The Issue Whether Respondent committed deficient practices as alleged in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b) and 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288; and if so, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 and issue a conditional license to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida under state and federal statutes. Petitioner is charged with evaluating nursing homes facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for concluding federally-mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." Respondent is a 98-bed nursing home located at 1024 Willow Springs Drive, Winter Springs, Florida, and is licensed as a skilled nursing facility. On May 30, 2003, Petitioner's staff conducted an inspection, also known as a survey, at Respondent's facility. Upon completion of the survey, Petitioner issued a document entitled, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS Form 2567L, also known as a "2567," which contains a statement of the alleged violations of regulatory requirements, also referred to as "deficiencies," titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The evaluation or survey of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of a record, reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on the 2567 Form, and if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. Petitioner's surveyors use the "State Operations Manual," a document prepared by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 C.F.R. Chapter 483. Count I In Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent's staff subjected three residents (Resident Nos. 6, 13, and 18) to verbal and mental abuse in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), which provides that a nursing home resident has the right to be free from verbal and mental abuse. As to Resident No. 6, Petitioner contends that this resident stated to a surveyor that the resident had "overheard" a certified nursing assistant (CNA) loudly tell another staff member that the resident was "going to the bathroom 25 times a day." Petitioner believes the CNA's statement, which was allegedly "overheard," occurred sometime during the month of March 2003, based upon nurses' notes which indicate Resident No. 6 had an episode of diarrhea during this time. However, the nurses notes also reveal that during this time Resident No. 6 was subject to confusion and nonsensical outbursts. Petitioner's belief that Resident No. 6 was a reliable historian is based on Petitioner's mistaken belief that Resident No. 6 was admitted about March 30, 2003, and was alert and oriented and not confused upon admission. Petitioner's staff exhibited a lack of understanding of the timing and significance of the Multiple Data Set (MDS) forms describing Resident No. 6's mental condition upon which they relied. In fact, Resident No. 6 was admitted in mid-February 2003 and exhibited confused and eccentric behavior. The "overheard" comment was not reported to Respondent until the survey. Therefore, the evidence that this incident occurred as described by Petitioner is unreliable hearsay. Surveyors reviewed Respondent's records, which contained a complaint from a family member of Resident No. 6 that the same CNA had noticed that the resident had a physical anomaly. The CNA called other CNAs to view this anomaly, which was located in Resident No. 6's genital area. Respondent learned of the allegations relating to Resident No. 6's physical anomaly on April 21, 2003, from a family member of Resident No. 6. Respondent immediately began an investigation, including an interview with and physical examination of Resident No. 6 and an interview with the CNA. The resident only stated that she did not want this CNA taking care of her any longer. The CNA denied the allegations. The CNA was suspended pending investigation and later terminated based upon directions from Respondent's corporate office based on additional, unrelated information. The incident was reported to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hot Line on April 22, 2003. Although Resident No. 6 and her family member had frequent contact and conversation with Respondent's director of nursing (DON), neither had ever complained about the CNA's conduct. Respondent's DON observed no mental distress on the part of Resident No. 6 after Respondent's DON learned of the allegations. Petitioner alleges that this CNA had observed the physical anomaly for the first time. If that is true, it would be expected that the CNA would consult other nursing staff to address potential nursing issues. As to Resident No. 13, Petitioner alleges verbal abuse based upon the allegation that Resident No. 13 reported to a surveyor that she found a male resident sitting on her bed in her room. When this was reported by Resident No. 13 to one of the Respondent's nurses, the resident alleged that the nurse "laughed at" the resident. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON shortly after it happened. Respondent's DON interviewed the resident and the two nurses who were on duty at the time. The nurses reported that they assured Resident No. 13 that everything was okay, escorted the male resident to his room, and Resident No. 13 went to bed with no complaint or distress. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON in a joking manner, as an event and not as a complaint. Although Respondent's DON was concerned that the nurses should respond appropriately and was also concerned that the wandering resident be identified, Respondent's DON did not believe that the incident constituted any form of abuse. Respondent's DON did not observe this incident to have any adverse impact on Resident No. 13. During the survey, Petitioner's surveyor advised Respondent that the incident should have been investigated and reported to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON completed a written report and called the DCF Abuse Hot Line and related the incident. The incident did not meet the DCF guidelines for the reporting of abuse. On or about March 30, 2003, two surveyors observed Resident No. 18 in her wheelchair as she approached the nurse's station. One of Respondent's nursing staff spoke in a "curt, loud voice" to Resident No. 18. The resident had approached the nurses' station to ask for her medication, to which the nurse replied: "I told you I will give you your medicine." Resident No. 18 was hearing-impaired and was documented in her medical record as one to whom staff "must speak loudly." This resident did not wear any hearing assistance devices. Respondent's staff credibly described this resident as one to whom staff had to speak loudly and in clipped words for the resident to understand. Petitioner's surveyors did not speak to this resident after the alleged incident. There is no evidence that this incident had any effect on the resident or even that the resident heard the staff member. The incident does not rise to the level of verbal abuse of the resident. Count II Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleges a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), which provides that a nursing home must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse; and that the nursing home must not employ individuals who have been found guilty of abuse or neglect or are listed in the state nursing aide registry with a finding of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Count II is based on the allegation that Respondent failed to report to Petitioner (the appropriate "state agency") the incidents involving Resident No. 13 and 18 and other allegations of abuse or neglect, which the surveyor allegedly identified in Respondent's log of grievances. Respondent has in place written policies and procedures regarding abuse and neglect and its staff receive regular training regarding these policies and procedures. Petitioner has offered no evidence that these written policies and procedures or the staff's knowledge of these policies and procedures is inadequate. With regard to Resident No. 13, when Respondent's DON learned of the incident from the resident, Respondent's DON made inquiries of nursing staff who were on duty at the time, in addition to interviewing the resident. Respondent's DON did not consider any aspect of the incident to constitute abuse or neglect. Later, after Petitioner alleged, during the survey, that the incident should have been reported to DCF, Respondent's DON prepared a written report of the incident and called and related the incident to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON was advised by DCF that the incident did not meet DCF's requirements for reporting. Respondent is required to report all allegations of abuse and neglect to the DCF's Abuse Hot Line. Petitioner does not dispute this fact. Instead, Petitioner contends that Respondent is also required to report allegations of abuse and neglect to the "state agency" and that Respondent failed to do so. The "state agency" for the purpose of federal regulations is Petitioner. Petitioner's allegations are based upon its review of Respondent's grievance log, which Petitioner's surveyors say allegedly records 18 incidents of alleged abuse, none of which was reported to the state agency. At the time of the survey, Respondent was a part of the Mariner Corporation. It has since disassociated from that corporation and changed its name to Tuskawilla Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, effective October 1, 2003. At the time of the survey, all reporting of abuse allegations were done by the corporate regional risk management department, and it is not known if they reported any of the incidents cited by the surveyors to Petitioner. However, the document received in evidence, which has many more than 18 entries in summary style, is almost completely illegible. Petitioner's witness was unable to identify any entries on this document which could be identified as alleged abuse and which had not been properly reported. Understanding this document requires substantial explanation, which was never provided. Standing alone, this document is not probative of any fact. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent employed any individuals who had been found guilty of or who had been listed on the nurse aide registry of abusing, neglecting, or mistreating residents. Even if it is assumed that Respondent should have reported but did not report to Petitioner the 18 alleged incidents or the incident regarding Resident No. 13, Petitioner offered no evidence that reporting this information to DCF, but not to Petitioner, had any impact on any resident or prevented a resident from maintaining or achieving the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being. Count III Since there is no proof of Class II deficiencies, there is no basis for imposing a conditional license status on Respondent for the period May 30, 2003, until July 8, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0623 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact During the months of June and July, 1987, Respondent Convalescent Services of Venice, Inc., operated Pinebrook Place Health Care Center in Venice, Florida. On or about June 19, 1987, Rev. Spittal, then the licensed Administrator of the facility, submitted his emergency resignation in order to assume administration of another facility to which he was obligated to give guidance. He immediately notified the Regional Director of the Respondent corporation, Mr. Rick Winkler, who was himself a licensed health care administrator in Florida. As Regional Director, with the responsibility for supervising five nursing homes and one retirement center, Mr. Winkler had his office in the Pinebrook Place facility. Mr. Winkler's license was physically located at Respondent corporation's other facility, Lakeside Nursing Home in Naples, Florida. Mr. Winkler had been the Administrator of that facility prior to becoming Regional Director, and because the incumbent administrator, Ms. Harnish, was newly licensed, and because an administrator in training, Ms. Cox, was undergoing training at that facility, he left his license at the Lakeside facility when he moved to Pinebrook to become Regional Director. Upon the departure of Rev. Spittal, Mr. Winkler immediately assumed administration of the Pinebrook facility, fulfilling all the functions of the administrator and advising the staff that he had done so. In addition, he immediately entered into a contract with Ms. Joyce A. Coleman, a licensed nursing home administrator, to assume the position of Administrator of Pinebrook Place effective July 13, 1987. Thereafter, between Rev. Spittal's departure on June 19 and Ms. Coleman's arrival on July 13, 1987, Mr. Winkler was the Administrator of Pinebrook Place Health Care Center. A licensed assistant administrator was not employed at Pinebrook during that period. On June 30, 1987, Mr. Dowless, an investigator for HRS Office of Licensure and Certification, pursuant to a report filed by a discharged former employee at Pinebrook, visited the facility to determine if the allegation made that Pinebrook was operating without a licensed administrator was true. That day in question, Mr. Winkler was absent from the facility attending the opening of the Respondent corporation's newest facility. When Mr. Dowless arrived he spoke with the acting Administrator In Charge, the chief nurse to whom Mr. Winkler supposedly gave a letter of authority in writing to assume supervision in his absence, and after an inspection of the facility, concluded that the Respondent corporation was in violation of the law. This was because Mr. Winkler, though a licensed nursing home administrator, had his license physically located at Lakeside and he failed to have an Assistant Administrator under his supervision at the Pinebrook facility. This information was telephonically reported to Mr. Winkler who called Mr. Dowless by telephone later that day. The discussion was somewhat heated. Because he was unable to convince Mr. Dowless of the fact that he was the administrator at that facility, Mr. Winkler placed a telephone call to Mr. Richard Reysen, a Deputy Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification. During this conversation, Mr. Winkler explained his licensure situation and was led to believe that the situation was acceptable so long as he would have his license physically removed from Lakeside to Pinebrook. He did this and took no further action. Considering the matter closed, he was somewhat surprised when a citation was subsequently issued by Petitioner levying a fine of $1300. The fine was $100 per day for each day of the alleged violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of laws it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this case against the Respondent, Convalescent Services of Venice, Inc. d/b/a Pinebrook Place Health Care Center be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 16th day of June, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 16th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1 - 2. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Respondent is not cited for this alleged violation. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Irrelevant. 12 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and Incorporated herein. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a synopsis of testimony, not a finding of fact. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: ANTHONY DELUCCIA, ESQUIRE DISTRICT VIII LEGAL COUNSEL P. O. BOX 06085, SUITE 110 FT. MYERS, FLORIDA 33906 R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN, JR., ESQUIRE P. O. BOX 10651 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 GREGORY L. COLER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0700 R. S. POWER, AGENCY CLERK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Alachua General Hospital, Inc., Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corporation and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., meet the requirements of law and should be approved based on application of the statutory review criteria or upon other considerations.
Findings Of Fact Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center is a community-based skilled nursing facility of 120 beds located in Ocala, Florida. Oakhurst has a history of high occupancy and is a superior rated facility. At hearing, Oakhurst acknowledged a number of inaccuracies in its application. Some staffing ratios were misstated. The data utilized to calculate financial ratios is different from the data set forth in the combined statement. The physical location of the facility was incorrectly identified. The application misstated the existing number of beds in the facility. Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health. As to the application of Oakhurst, utilization rates indicate that need exists for additional community nursing care services in Marion County. Oakhurst experiences full occupancy. Projected occupancy levels set forth in the Oakhurst application are reasonable. The evidence establishes that the need for additional beds exists and that the application of Oakhurst is consistent with the applicable district and state health plans. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. Approval of the Oakhurst application will increase the availability of community nursing care at a superior rated facility and will meet the projected need determined by the AHCA's determination of the fixed pool. Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's ability to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Oakhurst is a superior rated facility with a history of providing high quality care. There is no indication that the 60 bed unit addition will result in a decline in quality of care. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the Oakhurst application will result in probable economies and improvements in service from joint, cooperative, or shared health care operations. Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Since purchase by the current owners, Oakhurst's financial performance has been satisfactory. Losses experienced during the two years following the purchase are attributed to accelerated depreciation. The facility is currently profitable. Although there was evidence that insufficient funds are being generated to maintain the facility's physical plant, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Oakhurst is unable to maintain the facility. Projected occupancy rates are reasonable. Funds for capital and operating expenditures are available to Oakhurst. Notwithstanding current operation of the facility and availability of funds, Oakhurst's proposal is not financially feasible. Oakhurst's revenue projections are not reasonable. This finding is based on the credible testimony of expert Charles Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki opined that the Oakhurst application is not financially feasible in the short and long term and that the financial projections in the Oakhurst application are not reliable. Mr. Wysocki's testimony was credible and persuasive. Oakhurst's current Medicaid rate is $71.68. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicaid rates as follows: $77.41 during the construction year; $104.69 during operation year one; and $99.75 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicaid rates are unreasonable. Projected Medicaid rates are overstated and do not appear to account for Medicaid program rate ceilings. Medicaid program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates during years one and two. Oakhurst's current Medicare rate is $186.87. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicare rates as follows: $340 during the construction year; $361 during operation year one; and $328 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicare rates are overstated and unreasonable. Medicare program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates. Oakhurst's application overstated revenue projections related to private pay patients. Further, according to Mr. Wysocki, Oakhurst has underestimated expenses related to depreciation, amortization and property taxes. Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Approval of Oakhurst's application can be expected to have a positive competitive impact on the supply of services being proposed based on the fact that the addition of beds will increase the supply of appropriate placements. Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Although Oakhurst has historically participated in the Medicaid program, Oakhurst is currently not subject to Medicaid participation requirements. If the CON at issue in this proceeding is awarded, Oakhurst will be required to provide at least half of the expanded facility's 160 beds to Medicaid patients. Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. To the extent that such information is available, there is no evidence that these services are used inappropriately or inefficiently. Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the proposed new service. As to community nursing home beds, the AHCA has determined that a need exists for additional capacity in the planning area's nursing homes. It is likely that failure to meet projected need will result in difficulty in locating appropriate placements. The state health plan sets forth "preferences" which are considered in comparative evaluations of competing CON applications. Preference is given to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate is higher in the Alachua planning area than in the Marion planning area. Oakhurst is in the Marion planning area and has the highest occupancy in the planning area. Oakhurst meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds or propose the development of multi-level care systems. The Marion County Medicaid participation average is 72.93 percent. Oakhurst's application subjects the facility to a 50 percent Medicaid average. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Oakhurst intends to operate a separate 20 bed subunit specializing in skin and wound care. A distinct subacute care program targeted at a specific patient population is a specialized service. Oakhurst does not have specialized Alzheimer services. Oakhurst does not provide care to AIDS patients. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. The Oakhurst proposal does not address respite care or adult day care. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. These special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual room temperature controls, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. Oakhurst's application meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. No party proposes to offer any therapeutic programs which may credibly be identified as "innovative." Preference is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Oakhurst's projected rates exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, therefore Oakhurst does not meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states. HRS' evaluation of existing facilities shall consider, but not be limited to, current ratings of licensure facilities located in Florida. AHCA is the successor agency to HRS. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents than other applicants shall be given preference. Although FCC and Oakhurst propose reasonable staff levels, Alachua's hospital-based unit, by virtue of location, more closely meets this preference than FCC or Oakhurst. Preference is given to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants who document plans to will ensure residents' rights and privacy, to use resident councils, and to implement a well-designed quality-assurance and discharge-planning program. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst has higher administrative costs and lower resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. The district health plan sets forth preferences which are to be considered in comparative evaluations of CON applications. The first applicable district preference is directed toward providing geographic access to nursing home beds. None of the applications meet this preference. The second applicable district preference requires consideration of existing bed utilization. Based on the percentage of elderly population and utilization of existing beds in each area, relative priorities are established. Oakhurst is in a "high need" planning area. Existing nursing homes in the Marion planning area are experiencing occupancy levels between 80 and 90 percent placing Oakhurst in a "moderate occupancy" planning area. According to the preference matrix set forth in the district plan, Oakhurst is in a priority two planning area (high need and moderate occupancy.) The evidence establishes that Oakhurst meets this preference. The third preference relates to the conversion of acute care beds to skilled nursing use. Oakhurst does not intend to convert underutilized hospital beds into skilled nursing beds for step-down or subacute care. The fourth and fifth preferences apply to new facilities of at least 60 beds. No application meets these preferences. The sixth preference states that priority consideration should be given to facilities which propose to offer specialized services to meet the needs of the identified population. Oakhurst proposes to offer a subunit specializing in skin and wound care. Oakhurst meets this preference.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the application of Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center for Certificate of Need #7326 to be incomplete and withdrawn, GRANTING the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for Certificate of Need #7325 for the 60 remaining beds in the applicable fixed need pool and GRANTING the application of Alachua General Hospital for Certificate of Need #7320 to convert 30 existing acute care beds into a skilled nursing unit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 5th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6264 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Alachua General Hospital, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, irrelevant as to the AHCA's review of the proposals prior to notice of intended award. 16, 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 21-26. Rejected, subordinate. 30. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 32, 34. Rejected, subordinate. 42-50. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. The preferences set forth in the proposed finding are not those contained within Alachua's exhibit #1, which has been utilized in this Recommended Order. 52. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected, evidence fails to establish that therapy offered is "innovative." 62. Rejected, cumulative. 63-64. Rejected, subordinate. 72. Rejected as to SAAR, unnecessary. 73-76. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corp.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4,6, 8-51. Rejected, unnecessary, application rejected as incomplete and withdrawn from consideration. 52-54, 56-58. Rejected, irrelevant. Although it is true that the application contained the combined audited financial statements for the Harborside facilities, such statement fails to meet the requirement that the application contain an audited financial statement for the applicant. Harborside is not the applicant. 55. Rejected, irrelevant. The agency has cited no authority which would permit the waiver of the statutory requirement. 59. Rejected, immaterial. The document was admitted to demonstrate that the material required by law was not submitted with the CON application. Further consideration constitutes an impermissible amendment to the CON application and is rejected. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-91. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 93. Rejected, unnecessary. 102-143. References to Oakhurst application, rejected, unnecessary. Agency for Health Care Administration's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. 13-16. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 19. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, wherein the CON application sets forth such information. Rejected, unnecessary. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Comparison is inappropriate. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The CON application sets forth the information which the agency asserts was not provided. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence as related to applicable criteria for review set forth in the statute. 35. Rejected, not supported by credible evidence or the administrative rules cited in the proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Dean Bunton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald Sternstein, Esquire Frank Rainer, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH 215 South Monroe Street Barnett Bank Building, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Patti Jo Rossi, L.P.N., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is the agency in Florida responsible for regulating the practice of nurses pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 464, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Ms. Rossi is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 1317451. Ms. Rossi, at the times pertinent, was employed in her capacity as a licensed practical nurse by Palm Gardens of Vero Beach (hereinafter referred to as "Palm Gardens"). Palm Gardens. Palm Gardens was, at the times pertinent, a Florida licensed residential nursing home facility as defined in Section 400.021(13), Florida Statutes. Palm Gardens' facility included a wing, "A-Wing," which was devoted to the care of residents suffering from various forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. While employed at Palm Gardens, Ms. Rossi was assigned to A-Wing. Due to the tendency of some patients on A-Wing to "wander," A-Wing doors leading to the outside were equipped with alarms which sounded whenever a patient attempted to open them. Whenever an alarm was triggered, employees, including nurses, had to check to ensure that a resident was not leaving the unit. Part of A-Wing consisted of a room which was used as a dining room and day room (hereinafter referred to as the "Day Room"). There were four, floor-to-ceiling, windows at one corner of the Day Room located near an open area of A-Wing, which included a nurses' station. There was a single, heavy, self-closing door providing access to the Day Room. This door was normally propped open. During the pertinent period of time involved in this case, the door to the Day Room was slightly larger at the one corner than the door jam, which caused the door to stick if closed. Although the door could be opened, it took some strength to do so. The condition of the door was known to employees of A-Wing, including Ms. Rossi. Patient M.S. Among the patients on A-Wing was M.S., a female resident. M.S. was elderly, suffered from dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and was in relatively poor physical and mental health. M.S., whose date of birth was February 3, 1920, was totally dependant on the facility and employees of Palm Gardens for her care. M.S. was ambulatory, but not capable of providing the daily necessities of life, such as cleaning herself or dressing. M.S. was not oriented as to time or place, and lacked the capacity to consent. M.S. had a habit of wandering the halls of A-Wing and touching doors equipped with alarms, which would cause the alarms to sound. The Events of December 22, 2001.2 On December 22, 2001, Ms. Rossi was working the "swing shift" (from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) on A-Wing. During Ms. Rossi's shift, M.S. was wandering the wing, sometimes setting off door alarms. M.S. was not harming any other residents or causing any harm to herself. Out of frustration over having to respond every time that M.S. set off an alarm, Ms. Rossi took M.S. and placed her in the Day Room, closing the door as she left. By closing the door to the Day Room, Ms. Rossi effectively locked M.S. into the room. Ms. Rossi left M.S. in the Day Room without any supervision; no one was in the Day Room with her and no one was watching her through the windows between the room and the hall. M.S. for most of the time she was in the Day Room, was unsupervised by any employee of Palm Gardens. M.S. was too weak to open the door. She was, therefore, involuntarily confined to the Day Room. Three C.N.A.s observed M.S. in the Day Room, attempting to get the door open, and annoyed that she was unable to. One of the C.N.A.s let her out. Ms. Rossi told one of the C.N.A.s that she had placed M.S. in the Day Room, and said not to let her out again. Ms. Rossi then was seen placing M.S. back in the Day Room and closing the door. Again, M.S. attempted to get the door open to get out and was upset when she was unable to. M.S. was left in the Day Room for at least ten minutes, unsupervised and unable to leave, until a C.N.A. opened the door and released her. While she was not actually injured, M.S. could have been because she was unsupervised. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Rossi placed any other resident in the Day Room. Unprofessional Conduct. Ms. Rossi's conduct fell below the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. By placing M.S. in the Day Room, unsupervised and unable to leave without assistance, Ms. Rossi failed to protect her welfare and safety. Ms. Rossi's conduct constituted unprofessional conduct for a nurse. Involuntary Seclusion. Placing M.S. in the Day Room, unsupervised and unable to leave without assistance, constituted involuntary seclusion. Based upon the length of time that Ms. Rossi left M.S. in the Day Room constituted an "extended" involuntary seclusion. Ms. Rossi's Explanation. Ms. Rossi testified at hearing that she had not closed the door to the Day Room, but had only shut it three quarters of the way. This testimony is not been credited. Ms. Rossi's version of events is inconsistent with other, more credible witnesses. Jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department: Dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Patti Jo Rossi, L.P.N., violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing discipline as suggested in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 day 9th of March, 2005.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was discriminated against because of her race (African-American) in not being selected for promotions and whether she was not selected because of her handicap (back injury).