The Issue This order addresses three cases consolidated for hearing. The first case chronologically is DOAH Case No. 00- 1964, which arises from the pre-licensure inspection initiated as a result of Respondent's application for a certification to provide limited nursing services, and seeks to levy fines for repeated violations originally noted in the biennial inspection of September 10, 1999. The second case chronologically is DOAH Case No. 00-1963, which arises from the re-inspection of the pre-licensure inspection performed on February 21, 2000, and relates to fines for repeated violations of the rules. The third case chronologically is DOAH Case No. 00-1965, which is related to issuance of the Department’s denial of certification to provided limited nursing services; however, it is based upon the same factual predicate as Case No. 00-1963. The issues in each of the cases are as follows: Case No. 00-1964: Should fines be levied against the Respondent as the result of an inspection which (1) was conducted without notice contrary to the letter concerning the inspection from the Department, and (2) in the absence of specific proof that the specific violation was repeated. Case No. 00-1963: Should fines be levied against the Respondent for failure to correct violations identified in an inspection that was not noticed contrary to the information provided to the Respondent, and when the Respondent was not rendering any services to which the violation applied. Case No. 00-1965: Should Respondent be denied a certification to provide limited nursing services based upon the violations discovered in the inspections of January 18, 2000 and February 21, 2000.
Findings Of Fact General Facts The Department is the agency charged with the inspection, regulation, and licensure of adult living facilities. The Respondent is an adult living facility owned and operated by Christal L. Caso. On November 11, 1999, Mr. Robert Cunningham conducted a biennial inspection of Respondent’s adult living facility (ALF). He identified a number of deficiencies that were written up in a detailed inspection report. Mr. Cunningham identified copies of his report which were a part of the Petitioner's Bound Exhibits in Case Nos. 00-1964 and 00-1963. A re-inspection was conducted in December of 1999, and all of the deficiencies noted had been corrected. The Administrative Complaint in Case No. 00-1964 alleges that on January 18, 2000, certain deficiencies found during Mr. Cummingham’s inspection on November 11, 1999, were repeated. His inspection report and its findings will be referenced and discussed in conjunction with the consideration of the report for January 18, 2000; however, there are no issues involved directly with Mr. Cunningham’s inspection or his report in any of the three pending cases. The Respondent applied for an additional certification to provide limited nursing services (LNS) at its facility. This application was duly processed and the Respondent was notified by letter, dated January 13, 2000, from the Department’s Tallahassee office that the facility must notify the Department within 21 days that it was ready for an operational survey (inspection), and that an announced inspection would be scheduled within several weeks. On January 18, 2000, Ms. Eleanor McKinnon, an inspector with the Department, arrived unannounced at the facility to conduct the pre-licensure inspection. Ms. Caso was not present at the facility at the time Ms. McKinnon arrived. When Ms. Caso arrived at the ALF, she advised Ms. McKinnon that she was not prepared and her inspection was inconsistent with the information Caso had received. Ms. McKinnon continued the inspection citing a policy that their inspections were unannounced. The letter Ms. Caso received from the Department’s Tallahassee office was termed, at hearing, inconsistent with agency procedure by personnel attached to the local office. It was clear Ms. Caso received and relied upon the information contained in the letter, and she had no reason to believe that it was not an accurate statement of how inspections would proceed. Ms. McKinnon prepared a detailed inspection report that was identified as an exhibit in all of the bound volumes. She did not have a clear recollection of the specific findings at the time of the hearing. The inspection reports identify specific areas of operations by alphanumeric designators termed "Tags." These tags relate to a specific area of concern in an inspection such as storage of drugs, medical records, or safety. The tags are listed in a separate column on the inspection reports, and specific violations will be identified and discussed in this order by reference to specific tags as they were at hearing. Licensure Inspection, January 18, 2000 Findings of Fact Specific to Case No. 00-1964 Although the Department's letter of January 13, 2000, said that the Respondent should notify the Department when it was ready for inspection, the Department has the right to inspect at any time for compliance with the rules. Regarding Tag A401, the first violation alleged to have been repeated, the inspection report for November states that "Three of five residents did not have a Health Assessment on file." The January inspection report states, "Review of two resident records revealed that one of the two residents had no health assessment on their medical record." Ms. Caso testified regarding individual records. These records she kept at her office at her house off the ALF’s premises. She was willing to retrieve these records; however, the inspector maintained that they were required to be maintained on site. Regarding the second alleged repeated violation, the November inspection report states, "Medications for Resident No. 3 which were discontinued in August were still in the centrally stored medicine closet." The January inspection report stated at Tag A612, "Tour of the medication room on the day of the survey revealed that medications from residents who the administrator said had been gone for over two years were still in the medication closet." This is alleged in the Administrative Complaint to have violated Rule 58A- 5.0182(6)(d), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner included in its exhibit a copy of the cited rule. Regarding the third alleged repeated violation, the January report states that over-the-counter medication was maintained in the medicine storage area without the name of the individual for whom it was prescribed being on it. This was alleged to be a violation of Rule 58A-5.0182(6)(f), Florida Administrative Code. A review of the current rules indicates that Rule 58A-5.0182(6)(d) and (f) do not address the substance of the alleged violation, and that the last amendment to the rule occurred in October 17, 1999. This provision had been repealed before the first inspection. Conclusions of Law for Case No. 00-1964 The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in this and the other consolidated cases. This case seeks to fine the Respondent for violations allegedly violated in the original inspection of November 11, 1999, and repeated on the inspection of January 18, 2000. The Department can conduct a compliance inspection at any time. However, to consider such an inspection a pre- licensing inspection is contrary to the letter regarding the inspection procedures sent to the Respondent by the Department’s Tallahassee office. I conclude that, although findings may be considered for general enforcement purposes and fines potentially levied for violations, they cannot be considered a pre-licensing inspection. The practical effect of this is that a general violation applicable to an ALF can be cited and considered; however, fines cannot be levied for those matters related to LNS because the Respondent was not licensed or engaged in rendering LNS. In addition, the Respondent is not subject for fines for violation of those portions of the rules applicable only to providing LNS because the Respondent was entitled to request an announced inspection pursuant to the Department’s letter. The Administrative Complaint of Case No. 00-1964 cites Rule 58A-5.0191(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as having been violated presumably a reference to Tag A401 relating to admission standards. Specifically, the cited fault related to health assessments. Rule 58A-5.0191(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: (2) HEALTH ASSESSMENT. Within 60 days prior to the residents admission to a facility but no later than 30 days after admission, the individual shall be examined by a physician or advanced registered nurse practitioner who shall provide the administrator with a medical examination report, or a copy of the report, which addresses the following: The physical and mental status of the resident, including the identification of any health-related problems and functional limitations; An evaluation of whether the individual will require supervision or assistance with the activities of daily living; Any nursing or therapy services required by the individual; Any special diet required by the individual; A list of current medications prescribed, and whether the individual will require any assistance with the administration of medication; Whether the individual has signs or symptoms of a communicable disease which is likely to be transmitted to other residents or staff; A statement that in the opinion of the examining physician or ARNP, on the day the examination is conducted, the individual’s needs can be met in an assisted living facility; and The date of the examination, and the name, signature, address, phone number, and license number of the examining physician or ARNP. The medical examination may be conducted by a currently licensed physician or ARNP from another state. The Administrator testified that health assessments were maintained for the residents, but were maintained at her office in her home. The inspector took the position that these assessments had to be maintained on-site; however, there is nothing in the rule upon which to base that conclusion. The rule provides that the physician or advanced registered nurse practitioner will provide the administrator with a copy of the assessment. The inspector did not permit the administrator time to retrieve the assessment for her inspection. In the absence of an inspection of the records, it cannot be determined whether the 30 days' grace period was applicable. I conclude that a health assessment does not have to be kept on site pursuant to Rule 58A-5.0181(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Inspector should have given the Respondent time to retrieve the records. Then a determination could have been made whether the appropriate information was contained in the records. There is no violation and no basis for levying a fine. The alleged violations of Rule 58-5.182(6)(d) and (f), Florida Administrative Code, cannot be a basis for fines or denial of the license because the rule was repealed before the biennial inspection, the pre-licensure inspection, or the re-inspection. Findings of Fact Case Nos. 00-1963 and 00-1965 Ms. McKinnon conducted a re-inspection of the ALF on February 21, 2000. This inspection was the basis for levying fines for alleged repeated violations, and for denying licensure. Therefore, these factual allegations will be discussed together. Ms. McKinnon’s report of inspection is contained in the bound volumes pertaining to Case Nos. 00-1963 and 00-1965. The first tag number is N201, and the Rule alleged to have been violated is Rule 58A-5.031(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code. In the inspection report of January 18, 2000, the inspector made the following observation: "Review of the facility records and interview with the administrator revealed that no log had been prepared for the admission residents to receive limited nursing services." At the time of the inspection, the facility was not licensed to provide limited nursing services. Such services were not being rendered. This log is nothing more than a piece of paper upon which a chronological record of services is kept. This record is not required to be kept until services are rendered under the provisions of the rule. The next tag number of the next violation is N205 on the inspection report of January 18, 2000. Tag N205 alleges violation of Rule 58A-5.0131(2)(ff), Florida administrative Code, because, "Review of the facility records and interview with the administrator revealed that there was no documented information on what services would be provided under limited nursing or who would provide the services." The next tag at issue is N302. It cites a violation of Rule 58A-5.031(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and states, Interview with the administrator and review of facility documentation revealed that no provision had been made to have currently licensed nurse in the facility to perform limited nursing services, nor was there a contract with a RN or MD to supervise the services provided. Again, the rule cited in the complaint is wrong. Rule 58A- 5.031(2)(d), provides that the facility must have a contract for nursing services. It was explained at hearing that there was no contract present for a nurse to supervise Ms. Caso, and no contract with Ms. Caso during the first inspection. Ms. Caso testified regarding this. She did not originally believe she was required to have a contract with herself, and, at the time of the second inspection, had a contract drawn with the nurse who was going to be the supervisor; however, the woman was seriously ill and had not been able to sign the contract. At the time of this inspection, the facility was not providing services and could not legally do so until licensed. Tag A401 of the February report cites a violation of Rule 58A-5.0181(3)(a)1, Florida