Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, (the "Agency") regarding certificate of need ("CON") application No. 10164 filed by Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. (““LRMC”). 1. LRMC filed this CON application which sought the establishment of a 32-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit within its hospital located in Polk County, Florida, Service District 6. The Agency approved LRMC’s CON application 10164. 2. At the same time, the Agency denied: (a) CON application 10162 filed by HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Polk County Filed October 21, 2013 3:41 PM Division of Administrative Hearings (“HealthSouth”), which sought the establishment of a 50-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit within its hospital located in Polk County, Florida, Service District 6. (b) CON application 10163 filed by Haines City, HMA, LLC, d/b/a Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center (“Heart of Florida”), which sought the establishment of a 14-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit within its hospital located in Polk County, Florida, Service District 6. (c) CON application 10165 filed by Sebring Hospital Management Associates, LLC, d/b/a Highlands Regional Medical Center (“Highlands”), which sought the establishment of a 7-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit within its hospital located in Highlands County, Florida, Service District 6. 3. HealthSouth, Heart of Florida and Highlands each filed a petition for formal hearing challenging the Agency’s approval of LRMC’s CON application and the denial of their respective CON applications. LRMC filed a petition for formal hearing supporting the approval of its CON application as well as the denial of CON applications filed by HealthSouth, Heart of Florida and Highlands. 4. HealthSouth has since voluntarily dismissed its petition for formal hearing as to both the denial of its CON application and the approval of LRMC’s CON application. 5. Heart of Florida has since filed a partial notice of voluntary dismissal of its petition for formal hearing solely as to the approval of LRMC’s CON application. The challenge of the denial of its CON application remains pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. 6. Highlands has since filed a partial notice of voluntary dismissal of its petition for formal hearing solely as to the approval of LRMC’s CON application. The challenge of the denial of its CON application remains pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. 7. Based upon these voluntary dismissals, the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction in the above styled matter. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 8. The denial of HealthSouth’s CON application 10162 is UPHELD. 9. The approval of LRMC’s CON application 10164 is UPHELD. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida on this_Zf day ot Crepe. .2013. Elizabeth\Qudek, Secretary Agency for'Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing the original notice of appeal with the agency clerk of AHCA, and a copy along with the filing fee prescribed by law with the district court of appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been furnished by U.S. Mail or electronic mail to the persons named below on this /& day of CA Ofer 13. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 412-3630 Janice Mills James McLemore, Supervisor Facilities Intake Unit Certificate of Need Unit Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) R. Bruce McKibben Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2" Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP 285 Peachtree Center Avenue 1500 Marquis Two Tower Atlanta, GA 30303 Counsel for HealthSouth Co-Counsel for LRMC (U.S. Mail) (U.S. Mail) Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire John D. Hoppe, Esquire Smith & Associates Peterson & Myers, P.A. 2834 Remington Green Circle, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Counsel for Heart of Florida and Highlands (U.S. Mail) 225 East Lemon Street, Suite 300 Lakeland, FL 33802-4628 + Co-Counsel for LRMC (U.S. Mail)
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came before the Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency") concerning the denial of Certificate of Need (“CON”) Application No. 10187 submitted by Naples HMA, LLC d/b/a Physicians Regional Medical Center-Collier to establish a 17-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit in District 8, Collier County. 1. On June 7, 2013, the Agency published its decision denying CON Application 10187 submitted by Naples HMA, LLC d/b/a Physicians Regional Medical Center-Collier (“Physicians Regional”) to establish a 17-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit in District 8, Collier County. 2. On June 7, 2013, the Agency published its decision denying CON Application 10188 submitted by Venice HMA, LLC d/b/a Venice Regional Medical Center (“Venice Regional”) to establish a 22-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit in District 8, Sarasota County. 3. On June 28, 2013, Physicians Regional filed a petition for formal administrative hearing challenging the Agency’s denial of CON Application No. 10187. 