The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 13th day of February, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period June 14 through August 10, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. In relevant part, Rule 59A- 4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written "plan of care." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what sanction(s), if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent operates a 120-bed Skilled Nursing Facility located at 1990 S. Canal Drive, Homestead, Florida 33035 (Facility) pursuant to a license issued by the Agency. At all times material to the instant case, Edwin Coelho was the administrator of the Facility; Linda Howell was the LPN clinical coordinator at the Facility; Diane Doyle was the Facility's staff educator and infection control nurse; and Isela Palacios and Rosa Romero were Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) on the Facility's staff. At all times material to the instant case, E. H. was a resident of the Facility. On July 8, 2004, prior to her admission to the Facility, E. H. suffered a spiral/oblique fracture of her right distal tibia and fibula. Such a fracture is "usually caused by some sort of torque on the bone." At the time of her injury, E. H. was an 89-year-old woman with osteoporosis2 who had been "nonambulatory for nine years." Her bones were "very fragile" and "brittle" and "subject to easily be[ing] fractured" as a result of mere "movement." E. H. was treated by Felix Stanziola, M. D., an orthopedic specialist. Because of E. H.’s age and condition, Dr. Stanziola treated E. H.'s fracture conservatively by "align[ing] the bones and then put[ting on] a [long leg] cast." No surgery was performed. In August of 2004, E. H. became a resident of the Facility. Her right leg was still in a "long leg cast" at the time of her admission. On September 1, 2004, E. H. was transported from the Facility to Dr. Stanziola's office, where Dr. Stanziola removed her "long leg" cast and put her in a "short leg cast." On September 29, 2004, E. H. was again transported from the Facility to Dr. Stanziola's office. During this visit, Dr. Stanziola determined that the "fracture was healed" and, based on this determination, removed the cast he had put on E. H.'s leg the previous visit. Because E. H. was experiencing "knee pain" as a result of "severe arthritis," Dr. Stanziola "ordered physical therapy" for her. Throughout her stay at the Facility, both before and after the cast was removed, E. H. was nonambulatory and bedridden, requiring "total care" except for feeding.3 Facility staff had to reposition her in bed every two hours "because she could not reposition herself." When she needed to be moved either out of, or back onto, her bed (and the need arose "virtually every day"), Facility staff used a Marisa "sling lift" (Marisa) to make the transfer. This was "the safest way to move her." Other non- weight bearing residents in the Facility were also moved using a Marisa. A Marisa is a mobile, electric lift consisting of a U- shaped base and an upright post, on which is mounted a curved arm with a "tilting spreader bar." A head and body support sling, which "cradles" and supports the resident above the knees, is attached to the "tilting spreader bar." The operating controls are located on the back of the upright post. There is also a "remote" device that can be used to operate the lift. In making a transfer using the Marisa, the curved arm is first positioned over the resident. Then, two Facility staff members, situated in front of the resident, with the aid of a "Maxislide," slide the sling "right up under [the resident's] buttocks so it supports [the resident] from the knees back." To do this, the resident's "legs have to be lifted manually," but "only a very small amount." During the lift, the resident's lower legs (beneath the knee), which are unsupported, can swing freely. At all times material to the instant case, the Facility had policies and procedures in place that its staff were to follow in making a "patient lift/transfer." These policies and procedures included the following, among others: Every precaution is used to safeguard the patient when making a mechanical or manual lift, transfer or move. Plan any lift, transfer or move ahead of time. Have the proper equipment or personnel on hand. Ensure everyone involved in the task understands his or her role in the transfer, lift or move. Arrange the environment as necessary. Make sure there is appropriate space to maneuver and work in to ensure a safe lift, transfer or move. * * * Prior to using a mechanical lifting device the nurse will ensure proper planning for the transfer/lift has been accomplished and will request assistance [when] required for any difficult lift/transfer. CNAs Palacios and Romero received training in these policies and procedures prior to December 8, 2004. E. H. received a shower every other day in the shower room, which was two rooms down the hallway from the room E. H. occupied at all times material to the instant case. In the shower room, she was bathed while seated in a shower chair (which had wheels) by "shower CNAs." The shower chair that was used did not have a footrest, nor any other device or feature to prevent E. H.'s lower legs from swinging freely when being wheeled in the chair. The "shower CNAs" had to lift E. H.'s legs to bathe them properly. On