Administrative Code, and states, "Resident No. 5 was admitted on January 31, 1999, and there was no dated health assessment on his record." Conclusions of Law for Case Numbers 00-1963 and 00-1965 Again, the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the cases. The various tags will be discussed in reverse order. Regarding Tag A401 of the February report citing Respondent for failing to have a dated health assessment for a resident, the proper citation of the rule alleged to have been violated is 58A-5.0181(2), Florida Administrative Code. As stated above, subparagraph (a) of paragraph (2) provides that the physician or advanced registered nurse practitioner shall provide the administrator with a medical examination report no later than 30 days after admission. In this instance, the reports were on-site and were inspected. However, this is not a repeat violation because there is no rule that requires these reports to be maintained on-site (the previously cited violation), and the records were not inspected on the previous visit. Therefore, this was the first time this violation was discovered. Regarding the violation regarding the absence of a signed contract by the supervising nurse (Tag 302), the facility was not licensed to provide LNS, and there were no services being rendered at the time. Therefore, there is no basis for a fine. In so far as this violation relates to the denial of licensure, Rule 58A-5.031(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: In accordance with rule 58A-5.019, the facility must employ sufficient and qualified staff to meet the needs of residents requiring limited nursing services based on the number of such residents and the type of nursing service to be provided. * * * Facilities licensed to provide limited nursing services must employ or contract with a nurse(s) who shall be available to provide such services as needed by residents. The facility shall maintain documentation of the qualifications of nurses providing limited nursing services in the facility’s personnel files. While the absence of the contract is a reason not to issue a license, under the circumstances in this case, it would have been more appropriate for the inspectors to note the discrepancy, and permit the Respondent to send them a copy of the contract when it was signed. It is not a basis for levying a fine. Regarding the alleged violation for failing to maintain a policy for how services will be rendered (Tag N205), first, there is no Rule 58A-5.0131(2)(ff), Florida Administrative Code, as cited by the Agency. Rule 58A-5.0131, Florida Administrative Code, contains various definitions, none of which relate to the alleged violation cited in the inspection report. A review of Rule 58A-5.031, Florida Administrative Code, which deals with the providing of limited nursing services, starts off by stating that a facility must be licensed before it can provide these services. From the description of the violation cited and the testimony of the witnesses, this apparently relates to the absence of a policy setting forth what services will be provided. There is no requirement in Rule 58A-5.031, Florida Administrative Code, for such a policy. The only provision of this rule remotely related to a requirement for some policy and procedure provides: The facility must ensure that nursing services are conducted and supervised in accordance with Chapter 464, F.S., and the prevailing standard of practice in the nursing community. The rule does not mandate how the facility will ensure this. In sum, there is no rule that requires such a policy be on site. Regarding the alleged violation of Rule 58A- 5.031(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to maintain a log of nursing services rendered (Tag N201), there was no requirement to maintain the log in the absence of performing the services.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department dismiss the complaints in Case Nos. 00-1963 and 00-1964. That the Department not license the Respondent with regard to Case No. 00-1965, but permit the Respondent to re- file for the subject license without jeopardy due to any of the inspections which have been the subject of Case Nos. 00- 1963 and 00-1964. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 9th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Christal L. Caso, Administrator Paradise Manor 2949 Carriage Drive Daytona Beach, Florida 32119 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr., Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in these two consolidated cases is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Luis J. Marti, M. D., hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Marti," and/or Jesus Escar, M.D., hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Escar," based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, contained in the separate Administrative Complaints filed against each of the Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties; on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing; I make the following findings of fact. Respondent Escar is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0034247. Respondent Escar's last known address is 935 West 49th Street, Suite #107, Hialeah; Florida 33012. Respondent Marti is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0034842. Respondent Marti's last known address is 24355 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33125. Respondent Marti went to medical school in Madrid, Spain. In approximately 1970, while Respondent Marti was in medical school in Madrid, Spain, Respondent Marti met Jose A. Tudela for the first time. At the time, Tudela had come to Madrid, Spain, for the purposes of starting medical school. In approximately 1975, while Respondent Marti was working as a resident at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, Respondent Marti again saw Jose A. Tudela. At about the same time, Respondent Escar met Tudela for the first time. Tudela's father, Francisco Tudela, a physician, was an attending physician at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital. Respondents Marti and Escar saw Jose and Francisco Tudela in 1975 while on rounds at the hospital. In 1979, while Respondents Marti and Escar were working at Palm Springs General Hospital, Jose A. Tudela came to the hospital to apply for a position as a house physician and saw Respondents Escar and Marti. When Tudela applied for the position of house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital, Respondents Marti and Escar were both residents at the hospital. On the day that Jose A. Tudela came to apply for the position of house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital, Tudela came to the doctors' lounge at the hospital where he spoke with Respondents Escar and Marti. Tudela had with him a diploma which appeared to Respondents Escar and Marti to be authentic and which appeared to have been issued by the Universidad Central del Este. The diploma had on the back what appeared to be official stamps and seals and the signature of the Vice Consul of the United States. Additionally, a translation of the diploma was attached to the diploma. On the date that Tudela came to apply for the position of house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital, Tudela also showed Respondents Escar and Marti what appeared to be a transcript of his grades from the Universidad Central del Este and a letter purportedly from one Victoria Marcial de Gomez. The transcript and letter appeared to Respondents Escar and Marti to be original and authentic. The letter from Gomez, who purportedly was the medical director for the health center of Trujillo Alto Health Department, in the associated Free State of Puerto Rico, appeared to verify the fact that Dr. Jose A. Tudela had worked in the Health Center of Trujillo Alto for seven months. When Respondent Marti reviewed Tudela's documents, he knew it was important that foreign papers be certified because he had had the experience of having to leave Cuba and re-establish himself. Respondent Marti's own diplomas from Spain bear attestations of notarization of a foreign government. Respondent Escar believed that Tudela's documents were originals because of his experience in having seen similar original documents of other residents in the past. On or about August 1, 1979, Jose A. Tudela completed an application for employment as a house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital. The application contained basic personal information about Tudela and listed some of Tudela's education and work experience. According to the application, Tudela went to Belle Glade High School, in Belle Glade; Florida; Warwick High School, in Newport News, Virginia, where he graduated in 1965; and the University of Miami; in Coral Gables, Florida where he graduated in 1970. According to the application, Tudela worked in an unspecified capacity in the Centro de Salud, in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, from 1978 to 1979. The application form does not contain any information about Tudela's medical education. Specifically, it does not contain any mention of University of Santo Domingo, Universidad Central del Este, or U.C.E. On or about August 8, 1979, Jose A. Tudela was employed by Palm Springs General Hospital as a house physician. Jose A. Tudela remained at Palm Springs General Hospital as a house physician until October 29, 1979. Tudela left Palm Springs General Hospital on that date to become a surgical assistant at Miami Children's Hospital. While employed a Miami Children's Hospital, Tudela received the highest score on every item on his employee evaluation form. That hospital never knew of any problem with Tudela's performance or credentials until this case occurred. Between approximately 1979 and 1983, Respondents Escar and Marti practiced medicine together as partners. In 1980, Jose A. Tudela approached Respondent Marti and asked Respondent Marti to sign an affidavit on behalf of Tudela. Therefore, on or about March 13, 1980, Respondent Marti signed a Form B-1 which was addressed to Rafael A. Penalver, M.D., Director, Office of International Medical Education, University of Miami School of Medicine; Miami; Florida. The form B-1 contained the following sworn statement: This is to certify that Jose A. Tudela born in Cuba and a graduate from the University Santo Domingo on 1978 was legally engaged in the practice of medicine from ---- to in Puerto Rico. I have known the applicant since 1975 and was acquainted with him/her during the time he practiced medicine. I was algo (sic) engaged in the practice of medicine in Miami U.S.A. during the years of 1975 and up. At some time after Respondent Marti signed the Form B-1, the abbreviation "(U.C.E.)" was added to the above-referenced sworn statement after the school name, "University Santo Domingo." Respondent Marti did not place the quoted abbreviation on the Form B-1. Prior to signing the subject Form B-1, Respondent Marti reviewed, for verification purposes, the employment application of Jose A. Tudela for Tudela's employment as a house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital. However, the employment application in question does not reflect any attendance by Tudela at any educational institution in the Dominican Republic or Santo Domingo. Furthermore, the employment application does not indicate the capacity in which Tudela worked in the Centro Salud in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, and does not specifically indicate that Tudela practiced medicine in Puerto Rico. In 1980, Jose A. Tudela also approached Respondent Escar and asked Respondent Escar to sign an affidavit for him. Therefore, on or about March 13, 1980, Respondent Escar signed a Form B-1 which contained the following sworn statement: This is to certify that Jose A. Tudela born in Cuba and a graduate from the University of Santo Domingo on 1978 was legally engaged in the practice of medicine from ---- to in Puerto Rico. I have known the applicant since 1970 and was acquainted with him/her during the time he practiced medicine. I was algo (sic) engaged in the practice of medicine in Miami, Fla during the years of 1977 and up. The Form B-1 was addressed to Rafael A. Penalver, M.D., Director; Office of International Medical Education, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. At some time after Respondent Escar signed the Form B-1, the abbreviation "(U.C.E.)" was added to the above-referenced sworn statement after the school name, "University of Santo Domingo." Respondent Escar did not place the quoted abbreviation on the Form B-1. Respondent Escar relied upon Respondent Marti's verification of Tudela's background information in signing the Form B-1 described in the immediately preceding paragraph. Respondent Escar did not personally review Tudela's application for employment at Palm Springs General Hospital but discussed the information contained in the employment application with Respondent Marti. At the time Respondents Marti and Escar signed the Forms B-1, they did not know Tudela very well and did not know very much about his background. Although they both thought Tudela was probably a graduate of a medical school, they did not remember what school he had supposedly graduated from, as evidenced by the fact that they put the wrong school name on the Forms B- 1. Both Respondent Escar and Respondent Marti lacked personal knowledge of the information contained in the Forms B-1 which they signed for Jose A. Tudela. Neither of the Respondents saw or taught Tudela at medical school in the Dominican Republic. Furthermore, neither Respondent Escar nor Respondent Marti was in Puerto Rico at the time Jose A. Tudela allegedly practiced medicine at the Centro Salud