The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Department of Health ("Department"), acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. DOH 12-007 (the "ITB") to Intervenor Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. ("Quest").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On July 10, 2012, the Department issued the ITB. The ITB solicited bids for a three-year contract for the provision of clinical laboratory services to the Department and county health departments. The ITB estimated that the winning bidder will perform approximately 861,000 tests annually, which will produce sales of $9.3 million per year. Bids were received from four vendors: LabCorp, Quest, Florida Reference Laboratory, and Ecolab Group Co. The bids were opened on August 17, 2012. The Department found all four bids responsive. The ITB specified that the Department would make a single award based on the grand total of pricing for specified "core tests" for the initial three-year term and for a contingent three-year renewal term. Quest was the lowest bidder, and LabCorp was the second lowest bidder. The sum of Quest's core test pricing for the original three-year term and the contingent three-year renewal term for the relevant laboratory services was $29,555,864.96. The sum of LabCorp's core test pricing for the original three-year term and the contingent three-year renewal term was $36,059,437.52. Section 3.2 of the ITB provided definitions pertinent to the bid, including the following: Mandatory Requirements or Minimum Requirements -- means that the Department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by Respondent.1/ The use of shall, must, or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this solicitation indicates compliance is mandatory. Failure to meet mandatory requirements will cause rejection of the bid or termination of the Contract/Purchase Order. Minor Irregularity -- used in the context of this solicitation and prospective Contract/Purchase Order, indicates a variation from the proposal terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the response, or give the respondent an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Bidders, or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department.2/ Section 4.15 of the ITB, titled "Responsive and Responsible," provided as follows: The Bidder shall complete and submit the following mandatory information or documentation as a part of the Bid Package. Any response which does not contain the information below shall be deemed non- responsive. Licensures-- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, Certificate of Compliance and State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Clinical Laboratory License Staffing Plan Attachment I Bid Price Pages-- Attachment III Initial Term & Renewal term (including balance of line minimum volume discount and phlebotomy services Required Certifications, Attachment VI The ITB provided no further clarification regarding the contents of the "Staffing Plan" beyond directing the bidders to "Attachment I" to the ITB. Attachment I was titled "Specifications of Clinical Laboratory Services" and contained six pages of additional specifications regarding services included in the bidders' prices, contractor liability, minimum tasks to be completed by the winning bidder, deliverables, and other requirements. Attachment I included the following specifications regarding staffing: Staffing Levels Each prospective offeror shall include its proposed staffing for technical, administrative, and clerical support including but not limited to a Contract Representative, Quality Control Manager, Staff Pathologist, Project Manager, Technical Support Manager, Technical Support Staff and statewide field representatives. The bidder shall provide hourly rate pricing, as an option to the contract, for an on-site Phlebotomist. The successful offeror shall maintain an adequate administrative organizational structure and support staff sufficient to discharge its contractual responsibilities. In the event the Department determines that the successful bidder's staffing levels do not conform to those promised in the proposal, it shall advise the successful offeror in writing and the successful offeror shall have 30 days to remedy the identified staffing deficiencies. Professional Qualification The successful bidder will be responsible for the staff affiliated with this proposal, insuring that they have the education, any professional licensure or certification which may be required by law, and experience necessary to carry out their duties. Staffing Changes The successful bidder shall staff the project with key personnel identified in the bidder's proposal, which are considered by the Department to be essential to this project. The bidder shall keep the Department notified of key staffing changes that directly impact services related to this solicitation. (Textual emphasis added.) The underscored language required the prospective offerer to include "proposed staffing" and required that the winning bidder staff the project with "key personnel identified in the bidder's proposal." The issue is whether the "Staffing Levels" and "Staffing Changes" provisions quoted above required the bidder to name the specific persons who would fill the "proposed staffing" and "key personnel" positions, or whether it would suffice for a bidder to indicate that it would fill those positions with qualified persons to be named after the bid is awarded. The term "key personnel" is undefined by the ITB. It is unclear from the specifications whether the "key personnel" referenced in "Staffing Changes" is synonymous with the "proposed staffing" referenced in "Staffing Levels." LabCorp interpreted "key personnel" to mean those persons named in the "Staffing Levels" provision: Contract Representative, Quality Control Manager, Staff Pathologist, Project Manager, Technical Support Manager, Technical Support Staff, and statewide field representatives. In its staffing plan, LabCorp provided the names of persons corresponding to each of the "Staffing Levels" positions named in the ITB, including a list of 69 field representatives and 19 sales support persons. The staffing plan submitted by Quest stated as follows: Quest Diagnostics has more than adequate staffing and capacity to meet the needs of the Florida Department of Health. Quest Diagnostics employs a Customer Solutions Manager (contract representative), Quality Assurance Manager (quality control manager), Medical Director and Senior Staff Pathologists, Project Manager, Specimen Processing Manager (technical support manager), Lab Manager (technical support staff), and Account Managers (statewide field representatives). Job descriptions for these positions are attached. Following this statement was a series of detailed job descriptions setting forth the qualifications, experience requirements and responsibilities for each of the named positions. Thus, Quest provided the Department with a set of job qualifications corresponding to the "Staffing Levels" provision of Attachment I to the ITB, but did not provide the name of a specific person to fill any of the positions. The Department concluded that Quest had sufficiently "identified" its key personnel. LabCorp did not provide the detailed job descriptions that Quest provided. For example, Sharon Kaplan is listed as "Project Manager" without further description of her qualifications, experience or duties. LabCorp contends that the ITB required the vendors to name specific persons who would fill those positions. The Department counters that the requirement to "identify" key personnel does not necessarily mean that the bidder must name the persons involved, and that Quest satisfied the ITB's requirement by "identifying" the positions it intended to fill and the qualifications for the positions named in the "Staffing Levels" section of Attachment I. Regina Taylor, the administrative service director of the Department's Bureau of Public Health Laboratories, performed the "responsive and responsible" review of the bids.3/ Ms. Taylor testified that the ITB "left the staffing plan a bit open-ended and left it up to the vendor as to how they would present it to us." The Department found both bids responsive though Quest and LabCorp each took a different approach to describing its staffing plan. Ms. Taylor stated that Quest would be able to name its personnel during the implementation process. She noted that LabCorp's bid provided the names of personnel but offered no detailed information regarding the qualifications or responsibilities of those persons beyond their job titles, whereas Quest provided detailed job descriptions without naming the persons who would fill the jobs. Ms. Taylor was not overly concerned about either company's ability to satisfy the requirements of the ITB. She stated, "Both Quest and LabCorp are national companies, so I'm sure that they have the adequate staff." The "Professional Qualification" section of Attachment I provides that the successful bidder is responsible for insuring that staff is properly qualified and certified. The "Staffing Levels" section allows the Department to review the successful bidder's staffing levels and require the bidder to remedy any deficiencies within 30 days of the Department's written notice. Ms. Taylor testified that the staffing provision section of the ITB was intended to ensure that the winning bidder had within its organization certain critical positions. The Department relied on its own experience in operating the state public health laboratory to identify the staffing requirements of the ITB. LabCorp points out that Quest was the only bidder that failed to submit a list of names of key personnel. Like LabCorp, Florida Reference Laboratory, and Ecolab Group Co. submitted the names of their key personnel. LabCorp also points out that Ms. Taylor's initial reaction to Quest's staffing plan submission was to call it "lame." Ms. Taylor's pronouncement on the quality of the Quest staffing plan was not a part of her review or of the Department's decision. Whether or not it she found it "lame," Ms. Taylor concluded that Quest's staffing plan was responsive to the bid criteria. The ITB requires the bidder to "identify" the "key personnel" with whom it proposes to staff the project. The ITB also states that the Department considers these key personnel to be "essential to this project." However, the ITB does not expressly define the term "key personnel." LabCorp named persons to fill the positions named in the Staffing Levels provision of Attachment I, which it reasonably took to be synonymous with "key personnel" referenced in the Staffing Changes provision of Attachment I. Via its staffing plan, Quest "identified" the key personnel without naming them. Given the lack of precision in these "open-ended" ITB specifications, both LabCorp and Quest made reasonable responses to the staffing requirements. Each chose a different way of "identifying" key personnel. Neither could be found to have clearly failed to comply with the bid specifications. The Department acted reasonably in finding both bids responsive. If LabCorp were correct that Quest's bid response did not comply with the staffing specifications, the question would arise as to whether Quest's deviation from the ITB specifications was a "minor irregularity" that could be waived by the Department. As