December 8, 2004, CNA Palacios, with the assistance of another CNA, used the Marisa to transfer E. H. from her bed to a shower chair. The transfer was safely accomplished, without incident, like every prior transfer of E. H., since her arrival at the Facility, had been. CNA Palacios then wheeled E. H. in the shower chair to the shower room, where the "shower CNAs" bathed E. H. After bathing E. H., the "shower CNAs" placed a "covering" on her and wheeled her into the hallway, where CNA Palacios was waiting. CNA Palacios then wheeled E. H. back to E. H.'s room. E. H. had remained in the shower chair the entire time she had been out of her room. E. H.'s room (which she shared with another resident) was a "standard" 12-foot by 24-foot semi-private room with a small bathroom (having just a sink and toilet). When E. H. returned from her shower on December 8, 2004, in her room (taking up floor space) outside the bathroom, were: two beds (eight feet by three feet); two night stands (18 inches by 30 inches); two wardrobe closets (23 inches by 22 inches); two "over the bed" tables; a reclining chair (30 inches by 30 inches); a television stand (24 inches by 14 inches); an oxygen concentrator; a high back chair (22 inches by 26 inches); E. H.'s wheelchair; and the shower chair in which E. H. was seated. These were the same items that had been present in the room earlier that day when E. H. had been moved (safely, with the Marisa) from her bed to the shower chair. On Respondent's side of the room (the "A" side, which was closest to the door) were one of the beds, one of the nightstands, one of the "over the bed" tables, both of the wardrobe closets, the high back chair, the wheelchair, and the shower chair (with E. H. in it). The remaining items were on the other resident's side of the room (the "B" side). The high back chair was located against the wall next to the wardrobe closets (which were to the left as one entered the room). The high back chair was in the room, not for E. H. or her roommate to sit on, but for visitors to use. After wheeling E. H. back into the room in the shower chair, CNA Palacios went to get the Marisa, which was "right outside the door" to the room. There, she met CNA Romero, who volunteered to help CNA Palacios transfer E. H., with the Marisa, from the shower chair to E. H.'s wheelchair. CNA Palacios then went back into E. H.'s room with the Marisa, followed by CNA Romero. The Marisa was positioned so that its curved arm was over the shower chair in which E. H. was seated. CNAs Palacios and Romero then secured E. H. in the sling and the lift began, with CNA Palacios at the controls and CNA Romero next to E. H. (who was facing in the general direction of the door). The wheelchair (into which E. H. was to be placed) was between the shower chair and the high back chair. During the lift, E. H.'s roommate (who was behind a privacy curtain) asked for CNA Palacios' assistance. CNA Palacios responded that she would "be there in a minute," after which she continued to focus her attention on operating the Marisa and completing the lift. Before the lift was completed, CNA Romero advised CNA Palacios that there was blood on the floor directly below E. H.'s right leg. Up until that point in time, nothing unusual had occurred during the lift, such as E. H. bumping into or hitting something or expressing discomfort. Upon being told about the blood, CNA Palacios turned off the Marisa. CNA Romero then removed the covering that the "shower CNAs" had placed on E. H.'s legs. It was apparent that E. H. had suffered a compound fracture (that is, a fracture where "the bone was protruding through the [skin]") of her right lower leg. There was considerable bleeding. The blood was dripping onto the floor in the area beneath the injured leg. There was no blood anywhere else inside or outside the room (other than on E. H. and CNA Romero's pants). Once E. H.'s injury was discovered, nurses were summoned to the room. After the nurses had stabilized E. H.'s leg, the Marisa was turned on again and E. H. was moved back onto her bed. It was not until she was on the bed that E. H. first gave "any indication of discomfort." Emergency rescue workers were called. After they arrived on the scene, E. H. was transported to the hospital by helicopter. X-rays revealed that that E. H. had a "new" spiral/oblique fracture "just above" where she had fractured her leg on July 8, 2004. Shortly after E. H. was taken to the hospital, the Facility began an investigation to determine what had happened to cause her injury. LPN Howell was the staff member put in charge of the investigation. Among the individuals LPN Howell interviewed as part of her investigation were CNAs Palacios and Romero. CNA Palacios was interviewed within an hour of the incident. CNA Romero was interviewed within two and half hours of the incident.4 Both CNAs told LPN Howell that they did not know how E. H. had been injured. CNAs Palacios and Romero were subsequently asked to give written statements about the incident. The written statement CNA Palacios provided read as follows: She came back from the shower on the chair. I put the sling on her back. Rosa help[ed] me. We put the machine Maris[]a [to] get her up. The Mari[]sa pick[ed] her up in the air. Then we put her in the wheelchair. Then we notice[d] blood on the floor. I went out to get nurse [G]eorge. Everybody went to help. I did not hear