in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico. Neither of the Respondents had any source of information about Tudela's alleged medical education in the Dominican Republic or his alleged practice of medicine in Puerto Rico other than statements Tudela may have made to them, statements Tudela wrote on the application form at Palm Springs General Hospital, and whatever information could be gleaned from a casual review of Tudela's forged credentials. Jose A. Tudela has never graduated from the Universidad Central del Este, which is located in the Dominican Republic, nor from any other medical school. Tudela enrolled in the Universidad Central del Este (U.C.E.) medical school in August, 1977. There is no evidence in the school records for U.C.E. that Tudela passed any of his courses. In May of 1978 Tudela was no longer at the university. Tudela was given a special concession at U.C.E. so that upon presentation of a pre-medical certificate which Tudela claimed to possess, Tudela could receive credit for the pre-medical program training. However, Tudela never presented the required proof of his pre-medical program. Tudela did not complete any of the twelve semesters at U.C.E. which make up the medical degree program including pre-medical training. Although Respondent Marti first met Tudela in 1970 and Respondent Escar met him in 1975, the Form B-1 signed by Respondent Marti states that he met Tudela in 1975, and the one signed by Respondent Escar states that he met Tudela in 1970. The reason for this error is that both of the forms were prepared by Respondent Marti and the forms were inadvertently switched at the time they were signed. The Forms B-1 signed by Respondents Marti and Escar were submitted to the Board of Medical Examiners by Jose A. Tudela as attachments to an Application for Continuing Medical Education Program, which was submitted as part of Tudela's application for licensure as a physician in Florida. Tudela applied for licensure in Florida under the provisions of a special law which provided that the Board of Medical Examiners would establish continuing education courses designed to qualify for licensure those individuals who were resident nationals of the Republic of Cuba and were residents of Florida on July 1, 1977. In order to qualify for the continuing education program set up by the Board of Medical Examiners for Cuban nationals, an applicant had to demonstrate that he was a graduate from a medical school with a medical degree and that he was a resident national of the Republic of Cuba and a resident of Florida on July 1, 1977. Upon approval of the applicant to participate in the continuing education program set up by the Board of Medical Examiners, the applicant would have to complete the continuing education program. Upon completion of the continuing education program, the applicant would be qualified to take the licensing examination. In or about March of 1980, Tudela submitted an Application for Examination, an Application for Florida State Board of Medical Examiners Continuing Education Program, and the necessary attachments, which included the Forms B-1 signed by Respondents Escar and Marti and copies of what purported to be his diploma and transcript of grades. After successfully completing the continuing medical education program and the licensure examination, Tudela became certified to practice medicine and surgery by the Board of Medical Examiners on August 23, 1982. At the time of Tudela's application for medical license, the staff of the Board of Medical Examiners conducted the initial review and made the initial determination as to whether an individual was qualified to take the continuing education course and to take the licensure examination for certification to practice medicine and surgery in Florida. In making such determinations, consideration is given to all of the information contained in an applicant's file, which includes such things as the applicant's degree or diploma, transcript of grades, and the Forms B-1. At the time Tudela applied for licensure, the staff of the Board of Medical Examiners did not verify the medical education of applicants and conducted no investigation into the school or the graduation of applicants for licensure. Prior to approving Tudela's application, neither the Board members nor the staff independently contacted the Universidad Central del Este to verify whether Tudela actually graduated from medical school. The Board members did not personally review Tudela's application. The staff reviewed the papers and presented the Board with a list of applicants who appeared to be eligible for the continuing education course and the licensure examination. The diploma and the transcript of grades which Tudela showed to the Respondents and filed with the Board of Medical Examiners are forgeries. They are very good forgeries and bear a remarkable resemblance to genuine diplomas and transcripts issued by the Universidad Central del Este. The false documents provided by Tudela to the Board as part of his application, along with the Forms B-1 signed by Respondents Marti and Escar, deceived the staff into recommending Tudela for the continuing education course, the licensure exam, and ultimately for certification to practice medicine. Tudela's application to the Board also contains several letters of recommendation from other physicians who were convinced of Tudela's competence. The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates granted Tudela a certificate despite his forged documents. In November 1984, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Jose A. Tudela which alleged that Tudela did not graduate from or obtain a degree of Doctor of Medicine from U.C.E., contrary to what Tudela had indicated in his application for licensure examination described above. In March 1985, the Board of Medical Examiners entered an order accepting the surrender for revocation of Jose A. Tudela's license to practice medicine in lieu of further prosecution of the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint which had been filed in November 1984. Tudela is not currently licensed as a physician in the state of Florida. No further action was taken against him for his having fraudulently obtained a medical license in Florida. Respondents Escar and Marti were both aware of the fact that the Forms B-1 which they signed were to be submitted as part of the application for the continuing medical education program which had been established by the Board of Medical Examiners for Cuban nationals as a prerequisite to take the licensure examination. In fact; Respondent Marti became eligible to take the medical licensure examination in Florida by completing the same continuing medical education program. When the Respondents Escar and Marti signed the subject Forms B-1, neither of them had any personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the statements therein regarding Tudela's medical education and experience; yet they deliberately certified, under oath, to the truthfulness of matters about which they were distinctly uninformed. When the Respondents Escar and Marti signed the subject Forms B-1, both of them knew the purpose of the forms and both knew that the Board of Medical Examiners would rely on the information in the forms.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on April 22, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Val L. Nielson, was employed as a bus driver with Respondent, Escambia County Area Transit (ECAT) for approximately 26 years. She was terminated effective March 14, 2002. At the time of her termination, she was 69 years old. Besides having a license to operate a commercial vehicle, a bus driver is required to have a Department of Transportation (DOT) card that states that the driver meets all physical requirements set out in pertinent federal regulations. Respondent is a motor carrier. As a motor carrier, Respondent and its employees are covered by and subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). Among other things, the FMCSR require that commercial drivers must be physically qualified. To be physically qualified, the driver must pass a physical examination performed by a qualified medical examiner who issues a medical certificate. During the time she was employed by ECAT, Petitioner often missed work because of illness. Richard Deibler, director of transportation and safety for ECAT, estimated that Petitioner was unable to work approximately 50 percent of the time during the last five years of her employment. Petitioner acknowledges that she has been sick "quite a bit." At times when Petitioner was absent due to illness for 30 days or more, she would undergo a return-to-work physical and obtain a medical examiner's certificate. After she obtained the certificate, she would return to the job. It is ECTA's policy for all employees who are absent due to illness more than 30 days to undergo a return-to-work physical and obtain a medical examiner's certificate before returning to work. Petitioner acknowledged that she was not aware of any instances where this policy was not followed by ECTA. On February 4, 2002, Petitioner took a return-to-work physical from Dr. Michael Rappa. At the time she took this physical, she had been on medical leave for more than 30 days. Dr. Rappa gave Petitioner a medical examiner's certificate that read, "Temporary 1 month card." Generally, temporary certificates are for at least three months. A one- month certificate is extremely unusual. Regarding his examination results of Petitioner, Dr. Rappa wrote the following: TREATMENT /PLAN: Will clear her to drive a commercial bus for one month. Ms. Nielson appears to be functionally able to operate a bus and secure a wheelchair within the bus, but she does not appear to be physically fit for any significant walking/standing or lifting. If there are any additional functional work activities that Ms. Nielson needs to perform, it is suggested that those functional activities be outlined and provided to me to discern her ability to perform such activities. To return to this clinic for follow-up DOT exam at that time. In response to Dr. Rappa's request, Richard Diebler furnished a job analysis as well as a training video that shows how to use the passenger wheelchair tie-down system to Dr. Rappa. Petitioner did not receive a copy of the training video that ECTA supplied to Dr. Rappa. Following a review of the job analysis and video, Dr. Rappa signed a physician review form and checked the following: "I feel this patient cannot perform this job." His physician's notes also reflect that Petitioner could not safely and effectively perform the duties of the job. The physician review form is dated February 19, 2002; the physician's notes are dated February 20, 2002. Upon receiving the information from Dr. Rappa and learning that Dr. Rappa had not certified Petitioner, ECTA terminated Petitioner from employment. Nedra Woodyatt was employed by ECTA as a general manager. According to Ms. Woodyatt, ECTA did not allow Petitioner to drive the bus after receiving the one-month certificate until more information was received from Dr. Rappa. Petitioner filed a grievance under the applicable collective bargaining agreement regarding whether or not she would be paid for that one-month period of time. Ms. Woodyatt attended the grievance proceeding. The collective bargaining agreement provides a procedure for an additional medical examination at the employee's expense if the employee does not agree with the findings of the doctor. While the outcome of the grievance is not material to this proceeding,2 the subject of whether or not Petitioner would seek and obtain a second medical opinion was discussed during the grievance hearing. Petitioner did not seek a second medical opinion and did not request consideration for any job other than a bus operator. In any event, Respondent's action of sending Petitioner a letter of termination was based on the fact that Petitioner did not have a certificate of medical examination as required by federal regulations. There is nothing in the record to show that any subsequent medical examination took place or, if one did, that it resulted in any different determination. There are employees of ECTA, including bus drivers, who are older than Petitioner. At least one bus driver was older on the date of hire than Petitioner was on the date of her termination. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner was replaced in her job by a younger employee or that age had anything to do with her termination. The employees of ECTA were consistent in their testimony that Petitioner did not identify herself as a person with a disability or that anyone employed by ECTA referred to Petitioner as having a disability. Management at ECTA did not perceive Petitioner to be disabled, despite her frequent illnesses. Petitioner alleged in her charge of discrimination that Respondent should have provided her with an assistant on the bus. However, having an assistant, if that were even possible, would not negate the requirement that a bus driver must have a valid medical certificate in order to drive a bus.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 9th day of July, 2003.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) should deny Petitioner's application for renewal of a standard assisted living facility (ALF) license.