4. On June 28, 2013, Venice Regional filed a petition for formal administrative hearing challenging the Agency’s denial of CON Application No. 10188. 5. The petitions for formal administrative hearing were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH”). 6. Pursuant to the order of the Administrative Law Judge, the above-named intervenors were permitted to intervene in their respective actions and the matters were consolidated. 7. On July 7, 2014, Physicians Regional filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. 8. On July 7, 2014, Venice filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. It is therefore ORDERED: 1. The denial of Physicians Regional’s CON Application No. 10187 is upheld. 2. The denial of Venice Regional’s CON Application No. 10188 is upheld. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this esi day of ‘uly Quand l gud fy ElizaMeth Dudek, Secretary / Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions , 2014. A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct of this Final Order rved on the below-named persons by the method designated on this 772 day of f , 2014. Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 412-3630 James H. Peterson, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Moyle Law Firm, P.A. 118 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kputnal@moylelaw.com Rweiss@moylelaw.com (Electronic Mail) R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Trigsby@penningtonlaw.com Brian@penningtonlaw.com (Electronic Mail) 3 James McLemore, Supervisor Certificate of Need Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Marisol Fitch Health Services & Facilities Consultant Certificate of Need Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) | Susan C. Smith, Esquire Corinne T. Porcher, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Smith and Associates 3301 Thomasville Road, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Susan@smithlawtth.com Corinne@smithlawtlh.com Geoft@smithlawtlh.com (Electronic Mail) Sabrina B. Dieguez, Esquire Smith & Associates 1499 S. Harbor City Blvd., Suite 202 Melbourne, Florida 32091 Sabrina@smithlawth.com (Electronic Mail)
Findings Of Fact Based on the Stipulation of the Parties, the following facts are found: Petitioners are the parents and legal guardians of Leina Gotay (Leina), and are the “Claimants” as defined by section 766.302(3). Leina incurred a “birth-related neurological injury” as that term is defined in section 766.302(2). At birth, Leina weighed 2,750 grams. B. Vereen Chithriki, M.D., rendered obstetrical services in the delivery of Leina and, at all times material to this proceeding, was a “participating physician” as defined in section 766.302(7). Baptist Medical Center South is a hospital located in Jacksonville, Florida, and is the “hospital” as that term is defined in section 766.302(6), where Leina was born. Petitioners filed a Petition for Benefits pursuant to section 766.305, seeking compensation from NICA, and that Petition for Benefits is incorporated by reference in its entirety, including all attachments. Any reference made within this document to NICA encompasses, where appropriate, the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the Plan).
The Issue The issue is what is the correct amount of workers’ compensation reimbursement to Largo Medical Center for emergency services rendered to patient M.C. for a work-related injury?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Guarantee, is a carrier within the meaning of Subsections 440.02(4) and (38), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(w). Respondent, the Department, has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the reimbursement of health care providers by carriers for medical services rendered to injured workers. § 440.13(7) and (11)(c), Fla. Stat. Intervenor, Largo, is a health care provider within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Largo is an acute care hospital located in Largo, Pinellas County, Florida. On July 25, 2009, Largo provided emergency services to patient M.C., a 32-year-old female, who was injured at her place of work. M.C. was examined by Largo’s emergency department physician. She received two Computed Tomography (“CT”) scans without contrast dye, one of the brain and one of the cervical spine. She also received a pregnancy test and an X-ray of her lumbar spine. The results of these diagnostic tests were negative. M.C. was given a cervical collar to wear, and was discharged. Largo’s total charges for M.C.’s outpatient emergency services were $7,885.05. Largo submitted its claim for reimbursement using the standard “uniform billing” form, UB-04. The UB-04 sets out each service provided to M.C., the individual charge for each service, and the total charge. The individual services on the UB-04 submitted for patient M.C. are listed as follows: urine pregnancy test; X-ray; CT scan of the cervical spine; a three-dimensional rendering of the image and its interpretation; the CT of the brain; and the emergency department visit itself. Largo’s claim was received by MCMC, an organization described as a “third-party administrator,” and was referred in turn to Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix is a medical