her foot bump or hit anything. The written statement CNA Romero gave read as follows: I, Rosa Romero was assisting Isela Palacios transferring a resident in . . . Room 304 A from the shower chair to the wheelchair with the hoyer l[i]fter and her leg got caught in it. We didn't notice she was hurt until she was s[it]ting in the wheelchair when we saw lot[s] [of] blood on the floor. Isela and I w[ere] helping each o[ther] and we did everything the right way, the way [it] is supposed to be [done]. Notwithstanding the assertion CNA Romero made in her written statement that E. H.'s "leg got caught in it," there is "nothing [in the Marisa] to get caught in."5 After completing her interviews on December 8, 2004, LPN Howell spoke to her supervisor, Facility Administrator Coelho, who also serves as the Facility's risk manager. Facility Administrator Coelho told LPN Howell that he "was going to check things out himself." To this end, he participated in several "reenactments" of what had transpired in E. H.'s room after she had come back from her shower on December 8, 2004, in an effort to ascertain how E. H. may have injured herself. The "reenactments" took place in E. H.'s room. "[I]tems [in the room] were placed" where, according to CNAs Palacios and Romero, they had been at the time of the incident. Facility Administrator Coelho played the role of E. H. "[O]ne of the CNAs" operated the controls of the Marisa and, using the machine, lifted Facility Administrator Coelho out of the shower chair and into E. H.'s wheelchair. This was done "about three times." At no time did Facility Administrator Coelho come close to "hit[ting] anything inside" the room. The Facility administration submitted required reports concerning E. H.'s injury. LPN Howell prepared the "Federal 5-day Report," which Facility Administrator Coelho reviewed and discussed with her before its submission. This report contained the following "findings of facility investigation": After completion of interviews, the area and equipment involved were checked. It is determined that the area was crowded due to the size of the resident, the size of the shower chair, the size of the w/c, the size of the Marisa lift and the furniture along with the constant request of the other resident in the room distracted the staff when the resident was moved to position the Marisa sling over the w/c. The procedures in place at the time for safety of both residents and staff were being followed but a lack in focus or concentration led to the injury.[6] There is no evidence of intent to do harm on the part of the staff members involved. The staff members were suspended without pay for 5 days and have returned to work effective 12-13-04.[7] Facility Administrator Coelho authored an "Administrative Incident Report," in which he stated that the Facility administrations's investigation revealed "no definitive reason for the accident," but that it "was assumed that in turning the resident while she was on the sling her leg got caught on the high back chair" in the room. He added that the Facility administration was taking action to remove high back chairs from rooms of residents who "ha[d] to be lifted." The high back chairs were removed from E. H.'s room and the rooms of other residents who "ha[d] to be lifted" on or about December 10, 2006. The Facility administration did so only out of an abundance of caution, not because it had determined with any certitude that the presence of the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, constituted a hazardous condition that resulted in E. H.'s injury. Prior to the incident on December 8, 2004, there had never been a problem at the Facility in lifting E. H. or any other resident in a room with a high back chair. The lifting of residents in rooms set up like E. H.'s had "happened all the time in [the] building" without any resident getting injured. At no time during this period had the Facility been cited by the Agency, during any life safety inspection, for failing to comply with requirements concerning the design and equipping of residents' rooms.8 Having the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, did not unreasonably expose E. H. to the risk of accidental injury while being lifted with the Marisa. Even with the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, there was adequate space for trained Facility staff, acting in a reasonably prudent manner in accordance with Facility policy and procedure, to lift E. H. with the Marisa (as had been done in the past) without E. H.'s bumping into something and injuring herself. It is unclear exactly what caused E. H. to suffer a compound fracture of her right lower leg on December 8, 2004.9 What is clear is that this injury was not the result of her having gotten her leg "caught" in the Marisa or on the high back chair while being lifted from the shower chair. During the lift, her leg did not hit against any object in the room.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2006.