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black female. At times pertinent hereto, she was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (now known as Department of Children and Family Services), at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. She has a disability or handicap involving a back injury. She was first employed by the Respondent in July 1976, as a Registered Nurse II and initially supervised two or three wards. The Petitioner also worked for Apalachee Community Mental Health Service in Quincy as a Team Leader during 1977-1978. She was a part-time relief nursing supervisor at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital between 1978 and 1979. She became a Registered Nurse III in March 1978 at Florida State Hospital (FSH) and became a full-time nurse there in 1979. She supervised an entire unit after that time and worked in several different units of the Forensic/Corrections Department as a Senior Registered Nurse beginning in November 1982 and lasting until March 1987. Between March and December 1987, she served as a Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor until her current assignment. She has been employed since December 1987 as a Registered Nurse Specialist Coordinator and remained in that position until her resignation due to disability retirement on January 25, 1994. She has a good employment record, earning consistent above satisfactory or "exceeds" performance standards ratings during her career. The Petitioner earned her Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing (BSN) from Florida A & M University in 1976. She has since earned 21 hours toward a Masters Degree and took continuing nursing education courses at a time when the continuing education course work was not yet required. She is licensed by the State of Florida as a Registered Nurse. Petitioner's Disability On August 25, 1992, the Petitioner suffered a job- related injury to her back. The Petitioner was absent from work for some months, apparently receiving worker's compensation during this time. On January 27, 1993, she was cleared to return to light duty work at the hospital by her treating physician. The Respondent provided her with an appropriate light duty job assignment at which she remained through the balance of her employment with FSH. On June 18, 1993, the Petitioner was determined to have reached maximum medical improvement by her treating physician. She was thereupon discharged from further medical care by Capital Health Plan. On July 26, 1993, she filed an application for 100 percent "line of duty" retirement from the Florida State Retirement System. The State Office of Worker's Compensation thereafter approved her application for "permanent total disability" worker's compensation benefits, effective June 16, 1993, resulting from the injuries suffered on August 25, 1992. The Petitioner was absent from employment from June 4, 1993 through January 27, 1994, inclusive, claiming 34 weeks of worker's compensation benefits for this time. Ultimately, and as part of her effort to obtain disability retirement, the Petitioner resigned from her employment with the Respondent on January 25, 1994. At the time of the Petitioner's resignation, the Department had an action pending to involuntarily terminate her from employment allegedly because of her inability to discharge her assigned job duties and responsibilities. Vacant Positions During the fall of 1992, a vacancy occurred in the position of Registered Nurse Supervisor, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. This was in the facility known as the Corrections Mental Health Institute (CMHI). A career service system position description existed for this job which was developed by the State of Florida, Department of Administration. That position description required, among other things, that the incumbent hold a license as a registered nurse (RN) with the appropriate experience, education, licensure and nursing abilities. The position called for a minimum of 75 percent of the time expended in the job being involved with direct patient contact with forensic patients. The FSH advertised this position as position number 46392 in the HRS Job Bulletin. The application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as an RN with three years of nursing experience. A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. A bachelor's degree in nursing was not required for the job, however. For this and the other positions a "knowledge, skills and ability" instrument (KSA) was prepared, as required by applicable law, to provide for numbered items consisting of the knowledge, skills or competencies a person hired for each position would be expected to have. Position number 46392 included a KSA requirement of budget experience as being essential, since the position required the development, allocation and administration of that unit's nursing service budget. The job advertisement involving this position complied with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies and procedures. There was no evidence offered to show that it discriminated against any person as to race, national origin, or handicap and no person or class or persons was encouraged or discouraged from applying for the position. Neither employment with the Department nor FSH were prerequisites to application or acceptance of the position. Twenty-six applications were received for this position. The procedure for hiring a person in the state system and the FSH involves various tasks. First, the hiring authority must request the personnel office to fill the position. The hiring authority, from a class specification developed by the Department of Management Services (DMS), creates this specific position description which includes the specific duties of the position and the minimum qualifications established at DMS. The class specification contains generic KSAs and from the class specification and position description the hiring authority develops a KSA examination module. This module is created in three steps: (1) job analysis, where the position description is compared to the KSAs for choosing which KSAs will be searched- for when hiring the position; (2) development of a rating scale where the applicant's KSAs are compared against those developed for the position, to determine the applicant's relative qualifications; and (3) the development of KSA interview questions. According to the pertinent rule, KSAs must not reflect "easily learned" material or skills which can be rapidly learned on the job. The KSAs must also be job related. The scoring on the KSA application rankings form and on the interview questions, was 50 for a "superior level," 33 for "satisfactory level," and 17 for "acceptable level." The interview questions are the only ones which can be asked of applicants during the interview. The KSA examination module is transmitted to the personnel office, prior to the job being advertised. After the job announcement is disclosed, the applications are screened against the minimum qualifications for the position by the personnel office and those that are qualified are submitted to the hiring authority for screening against the developed KSAs for the position. This step is a paper review of the applications which is documented on the application review form filled out on each applicant. The application rankings are normally used to reduce the applicant pool to a smaller number, usually about five, who are then interviewed. The interview questions developed previously are asked of each interviewee, and their answers are rated against the 50-33-17 scale for their scores from each interviewer. The interview scores are aggregated, and the applicant with the highest interview score is selected for the job. A selection form is completed then which lists the top applicant, in the order of their scores, after the interview process. Each application for position 46392 was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advanced, as required by applicable law, to determine which of the applicants was qualified for the job. The KSA criteria and the interview questions utilized were reviewed by the personnel office at FSH in advance of their use, to ensure compliance with HRS rules, regulations and policies, and EEOC guidelines. Points were then awarded to each of the applicants by the KSA examining committee. Applicant Z. Thompson, a white female nurse, was awarded a total of 233 points. The Petitioner, Jean Spear, was awarded a total of 165 points. Other black and white applicants ranked lower in point award amounts and some ranked higher, including black applicant Bethea, with 199 points. Based upon those scores, three applicants were selected to be interviewed for this position: Z. Thompson; D. Breeden, a white female Registered Nurse; and C. Bethea, an African-American female Registered Nurse. Applicants Thompson and Breeden had associate science degrees in nursing while applicant Bethea had a bachelor of science degree. The bachelor of science degree is a higher degree than an associate science degree and can offset a year of the experience requirement for this and the other positions. However, the bachelor of science degree does not automatically mean that the holder thereof has a higher level of qualification for the position when all the applicants' qualification attributes are weighed against the position requirements and considered together. The Petitioner was not selected for an interview for this position because she finished ninth in the overall KSA rankings for the position. The interview committee for this position consisted of three FSH employees: Joel Devolentine, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Harry Moody, Jr., an administrator at the Department of Corrections, Corrections Mental Health Institution (CMHI). Interviewers Devolentine and Martin are white and Mr. Moody is black. The interview were conducted on February 11, 1993. During the interview process, Mr. Devolentine asked the candidates questions which were prepared in advance. Each interviewed person was asked the same questions, in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored the responses on forms provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. Each member of the committee scored the interviewees independently and did not discuss the points awarded to those persons with the other members of the committee. Each made his or her entries on the interview form separate and apart from the other members of the interview committee, contemporaneously with the responses given by the applicants. Upon conclusion of the interviews, the score sheets were given to Mr. Devolentine by each member of the committee for tabulation. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. The total numerical scores for each of the candidates interviewed, showed that Z. Thompson had the highest score. Black candidate C. Bethea had the next highest score, and white candidate D. Breeden had the lowest score. The preponderant evidence shows that the KSA's experience in budget issues and the KSA's requiring certification in behavior analysis were both directly related to the job in question and both KSA competencies or certifications were possessed by Z. Thompson and not by the other candidates interviewed nor by the Petitioner, who had not received enough qualification points for the position to be interviewed. Because she received the highest total number of points and met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS job bulletin, because she possessed more experience in budget issues and was certified in behavior analysis, Z. Thompson was selected to be awarded the job. The preponderant evidence shows that the hiring process as to this position was conducted in accordance with existing HRS and FSH rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. There was no persuasive evidence that any of the hiring and selection process was designed or used to favor one class of persons or one person over another by reason of race, ethnicity or handicap. Although there was testimony concerning comments made by various supervisory personnel at FSH to the effect that Z. Thompson should apply for this position or that it was intended in advance that she get this position, there was no persuasive evidence of such pre-selection of Z. Thompson by the hiring decision-maker. It is somewhat noteworthy that white interview committee member Alva Martin gave black candidate Bethea 380 points and white candidate Breeden 347 points, while black interview committee member Moody gave black candidate Bethea 448 points, and white and winning candidate Thompson 465 points. Committee member Devolentine gave winning candidate Thompson 516 points; next highest candidate D. Breedan, a white female, 482 points; and black candidate Bethea 448 points, the same number of points that black committee member Moody had given candidate Bethea. There is no definitive, persuasive evidence that race was a determining factor in the award of the job to candidate Thompson. There was no persuasive evidence as to this position that handicap was a factor in determining that the Petitioner did not get selected for an interview for the position nor selected for the position. Position number 34563 involved a vacancy occurring during 1992. The application deadline for the position was October 22, 1992. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a Registered Nurse and four years of nursing experience with one year of that experience requirement offset if a candidate had a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university. The position description indicates that approximately 75% of the time expended in the job required direct patient conduct with forensic clients. This is the position known as Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. The position was advertised in the HRS Job Bulletin. The advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures, and no person, or class of persons, was either encouraged to apply or discouraged from applying as to race, handicap or other status. Thirteen applications were received, and the screening and interview process described above was employed once again in accordance with HRS rules, regulations, and policies and EEOC guidelines. The screening used the KSA instrument prepared in advance for the position, as required by applicable law to determine which applicants were qualified for the job. That resulted in points being awarded and twelve out of the thirteen applicants being interviewed for the position. The interview committee consisted of four FSH employees: Robert Alcorn, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, chief nursing consultant at FSH; Richard Taylor, a unit director in the Forensic Services at FSH; and R. W. Myers, an administrator in the Forensic Services. Alcorn and Myers are white males. Ms. Martin is a white female and Mr. Taylor is an African-American male. The interviews were conducted on November 23, 1992, with interviewer Robert Alcorn asking all questions of all candidates. The questions were prepared in advance and the interview process included the private and independent deliberation and evaluation by each committee member, conducted as described above. There is no evidence that any points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were assigned by each committee member. Upon conclusion of the interview process, Mr. Alcorn recommended the following persons for the position of Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections, as being most qualified for the job, by order of preference: (1) G. Cook with 82.1 points; (2) Z. Thompson with 80.6 points; (3) B. Weems with 74.6 points; (4) L. McMullian with 64.1 points; and (5) J. Spear, the Petitioner, with 61.0 points. Candidate Gwen Cook met all of the requirements of the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin and had more experience in forensic and emergency nursing than did the Petitioner. She received the highest total points and was offered and accepted the job. The KSA at issue as to this position required hospital emergency room experience, including certification in advanced cardiac life support. The position was executive nursing director in a medical-surgical psychiatric ward. Therefore, it was relevant to require, in a KSA for the position, that applicants have extensive knowledge of emergency medical procedures including management of airway obstructions, intubation defibrillator operation, etc., as well as the certification for advanced cardiac life support. It was a legitimate KSA requirement to specify hospital emergency room type experience, which Gwen Cook had in better degree than the Petitioner. The Petitioner did have psychiatric emergency care experience which was relevant, but the higher level of emergency and advanced cardiac life support experience possessed by Gwen Cook coupled with her additional forensic experience justified her selection for the position. The Petitioner was certainly qualified for the position, but Ms. Cook was more qualified, and there is no showing that the point rankings referenced above were improperly arrived at in violation of any rules, policies or statutes. There was no persuasive evidence that they were arrived at to the Petitioner's detriment for reasons of racial preference, ethnicity, or improper discriminatory consideration of the Petitioner's handicap. It was not persuasively demonstrated by the evidence that the advanced cardiac life support certification was a certificate that could be earned in a very short period of time, and thus it was not shown that it was an invalid KSA criterion. In 1992, a vacancy occurred in position number 04877. The FSH advertised this position in the HRS Job Bulletin. It was the position of Registered Nursing Consultant. The position application deadline was July 1, 1992. The position description for this position, which had been developed by the Department of Administration, required that the incumbent have appropriate knowledge, experience, education, and abilities in nursing principles, especially in the area of infection control. The description called for approximately 75 percent of the time expended by the holder of this position to be in direct patient contact with forensic clients. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered nurse with four years of nursing experience. A bachelors degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the four years of experience required. Specific experience in infection control and epidemeology was essential. The job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures. Employment with the Department or with the Florida State Hospital was not a prerequisite to attainment of the position. Fourteen applications were received and each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose, as required by law. This was used to determine which of the applicants were qualified for the job. Both the KSA criteria and the interview questions used were prepared and reviewed in advance of their use to ensure compliance with relevant law, in the manner delineated more particularly above. Points were awarded to the persons who applied for the job by the KSA examining committee in such a manner that the Petitioner received 232 points, with only applicant, Nora Howell, who received 300 points, being ranked higher. The Petitioner, was tied for second place in point awards with black applicant C. Bethea and applicant S. Harris. The remainder of the fourteen applicants all scored lower. Based upon those scores determined by the KSA examining committee, the six highest ranking applicants were selected to be interviewed for the position, including the Petitioner. The interview committee consisted of two FSH nursing professional employees: Kathy Wheeler, the administrator in charge of the program and Sue Calloway, a practicing registered nurse at FSH. The interviews were conducted on July 9, 1992. During the interview process, committee member Kathy Wheeler asked the candidates questions, which had been prepared in advance. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the designated interviewer, Ms. Wheeler. They were asked in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored his or her responses to the questions on forms that had been provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. There is no evidence that any member of the committee discussed the points he or she awarded to the interviewees with other members of the committee and no evidence that the entries on the interview forms were made other than separate and independently from each other member of the committee. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. Upon conclusion of the interviews, all the scoring sheets were given to Ms. Wheeler for tabulation. The total numerical scoring for each of the applicants interviewed was: Nora Howell, 128.4 points; Jean Spear, 119.9 points; C. Bethea, 111.4 points; V. Ramsey, 122.9 points; J. Collins, 118.8 points; and S. Harris, 111.4 points. One of the KSAs applicable to this position called for the person to be hired to have significant expertise in the area of infection control and epidemiology for this nurse consultant position. While the Petitioner remonstrates that this is not a legitimate KSA requirement because it is not directed related to the job and is an area easily learned on the job, the preponderant evidence reveals that indeed, it is directly relevant to this position and it is of significant importance. It is not a field or area of expertise which can be rapidly learned after hiring. Thus, the preponderant evidence shows that this KSA item or criterion is a legitimate one. The preponderant evidence shows also that successful applicant Nora Howell possessed this expertise to a greater extent than did the Petitioner. Thus, although the Petitioner was well qualified for the job in most respects, the qualifications of Nora Howell in this area exceeded those of the Petitioners according to the preponderant, credible evidence. This justified her being awarded a higher level of points in the screening and interviewing process than the Petitioner. Since she met or exceeded all the other position criteria which had been duly and legally adopted, it was justifiable for her to be offered and to accept the position instead of the Petitioner on these qualification-related bases. The application, screening, and interview process and ranking and scoring of points followed the procedure delineated by statute and rules and described in more detail above. There is no credible evidence that the hiring decision as to this position was made for any reason motivated by racial discriminatory intent or discrimination because of any handicap of any applicant. There is no clear evidence that "pre- selection" occurred as the Petitioner contends, but even if Nora Howell had informally been pre-selected for this position, there is no credible evidence that it had anything to do with racial or handicap discrimination against the Petitioner. During the fall of 1992, Florida State Hospital advertised the position of Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor for the Forensic/Corrections Department, position number 09671, in the HRS Job Bulletin. The position application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered professional nurse and three years of nursing experience. Here again, a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. Experience dealing with forensically-committed patients was essential. The evidence shows that the job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, polices, and procedures. The advertisement did not discriminate against any person or group or class of persons on the basis of race, handicaps, or other reasons. No person, or class of persons, was either encouraged or discouraged from applying by the advertisement. Neither was employment with the Department nor the hospital a prerequisite. Twenty-four applications were received. Each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose by the procedure delineated above. In the KSA screening or examining process, applicant Patricia Powell scored 266 points; William Dixon scored 250 points; and Jean Spear, the Petitioner, scored 249 points. Applicant Zilla Thompson scored 323 points, S. Peoples scored 232 points, and Betty Thames scored 233 points. These six top point winners in the KSA examining process were selected to be interviewed by the interview committee. The interview committee consisted of five employees: Steve Lacy, an administrator in charge of the program; Gwen Cook, a practicing Registered Nurse in the forensic services at FSH; Judy Wester, a direct care supervisor in forensic; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Willie McLeroy, a forensic direct care supervisor at FSH. The interviews were conducted on February 1, 1993. During the interview process, interview committee member Alva Martin was designated to ask the candidates questions which were written, prepared, and approved in advance under the process already delineated above. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the same interviewer in the same sequence. Scoring was done independently by each member of the interview committee and the scores submitted to Steve Lacy of the committee for tabulation. There was no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded by each member of the committee. Applicant Dixon was awarded 3127 points and Petitioner Spear was awarded 2276 points. That made the Petitioner rank fifth from the top point earner, Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin for the position. Mr. Dixon had more forensic nursing experience overall than did the Petitioner, having ten years versus the Petitioner's five years. The Petitioner offered no preponderant, persuasive evidence that the hiring decision for this job or for the other three jobs was racially motivated. The Respondent's position in response to the Petitioner's attempted prima facia showing of racial discrimination, to the effect that she is black and that the successful job applicants were all white, is that, in fact, the Respondent hired the persons it believed were most qualified for the job. In fact, the proof shows that as to three of the positions, already treated herein, the winning applicants were indeed the most qualified for the job. The proof shows that the Petitioner was most qualified for the job currently being discussed in the paragraphs next above, that is, position number 09671. Her denial of hiring for that position, however, was not shown to be due to any racially discriminatory intent given the proof culminating in the above findings concerning how the selection process operated in accordance with the rules and policies of the agency. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the Petitioner was actually better qualified than Mr. Dixon, the nurse who was awarded the position. The expert testimony of Dr. Frank, corroborated by the testimony of witness Betty Thames, in particular, shows that the Petitioner was better qualified for this supervisory position number 09671 because of her more extensive educational and work-experience qualifications. She had more varied experience in the nursing profession in areas that were related to this job than Mr. Dixon had, in spite of his longer experience in the forensic department. The Petitioner was shown to have a superior ability in the area of implementing medications and psychiatric nursing treatment procedures because the Petitioner had demonstrated this ability in a broad variety of settings, with different kinds of patients, coupled with her three and three-quarter years of forensic supervisory experience. She is also superior in her skills and expertise regarding working as a contributing member of a multi-disciplinary team, functioning as a team leader and with consulting with families. She also has more experience as a liaison nursing person with jails and community health-related facilities or resources. Additionally, for position number 09671, KSA number one for that position indicated a desire for experience in a tardive dyskinesia clinic. Only Mr. Dixon had this experience of all the applicants for this position, so the Petitioner was not given credit for it in the screening and interview process. In fact, she had many of the same general skills and abilities. The specific emphasis on tardive dyskinesia experience was shown, however, through the testimony of Dr. Frank, as being unnecessary to this type of supervisory position. More importantly, in the interview for this Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor position (09671), there was a written interview question asked the Petitioner concerning her disability. That question was as follows: "6. Do you have any disabilities that would prevent you from lifting or working a 40-hour week or that would prevent you from performing this job? How many days have you missed in the past year due to illness? How many unscheduled absences did you have in the past year? Do you have any responsibilities commitments or activities that would prevent you from doubling on or changing your work days or weekends?" Witness Betty Thames for the Petitioner also stated that during the course of a telephone interview in which the interview committee chairman, Steve Lacy, questioned her, as the Petitioner's supervisor, concerning her attendance that he made a "nonprofessional remark" (in a negative vein) regarding the Petitioner's physical limitations to the effect that "It doesn't matter why she was out to me". This was related to a discussion between the two in the telephone interview concerning the Petitioner's work attendance history and her back injury. Lacy's statement was admitted into evidence as a "party admission exception" to the hearsay rule. He was clearly an agent of the Respondent and a key person in this hiring process. The Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's disability. She had injured her back on the job in August of 1992. She had been off work receiving worker's compensation benefits for the injury and, based upon her doctor's finding that she had reached maximum medical improvement, had been returned to work, apparently in early 1993, and given light duty involving work not requiring lifting more than 15 pounds, prolonged walking, stooping or bending. She reported this disability on her employment application for these positions. Her back injury clearly limited her in a "major life activity," such as lifting, walking, prolonged standing, or her level of mobility and strength in general. All of the positions for which she had applied were less strenuous than the position she had last held before going on retirement. This was testified to by the Petitioner as well as C. J. Brock, the Respondent's personnel director and Betty Thames, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Brock testified that her injuries would not normally be considered a negative factor for supervisory or consulting positions in nursing, which is the position at issue. In fact, after the Petitioner answered on all of her application forms "yes" to the question concerning whether she had a disabling or handicapping condition and had additionally written that her limitations involved lifting, bending, prolonged standing or walking, the personnel office still qualified her for the position at issue in this proceeding. In spite of that, the Respondent's agent in the hiring process still, at least as to position number 09671, formally asked her about her disability and handicap in the context of the above-quoted questions. The Petitioner maintains she was asked about this in each of her interviews for all four positions. Her testimony does not clearly show exactly what the nature of the questions were, if they were asked, and that self- serving testimony cannot serve as evidence of disability discrimination as to the other three positions, as it is not sufficiently preponderant credible and persuasive. The formal written questioning as to position number 09671, however, does show that the employer had a no doubt genuine, but for the reasons delineated below, illegal pre- occupation about the Petitioner's disability or handicap. There is no evidence of malicious intent in the above-quoted inquiry about the Petitioner's physical limitations or even in the statement attributed to Steve Lacy referenced above. The inquiring statement rather reflects a genuine but ill-advised concern by the Respondent about getting an employee in the subject position who might be absent from work excessively or be the source of other personnel problems due to her disability. The Petitioner has raised an issue concerning "pre- selection" by citing statements witnesses related at hearing, made by certain supervisory individuals involved to one degree or another in the hiring process for the four positions at issue. These statements purport that a certain person who ultimately got the job in question was the person the declarant involved wished to have apply for the job or a statement to the effect that the Petitioner need not apply because another person, such as, for instance, Nora Howell, was going to get the job. These statements were purportedly made before the hiring process started or was completed, and therefore were offered as evidence of illegal pre-selection, that is, illegal pre-selection in the context of the agency's rules. These statements were admitted as party admission exceptions to the hearsay rule. In terms of their credibility and persuasiveness, however, it is pointed out that they were not subject to cross- examination. Moreover, whether they are credible or not, they did not stand as probative of racial discrimination or disability discrimination because the statements could just as easily have been reflections of preferences based on friendship, which might be distasteful, ill-advised, or even illegal in another context but does not itself show racial animus or intent to discriminate based upon the Petitioner's disability. The statements might equally reflect an innocent statement or statements by these individuals which reflect their genuinely-held belief that the persons they purportedly favored were actually the best qualified for those jobs. It is thus found that these statements, as evidence of pre-selection, are largely immaterial to resolution to the issues in this case because they do not have any significant probative value in fact-finding as to the issues of racial or disability discrimination. The Petitioner was paid $1,544.68 bi-weekly through January 25, 1994, the date she retired. She was making $1,499.69 on a bi-weekly basis prior to September 30, 1993, back through the relevant period at issue. Her salary would have been increased a minimum of 10 percent if she had been hired at any of the four positions involved in this case. Because of the above findings of fact, she should have been hired in position number 09761. Thus, she should have had her pay increased by 10 percent from the hiring date for that position forward to the time when she retired. That hiring date would be shortly after the interview date for that position, of February 1, 1993, so her salary should have been increased 10 percent forward from that time with a cost of living increase of 3 percent beginning October 1, 1993, with such back pay and attendant upward adjustment in retirement benefits being awarded through her retirement date of January 25, 1994. There is no proof of compensatory pay, front pay or attorney's fees and costs in this proceeding.