noted above, the ITB defines "minor irregularity" as a variation from the bid specifications that does not affect the bidder's price or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. LabCorp has not identified any adverse impact on the Department that Quest's failure to name its proposed staff or key personnel would have. Indeed, LabCorp is hard pressed to state what advantage the Department gains by having the vendor name 69 field representatives and 19 sales support persons in its bid. The names are likely meaningless to the Department. "Sharon Kaplan, Project Manager" provides no more useful information than does Quest's description of the education, knowledge, and experience it requires of a project manager. The Department's concern was vendor capability to adequately staff the project, and the Department reasonably concluded that both vendors' bids demonstrated that capability. The basis for award of this bid was the lowest price. There was no scored evaluation of the ITB responses, no ranking of the staffing plans, and no effort contemplated by the Department to investigate the qualifications of the named personnel. The staffing plans submitted by LabCorp and Quest were of equal value to the Department as an indication of the vendors' understanding of the bid criteria and ability to fill the necessary positions. The ITB anticipates that the Department will deal with any staffing problems after the contract is awarded and the successful bidder begins to implement its program. LabCorp fails to identify any price advantage that Quest would gain by not naming the persons who would fill the key personnel positions, and none is apparent. Whether or not the personnel are named in the bid, the key positions would have to be filled at a cost that would presumably be roughly the same for each vendor. Again, the ITB gives the Department the power to raise staffing questions with the successful bidder and to require that problems be remedied within 30 days of written notice. LabCorp contends that Quest's failure to name key personnel gave it an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders. LabCorp argues that it went to the time and expense of preparing a detailed staffing plan, whereas Quest cut corners by submitting a set of generic job descriptions. Quest's method of setting forth its staffing plan may or may not have made its bid preparation easier, but did nothing to improve its competitive position in the bidding process. Quest's commitment to fill the required staffing positions was equal to LabCorp's. LabCorp points out that its own staffing plan included persons who are already on its payroll. LabCorp did not offer an estimate as to the likelihood that all of the approximately 102 persons named in its staffing plan would still be on its payroll by the time the company commenced performing the contract. LabCorp has no way of guaranteeing that all of those persons will be present to perform on the contract. Under the "Staffing Changes" provision, LabCorp would be allowed to substitute other qualified LabCorp employees for the named persons should the need arise. The virtual certainty of employee turnover supports the Department's position that the ITB did not require that bidders undertake the task of naming the employees who would fill the positions set forth in the "Staffing Levels" section of Attachment I. LabCorp argues that Quest's staffing plan gives it the opportunity to delay or avoid altogether hiring the staff necessary to perform the contract to the Department's satisfaction. As noted above, the inclusion of employee names in the bid could not guarantee that the named employees would still be working for LabCorp after the bid award. Quest's commitment to staff the project was no less than LabCorp's. LabCorp's argument suggests that Quest's bid should be rejected because Quest may later choose to breach the contract, which specifically requires the vendor to provide adequate qualified staff. In any procurement, there is always a remote potential that the winning vendor will breach or default. The Department's contract provides remedies for such defaults. In summary, it is found that the bids of both LabCorp and Quest met the requirements of the ITB as to staffing plans. Even if LabCorp's narrow interpretation of the ITB's requirements were correct, Quest's non-conforming response would constitute a minor irregularity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc.'s formal written protest and awarding the contract for Invitation to Bid No. DOH 12-007 to Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent, USA Rehab and Chiropractic Center, Inc., should have a penalty and fine imposed against its license for alleged statutory and rule violations.
Findings Of Fact On August 23, 2013, Respondent submitted to Petitioner a Health Care Licensing Application (Application) using AHCA Recommended Form 3110-0013, August 2013. The Application was submitted for the purpose of renewing Respondent’s license to operate as a health care clinic. Personnel File and Background Screening Results Section nine of the Application seeks a listing of Respondent’s “licensed health care practitioners and all personnel who provide personal care services to clients or with access to client funds.” Employees that fall within this classification are required to submit to, and successfully pass, a Level 2 background screening. Respondent identified on the Application four individuals that fell within the designated category. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-33.012(1) directs that a “survey” will be conducted for “[a]pplications for renewal licenses.” This rule also provides that the survey process “is an onsite inspection and review of the health care clinic facility or administrative office, by authorized Agency employees to determine the health care clinic’s compliance with the minimum standards established by the Act, its statutory references and rules regulating the operation and licensure of health care clinics.” Vanessia Bulger was assigned to conduct the survey related to Respondent’s Application. On November 25, 2013, Ms. Bulger visited Respondent’s facility for the purpose of conducting the required survey. Ms. Bulger met with the owner of the facility, Mr. Lavaud Fevry. While meeting with Ms. Bulger, Mr. Fevry disclosed that after submitting his Application to the Agency, the health care clinic hired two additional employees who provided personal care services to the clinic’s clients. Ms. Bulger wrote the names of the two new employees on her copy of section nine of the Application and further identified these employees with the letters “C” and “D.” Employee “C” is Eugene Grazette and employee “D” is Dexter K. John. For employee “C,” Ms. Bulger wrote “Eugene Grazette – 8- 31-15 – NO BG” and for employee “D” she wrote “Dexter K. John 10- 17-09 BG.” Ms. Bulger testified that “NO BG” stands for “no background screening results.” The Administrative Complaint does not allege that employee “C” had not passed a Level 2 background screening at the time of the survey conducted by Ms. Bulger. Count I of the Administrative Complaint does allege, however, that Respondent failed to maintain a copy of the Level 2 background screening results in the personnel file for employee “C.” It is undisputed that employee “C,” during all times relevant hereto, possessed a valid health provider license that authorized him to deliver personal care services to Respondent’s clients. Additionally, the evidence also establishes that on September 18, 2013, approximately two months before the survey, Respondent, via electronic submission, requested a Level 2 background screening for employee “C.” Ms. Bulger, as part of the survey process, completed a “Heath [sic] Care Clinic Surveyor Worksheet & Facility Questionnaire.” Item nine of the questionnaire asks, “[i]s there a log of all natural persons required to be screened and who have been screened under Level 2 criteria?” In response to this question, Ms. Bulger wrote “NO - New Chiropractor – massage therapist not listed.” The questionnaire does not ask on any of its 10 pages whether a copy of the Level 2 background screening results is maintained in the personnel files of the employees of the clinic. At the time of the survey, employee “C’s” personnel file did not contain a copy of the results from his Level 2 background screening. Attestation Regarding Background Screening Section 10 of the Application is labeled “Affidavit.” Mr. Fevry provided the following attestation in support of the Application: I, Lavaud Fevry, hereby swear or affirm that the statements in this application are true and correct. As administrator or authorized representative of the above named provider/facility, I hereby attest that all employees required by law to undergo Level 2 background screening have met the minimum standards of sections 435.04, and 408.809(5), Florida Statutes (F.S.) or are awaiting screening results. Count I of the Administrative Complaint also alleges that when Mr. Fevry met with Ms. Bulger during the survey he informed her that: he had no affidavit or documentation that the employees, including the Medical Director, had . . . attest[ed] to meeting the requirements for qualifying for employment pursuant to Florida law and agreeing to inform the employer immediately if arrested for any of the disqualifying offenses while employed by the employer per chapter 435, Florida Statutes. The evidence establishes that Respondent’s employees had not completed the required attestations until after the survey. In December 2013 Respondent submitted a plan of correction to address problems related to employee attestations. Exactly 21 months prior to the survey that provides the basis for the instant dispute, Petitioner, on February 23, 2012, conducted a survey of Respondent’s clinic. As a part of this earlier survey, Respondent was also cited for failing to ensure that required staff completed attestations, subject to penalty of perjury, wherein they acknowledged meeting the requirements for employment and agreeing to immediately inform Respondent if arrested for a disqualifying offense. Verifying Florida Licenses Emmanuel Nau, M.D. has served as Respondent’s medical/clinic director since August 2009. Dr. Nau, at all times relevant hereto, held Florida Department of Health medical license number ME48249. Dr. Nau, as medical director for Respondent’s clinic, acknowledges that he has legal responsibility for the clinic as specified in section 400.9935, Florida Statutes. On the day of the license renewal survey, Ms. Bulger inquired of Dr. Nau as to whether, in his capacity as medical director, he was verifying that all practitioners at the clinic who were providing health care services or supplies to clinic patients had active, unencumbered Florida licenses. Dr. Nau, in response to the inquiry, admitted to Ms. Bulger that he had not verified the license status of the clinic’s practitioners. There was, however, no evidence indicating that Respondent’s practitioners did not actually possess active, unencumbered Florida licenses during the period in question. Additionally, no evidence was offered that Respondent had previously been cited for committing violations of this nature. In December 2013 Respondent submitted a plan of correction that was designed to shore up its system of verifying that its employees have active, unencumbered