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from maintaining its challenge to rule 59A-4.128, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the evaluation and rating of nursing homes, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the representations of counsel at the hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Advantage Therapy and Nursing Center (Beverly Health and Rehabilitative Services, Inc.) is the licensee of a nursing home in Fort Pierce, Florida. Rule 59A-4.128, Florida Administrative Code, governs the evaluation and rating of nursing homes in Florida. The rule provides: 59A-4.128 Evaluation of Nursing Homes and Rating System. The agency shall, at least every 15 months, evaluate and assign a rating to every nursing home facility. The evaluation and rating shall be based on the facility's compliance with the requirements contained in Sections 59A-4.100 through 59A-4.128, of this rule, Chapter 400, Part II and the requirements contained in the regulations adopted under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1987 (Pub. L. No. 100-203) (December 22, 1987), Title IV (Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Health Related Programs), Subtitle C (Nursing Home Reform), as amended and incorporated by reference. The evaluation shall be based on the most recent licensure survey report, investigations conducted by the AHCA and those persons authorized to inspect nursing homes under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. The rating assigned to the nursing home facility will be either conditional, standard or superior. The rating is based on the compliance with the standards contained in this rule and the standards contained in the OBRA regulations. Non-compliance will be stated as deficiencies measured in terms of severity. For rating purposes, the following deficiencies are considered equal in severity: Class I deficiencies; Class II deficiencies; and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Further for rating purposes, the following deficiencies are considered equal in severity: Class III deficiencies; and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy with no actual harm. Class I deficiencies are those which present either an imminent danger, a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm and require immediate correction. Class II deficiencies are those deficiencies that present an immediate threat to the health, safety, or security of the residents of the facility and the AHCA establishes a fixed period of time for the elimination and correction of the deficiency. Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies are deficiencies which constitute either: immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety; a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy; or a widespread potential for more than minimal harm, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm. Class III deficiencies are those which present an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than Class I or Class II deficiencies. A conditional rating shall be assigned to the facility: if at the time of relicensure survey, the facility has one or more of the following deficiencies: Class I; Class II; or Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy; or if at the time of the relicensure survey, the facility has Class III deficiencies, or Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm and at the time of the follow-up survey, such deficiencies are not substantially corrected within the time frame specified by the agency and continue to exist, or new Class I or Class II or Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy are found at the time of the follow- up survey. A facility receiving a conditional rating at the time of the relicensure survey shall be eligible for a standard rating if: all Class I deficiencies, Class II deficiencies, and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy are corrected within the time frame established by the AHCA and all Class III deficiencies and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm are substantially corrected at the time of the follow-up survey. A facility receiving a conditional rating at the time of the relicensure survey shall not be eligible for a superior rating until the next relicensure survey. A standard rating shall be assigned to a facility, if at the time of the relicensure survey, the facility has: No Class I or Class II deficiencies and no Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy, and Corrects all Class III deficiencies and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm within the time frame established by the AHCA. A superior rating shall be assigned to a facility, if at the time of the relicensure survey, the facility has received a standard rating and meets criteria for a superior rating through enhanced programs and services as contained in (7) of this Section. In order to qualify for a superior rating, the nursing facility must provide at least three enhanced programs or services which encompass the following areas: Nursing services. Dietary or nutritional services. Physical environment. Housekeeping and maintenance. Restorative therapies and self help activities. Social services. Activities and recreational therapy. In order to facilitate the development of special programs or facility wide initiatives and promote creativity, these areas may be grouped or addressed individually. In establishing the facility's qualification for a superior rating, the AHCA survey team will use the Rating Survey and Scoring Sheet, Form No. AHCA 3110-6007, Nov., 1994, incorporated by reference, and may be obtained from the Agency for Health Care Administration. Upon initial licensure, a licensee can receive no higher than a standard license. After six months of