Findings Of Fact Although evidence was presented concerning all factual and legal issues, including mitigation, a recitation of all of that evidence is not necessary to a resolution of this case. Survey allegations and defense theories which were not proven will not be discussed, except as necessary, and only findings of fact which are dispositive will be made. AHCA is the state agency for quality control and licensing of ALFs. In order to ensure quality control of such facilities, AHCA conducts annual, biennial, and follow-up surveys. It also conducts complaint investigations as needed. Peggy Watkins and Timothy G. Watkins, Sr., hold a standard ALF license to operate Watkins Health Center, which they own. They held such a license and operated that facility throughout the 1996-1998 biennial licensure period. This case arises upon the denial of Watkins' renewal application for a standard ALF license. The renewal application was denied on the basis of deficiencies found by AHCA surveyors during the biennial licensure period. The reasons for denial are set out in the April 15, 1999, amended denial of renewal application letter which states the reasons for denial as: . . . It has been determined by the Agency for Health Care Administration that your application does not meet or comply with the standards as an ALF pursuant to Chapter 400, Part III, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapter 58A-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Further, the licensee has committed an intentional or negligent act which materially affects the health and safety and walfare [sic] of the residents of your facility. See 400.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes Suppelment [sic] (1998). This specific basis for this determination is: The administrator failed to adequately supervise residents and endangered the lives of the residents at your facility. The facility failed to meet minimum licensure standards pursuant to Section 400.414(1)(e) and (i), F.S., as evidenced by two repeated class II deficiencies, eight repeated class III deficiencies cited by the Agency between June 11, 1996 and October 9, 1998, during biennial and follow-up surveys, and complaint investigations. Petitioner contends that all or some of the cited deficiencies did not exist, were merely record-keeping flaws, or otherwise were not so serious as to require denial of the renewal application. Petitioner also asserts that all deficiencies were corrected by the respective follow-up surveys; that if a follow-up survey had been conducted after the October 1998 biennial survey, those deficiencies also would have been found to have been corrected; and that since a final follow-up survey was not conducted, the October 1998 survey results should not be used against Petitioner for purposes of denying the standard license renewal. In making surveys and investigations, AHCA follows a team approach. Surveyors on a team individually observe and note flaws and tentatively assign "tag" numbers to them, based on categories of deficiencies. Under each tag, all flaws in that category which are observed on that date are described with specificity. Members of the survey team write-up their individual observations and then meet together to discuss the flaws before the team finalizes the tagging and classing of all observations, with Class I being the most severe type of defect and Class IV being the least severe type of defect. See Section 400.419(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as set out more fully in the following Conclusions of Law. Complaint investigations may be done by a team or by only one surveyor. Although it is axiomatic that some subjectivity will be inherent in tagging and classing of violations, it is found, upon the evidence as a whole, that all surveyors who testified herein were adequately trained and professionally motivated within statutory and rule standards for surveying. Having different surveyors participate on different complaint investigations and surveys contributed to a fair assessment and diminished the possibility of unfairness through any individual surveyor's improper motive or subjectivity. It is further found that the surveyors herein appropriately followed survey protocols by using samples and stating percentages instead of tracking each specific resident or bedroom or bathroom from survey to survey. The utilization of sampling and percentage methodology is fairer to a facility than the tracking method proposed by Petitioner because the sampling and percentage methodology does not factor-in either a facility's consistent failures or consistent successes in any single location within the facility and because it provides a better overview of whole-facility compliance. In making these following Findings of Fact, I have not considered a survey tag or violation severity classification to have been proven without direct testimony by at least one surveyor who observed the deficiency on the date specified. The mere fact that a survey report contained a specific tag and class and that the same survey then became a business record of the Agency is not sufficient to establish that the deficiency actually existed. In addition to surveyors who evaluated Watkins during the biennial licensure period, AHCA presented the testimony of John Morton as an expert in regulation and operation of ALFs. His testimony sometimes differed from the on-site surveyors in ranking of various deficiencies, but overall his classifications were substantially the same. In considering Mr. Morton's testimony with regard to tags and classifications of deficiency, I have considered that he has been employed as a surveyor by the Agency for 20 years as a health facility evaluator, that he is a State-certified ALF administrator, and that he is a federally-certified quality control supervisor. While his opinions have been considered in determining the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the on-site surveyors' tags or classifications for specific deficiencies, Mr. Morton's opinions have not been applied to raise or lower the classifications assigned by the surveyors because Mr. Morton did not actually participate in any survey of Watkins. Watkins housed mentally ill residents throughout the 1996-1998 biennial licensure period. It was stipulated that these residents sometimes behave in bizarre ways, often require psychotropic medications, and are unpredictable, scatological, and unsuccessful at using restrooms. 3/ In 1995, AHCA began to create a licensing process for "limited mental health" resident facilities, pursuant to Section 400.4075, Florida Statutes (1995). The Agency acknowledged that Petitioner applied for such a license in April 1997. Its licensing officer, Ms. Huff, testified that the Agency "put a hold on such licenses." No legal authority for this "hold" was cited. The Agency contends that it sent Petitioner a request for further applicant information in October 1997 and never received the information. Petitioner contends that Mr. and Mrs. Watkins never received the Agency's request. The Agency failed to demonstrate the contents of its request for further information, and clearly, if sent, the October 1997 request was not sent to Petitioner's owners within 90 days of receipt of Petitioner's April 1997 application. Surveys, complaint investigations, and follow-up surveys of Watkins, pursuant to its 1996-1998 biennial standard license, were conducted by the Agency on June 11, 1996; July 31-August 1, 1996; September 5, 1996; October 18- 20, 1996; October 27, 1997; November 10, 1997; January 27, 1998; May 4, 1998; June 15-16, 1998; and July 6, 1998. On October 8-9, 1998, a biennial survey was conducted. It was not established that the Agency targeted Watkins for more investigations and surveys than other ALFs. Agency personnel had no control over when complaints were made against Watkins, which complaints required Agency investigation, and once the Agency had cited Watkins for a deficiency(ies), surveyors were required to return timely for compliance follow-ups until the biennial survey. On June 11, 1996, the Agency conducted a survey of Watkins. In the course of that survey, surveyor Sandra Holbert observed five residents taking food and drink off discarded dining trays and consuming it themselves. A staff member was present and did not intervene. Ms. Holbert observed the five residents return to the kitchen door and receive additional portions. She interviewed residents and found that they knew they were free to get second portions if they desired. The survey team correctly recorded this deficiency as a Class II, Tag A700, Resident Care Standard violation. The other tags cited for the June 11, 1996, survey on the June 18, 1996, survey report were not proven. On July 31-August 1, 1996, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation of Watkins. Surveyor Richard G. Glover reviewed Watkins' staffing and found it to be deficient. The minimum full-time equivalent staff (FTE) hours per week required for Watkins' resident census were 288, and the actual hours posted were 260. Despite explanations then, and at hearing, by Administrator Peggy Watkins that her time when working as a staff person was overlooked or ignored by Mr. Glover, I find more credible Mr. Glover's testimony that on July 31-August 1, 1996, Mrs. Watkins was unable to explain when the current work schedule had changed and that even if he added in the hours Mrs. Watkins had told him she worked, the total hours would not match the FTE requirements. Mr. Glover concluded that there were no time sheets nor payroll cards present in the facility on the date of his visit to support Ms. Watkins' contention. This deficiency was recorded as a Class II, Tag A505 (later re-numbered A507) Staffing Standards violation on the August 15, 1996, survey report, and proven at the hearing. The August 15, 1996, report also recorded that two resident bedrooms had broken windows: in one broken window, the shards of glass had been taped with gray tape, and in the second broken window, the shards of glass remained in the pane. This situation was classified on the report as a deficiency under Tag A705, Resident Care Standards, but it is unclear from Mr. Glover's testimony whether he personally saw the broken windows on July 31-August 1, 1996. On September 5, 1996, the Agency conducted a follow- up investigation/survey of Watkins. In the course of that survey, Mr. Glover again reviewed Watkins' staffing and found that it was deficient. The minimum hours, per week, required for the resident census at that time were 288, and upon the same type of review as noted in Finding of Fact 19, above, it was verified that the actual hours worked were 279. Weighing the credibility of Petitioner's several witnesses against the surveyors' contemporaneous request for, and the contemporaneous absence of, actual timesheets, I find that this deficiency was fully established as a repeat Class II Tag A505 deficiency on September 5, 1996. Also on September 5, 1996, Mr. Glover personally observed that two resident bedrooms had broken windows. In one broken window, the shards of glass had been taped with gray tape. In the second broken window, the shards of glass remained in the pane. He recorded this deficiency under Tag A705, Resident Care Standards. He noted the broken windows as a repeat of the same Class II deficiency found on the July 31- August 1, 1996, complaint investigation. Also included under Tag A705, were the September 5, 1996, observations by Mr. Glover of bedroom lights being out and exposed overhead lights. During the same survey, Mr. Glover identified the need for a preventive maintenance program to prevent grease build-up contamination in the vent over the kitchen range from falling into the food on the range. Without direct proof of broken windows on July 31-August 1, 1996 (see Finding of Fact 20, above), it is not possible to label the broken window on September 5, 1996, as a "repeat" deficiency. However, it is specifically found, pursuant to Mr. Glover's direct testimony, that the broken windows, defective lights, and greasy stove existed on September 5, 1996, constituting a Class II, Tag A705, Resident Care Standards deficiency at that time. On October 18-20, 1996, during a follow-up investigation, Mr. Glover noted that both the A505 staff deficiency and A705 grease build-up situation had been corrected. On October 27, 1997, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation of Watkins. Surveyors Ana Lopez- Edwards and Mr. Glover tagged and classified three deficiencies. The ALF license was not posted or located. This was Tag A003, Class III, a Facility Record Standards deficiency. Advocacy information, including the Resident Bill of Rights, was not posted, and this was tagged as A201, Class III. They found no documentation that residents were receiving, at admission, packets of rules and regulations, as required by law. This was classified as Tag A308, Class III, because, by inference, it was a denial of the rights of the residents, or the residents' representatives, to be aware of, and to function in, their surroundings. These deficiencies certainly presented an impediment to residents lodging complaints or seeking third party intervention. Surveyors also cited and directly testified to the following specific observations on October 27, 1997: twenty percent of resident bedrooms contained non-operational overhead lights, which were frequently uncovered. One fixture had a broken bulb with an exposed lighting element. The concern with the light fixtures was that a resident could stick his hand into the exposed lighting element. Two bedrooms and three bathrooms had a strong urine odor. Thirty percent of the bedrooms had no window covering. Other bedrooms had curtains only partially covering the windows. One bathroom had a stained window which partially exposed any resident in the bathroom. Fifty percent of the bathrooms were not adequately cleaned. Seventy-five percent of the bathrooms contained no soap or towels. Two bathroom commodes were non-functional. Surveyors also found that the hot water temperature in one resident bathroom was 96 degrees Fahrenheit, when the hot water temperature is required to