Florida licenses. Failure to Document “When” and “What” Ms. Bulger testified that during the survey, Respondent failed to produce, upon request, confirmation that Dr. Nau documented, for the two years prior to the survey, compliance of when and what action was taken relative to several of the functions, duties and clinic responsibilities enumerated in section 400.9935(1)(a)-(g), Florida Statutes. When Ms. Bulger, on the day of the survey, questioned Dr. Nau about the omissions, he admitted that he failed to document and to maintain for the previous two years, records demonstrating “compliance, when and what action” he took in regards to the performance of his functions, duties, and responsibilities as medical director for the clinic. Dr. Nau also admitted during the final hearing that he had not been listing in his reports all information related to the performance of his duties as medical director of Respondent’s clinic. No evidence was offered that Respondent had previously been cited for committing violations of this nature. In December 2013 Respondent submitted a plan of correction designed to ensure that clinic reports adequately address those matters required by statute and rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order finding that USA Rehab and Chiropractic Center, Inc., violated sections 400.991, 400.9935, 408.809, and 435.05(2), Florida Statutes. It is also recommended that the Agency suspend Respondent’s health care clinic license for 10 business days and impose against Respondent a fine in the amount of $3,500. Finally, it is recommended that Count III of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, as well as the factual stipulations entered into by the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida holding license number PN 0626161. At all times material hereto, Dr. Vladimir Rosenthal owned three clinics in Dade and Broward Counties at which he performed abortions. The clinics were located in Coral Gables (hereinafter referred to as the "Coral Gables clinic"), North Miami (hereinafter referred to as the "North Miami clinic") and Plantation (hereinafter referred to as the "Broward clinic"). All three clinics were licensed under Chapter 390, Florida Statutes. In September and October, 1989, Respondent was employed by Rosenthal and worked full-time as a licensed practical nurse in the North Miami clinic. During this period of time, she had no responsibilities with regard to the other two clinics owned by Rosenthal. Among Respondent's duties at the North Miami clinic during this time period was to prepare, under Rosenthal's direct supervision, packages of medications that Rosenthal gave to his patients, free of charge, to take home with them upon their discharge, a practice that Rosenthal has since discontinued. 6/ On September 30, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) conducted an on-site inspection at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was not present at the clinic during the inspection. Nor were there any patients at the clinic at the time. Approximately 50 small manilla envelopes containing multiple doses of medications were found in a drawer of a desk in the clinic. The envelopes were labeled to the extent that they indicated the name of the drugs they contained, but they did not provide any information regarding the lot number, expiration date or the name of the manufacturer of the drugs. Carmen Penaloza, one of the clinic workers who was present during the inspection, was asked to demonstrate how these packages were prepared. Penaloza proceeded to take an empty manilla envelope like the ones that had been found in the desk drawer and fill it with medication that came from a large container. In performing this demonstration, she did not use gloves and her bare hands came in contact with the medication. Carlos Arias, a licensed pharmacist and one of the HRS employees who participated in the inspection, advised Penaloza that the technique she had employed was unsanitary and recommended that in the future she use a tray and spatula like pharmacists do to perform such a task. The HRS inspection also revealed that medical devices were being stored in a refrigerator that also contained food items. On October 26, 1989, HRS conducted an on-site inspection of the North Miami clinic. Arias was among the various HRS employees who were on the inspection team. Diane Robie, a medical quality assurance investigator with the Department, accompanied the team members on their inspection. Approximately 30 envelopes containing medications were found during the inspection. They were similar to the packages that had been discovered the month before at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was at the clinic when the inspection was conducted. Penaloza was also there. No patients were present, however. Respondent was asked to demonstrate how the packages were prepared. Penaloza was nearby at the time the request was made. She saw Respondent nervously looking around and concluded that Respondent was unable to locate any sterile gloves to use. She therefore told Respondent where such gloves could be found. Respondent then donned the gloves, laid a clean piece of paper on top of the desk where she was situated, placed tablets from a large container onto the paper and pushed each tablet with a tongue blade into a small manilla envelope. 