operation, the new licensee may request that the agency evaluate the facility to make a determination as to the degree of compliance with minimum requirements under Chapter 400, Part II, F.S., and this rule to determine if the facility can be assigned a higher rating. Nursing facilities will be surveyed on this Section of the rule beginning March 1, 1995. Advantage Therapy filed a petition pursuant to Section 120.56(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), challenging the validity of existing rule 59A-4.128 and asserting in paragraph five of the petition: Rule 59A-4.128, F. A. C., as applied to the issuance of conditional licenses, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that it is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in employees of the agency, and violates . . . [Section] 400.23(8)(h) which requires that the agency have uniform procedures in place for the evaluation of nursing homes. Advantage Therapy focuses its challenge on the Agency's alleged failure to interpret or apply the rule in a manner consistent with the federal rules relating to nursing homes adopted pursuant to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 and on alleged inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the rule by the Agency and by the various Agency survey teams which are responsible for identifying and classifying deficiencies in nursing homes. In a Final Order entered July 16, 1996, Administrative Law Judge David M. Maloney concluded that proposed rule 59A-4.128 was not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in a challenge brought by the Florida Health Care Association, Inc. Florida Health Care Association, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case Number 95-4367RP (1996). No appeal was taken from this Final Order. The Florida Health Care Association's challenge to proposed rule 59A-4.128 was brought pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1995), which provided in subsection (a) that "any substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of any proposed rule on the ground that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" was defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes (1995), as follows: "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply: The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in s. 120.54; The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or The rule is arbitrary or capricious. Florida Health Care Association's challenge to proposed rule 59A- 4.128 was brought pursuant to this 1995 definition of "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Advantage Therapy's challenge to existing rule 59A-4.128 was brought pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), which provides that "[a]ny person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Section 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Sections 120.56(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), include special provisions which apply to challenges of proposed rules and to challenges of existing rules, respectively. In Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), the legislature added to the five bases included in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (1995), two new bases for finding that a proposed or existing rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority : The rule is not supported by competent substantial evidence; or The rule imposes regulatory costs on the regulated person, county, or city which could be reduced by the adoption of less costly alternatives that substantially accomplish the statutory objectives. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Advantage Therapy's rule challenge does not implicate either of these two new bases for finding that a proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; rather, it asserts that "[t]he rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency." Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes (1995 and Supp. 1996).2 The party challenging either a proposed or an existing rule pursuant to Sections 120.54(4) or 120.56, Florida Statutes (1995), was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So. 2d 759, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In Section 120.56(2)(a), the legislature changed the allocation of the burden of proof in challenges to proposed rules, but no change in the allocation of the burden of proof is included in Section 120.56(3) with respect to challenges to existing rules. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., which does business as Advantage Therapy, is, and was at the time of the challenge to proposed rule 59A-4.128, a member of the Florida Health Care Association, Inc. The language in proposed rule 59A-4.128 is identical to the language in existing rule 59A-4.128.