be between 105 degrees and 115 degrees Fahrenheit. Many of the foregoing specific flaws had been raised on previous survey reports, but only the lighting deficiencies and window problems were observed previously and on October 27, 1997, by testifying surveyors, so as to prove- up repeated specific flaws. Nonetheless, since all the foregoing flaws which were observed on October 27, 1997, fit within the specifications for Tag A705, Resident Care Standards, I am satisfied that a "repeat" Class III, A705 deficiency has been proven for October 27, 1997. On October 27, 1997, a Class III, A902 Tag, Maintenance and Housekeeping Standards, was correctly assigned to the absence of drawer pulls and other furniture deficiencies in many bedrooms. Additionally, on October 27, 1997, Tag A1010 was validly assigned a Class III, Physical Plant Standards deficiency, in that 50 percent of the bedrooms were without reading lamps. On this same survey, surveyors found that one resident bathtub was not equipped with a required safety handrail. The Agency validly cited this deficiency under Tag 1018, Physical Plant Standards, as a Class III deficiency. On November 10, 1997, a complaint investigation was performed. Minimal testimony was presented, and no deficiencies were proven for this date. On January 27, 1998, a follow-up survey of Watkins occurred. At that time, surveyors cited Watkins under Tags A003, A201, A705, A902, A1001, A1018 and A1022 as uncorrected from the October 27, 1997 date, and cited additional deficiencies as being out of compliance with State Standards under Tags A200, A700, A702, A703, A706, A1002, and A1016, all of which were cited as either Class II or Class III deficiencies, some of which were allegedly repeat deficiencies. The only direct evidence as to the validity of these January 27, 1998, citations was introduced through the testimony of surveyor Ana Lopez-Edwards. Ms. Lopez-Edwards testified to the presence of strong urine odors on January 27, 1998, and to a "musty" smell about the entire facility on that date. This direct evidence only proves-up a very small portion of the several flaws listed to make up the citation of a repeat Tag A705, Resident Care Standards. Without more, that entire tag assigned on January 27, 1998, is not proven and it cannot legitimately be classified as a repeat Class III deficiency for that date. Ms. Lopez-Edwards also verified that during the January 27, 1998, survey, she had observed a Watkins resident kneeling in a public road that abuts the property. This is a paved road with numerous speed bumps designed to slow down vehicular traffic. Ms. Lopez-Edwards alerted one of Watkins' staff members to the resident's peril. The staff person told Ms. Lopez-Edwards, "That's Mr. ---, he does that all the time." The staff person then walked away without intervening to remove the resident from the road. On January 27, 1998, surveyors classified this incident under Tag A700 as a Class III deficiency. At hearing, Ms. Watkins admitted that the resident was at risk while in the road, but contended that he was actually to the side of the road when observed by Ms. Lopez- Edwards. Ms. Watkins testified that, "Now you ask was that health, a risk for him per se, being in the road I would say, yes, but this is what he does constantly." Apparently, this particular resident constitutes both a "wanderer" and a religious devotee. While ALF residents are entitled to visit outside the facility and to practice their freedom of religion, the ALF has an obligation to protect them from inadvertent self-injury. The evidence is clear that although rural, the paved road passing Watkins represents a danger to this potentially self-injurious resident, and the ALF was deficient in not intervening to protect him. The citation of this incident under Tag A700 as a Class III, Resident Care Standard deficiency was appropriate. Although the specific incident was not a "repeat," the Tag was a "repeat" of June 11, 1996. On May 4, 1998, a follow-up survey and new complaint investigation was conducted. At that time, Watkins' logbook stated that a resident had disappeared at some time after 8:00 p.m. on April 20, 1998. The logbook did not mention any notification to the administrator, neighbors, or police. The logbook further stated that at 3:30 or 4:00 a.m., April 21, 1998, the resident returned and was at Southwestern State Hospital in Thomasville. It apparently was unclear from the log book whether this patient was picked up at Southwestern State Hospital in Thomasville, Georgia, or was taken there by Administrator Peggy Watkins after his return, but Ms. Watkins' testimony concerning the incident was as follows: Q: With regard to the resident named M.T. having disappeared back in 4/98, are you familiar with that incident? A: Yes. Q: One it was - was the resident in fact - were his whereabouts in fact unknown? A: At that particular time, yes. Q. All right. And once that determination was made, what action was taken: What action was taken, if any? A: Well it wasn't on my shift, but it was told to me that she called, she reported him missing. Q: To whom? A: To the sheriff's department. Q: By calling 911? A. Yes, by calling 911 she reported him missing. . . And probably that morning about 4:00 that morning, they called and stated his whereabouts. And I went after him probably around 7:00 that morning. Clearly, Ms Watkins admitted leaving the patient in police custody an additional three hours. The Agency validly tagged this as a Class III, Tag A700, Resident Care Standards, deficiency. The A700 classification makes it a repeated tag. Also in the course of the May 4, 1998, survey, Mr. Glover observed, and correctly assigned, a Tag A705 Resident Care Standards Class III deficiency because an east bathroom light was inoperable; a second floor bedroom did not have a light bulb cover for the overhead fan light; and the second floor bedroom had no window covering, thus exposing the resident within. Some of the tag components are repeats; the tag itself is a repeat. Mr. Glover also assigned yet another Tag A705, Class III repeat deficiency for findings that included 20 percent of the resident bedrooms observed having non-operational overhead lights or uncovered overhead lights and one fixture with a broken bulb and an exposed lighting element; two bedrooms and three bathrooms with strong urine odor; and 30 percent of the bedrooms observed having no window covering while others had curtains that only partially covered the windows. So as to be fair to the facility, Mr. Glover and other surveyors tested the bedroom lights during the survey, both from the wall switches and the pull cords in each of the rooms they observed. It is immaterial that the defective bedrooms and bathrooms observed for the repeat deficiency ratings on May 4, 1998, may not have been the same bedrooms and bathrooms as were found defective when this problem was cited previously. Sampling is within survey protocols, and facilities have the obligation of the whole physical plant meeting standards. A complaint was initiated by the Jefferson County Health Department, and on June 15-16, 1998, the Agency conducted an investigation. By observations and interviews on that date, Mr. Glover concluded that a repeat Tag A705, Class II, Resident Care Standards citation was appropriate because the facility was not being maintained in a safe, sanitary manner ensuring the safety of residents and their physical well-being. This was proven by direct evidence as follows. Temperatures were measured at 6:40 p.m. on June 15, 1998, and bedrooms were found to be between 88 degrees and 92 degrees Fahrenheit. Agency standards provide that residents' rooms may not exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Two bedrooms were missing ceiling tiles and had damaged screens. The air conditioner compressor was non-operational. Ms. Watkins advised Mr. Glover that the facility's air conditioning had been off since June 11, 1996, and that she was having difficulty getting a repairman to come. In Mr. Glover's opinion, Watkins had an obligation to remove residents to a cooler environment once the temperature hit 90 degrees Fahrenheit. On June 16, 1998, the second story reception room light was flickering on and off, indicating a possible short circuit. There also were at least six residents in the common area, smoking cigarettes, with no sprinkler system in place. Watkins has a "no smoking" policy, which clearly was not being enforced by its staff. Mr. Glover was particularly concerned about the electrical system. On July 6, 1998, the Agency conducted a second follow-up to its June 15-16, 1998, complaint investigation. In the course of that survey, Mr. Glover observed that 50 percent of the bathrooms in the facility needed cleaning between the hours of 9:00 and 10:30 a.m.; a rear bathroom located in the single-story building had no hot water accessible to the residents; one bathroom commode was found to be non-functioning at 9:30 a.m.; hot water in the bathroom located on the first floor of the two-story building recorded a water temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit; and approximately twenty-five percent of the resident bedrooms had a musty odor. These combined defects were validly assigned a repeat Tag A705, Class III deficiency. On July 6, 1998, and referring back to the May 4, 1998, survey, the team found that the east bathroom light remained inoperable; the second floor bedroom still did not have a light bulb cover for the overhead fan light; and a second floor bedroom still had no window covering. These deficiencies were also validly classified as a repeat Tag A705 Class III deficiency. On October 8-9, 1998, when four surveyors conducted the biennial/renewal survey of Watkins, the facility had a census of 34 residents, 25 of whom were limited mental health residents. Under Tag A006, the Agency cited this as a Class III, absence of license deficiency. However, due to the confusion regarding the status of Watkins' limited mental health resident ALF license application, this citation is found to be without validity. In October 1998, under Tag A100, the Agency cited Watkins with a Class III deficiency for not having its fiscal records on the premises. However, since it was shown that the fiscal records could have been made available at the time of the survey from another location, I find that this citation also lacks validity. In October 1998, under Tag A203, Watkins was cited with a Class III deficiency for failure to maintain adequate written admission and discharge records. This deficiency was substantiated through Nurse Huff's observations, interviews, and testimony. However, this information was made available and conformed in the course of the survey, and therefore should not count against Watkins in this proceeding. In October 1998, under Tag A206, surveyors cited Watkins for having a total of 28 facility incident reports between January 1, 1998 and September 15, 1998, without having documented any prevention or intervention measures to prevent reoccurrences. In fact, 16 out of the 28 reports constituted reoccurrences. All of this information was transcribed from facility records. Therefore, I find this deficiency cited as a Tag A206, Class III deficiency to be accurate and proven. In October 1998, under Tag A208, Watkins was cited for failure to develop a management plan approved by the Office of Emergency Management for Evacuations and Disasters. At formal hearing, however, Watkins demonstrated through Alternative Approaches to Life Safety Worksheets and Fire Drill Reports that it had consistently held regular fire drills. Although regular fire drills do not satisfy all parts of the required standard, they somewhat mitigate the situation, so that a Class III citation would not be in order. In October 1998, under Tag A213, Nurse Huff noted that Watkins' personnel records for its staff were inadequate and not current. Two staff members, among the facility's eight employees on that date had no personnel files at all, and six out of the eight staff members did not have various types of required training documented in their personnel files. One staff member had previously been diagnosed with tuberculosis, and no negative test update was available in her personnel file. At hearing, Watkins produced all missing personnel records, including tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS training, training in self-administration of medicines, First Aid/CPR certifications, and ALF training, but with very few exceptions, none of the required training or medical clearances were obtained by staff members prior to the October 1998 biennial survey. Most such records were obtained by the employees after the October 1998 survey. Some were even earned after the October 1998 survey. Watkins asserts that securing these certifications within the 60 days' correction period provided for on the survey form was sufficient compliance with State standards so as to preclude using this deficiency against Watkins in this proceeding. I find otherwise. Not only was Watkins unable to demonstrate record compliance on the date of the survey, but many of its staff were uncertified in important categories on the date of survey, thus exposing residents to inferior care and safety up to the date those staff members finally became certified. Assigning a Tag A213, Class III to this deficiency was appropriate and valid. Under Tags A301 (rated Class III), A302 (rated Class III), and A305 (rated Class III), Ana Lopez-Edwards observed and described deficiencies concerning residents' admission height and weight recordation, contracts not signed by residents upon entry into the facility, and absence of required demographic data, respectively. Only the A301 deficiency, failure to record initial heights and weights in