patient DiFrancesco's medical chart, to the effect that at 5:00 P.M. Demerol in the amount of 50 mg., IM, intramuscular, was administered to the patient DiFrancesco for "cramping." A copy of those nurse's notes may be found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. Some of the aforementioned "discrepancies' that officials at St. Luke's Hospital had been concerned about in terms of the Respondent's reporting procedures pertained to the controlled substance form, related to wastage of Schedule II controlled substances. St. Luke's Hospital had a written policy dealing with this subject as may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, which is a copy of that policy related to unit doe drug distribution. That written policy was to the effect that when Schedule II controlled substances are wasted, or partially administered to the patient, the wastage or partial administration is recorded on the controlled substance form through the name of the patient; room number; the nurse who wasted material; the material; the amount injected and/or the amount wasted. The substance is shown to a witness in the process of recording the incident description as set forth herein. Pursuant to the written policy, there is also a line on the controlled substance form for the placement of . Off initials of that person who witnessed the accountability of the wasted Schedule II controlled substance, when the substance is only partially administered. In addition, the Respondent and other nurse practitioners in the hospital underwent an orientation which apprised the Respondent and others of the matters pertaining to wastage of Schedule II controlled substances as set forth in the written procedures and the utilization of the controlled substance form. Also, a customary practice within the hospital was established in which totally wasted narcotics were witnessed by initials placed by the witness on the controlled substance form, in the same fashion as partially wasted substances. Having been made aware of the requirements of that drug distribution handout, the utilization of the controlled substance form and custom, the Respondent did, in fact, on occasion have wastage which was recorded on the controlled substance form and initialed by another nurse practitioner as may be seen in a review of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, which is a series of controlled substance forms for various dates. Notwithstanding her knowledge of procedures and customs within the hospital, there were a number of dates in which the Respondent failed to have a witness initial the wastage of Schedule II controlled substances Those occasions were as follows: Date: January 28, 1981 Patient: Pinkney Dose: 50 mg. Demerol Waste: 25 mg. Demerol Witness: No entry Date: February 16, 1981 Patient: Gression Dose: 100 mg Demerol Waste: 100 mg. Demerol Witness: No entry Date: February 22, 1981 Patient: Perry Dose: 50 mg. Demerol Waste: 50 mg. Demerol Witness: No entry Date: February 23, 1981 Patient: Fraser Dose: 100 mg. Demerol Waste: 100 mg. Demerol Witness: An entry made to the effect that a witness was unavailable Date: February 28, 1981 Patient: Bergdorf Dose: 1 mg. Dilaudid Waste: 1 mg. Dilaudid Witness: No entry There were no facts presented other than those related to the patient Fraser on the presence of a witness to the events of wastage and destruction of the Schedule II controlled substances. In addition to the incident with DiFrancesco, there were two other occasions in which the Respondent had signed out a controlled substance and indicated giving that controlled substance to a patient, when in fact the patient did not receive the controlled substance. This pertained to incidents on March 5, 1981, involving a patient on Ward 1-C, where the Respondent was employed as a Registered Nurse at St. Luke's Hospital. On the aforementioned date, i.e., March 5, 1981, the patient Theodora Durham was in the hospital for procedures related to curettage and packing of the uterus. She was assigned to Room 158 on Ward 1-C as her patient's room. The controlled substance sign-out form for March 5, 1981, which is found as part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, indicates that at 9:02 A.M. and 12:15 P.M., Demerol in the amount of 50 mg. on each occasion was signed out for the benefit of the patient Durham. The sign-out and other entries were made by the Respondent. The Demerol was in fact removed from the hospital inventory. The patient's chart, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence, also indicates nurses notes authored by the Respondent stating that the 50 mg. amounts of Demerol were administered intramuscular to the patient Durham at 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 Noon. In fact, the patient Durham never received the Demerol on either of the occasions referred to herein. The Respondent knew the patient had not received the Demerol. Following her employment at St. Luke's Hospital, the Respondent received employment at Beaches Hospital in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. On April 12, 1981, she reported work as a Registered Nurse at Beaches Hospital for the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift. During the transition from the prior shift into the shift of the Respondent, two (2) fellow employees noticed the aroma of what they felt to be alcohol on the breath of the Respondent. The employees having reported their observation to the nurse supervisor, the Respondent was summoned into the office of the nurse supervisor and under questioning admitted that she had been "drinking." This response was related to the issue of whether the Respondent had been consuming an alcoholic beverage. The nurse supervisor detected an unkempt appearance about the person of the Respondent and the fact that the Respondent's eyes were bloodshot Following this discussion, the Respondent was asked to leave the hospital because she could not afford patient care to those patients on her ward, due to the fact that she had been consuming an alcoholic beverage before coming on duty which was contrary to the policy of the hospital.