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what sanctions, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, including the factual stipulations contained in parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation,2 the following findings of fact are made: Respondent operates a Skilled Nursing Facility (Facility) located at 5725 N.W. 186th Street in Hialeah, Florida. The Facility is licensed by the Agency under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. Aida Rodriguez has been a Florida-Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) for the past three or four years. Ms. Rodriguez was employed as a CNA at the Facility on a part-time basis from November 6, 2002, until March 31, 2003, when she resigned for "family reasons." She worked only Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Among the residents living in the Facility during the period of Ms. Rodriguez's employment were Residents 16 and 30.3 In accordance with his care plan, when Resident 30 was in the dining room for a meal, "staff [were] supposed to keep an eye on him" and "encourage him and attempt to assist him [if] he stop[ped] feeding himself" and needed help. Resident 30's daughter was often with her father at mealtime and provided him with whatever assistance he required, thus obviating the need, on these occasions, for staff intervention. On Saturday, March 15, 2003, Ms. Rodriguez was in the dining room when she observed Resident 30, without his daughter, seated at a table with a plate of uneaten food, that had been served a half an hour earlier, in front of him. Ms. Rodriguez approached Resident 30 and "offered him help." Ms. Rodriguez, who is bilingual in Spanish and English,4 spoke to Resident 30 in Spanish. Resident 16, who was nearby, interjected. She rebuked Ms. Rodriguez by telling her, "Don't touch him because the daughter is coming to assist him with feeding." Ms Rodriguez replied, in English, to Resident 16, who is not Spanish-speaking, "Let me ask Resident 30." Ms. Rodriguez then asked Resident 30, "Do you want water? Do you want me to help you?" Resident 30 responded, "Give me water." Ms. Rodriguez did as she was asked. After Resident 30 finished the glass of water Ms. Rodriguez had given him, Ms. Rodriguez asked Resident 30 if he "want[ed] to eat." When Resident 30 responded in the negative, Ms. Rodriguez left and tended to other business. At no time did Ms. Rodriguez tell Resident 16 to "shut up" or that Resident 16 should "mind [her] own business." At no time did Ms. Rodriguez force Resident 30, against his will, to eat or drink.5 Jeannette Barrett is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) employed at the Facility. Ms. Barrett was in the dining room on March 15, 2003, when Ms. Rodriguez came over to the area where Residents 16 and 30 were seated. From her vantage point, Ms. Barrett was able to visually observe the encounter. Ms. Barrett did not "see Resident 30 get upset or aggravated during that meal." Ms. Barrett was unable to "hear any conversation between [Ms.] Rodriguez and Resident 16." As Resident 16 was leaving the dining room in her wheelchair, she "calm[ly]" told Ms. Barrett that she did not want Ms. Rodriguez "put[ting] [her] back to bed." When Ms. Barrett asked her why, Resident 16 responded, untruthfully, that Ms. Rodriguez had told her to "mind [her] own business" when she had suggested to Ms. Rodriguez that perhaps Resident 30 did not want to eat because he was waiting for his daughter to come and feed him.6 Ms. Barrett immediately informed the LPN who supervised the CNAs on Resident 16's "side" of the Facility of Resident 16's request and, in accordance with Facility policy, another CNA was assigned to care for Resident 16. Delia Rudio was the Director of Nursing at the Facility from February 11, 2002, until July 31, 2003.7 Ms. Rudio was not at the Facility on March 15, 2003. She was off from work that weekend. Upon Ms. Rudio's return to the Facility the following Monday, March 17, 2003, Ms. Barrett reported to Ms. Rudio about the conversation she had had with Resident 16 the previous Saturday and asked Ms Rudio to speak with Resident 16 and Ms. Rodriquez to sort out what had really happened in the dining room. Ms. Barrett brought the matter to Ms. Rudio's attention because it would have been "rude," in Ms. Barrett's opinion, for Ms. Rodriguez to have told a resident to "mind [her] own business." Tony Farinella is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, the Administrator of the Facility. On March 17, 2003, Mr. Farinella conducted a department supervisors meeting, at which (as his notes of the meeting, which were offered and received into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 9, reflect) he was advised, by Ms. Rudio, of the "concerns" that Resident 16 had expressed, over the weekend, to Ms. Barrett regarding Ms. Rodriguez. That same day, after having received Ms. Barrett's report on the matter, Ms. Rudio spoke with Resident 16, Ms. Rodriguez, and other CNAs who were on duty at the Facility the previous Saturday with Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Rudio asked them if there had been any problems at the Facility over the weekend. They all responded in the negative, indicating that the weekend had been uneventful with no unusual occurrences. Having talked to these individuals, Ms. Rudio reasonably believed that "nothing had occurred . . . over the weekend" that required her to take any remedial action. Ms. Rodriguez was not formally suspended pending Ms. Rudio's inquiry; however, Ms. Rudio concluded her inquiry before Ms. Rodriguez was next scheduled to report to work. Prior to the relicensure survey that led to the filing of the instant Administrative Complaint, Ms. Rudio did not document that she had done anything in response to the report she had received from Ms. Barrett concerning Resident 16's allegations against Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Rudio, though, did verbally relate, at a