a reasonably accessible manner were proven to present even a potential or indirect threat to residents, which defines a Class III offense. The other flaws were paperwork problems, worthy of a Class IV citation at the worst. In October 1998, under Tags A401 and A404, the Agency cited Watkins for two Class III deficiencies arising out of the failure to have six out of eight resident health assessments performed and on file within the time frame established by statute and rule. This citation appears to be a duplicate citation, and at hearing, mitigation was demonstrated due to the refusal of health care professionals to perform any health assessments until such time as a resident qualifies for Medicare. At worst, this citation should constitute a single Class III violation. In October 1998, under Tag A406, the Agency cited Watkins with a Class III deficiency in that out of a sample of eight residents, there was no documentation on those residents' capacity to "self preserve." However, at hearing, Petitioner demonstrated through Alternative Approaches to Life Safety Worksheets and Fire Drill Reports, a consistent history of regular fire drills and recording of residents' ability to evacuate timely. The issue then became whether Watkins' failure to maintain this information in an accessible place clearly related to each respective patient so that it could be effectively used in case of emergency should be cited as a Class III deficiency. I view this as a Class IV or "paperwork" offense at worst. Although the Agency cited Watkins in October 1998, under Tag A409, for two inappropriate resident placements, it was demonstrated at hearing that there was only one inappropriate placement and that was a paperwork error corrected immediately by the physician who had made it. Therefore, this citation was invalid. The minimum staff hours for the resident census in October 1998, were 288 hours per week. The actual hours staff worked in that week was 279. Surveyors found that Watkins was under-staffed by nine hours for the week. Watkins knew from long experience that its necessary FTE hours were 288. Surveyors validly cited this as a repeat deficiency under Tag A507, Class II, Staffing Safeguards. Considering the content, weight, and credibility of Watkins' several witnesses against the Agency's witnesses' testimony and its surveyors' contemporaneous request for, and the absence of, actual timesheets on the date of survey, I find that this repeat deficiency was fully proven. In October 1998, under Tag A511, Watkins was cited with a Class II deficiency, based on staff interviews and a record review, for frequently operating without any staff on duty who are certified in First Aid, including CPR. I find this survey citation to be valid for the reasons given in Findings of Fact 50-53 and 58, above. In October 1998, under Tag A512, a Class III deficiency was cited, the core of which was that various staff members, particularly food staff personnel, did not have documentation of freedom from tuberculosis on an annual basis on file with the facility administrator on the date of the survey. At hearing, some staff were able to demonstrate prior tuberculosis screenings, while others were not. I find this survey citation to be valid for the same reasons given in Findings of Fact 50-53, above. In October 1998, under Tag A513, Watkins was cited for a Class II deficiency due to its failure to appoint in writing a staff member trained in First Aid and CPR to act in the absence of the administrator. This citation was made upon direct observations by qualified surveyors, who saw an undated appointment for a person without CPR certification documentation. At hearing, Watkins was able to demonstrate that Etta Brinson had been timely appointed, in writing, but had been certified in CPR on November 13, 1998, after the survey. Although there was some evidence that certification is good for three years, it was not sufficient to show that Ms. Brinson's November 13, 1998, certification renewed one from 1995. I find this citation to be valid for the same reasons given in Findings of Fact 50-53, above. On the same date, Watkins was cited under Tag A804, Class III, for failure to maintain nutrition and dietary standards and under Tag A1024, Physical Plant Standards, relating to fire safety reports within the last year. However, neither of these tags was proven. Insufficient evidence with regard to the absence of fire safety reports was presented by the Agency, and Watkins affirmatively demonstrated the existence of dietary menus and food substitution lists which had been prepared by a registered dietitian and were available within the facility on the date of survey. In October 1998, under Tag A901, upon surveyors' observations, Watkins was sited for a Class III deficiency based on peeling wallpaper in the dining room; missing ceiling tiles exposing the building's superstructure in two locations; unclean dining room chairs; and flies and spiders present elsewhere. Ms. Watkins confirmed that the ceiling tiles are light and that one had blown off the morning of October 9, 1999, and that she had been unable to replace it prior to the survey. This citation was adequately proven. In October 1998, under Tag A902, Watkins was validly cited for a Class III deficiency based on direct testimony of mildew on the main icemaker; 20 percent of the chests of drawers in the resident bedrooms missing handles; an expired health department sanitation certificate; and a cabinet in the dining room missing a door. In October 1998, Watkins also was cited for four Class III deficiencies under Tags A1016 for 15 percent of its water faucets not being labeled for hot and cold water; under Tag A1018 for an insufficient quantity of non-slip surface in the tubs and showers; under Tag A1021 for absence of a written infection control policy; and under Tag A1022 for using torn and threadbare linens. However, upon considering the evidence as a whole, I find that the criteria applied by the surveyors to these quantities and samples was so subjective as to have not proven any of these violations. Also, insufficient direct evidence was presented to prove-up a citation for Tag A1024 concerning fire inspection deficiency as a Class III deficiency in October 1998. In October 1998, Medical Standards Tags A600, A605, A606, and A610 were cited against Watkins for the following reasons established by observation. The A600 Tag was assigned because six out of eight sampled resident records offered by the facility did not have documentation of the method of management of medication administration. Staff was interviewed and was unable to provide further information regarding the appropriateness of the manner of medication, supervision, and assistance as required by State standards. A Class III deficiency was validly assigned. Also, in October 1998, surveyor Linda Huff, who was accepted as an expert on nursing, cited Watkins for multiple problems in the administration of medication. Watkins' medication administration record (MAR) or medicine log which Nurse Huff reviewed on that date, did not match the prescription bottle labels from which patient medications were being dispensed by facility staff. While she was not able to opine whether the bottle labels or the MAR were correct, Nurse Huff believed that the very fact that the prescription labels and the MAR were not identical exposed residents to dangerous drug mix-ups, dangerous drug interactions, and incorrect over- and-under medication by facility staff, who have only limited knowledge of medicine. On October 9, 1998, Nurse Huff had found, in Watkins' dispensary, a bottle labeled for Resident P.H. as Loperamide, two milligrams up to four times a day as necessary for diarrhea. However, this drug was not reflected in the MAR which Nurse Huff reviewed that day. Etta Brinson regularly assisted with medications at Watkins. She testified at hearing and identified Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 as Watkins' MAR or medical log for October 1998. Ms. Brinson admitted that P.H. had been prescribed Loperamide and that she had not noted that drug on Petitioner's Exhibit No 4 because the drug had been prescribed "as needed." Nurse Huff considered this a safety issue. Nurse Huff had found a prescription bottle for Thorazine, made out to Resident W.C., during the course of the October 1998 survey. However, on the day of the survey, this prescription was not recorded in the MAR provided her by Watkins. On Exhibit P-4, identified by Ms. Brinson at hearing as Watkins' MAR, Chlorpromazine was indicated for W.C. Ms. Brinson admitted that she kept two different MARs for Resident W.C. Ms. Brinson stated that she kept one MAR in a separate folder, which she had not shown to Nurse Huff in October 1998. Ms. Brinson testified that she had made a second MAR for Resident W.C. and kept it in a separate folder because he had a prescription "as needed" for hiccups. Ms. Brinson understood that the drug Chlorpromazine was a medication for hiccups. Nurse Huff stated that "Thorazine" and "Chlorpromazine" are different names for the same drug and that it is a serious problem to refer to the same drug by two different names because only a doctor, pharmacist, or registered nurse would know that they are the same drug. In October 1998, Nurse Huff had found that Resident G.M. had in Watkins' dispensary a prescription bottle marked "Clozaril, 25 milligrams, take one i.p.o. twice daily." Exhibit P-4 and the MAR which Nurse Huff saw in October 1998, showed that Watkins' staff were giving Clozaril, 100 milligrams, one tablet twice-a-day and two tablets at bed for a total of 300 milligrams. It also stated "Clozaril 25 milligrams, take two tablets twice-a-day," which is another 100 milligrams. There was no bottle of Clozaril, 100 milligrams, in Watkins' dispensary in October 1998. Nurse Huff testified that Clozaril is a central nervous system anti- psychotic drug which must be administered in slowly increased doses over time. The MAR indicated that G.M. was receiving ten times the dose of Clozaril as was indicated on his prescription bottle. Nurse Huff found this to be a health hazard. Ms. Brinson admitted that she would be concerned if the prescription bottle for G.M.'s Clozaril did not match the MAR. In October 1998, Nurse Huff also considered the situation of Resident W.I. She found in Watkins' dispensary a prescription bottle for W.I. labeled for Glucophage, "500 milligrams, two tablets in the morning and one tablet at night." She also reviewed an Insulin vial labeled for W.I. for Insulin to be administered in the morning and at night. The MAR she reviewed in October 1998, showed W.I. receiving Glucophage only in the morning and Insulin in the morning and at night. Generally speaking, when Glucophage is prescribed, it is prescribed instead of Insulin. Nurse Huff interviewed staff to see if there were a problem and even interviewed W.I. because the administration of both Insulin and Glucophage together could have such an impact on W.I.'s health. During these survey interviews, Nurse Huff determined that W.I. was on a 1500-calorie diabetic diet and took Insulin and Glucophage only in the mornings. However, at hearing, Exhibit P-4 showed W.I. getting one 500 milligram Glucophage tablet morning and night and no Insulin at all. Ms. Brinson testified that W.I. was not administered Insulin in October 1998. Ms. Brinson also stated that Watkins had a policy of taking discontinued prescription medications to the pharmacy for disposal. If W.I. was not being administered Insulin as of October 1998, Watkins' policy of disposing of discontinued medications clearly had not been followed because W.I.'s Insulin vial was still there. Moreover, based on any construction of the discrepancies in the records, Watkins did not meet medical standards. With regard to the preceding medical record problems, related in Findings of Fact 68 through 74, the Agency recorded a Class II deficiency under Tag A605, Medication Standards, on the October 1998 survey. Upon all the evidence, this deficiency assignment was proven valid. In October 1998, under Tag A606, Watkins was cited with a Class II deficiency for, among other things, keeping improperly labeled samples of prescription medicines. Evidence showed that certain samples were being dispensed to a resident without that resident's name and the dosage being placed on the sample box as required by law. Therefore, a Tag A606, Class II deficiency was proven. Tag A610, citing a Class III deficiency for improper labeling or absence of labeling of over-the-counter drugs was insufficiently proven by direct evidence. Considerable time was expended in the course of the hearing directed to issues of a pervading urine smell, the existence or absence of regularly-scheduled recreational activities for the residents, and the general cleanliness of Watkins' facility, particularly the stove hood, which problems were cited on several surveys. From the credible evidence as a whole, I find that despite constant cleaning by at least one Watkins' staff member, one or more parts of the facility contained pervasive urine odors at all times. It was also established that although Watkins addressed stove hood cleanliness through an independent contractor cleaning it every six months, the stove hood frequently was less than sanitary. However, due to the methods of presentation of evidence herein and the necessity of categorizing multiple defective components by tags and classes, Finding of Fact 78 does not comprise a single tag or class of deficiency so as to establish "repeat" deficiencies, except where specifically noted in other Findings of Fact, above. The Agency's repeated citations of Watkins for failure to provide structured recreational activities to its residents was refuted by direct