7/ The technique that Respondent used during her demonstration, while it may have been unconventional from the perspective of a pharmacist like Arias, nonetheless was antiseptic and therefore acceptable. Sometime during the inspection Respondent made a statement that led Robie to erroneously believe that Respondent was responsible for packaging medications, not just at the North Miami clinic, but at the Coral Gables clinic as well. A finding of probable cause was initially made in this case on May 14, 1990. An Administrative Complaint was thereafter issued and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department received the following letter, dated September 4, 1990, from counsel for Respondent concerning settlement of the case: This will confirm our understanding that you will file a notice of dismissal with DOAH of the case now pending against my client and, providing the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and closing order entered by the probable cause panel, that Ms. Echlov will agree not to seek fees against your agency under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. In the event the panel does not approve a final dismissal and instructs you to refile the case, neither party will be prejudiced by the present agreement and each party will retain all rights otherwise available to them, including my client's rights to seek fees should the case be refiled. If this does not reflect our understanding, please notify me at once. Otherwise, please fax me a copy of your notice of dismissal so that I can take the final hearing off my calendar. Thank you for your efforts to resolve this matter amicably. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, the following follow-up letter, dated November 6, 1990: You may recall that we reached an agreement in the above-referenced case providing for a voluntary dismissal on your part and promise on mine that my client would not seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. You had to take the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and ask them to close it. In order that I can close my file and know that this matter is, in fact, concluded, please let me know whether you have taken the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and, if so, the outcome. If there are documents reflecting same, please, please send me a copy. If the case has not been taken back before the Panel, please let me know when this will be done. Thanks. I'll be looking forward to hearing from you. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, a third letter, dated January 14, 1991, the body of which read, as follows: It has now been over four months since we reached our "understanding" that DPR would dismiss the case pending before DOAH (which you did) and that my client would forego her right to seek fees under the EAJA, providing (to quote from my September 4, 1990 letter to you) "that the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and a closing order [is] entered by the probable cause panel." The final part of the bargain has never been performed so far as I know (and, if it was performed, the action was illegal since I requested notification of the date when the matter would be presented to the panel so that I might attend or send a court reporter but never received any). I have not, of course, received any final order of dismissal from the probable cause panel. If, within ten days of the date of this letter, I have not received either: an order of closure from the probable cause panel, or the time, date and place when our agreement will be presented to the panel, I will consider that DPR is in breach of the agreement and pursue all remedies available to my client, including attorneys' fees. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. The probable cause panel met a second time, at which it determined not to reconsider its initial finding of probable cause. 8/ Neither Respondent nor her attorney were notified of this second meeting of the probable cause panel. Following this meeting, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order (1) finding the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent engaged in "unprofessional conduct," within the meaning of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) dismissing said complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of January, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of January, 1992.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Amended Administrative Complaint 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 Respondent pursuant to Chapters 400, Part 483 and 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the Respondent an Amended Administrative Complaint (Ex. 1). The parties have entered into the attached Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2). The Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order. Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 3. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 4. The Amended Administrative Complaint is withdrawn. 5. Any requests for an administrative hearing are withdrawn. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. This matter is closed. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this 2 day of Met~ , 2014. etary % Care Administration Agenty for Heal Filed April 4, 2014 11:23 AM Division of Administrative Hearings
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 epee! this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this, 3 [day of , 2014. Richard Shoop, Agency Cler Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Carlton Entinger. Facilities Intake Unit Laboratory Licensure Unit Manager Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Iwona Pikor, President/Administrator Warren J. Bird, Assistant General Counsel Lab Doctor, Inc. Office of the General Counsel 1425-A Southeast 17" Street Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (Electronic Mail) (U.S. Mail) Mary Li Creasy Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