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the preponderant evidence of record and for the reasons delineated in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Petitioner was the victim of discrimination because of her handicap as to position number 9671. Because the Petitioner is unable, due to her total and permanent disability to return to work, her remedy is back pay. She should therefore be awarded back pay represented by the salary she would have earned in position number 9671 from the hiring date of that position which occurred shortly after February 1993, the interview date. She should have her attendant retirement benefits adjusted upward by virtue of being denied that job, with an attendant cost of living increase of 3 percent which she would have earned beginning October 1, 1993, with such increased salary and benefits to be awarded terminating as of January 25, 1994, her retirement date. Jurisdiction is reserved on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence F. Kranert, Esquires Florida State Hospital, Building 249 Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324 Jack McLean, Esquire 100 Peachtree Street, Northwest, Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1909 Larry K. White, Esquire John W. Hedrick, Esquire 1311-B Paul Russell Road, Suite 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The parties have stipulated that Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party" as defined in Section 57.111, F.S., and that the attorney fees requested are reasonable, up to the $15,000.00 statutory limit. The issue remaining for resolution is whether the expungement proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by [the] state agency", as provided in Section 57.111, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are adduced from the record, consisting of the transcript and exhibits in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C, from the stipulations of the parties, and from the final order of the agency adopting the recommended order of Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers, dated March 20, 1990. Petitioners are sole proprietors of Forest Haven, an unincorporated adult congregate living facility (ACLF) licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, F.S., and located at 8207 Forest City Road, Orlando, Florida. Petitioners and Forest Haven have their principal office in Orlando, Florida and are domiciled in Orlando, Florida. They have less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of less than $2 million. On March 17, 1989, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) survey team visited Forest Haven to conduct an annual survey of the facility. The survey team was comprised of 10 persons, enlarged due to a training exercise. Several of the team members were registered nurses; several members were Office of Licensure and Certification supervisors. During the course of the visit and observations of the residents, members of the team determined that eight residents required a higher level of care than could be provided at the ACLF. As found in the recommended order adopted by the agency, the basis for this determination was, As to T.M., age 81, the need for a restraining vest, and the existence of bruises and gashes on the face and head; As to H.L., age 89, the presence of a foley catheter, total disorientation, low weight and poor skin turgor (brittle skin); As to F.W., age 72, the presence of a foley catheter, observation of fresh blood in the catheter bag, and low body weight; As to M.B., age 81, incontinence and nonambulatory status; As to R.T., age 84, a foley catheter and contraction of both legs; As to L.O., age 94, edema of lower extremities, contracture of both knees, low body weight, skin tear on left buttocks, and possible bed sore on right buttocks; As to P.B., age 88, incontinence, low body weight, and inability to transfer from wheelchair to bed without assistance; and As to F.H., age 89, one-half inch bed sore on coccyx, pitting edema of legs, incontinence and somewhat confused state. An adult protective services investigator was summoned, as well as law enforcement personnel, and the above residents were removed from the facility on an emergency basis and were placed in a nursing home. They were evaluated at the nursing home the following day by Carolyn Lyons, a Registered Nurse Specialist with HRS, who found that intermediate or skilled nursing home services were required. A ninth resident, C.K., was evaluated by a medical review team nurse and an adult protective services worker at the ACLF on March 20, 1989, and was removed from the facility and placed in a nursing home the same day. C.K., age 89, was found to be confused, incontinent, with bruises, a swollen foot, non- ambulatory, and with a red rash on the trunk of her body. HRS obtained orders from the Circuit Court to provide protective services for seven of the above-mentioned residents. Of the remaining two, one was competent to consent to the nursing home placement and another was returned to his own home by relatives. On March 22, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Annette Hair, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. of the eight residents who had been removed from the ACLF. She relied on her own observations of the individuals, on the medical assessments performed by the survey team nurses at the ACLF, and the subsequent assessment of Carolyn Lyons, the HRS staff person responsible for making an evaluation of the level of care required for medicaid nursing home placement. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Hair's report provides, in pertinent part: * * * Based on the facts obtained during the course of this investigation this case is being classified as CONFIRMED. In accordance with F.S. Section 415.102(4) it is clearly estab- lished that [S. and J.G.] were the caregivers of the eight alleged victims of this report as they had been entrusted with the care of said individuals. The allegation of neglect is verified for each of the eight alleged victims in that [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the care and service necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of an aged person that a prudent person would deem essential for the well-being of an aged person (F.S. Section 415.102(13)). Specifically each of the eight alleged victims has a medical condition which required twenty-four hour skilled nursing care and supervision which the caregivers, [S. and J.G.] failed to provide for said individuals. Five of the eight alleged victims, [H.L., L.O., T.M., F.H. and P.B.] had Scabies (a highly contagious disease caused by parasitic mites that burrow under the skin. This disease is associated with unsanitary conditions and causes a painful itch). [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the supervision necessary to detect this disease and in so doing jeopardized the health and well-being of the other residents in the facility. [H.L.] in addition to having Scabies, was semi-comatose, had bed sores on her buttocks and pelvic area and had a foley catheter. [T.M.] had open lacerations on her face, was extremely mentally confused and was known to wander and fall which required her to be physically restrained. [L.O.] had two open skin areas and Edema. [M.B.] has an excoriated area on her buttocks, Edema of the feet, and her right knee was swollen. [R.T.] had a cough of unknown origin, contraction of both legs, and an in-dwelling catheter. [F.W.] had an in-dwelling catheter which was draining bloody urine and appeared malnourished. [P.B.] appeared malnourished and was incontinent of both bowels and bladder, was extremely confused, and had an open draining wound. [F.H.] had bed sores, and Pitting Edema in addition to Scabies. [S. and J.G.], in addition to being negligent for failing to provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of the alleged victims, were in direct violation of F.S. Section 400.426(1) as they did not perform their responsibility of determining the appropriateness of residence of said individuals in their facility. (Petitioner's exhibit 2, in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) On April 4, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Kathleen C. Schirhman, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. She relied on her own assessment of the resident, and on the medical assessments by Nurse Lyons, and by medical staff at the receiving nursing home, including a physician, Dr. Parsons. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Schirhman's report provides: Based upon the facts obtained during the course of this investigation, both alle- gations of medical neglect and other neglect were determined to be verified, and the case is being classified as CONFIRMED. [J.G. and S.G.] assumed the responsibility of care for [C.K.] and, therefore, became her caregivers. They did not provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of [C.K.] that a prudent person would deem essential for her well-being. She required medical services and nursing supervision in a skilled nursing facility. Pursuant to F.S. 400.426 "the owner or Admini- strator of a facility is responsible for determining the appropriateness of admission of an individual to the facility and for deter- mining the continued appropriateness of resi- dence of an individual in the facility." The assessment by the CARES nurse determined that [C.K.] was being medically neglected, because she required 24 hour nursing care, which she was not receiving. She had Scabies, for which she was not being treated. The CARES nurse believed that the alleged victim was at risk and requiring immediate nursing home placement. Allegation of "other neglect" was added to the original report. [C.K.] was being neglected, because she was a total transfer patient, who required restraints, which were not used and cannot be used in an ACLF. Furthermore, the potential for harm to her was great: She was blind, confused, and unable to self-preserve. (Petitioner's exhibit number 1 in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) S.G. and J.G. requested expungement of the reports but the request was denied on July 10, 1989. Thereafter, through counsel, they made a timely request for a formal evidentiary hearing. The hearing was conducted on February 14 and 15, 1990, by DOAH Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers. Depositions of David J. Parsons, M.D. and Gideon Lewis, M.D. were filed after the hearing, by leave of the Hearing Officer. In his recommended order issued on March 20, 1990, Hearing Officer Ayers found that the HRS investigators did not contact the physicians who had signed the admissions forms when each of the residents at issue had been admitted to the ACLF. Nor did the HRS staff obtain records from the home health agency which, at the treating physicians' direction, was providing, or had provided, home health care to most of the residents at Forest Haven. Skin lesions (decubitus) and scabies were found to be frequently present in nursing home and ACLF residents. Edema and underweight conditions are also common in these residents. Dr. Lewis, the treating physician for most of the residents at Forest Haven, had ordered the vest restraint for T.M.'s protection. He had also written to HRS about a year prior to the survey, recommending that efforts be made to relocate H.L. to a skilled nursing facility. The recommended order found that no evidence of exploitation or neglect, other than medical neglect, was presented at the hearing. The order also found that evidence of medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. was not presented, but rather, "[t]o the contrary, the evidence was unrebutted that Respondents [Petitioners in this proceeding] promptly reported to the resident's physician all changes in the resident's physical condition." The agency's final order was filed on May 29, 1990, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law recommended by Hearing Officer Ayers, and granting J.G. and S.G.'s requests for expungement. The Final Order addressed the department's exceptions to the recommended order, as follows: RULING ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT The dispositive issue is whether retention of a resident (or residents) in an ACLF whose medical condition is more serious than the established criteria for residence in an ACLF (see Section 10A-5.0181, Florida Administra- tive Code for the criteria) constitutes per se neglect under Chapter 415. Inappropriate retention of a resident may constitute grounds for disciplinary sanctions under the licensure rules, but it does not automatically consti- tute abuse under Chapter 415. See State vs. E. N. G., Case Number 89-3306C (HRS 2/13/90). The evidence of medical neglect was based on the inappropriate retention of certain resi- dents. The Hearing Officer's finding that these residents were not medically neglected is based on competent, substantial evidence; therefore, the department is obligated to accept this finding. Johnson vs. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), B. B. vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 542 So2d 1362 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989). In pursuing expungement, Petitioners incurred fees, costs and interest in the total amount of $22,772.49. The amount of interest included in that total is $1,000.91. As stipulated, the fees, up to the $15,000.00 statutory maximum, are reasonable.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed practical nurse, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.42, Chapter 455, and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 1091251. Laposada Convalescent Home, is a 54-bed nursing home located in Miami, Florida. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse by Laposada, Teresita Garcia was a part owner and manager of Laposada, Angela Barba was the nursing home administrator for Laposada, and Prima Washington was employed as a certified nursing assistant by Laposada. Respondent expected to receive her first paycheck as an employee of Laposada on January 15, 1994. Respondent's understanding was that she was to be compensated at the rate of $11.75 per hour. Respondent tried to obtain her paycheck during the afternoon hours on January 15, 1994. She talked to Ms. Garcia by telephone twice that afternoon and made a special trip to the facility that afternoon with the expectation that her check would be ready for her to pick up. When she came to the facility, her check was not ready and Ms. Garcia was not on the premises. Respondent was told that her check would be ready for her when she came on duty. Respondent was assigned to the night shift that began at approximately 11:00 p.m. on Saturday, January 15, 1994, and ended at 7:00 a.m. on Sunday, January 16, 1994. Respondent was the only licensed nurse assigned to the night shift. The two other employees assigned to the night shift were Prima Washington and another certified nursing assistant. Respondent returned to the facility and clocked in for the night shift at approximately 10:45 p.m. on January 15, 1994. She arrived early to pick up her paycheck and to review the patient reports with staff from the outgoing shift. After she clocked in, she received her paycheck. Respondent's pay was calculated on a rate of $7.00 per hour, not on the rate of $11.75 per hour that she had expected. Respondent became upset when she discovered this discrepancy in pay and called Ms. Garcia at her home at approximately 10:50 p.m. Respondent advised Ms. Garcia that she wanted the discrepancy straightened out immediately. After Ms. Garcia stated that the matter could not be resolved until Monday, Respondent advised that she was quitting her employment and demanded that Ms. Garcia locate a replacement for her. Ms. Garcia made several telephone calls in an attempt to find a replacement for the Respondent, but she could not locate a qualified replacement for Respondent on that Saturday night. The nursing home administrator, Angela Barba, is Ms. Garcia's daughter and resides with Ms. Garcia. Ms. Barba was aware of the conversations Ms. Garcia had with Respondent. Their residence is near Laposada so that they could reach the facility in a matter of minutes. Ms. Garcia instructed Prima Washington by telephone to inform her immediately if Respondent left the facility. Respondent clocked out of the facility at 11:30 p.m. At the time she clocked out, there was no other qualified nurse at the facility. Some of the patients at Laposada were scheduled to take medication at midnight. After Respondent clocked out, there was no one at the facility authorized to administer medication to these patients at midnight. After she clocked out, Respondent called 911 and went outside of the building to await the arrival of the police. It is not clear what Respondent expected the police to do once they arrived. Respondent also attempted to contact the abuse registry to advise the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) as to the situation at Laposada. It is not clear what Respondent expected to accomplish by contacting DHRS, but she received a recorded message to call back during work hours. There was no evidence that DHRS became involved in this incident. The door Respondent used to exit the facility locks automatically. Consequently, once Respondent went outside of the building, she was locked out of the facility. Prima Washington thought that Respondent had left the premises and gave that information to Ms. Garcia. Respondent remained on the premises, but outside of the building, until Ms. Garcia came to the facility at approximately 2:00 a.m. Ms. Garcia was accompanied by Ms. Barba and by Ms. Barba's husband. When Ms. Garcia and Ms. Barba arrived at the facility, the Respondent left the premises. There was no further communication between Respondent and either Ms. Garcia or Ms. Barba as to the wage dispute, as to the condition of the patients, or as to whether a replacement nurse had been located. Respondent did not perform any duties after she clocked out at 11:30 p.m. She did not file a report as to the condition of her patients before leaving the facility. The patients at Laposada were without a qualified nurse between 11:30 p.m. on January 15, 1994, and 6:00 a.m. on January 16, 1994, when a nurse reported early for the morning shift. Respondent left the facility at approximately 2:00 a.m. before a replacement arrived. The accepted standards of conduct in the nursing profession require that a nurse, who wants to leave patients assigned to her care, wait for a replacement to arrive at the facility, discharge her nursing duties to her patients until the replacement arrives, and report the condition of her patients to her replacement prior to leaving. Respondent failed to meet the foregoing standards of conduct in the nursing profession by abandoning her patients at Laposada. Exceptions to these standards may arise in emergency circumstances. The facts of this case do not establish an emergency that would justify deviation from the accepted standards of conduct. While Respondent may have a bona fide dispute with the management of Laposada as to the rate of compensation she was to receive, that dispute does not constitute an emergency circumstance and does not justify her action in abandoning her patients. There was no evidence that Respondent has been previously disciplined by the Petitioner. There was no evidence that any patient was harmed as a result of Respondent's actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that finds the Respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct in the provision of nursing services as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Petitioner impose an Administrative Fine against Respondent in the amount of $250.00 and place her licensure on probation for a period of one year. The conditions of her probation should require that she complete an appropriate continuing education course dealing with her professional responsibilities for the care of patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 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 29th day of June, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Cornelius Shiver, Esquire Post Office Box 1542 Miami, Florida 33233 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent for violation of statutory provisions regarding the practice of nursing. By Administrative Complaint the Respondent was charged with unprofessional conduct and with being unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0711261. Respondent was employed at Humana Hospital Cypress in Pompano Beach from on or about October 10, 1988, until on or about March 10, 1989. During her employment at Humana Hospital Cypress, Respondent was absent from her duties without giving notice on four occasions, was absent with notice on one occasion, and was on sick leave on five different occasions. These absences constitute an excessive number of absences. The pattern of the absences also raises concerns as to whether the absences are caused by behavioral problems. During her employment at Humana Hospital Cypress, Respondent was observed while on duty by several Charge Nurses (Dysen, Fabella, and Keough) to be extremely nervous; jumpy; on the verge of tears or crying when asked what was wrong; to be constantly complaining about being tired and hungry; to be frequently looking very tired, taking naps during lunch break, and not waking up in time for duty; to be frequently flailing her arms around, talking verbosely in high volumes, and speaking about subject matter inappropriate at a nurse's station; and exhibiting generally unpredictable and worrisome behavior. Lynn Whitehead, R.N., has been a staff nurse on the Substance Abuse floor of Humana Hospital Cypress for approximately six years. During February of 1989, Nurse Whitehead spoke to Respondent after Respondent had a hysterical crying reaction to learning that she failed the Telemetry Nursing course. During Nurse Whitehead's discussion with Respondent, Respondent admitted to Nurse Whitehead that Respondent used drugs and had been to some rehabilitation group meetings in the past. Respondent's behavior in her discussions with Nurse Whitehead - extreme anxiety, pacing, upset, complaints of hunger and exhaustion - along with Respondent's excessive absences, were consistent with drug abuse behavior based on Nurse Whitehead's knowledge and experience. On or about February 28, 1990, Respondent was asked by Nurse Fabella to submit to a urinalysis based on Fabella's observation of Respondent's erratic and unusual behavior which led Nurse Fabella to suspect that drug use might be involved. Respondent refused to submit to a urinalysis and stated the reason was because she knew marijuana would show in her urine. Nurse Fabella counseled Respondent about her erratic behavior, excessive absences, refusal to submit to a urinalysis, and unprofessional nursing conduct, on or about February 28, 1989. Subsequent to the counseling by Nurse Fabella, Respondent failed to keep an appointment with Nurse Cruickshank to discuss her situation and the decision was made to terminate Respondent. Amy Mursten, Investigative Specialist for the Department of Professional Regulation, interviewed Respondent for the purpose of conducting an investigation into her behavior and suspected drug abuse. Ms. Mursten discussed the Intervention Project for Nurses which could help rehabilitate the Respondent and save her nursing practice, but Respondent refused this help and denied having a problem. On at least two occasion, Respondent failed to act professionally or responsibly towards a patient and would have given inappropriate dosages or types of medications to the patients had someone not intervened. The Respondent's behavior patterns described above constitute a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. The Respondent's behavior patterns described above demonstrate an inability to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of use of drugs or narcotics or as a result of her mental condition.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order in this case concluding that Respondent has violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by engaging in unprofessional conduct, and has violated Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by being unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients. It is further recommended that the Board's final order suspend Respondent's license until Respondent has demonstrated to the Board that Respondent is able to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients and, once Respondent has demonstrated her ability to so practice, place Respondent on probation for a period of one year subject to such requirements as may appear to the Board to be necessary to assure that Respondent continues to practice with reasonable skill and safety to patients. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30 day of April 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30 day of April 1990.