evidence. Satisfactory recreational activities were provided by Watkins' contract with Apalachee Mental Health for at least four hours every week day within Watkins' facility and for optional field trips of approximately four hours, one day per week. Watkins also affirmatively established through testimony and its Policy and Procedure Manual that it had an infection control policy with regard to urine, feces, and laundry in place, contrary to citations by the Agency. The Agency did not establish that the infection control policy had to be in writing. Watkins also affirmatively established that it regularly employed a handyman to repair damage caused by residents, and that on at least one occasion when Watkins was cited for having a hole in the drywall, on-going repairs were actually in progress on a bathroom. This situation, however, does not account for all of the times that disrepair of the facility was cited. Moreover, there being some discrepancy between the testimony of Peggy Watkins and Mr. Clark, the handyman, as to when this particular bathroom repair occurred, this bathroom repair "in progress" cannot form a basis to refute all citations for damage to the walls of the facility. Due to the November 17, 1998, date of the original intent to deny the license renewal application, the Agency conducted no follow-up survey after the biennial survey of October 1998. An Ombudsmen Report done within 32 days of the Agency's October 1998 survey, found that Watkins "appeared satisfactory" under its criteria, which are not the same as the State's criteria. Representatives of the County Fire Department and County Health Department testified that they believed that Watkins had the best interest of its residents in mind and did the best job it could of providing a reasonably satisfactory facility. Laura Harris, who is employed with Apalachee Center for Human Services as its Program Supervisor for the Jefferson County Outpatient Program, and who trains its surveyors, testified as an expert witness in the areas of staff training, administration training, and quality of care. In her opinion, the overall quality of care at Watkins ranks eight and one- half on a scale of one-to-ten, and the facility itself ranks seven on a scale of one-to-ten.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for renewal of its standard assisted living facility standard license be denied and that the provisional assisted living facility license currently in use by Petitioner be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings ___________________________________ ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 17th day of February, 2000.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's license to practice medicine for violation of Section 458.331(1)(b) and (kk), Florida Statutes (2005)?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state department charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to Chapter 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is Gina Marie Dieudonne, M.D. Respondent is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida, having been issued license ME 89209. Respondent's mailing address-of-record is 48 Goldfield Cove, Jackson, Tennessee 38305. The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) is the licensing authority regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Illinois. On or about January 4, 2006, the IDFPR entered an Order indefinitely suspending Respondent's license to practice as a physician and surgeon in the State of Illinois. The IDFPR disciplined Respondent for failing to pay Illinois individual income tax for the tax years of 1999 and 2003. On March 27, 2006, Respondent executed a Petition for Restoration in front of a Notary Public in Illinois, seeking to have her Illinois license to practice medicine reinstated. On or about July 10, 2006, the Respondent signed a Stipulation and Recommendation for Settlement that, if approved by the IDFPR, would lift the suspension and allow the Respondent to renew her Illinois license, while placing her Illinois medical license on indefinite probation, until such time as the Respondent satisfactorily completed the payment of delinquent state income taxes and satisfactorily completed repayment of her Illinois Student Assistance Commission student loans outstanding. The Stipulation and Recommendation for Settlement was approved by the Medical Disciplinary Board on August 2, 2006. On or about October 18, 2006, the Director of the IDFPR signed an Order adopting the Stipulation and Recommendation for Settlement, subject to the terms therein, including the indefinite probation. The January 4, 2006, Order entered by the IDFPR, which indefinitely suspended Respondent's license to practice as a physician and surgeon in the State of Illinois, constitutes disciplinary action against the Respondent's Illinois medical license. The October 18, 2006, Order entered by the IDFPR adopting the Stipulation and Recommendation for Settlement, subject to the terms therein, including the indefinite probation, constitutes disciplinary action against the Respondent's Illinois medical license. Respondent failed to report, in writing, to the Board within thirty (30) days of the January 4, 2006, suspension of her medical license by the IDFPR. Respondent reported the October 18, 2006, order of stipulated indefinite probation of her medical license by the IDFPR to the Board on February 12, 2007. The report letter dated February 12, 2007, had a copy of the disciplinary documents from Illinois attached to it and was received by DOH Licensure Services Unit on February 15, 2007. On April 3, 2007, an order was entered by IDFPR terminating the earlier order of probation on Respondent's Illinois' license pertaining to Respondent's failure to repay student loans. Other restrictions imposed on the license remained in force and effect. Prior Disciplinary History Respondent's Illinois medical license was subjected to disciplinary action in two prior cases. In Case No. 92-2870 Respondent's Illinois medical license was placed on probation by terms of a Consent Order signed by Respondent on September 14, 1992, for failure to repay student loans. The probation was terminated by Consent order approved March 26, 1993. In Case No. 96-4999, an Order was issued, effective July 31, 1996, ordering that her license not be renewed for failure to repay student loans. Her license was restored by Order to Restore dated August 20, 1996.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts found and the conclusions, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered reprimanding Respondent's medical license, imposing an administrative fine of $4,000.00, and placing Respondent's license on probation until she presents evidence to the Florida Board of Medicine that her Illinois medical license is free and unencumbered. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 19th day of June, 2008.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came on for consideration before the Agency for Health Care Administration, which finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency issued the attached Notices of Intent to Deny Initial licensure to the Petitioner, Ultracare Imaging Services Inc. (Ex. 1) The Agency issued the attached Notice of Intent to Deny Renewal licensure to the Petitioner, X-Ray, Inc. (Ex. 2) The parties have entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 3) The Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order and the parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Petitioners, Ultracare Imaging Services, Inc. and X-Ray, Inc., jointly and severally, are assessed, and will pay the Agency, an administrative fine of $25,000.00 in five monthly payments of $5,000.00. The initial payment is due on September 30, 2012. The remaining four payments are due on the last day of each of the four successive months. Unpaid amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. 3. Checks should be made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration,” with a reference to the ten-digit AHCA number, should be sent to: 1 Filed July 31, 2012 4:31 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4. Any requests for an administrative hearing are withdrawn. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. This matter is closed. — ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 3/ day of July , 2012.
Other Judicial Opinions A party that is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek 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 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below- named persons/entities by the method designated on this ay of Je S , 2012. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Facilities Intake Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Roger Bell Health Care Clinic Unit Manager Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Amy W. Schrader, Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (U.S. Mail) Warren J. Bird Troy A. Kishbaugh, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Gray Robinson, P.A. Office of the General Counsel Post Office Box 3068 Agency for Health Care Administration Orlando, Florida 32802 (Electronic Mail) (U.S. Mail) Stuart M. Lerner Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, with license number 0017339. On October 25, 1979 the Commission on Medical Discipline of Maryland, licensing authority for the State of Maryland, revoked Stanley Radvan- Ziemnowicz's (Ziemnowicz) license to practice medicine in the State of Maryland. On August 18, 1981 the commission on Medical Discipline of Maryland denied Ziemnowicz's petition for reinstatement from its order of revocation dated October 25, 1979. On January 3, 1984, the Commission on Medical Discipline of Maryland granted Ziemnowicz a stay of its order dated October 25, 1979 revoking his license to practice medicine in the State of Maryland and placed him on probation. On April 29, 1986 the Commission on Medical Discipline of Maryland entered an order withdrawing the stay of its order dated October 25, 1979 entered on January 3, 1984 and again revoked Ziemnowicz's license to practice medicine in the State of Maryland. Stanley Radvan-Ziemnowicz whose license to practice medicine in Maryland was revoked on April 29, 1986 is the same Stanley Radvan-Ziemnowicz who is the Respondent in this Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Maryland has not been reinstated since the entry of the Order by the Commission on Medical Discipline of Maryland, dated April 29, 1986, and Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Maryland is currently revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, and there being no mitigating circumstances presented by the Respondent, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Case No. 87-3183 Respectfully submitted and entered this 4th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-3183 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding or Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as not supported by the evidence in the record in that the order of the Commission of August 18, 1981 denied Respondent's reinstatements to practice medicine. Rejected as not supported by the evidence in the record in that it was the Order of January 3, 1984, that entered the stay and placed the Respondent on probation. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. 6.-7 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The Respondent did not submit any Proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Branson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley Radvan-Ziemnowicz, M.D. 9400 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medicine 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue As to Case 93-6927, whether Respondent, a licensed physician, violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(m), (t), (v), and (dd), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed. As to Case 93-6928, whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.319(5), 458.327(1)(a), and 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed. As to Case 93-6929, whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida that regulates the practice of medicine. Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida and has been issued license number ME 0028412 by the Petitioner. CASE NO. 93-6927 On December 12, 1990, Susan D. Bernhardt conducted an inspection for the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) of an abortion clinic named Miami International Esthetics Center (MIEC). Ms. Bernhardt was hired as a consultant by DHRS to conduct random inspections of MIEC pursuant to a stipulation between DHRS and MIEC. Ms. Bernhardt is a registered nurse and is experienced in surgical procedures. Ms. Bernhardt observed Respondent perform an abortion on a patient at MIEC on December 12, 1990. Also present in the operating room was a nurse anesthetist, to whom Respondent referred as Mr. Martin. Respondent, Mr. Martin, and Ms. Bernhardt were present in the operating room at all times during the procedure. Mr. Martin administered anesthesia and the patient lost consciousness. Shortly after losing consciousness, the patient began making sounds which Ms. Bernhardt described as "crowing noises" and to which Dr. Van Eldik referred to as "stridors". These sounds indicate that the patient's air passages are blocked, a condition that requires prompt action from the physician or from the person administering anesthesia since the condition can be life threatening. Ms. Bernhardt testified that she went to the patient and used her stethoscope to confirm that the patient was having breathing difficulties. She thereafter tilted the patient's head and restored her breathing. The amount of time that lapsed between the time the patient first experienced difficulties breathing and the time Ms. Bernhardt acted was not established. While it is clear that neither Respondent or Mr. Martin 1/ acted to provide the patient with any relief or to assure that her air passages were open so that she could receive adequate oxygen, it is not clear whether the action of Ms. Bernhardt obviated the necessity for either the physician or the nurse anesthetist to act. Consequently, it is found that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to properly supervise Mr. Martin by failing to order him to assist the patient when Ms. Bernhardt acted promptly to relieve the patient. Emergency equipment was maintained on a crash cart that was in the operating room during the procedure Ms. Bernhardt observed. As the operating surgeon, Respondent was responsible for making sure that appropriate emergency equipment was readily available. Appropriate emergency equipment would include emergency drugs on the crash cart. Throughout the procedure there were no emergency drugs present on the crash cart. Respondent failed to adequately supervise Mr. Martin to ensure that appropriate emergency equipment was readily available. As part of her inspection of MIEC, Ms. Bernhardt reviewed medical records at the clinic pertaining to patients of the Respondent. Some of the records that were reviewed by her are contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Respondent's records reviewed by Ms. Bernhardt were of overall poor quality. Documentation concerning physical examination was scanty and often failed to include the size of the patient's uterine and a description of the presumptive signs of pregnancy. Anesthesia records were not filled out. Documentation concerning the recovery room period was virtually nonexistent. No vital signs or progress notes were charted. There was no follow-up documentation evidencing a pelvic examination and no notation of patient complaints or symptoms. The records reviewed by Ms. Bernhardt during her inspection did not justify or adequately document the course of treatment for the respective patients. A subpoena was served on Respondent by one of Petitioner's investigators that required him to turn over all medical records pertaining to certain named patients. A similar subpoena was served on Mr. Angel Caso, the owner of MIEC. In response to the subpoena that was served on his client, Respondent's attorney informed the investigator that Respondent did not have any medical records other than those that would have been maintained at the MIEC. In response to the subpoena that was served on him, Mr. Caso turned over medical records pertaining to 45 patients. These records reflect that the Respondent was their attending physician. Mr. Caso could not be subpoenaed by Petitioner to compel his attendance at the formal hearing because he could not be located. The medical records that were turned over to Petitioner pursuant to subpoena were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5 as records received by Petitioner during the course of an official investigation. There was no evidence that any other medical records pertaining to these patients exist. The medical records that constitute Petitioner's Exhibit 5 do not justify or adequately document the course of treatment of the respective patients. CASE NO. 93-6928 Section 458.319(5), Florida Statutes, provides, as follows: (5) The licensee must have on file with the department the address of his primary place of practice within the state prior to engaging in that practice. Prior to changing the address of his primary place of practice, whether or not within this state, the licensee shall notify the department of the address of his new primary place of practice. The Petitioner maintains the addresses of physicians by computer. There is no statute or rule that requires a physician to notify the Department in writing as to a change of address, but the Department's policy is to require that address changes be in writing and that the request for a change of address come from the physician. There was no written notification from Respondent to the Petitioner that his business address had changed prior to September 1992. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent's business address was 102 East 49th Street, Hialeah. His former business address was 4821 West 4th Avenue, Hialeah, Florida. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent's home address was 14710 Day Pine Avenue, Miami, Florida. As of December 17, 1990, Petitioner had been informed of that address. Petitioner's investigator, Diane Robie, interviewed Respondent at his business address on East 49th Street on August 22, 1991. Respondent had been at this address for approximately eight months as of August 22, 1991. This new business address was reflected by Ms. Robie's report, which was filed with Petitioner on October 8, 1991, but that report did not trigger a change of the business address Petitioner maintained for Respondent in its computers. Respondent's license to practice medicine was scheduled to expire on December 31, 1991. In mid October 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation (Department) mailed a renewal notice to Respondent's former business address on West 4th Avenue. As required by Section 458.319(4), Florida Statutes, the Department routinely mails to the physician a renewal form that the physician must use to renew his license. This mailing takes place 60 days before the physician's license is scheduled to expire. This renewal form is generated by computer and is sent to the mailing address that is on record with the Department and maintained by computer. It was the Department's policy to try to notify a physician at his home address if a renewal notice is returned from a stale office address. There was no evidence that the renewal notice and the renewal form that was mailed to Respondent at his former address in October 1991 was returned to the Department as being an incorrect address. The evidence failed to establish what happened to the renewal notice that was mailed to Respondent in mid-October 1991. There was no further attempt by the Department following the mid-October 1991 mailing to notify the Respondent at his home address or business address that his license was about to expire. Respondent's license expired on December 31, 1991, and his licensure automatically reverted to inactive status pursuant to Section 458.319(3), Florida Statutes. Respondent made no effort to contact the Department until June 1992 at which time his secretary/office manager contacted the Department by telephone and advised that Respondent had not received the renewal documentation. On August 10, 1992, the Petitioner wrote to Respondent at his home address. This was the first written communication between the parties since the mid-October 1991 mailing. Respondent mailed a check in the amount of $500.00 for the renewal of his license to the Department in September 1992. On October 6, 1992, the Department wrote Respondent at his former address on West 4th Avenue and advised that prior to the renewal of his license, Respondent had to pay an additional fee in the amount of $350.00 for the processing of his renewal application and that he would also have to submit proof that he had earned required continuing medical education credits. On February 15, 1993, the Department sent to Respondent a letter at his East 49th Street address that provided as follows: This letter is in response to your (sic) to your submission to renew your Florida medical license which was received in the Board office on 9-15-92. Unfortunately the Board of Medicine cannot comply with your request until the follow- ing is received: $350.00 renewal fee. (in addition to the $500 already submitted) You did not fill out the Financial Respon- sibility portion of the renewal application, therefore, you will need to fill out a new form, and have it properly notarized. Please submit an affidavit for your active practice activities between January 1, 1992, and the present date. Any person applying for reactivation of a license must show either that such licensee main- tained tail insurance coverage which provided liability coverage for incidents that occurred on or after January 1, 1987, or the initial date of licensure in this state, whichever is later, and incidents that occurred before the date on which the license became inactive; OR that such licensee MUST SUBMIT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT SUCH LICENSEE HAS NO UNSATISFIED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE JUDGMENTS OR SETTLEMENTS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION FOR REACTIVATION. After July 1, 1992, you will need to submit copies of at least 40 hours of Category I CME earned between January 1, 1990, and the present date. Five of these hours must be in Risk Management. Also one hour of HIV/AIDS Category I CME needs to be submitted. Once the above items are received, we will proceed with the issuance of an active Florida medical license. (Emphasis is in the original.) Respondent met all requirements for the renewal of his medical license on March 16, 1993, the date on which his license was reactivated. Between January 1, 1992, and March 15, 1993, Respondent engaged in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida without an active license. Case 93-6929 Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on April 27, 1988, which was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 88-5546. On February 28, 1989, the parties to that proceeding executed a "Stipulation" which settled the dispute. On April 19, 1989, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order that accepted the Stipulation and ordered the parties to abide by its terms. Pertinent to this proceeding, Paragraph 4 of the Stipulation required the following: 4. Within one (1) year of the date of filing of the Final Order incorporating the terms of this stipulation, Respondent shall complete twenty-five (25) hours of Category I Continuing Medical Education in the areas of Risk Management and/or Medical Records Keeping. Such continuing education shall be in addition to that amount required for renewal of licensure. Category I Continuing Medical Education is a course approved by the American Medical Association as a top level course. In March 1990, Respondent completed a 25 hour course sponsored by Jackson Memorial Hospital in the area of "Medical Records Keeping". Respondent notified Petitioner on March 21, 1990, that he had completed this course. This was the only course that Respondent claimed to have taken in satisfaction of the Final Order entered in DOAH Case 88-5546. This course has not been designated as a Category I Continuing Medical Education course by Jackson Memorial Hospital. The Petitioner advised the Respondent that the course he had taken did not satisfy its order. Respondent thereafter requested that the matter be reviewed by Petitioner's Probation Committee. This request was granted, but the Probation Committee determined that the course was not acceptable. Respondent did not comply with the order until March 16, 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which incorporates the following: Find Respondent not guilty of practicing beyond the scope of his competence in violation of Section 458.331(1)(v), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count One of Case 93-6927. Find Respondent not guilty of practicing below the standard of care in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two of Case 93-6927. Find Respondent guilty of failing to keep proper medical records in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Three of Case 93-6927. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded, assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, and placed on probation for a period of two years, to run concurrently with any other period of probation imposed on Respondent. Find Respondent not guilty of failing to properly supervise the nurse anesthetist when the patient experienced breathing difficulties in violation of Section 458.331(1)(dd), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Four of Case 93- 6927. Find Respondent guilty of failing to ensure that the crash cart was appropriately equipped, thereby failing to properly supervise the nurse anesthetist in violation of Section 458.331(1)(dd), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Four of Case 93-6927. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded and assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Find Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 458.319(5), Florida Statutes, and thereby violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by failing to timely notify Petitioner of his change of business address as alleged in Count One of Case 93-6928. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded and assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Find Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 458.327(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and thereby violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by practicing medicine in the State of Florida after his license expired as alleged in Count Two of Case 93-6928. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded and assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, and placed on probation for a period of two years, to run concurrently with any other period of probation imposed on Respondent. Find Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by failing to timely comply with an order of the Board of Medicine alleged in Case 93-6929. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded and assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of January, 1995.