bill-review agent located in Portland, Oregon. Qmedtrix performs bill review by referral from carriers and third-party administrators, and performed a bill review for Guarantee of the bill submitted by Largo. For its compensation, Qmedtrix is paid a percentage of the difference, if any, between the amount billed by the facility and the amount paid by the carrier. Following Qmedtrix’ review, Largo received a check from Guarantee in the amount of $5,287.97, along with an “Explanation of Medical Benefits” review (EOBR), which is required to be sent along with the bill payment. For reasons that are not clear, there are two EOBRs in evidence for this claim. One (Petitioner’s Exhibit 4) has the logo “MCMC” in the upper left hand corner and is substantially more formal. The other (Largo’s Exhibit 3) does not have any identifying logo, but the following statement appears on page two: “For questions regarding this review, please call MCMC at 1-888-350-1150.” It is not clear why MCMC would have generated two different EOBRs for the same claim, but, in any event, the allowed amounts for the six components of Largo’s charges and the total payment amount, $5,287.97, is the same on both EOBRs. The EOBR that is Largo’s Exhibit 3 sets out the six individual components of Largo’s claim, and indicates that the first five were approved for reimbursement at 75 percent of the charge billed by Largo. The sixth component is the charge for the emergency department visit itself. For that charge, Largo billed $1,365.38, of which 75 per cent would be $1,024.04. The EOBR indicates the corresponding 25 percent discount from billed charges ($341.35) under a column entitled “MRA,” and indicates further that an additional reduction of $625.81 was applied, leaving an approved payment of $398.22 for the emergency room component of the claim. The additional reduction of $625.81 is under a column entitled “Ntwk Redc,” and the narrative explanation under the total payment states, ”The network discount shown above is based on your contract with the network.” Guarantee conceded at hearing that there was no contract applicable to the claim. The EOBR also has references to “convalescent care” and “PIP days,” neither of which apply to Largo’s claim. The EOBR that is Guarantee’s Exhibit 4 has one column entitled “Qualify Code.” In completing an EOBR, insurers must select a code from a list of approximately 50 codes found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(o)2., which identifies the reason for the disallowance or adjustment. For the emergency room visit, the EOBR shows a code of 82, which is explained as follows: “Payment adjusted: Payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” Both EOBRs indicate a “procedure code” of 99283. The UB-04 submitted by Largo used code 99284. These codes are among five codes that are used by hospitals to bill emergency department visits based on “level” of intensity rendered. These codes are taken from the American Medical Association’s Current Procedural Terminology (or CPT), a coding system developed for physician billing, not for hospitals. Over the years, these CPT codes have been adopted by hospitals for billing emergency department visits. Emergency department services are billed with CPT codes 99281 through 99285. After receiving the payment and EOBR, Largo timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute, with attachments, to the Department. Largo alleged in its Petition that the correct reimbursement amount owed was $5,913.79, leaving an underpayment of $625.82. Qmedtrix, acting as Guarantee’s representative, then filed Guarantee’s Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute and attachments with the Department. Attached to the Response was a letter from R.W. von Sydow dated November 5, 2009. The letter asserted that the correct payment to the hospital (Largo) should be determined on an average of usual and customary charges for all providers in a given geographic area, rather than the hospital’s usual and customary charges. As authority, Mr. von Sydow cites the case of One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 958 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The letter also requested that the Department “scrutinize the bill in question in order to determine, first, whether the hospital in fact charged its usual charge for the services provided and, second, whether the billed charges are in line with the customary charges of other facilities in the community.” The letter further alleges that the hospital “upcoded” the emergency room visit, billing using CPT code 99284, asserting that the proper billing code should have been 99283. The letter concludes that the amount paid, $398.22, for the emergency department visit is closer to the “usual and customary” charges that Qmedtrix asserts, on behalf of Guarantee, is applicable to the claim. On November 13, 2009, the Department issued its Determination. The Determination states in pertinent part: The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges,” maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, and references a manual not incorporated by rule. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition does not conform to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Largo Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on July 25, 2009. Based upon the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $5,913.79 ($7,885.05 x 75% [Hospital Manual] = $5,913.79). The determination letter also informed Guarantee of its right to an administrative hearing. Guarantee timely filed a Request for Administrative Hearing, which gave rise to this proceeding. CODING FOR M.C.’S EMERGENCY SERVICES As mentioned above, Largo reported the emergency department visit using CPT Code 99284. No one from the hospital testified, but Largo’s expert, Allan W. March, M.D., reviewed Largo’s hospital record for M.C. Dr. March is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Johns Hopkins University Medical School. He has extensive experience in, among other things, hospital physician practice and utilization review. Dr. March describes utilization as the oversight of medical care to affirm that it is appropriate, cost-effective, and medically necessary. Dr. March has worked as an emergency department physician and has personally treated upwards of 5,000 workers’ compensation patients. Dr. March testified on behalf of Largo and the Department. Dr. March described M.C. and her injuries from the hospital record as follows: This is a 32-year-old female who had just slipped at her place of work prior to arrival at the emergency department and presented in moderate distress, with moderate pain in the head, neck, and lower back. And the patient displayed tenderness in the posterior neck area as well as in the right lower back. Dr. March reviewed Largo’s hospital record for M.C. to analyze whether Largo appropriately used CPT code 99284, or whether it should have used a lower CPT code. Largo’s coding for the emergency department visit is based on the American College of Emergency Physicians’ “ED Facility Level Coding Guidelines” (ACEP Guidelines). By using the ACEP Guidelines, Largo used a nationally recognized methodology in determining the level of service to which the hospital should bill. He noted that the hospital’s charge sheet indicated that the level of services was marked at a Level 4. Dr. March compared the hospital’s charge list with the ACEP Guidelines and found them to be essentially the same, and that the Level 4 marked on the charge sheet corresponded with CPT code 99284. Dr. March found that Largo used a nationally recognized methodology in determining the level of service to which the hospital should bill. In Dr. March’s opinion, Largo correctly assigned 99284 to M.C.’s emergency department visit, and that the assignment of 99284 is substantiated by the medical record. Under the ACEP guidelines, the CPT code level assigned is always the highest level at which a minimum of one “possible intervention” is found. In this case, Dr. March determined that two CT scans were ordered by the physician and performed by the hospital, which substantiates the use of a 99284 code under the ACEP Guidelines. Dr. March further explained that the coding level of a hospital does not correspond directly to the coding level assigned by the physician. The physician’s services are coded under the CPT-4 coding book. According to Dr. March, the CPT coding manual is applicable to facility coding only if the hospital chooses to use this manual as a basis in their methodology for coding. Further, Dr. March explained that the separate billing of the emergency department visit captures separate and distinct costs incurred by hospitals that are not included in line-items for procedures. The claim submitted by Largo was sent to Qmedtrix for a bill review. Its data elements were first entered into Qmedtrix’ proprietary bill-review software known as “BillChek.” The software placed Largo’s claim on hold for manual review. The claim was then manually reviewed by Mr. von Sydow, Director of National Dispute Resolution for Qmedtrix. Although his educational background is in law, Mr. von Sydow is a certified coder certified by the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). Mr. von Sydow determined in his bill review that Largo should have used code 99283 instead of 99284. Mr. von Sydow described what he considers to be inconsistencies between certain diagnosis codes under the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) and the CPT codes used to classify the emergency department visit. He considers the ICD-9 codes on Largo’s claim (specifically 959.01 used to indicate “head injury, unspecified”) to be inconsistent with CPT code 99284. In his view, ICD-9 corresponds more closely with CPT code 99283. Moreover, Mr. von Sydow referenced a study by the American Hospital Association (AHA) and AHIMA, which suggests that hospitals should count the number and kind of interventions to approximate the CPT factors, but that a hospital should not include in this count interventions or procedures, such as CTs or X-rays, which the hospital bills separately. He further acknowledged that the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) allow hospitals to use their own methodology in applying the CPT codes. David Perlman, M.D., received his undergraduate degree from Brown University and his medical degree from the University of Oregon. He has considerable experience as an emergency room physician. For the past six years, he has worked for Qmedtrix initially doing utilization review and as its Medical Director since 2005. Dr. Perlman testified on behalf of Guarantee. Dr. Perlman is familiar with the ACEP guidelines relied upon by Dr. March and the AHA/AHIMA study relied upon by Mr. von Sydow. He is also familiar with the CPT code handbook. Dr. Perlman suggested that the use of the ACEP guidelines could result in reimbursement essentially already provided in a separate line-item. He agrees with the methodology recommended by the AMA/AHIMA study. That is, counting the number and kind of interventions or procedures to approximate the CPT book’s factors to consider in selecting the code billed for emergency department services, but not including in this count interventions or procedures, such as CTs or X-rays, which the hospital bills separately. In Dr. Perlman’s opinion, M.C.’s injuries supported assignment of CPT code 99283 rather than 99284. The fact that M.C. underwent CT scans did not alter this conclusion. According to Dr. Perlman, use of a CT scan in a patient’s emergency department treatment determines that the facility may assign a 99284 code under the ACEP guidelines. In his opinion, this does not necessarily reflect the severity of the illness or injury. Dr. Perlman acknowledged, however, that hospitals are free to use the ACEP guidelines and that many hospitals do so. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that there is no national, standardized methodology for the manner in which hospitals are to apply CPT codes 99281-99285 for facility billing. The preponderance of the evidence also establishes that, while there is a difference of opinion as to whether ACEP guidelines are the best method, it is a nationally recognized method used by many hospitals. Largo’s use of this methodology is supported by the weight of the evidence as appropriate. M.C.’s hospital record amply documents the interventions required for the assignment of CPT code 99284 under the ACEP guidelines. Dr. March’s opinion that the separate billing of the emergency department visit captures separate and distinct costs incurred by hospitals that are not included in line-items for procedures is accepted. It is concluded that the coding of M.C.’s emergency department visit as 99284 by Largo was appropriate. There is no dispute that Largo’s charges as represented on the UB-04 form conform to its internal charge master, or that the services represented were in fact provided, or that they were medically necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a Final Order requiring Petitioner to remit payment to Largo consistent with the Determination Letter dated November 13, 2009, and Section 440.13(7)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2010.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency") for the issuance of a final order. 1. On June 28, 2013, Sebring Hospital Management Associates, LLC d/b/a Highlands Regional Medical Center (“Highlands Regional”) requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the preliminary denial of Certificate of Need (“CON”) Application No. 10182, which it submitted to establish a seven-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit in District 6 (Highlands County). Filed May 15, 2014 4:07 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 2. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) where it was assigned Case No. 13-2512 CON. 3. On June 28, 2013, Haines City HMA, LLC d/b/a Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center (“Heart of Florida”) requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the preliminary denial of CON Application No. 10180, which it submitted to establish a 14-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit in District 6 (Polk County). 4. The matter was referred to DOAH where it was assigned Case No. 13-2513 CON. 5. On July 23, 2013, DOAH issued an Order of Consolidation. 6. On April 23, 2014, Highlands Regional filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. 7. On April 23, 2014, Heart of Florida filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. It is therefore ORDERED: 8. The denial of Highlands Regional’s CON Application No. 10182 is upheld. 9. The denial of Heart of Florida’s CON Application No. 10180 is upheld. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this He day of thax , 2014. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Healjh Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below- named persons by the method designated on this [Ema Loe , 2014. . Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 412-3630 John D. Newton, IT Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Administrative Law Judge Office of the General Counsel Division of Administrative Hearings Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) James McLemore, Supervisor Corrine T. Porcher, Esquire Certificate of Need Unit Susan C. Smith, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire (Electronic Mail) Sabrina B. Dieguez, Esquire Smith & Associates 3301 Thomasville Road, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Corinne@smithlawtlh.com Susan@smithlawtlh.com Geoff@smithlawtlh.com Sabrina@smithlawtlh.com LL (Electronic Mail)