department supervisors meeting conducted by Mr. Farinella on March 18, 2003, that she had looked into the matter and found that, in fact, there had been "no problem[s]" involving Resident 16 the previous weekend (as Mr. Farinella's notes of the meeting, which were offered and received into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 10, reflect). The Agency conducted its relicensure survey of the Facility from March 31, 2003, through April 3, 2003. Elizabeth Rojas-Mariaca, a Health Facility Evaluator II with the Agency, was involved in conducting the survey. Resident 16 was interviewed during the survey. She alleged that, some time previous, Ms. Rodriguez had "told her to shut up and mind her own business" and that she (Resident 16) had "brought those allegations to the [attention of] the LPN [Ms. Barrett]." Resident 16 indicated that she "fe[lt] bad[ly] because Ms. Rodriguez was nasty and mean to [her]," but "still work[ed] there" at the Facility. Ms. Rojas-Mariaca spoke to staff at the Facility, including Ms. Barrett and Ms. Rudio, about Resident 16's allegations. She did not communicate, however, with either Ms. Rodriguez or Resident 30. When Ms. Rojas-Mariaca initially requested "some type of documentation" showing that, in accordance with the Facility's policy, an "investigation [into Resident 16's allegations] had been done" and documented, the Facility was unable to produce any such documentation. Shortly thereafter, however, the Facility prepared such documentation. Copies thereof were provided to Ms. Rojas- Mariaca and placed in the file the Facility maintained on Resident 16. The documentation accurately indicated that the Facility's investigation had revealed that Resident's 16's allegations were unfounded. Cindy Goldman, a Public Health Nutrition Consultant with the Agency, also participated in the survey. While at the Facility on April 1, 2003, Ms. Goldman went into a room in the sub-acute wing of the Facility shared by Resident 31 and another resident. Resident 31 was a recent admittee to the Facility. While she was "able to move her upper extremities" freely, as an amputee with only one leg, she needed assistance moving the lower half of her body. She was unable to, among other things, get on or off a bedpan by herself. When Ms. Goldman entered Resident 31's room, she observed Resident 31 lying in her bed with a bedpan under her buttocks. Resident 31 complained to Ms. Goldman that she was "in pain" as a result of having "been on the bedpan since yesterday"8 and she asked if Ms. Goldman could help her. There was a "call bell" tied to the upper bed rail to the right of Resident 31, which Ms. Goldman asked Resident 31 to "try to reach." Resident 31 moved her arm but not far enough to make contact with the "call bell." Ms. Goldman then activated the "call bell" to get assistance for Resident 31. Linda Mohammad, an LPN at the Facility, was in the sub-acute wing of the Facility when she noticed the "call light" outside of Resident 31's room was on. Ms. Mohammad was not "the person who [had] placed [Resident 31] on the bedpan."9 Ms. Mohammad nonetheless went to Resident 31's room and, after knocking on the door and entering the room, asked if she could be of any assistance. Ms. Goldman, who was standing in between the two beds in the room, responded that, according to what she had been told, Resident 31 had "been on the bedpan since yesterday." Ms. Mohammad then went to Resident 31's bedside. Resident 31 was "[i]n a normal position [on the bed] with her head up toward the head of the bed [which was elevated at approximately a 45 degree angle] on the pillow." As was apparent to Ms. Mohammad, based upon her past experiences with Resident 31, the "call bell" on the upper bed rail was within Resident 31's reach. On previous occasions, Ms. Mohammad had come to Resident 31's assistance in response to the activation of Resident 31's "call bell" and had found Resident 31 in the same position in relation to the "call bell" as she was in on this particular occasion.10 After putting on gloves, turning off the "call bell," and closing the privacy curtain around Resident 31's bed, Ms. Mohammad cleaned Resident 31 and removed and emptied the bed pan that she had been on. At no time did Resident 31 complain to Ms. Mohammad that she was in pain. When Ms. Mohammad "asked [Resident 31] if she was okay," Resident 31 "stated that she was fine." Ms. Mohammad re-opened the privacy curtain and left the room (which Ms. Goldman had already vacated), but not before making "sure [that Resident 31] was comfortable" and that "the call bell was still within [Resident 31's] reach."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 22nd day of December, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the duly promulgated rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services by designating and continuing to designate the same person as the Assistant Administrator and the Director of Nursing of the Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., after having been cited for such deficiency and allowed sufficient time to correct the deficiency.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed by Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on October 27, 1980 notifying Respondent Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., a skilled nursing care home, that Petitioner intended to impose a civil penalty of $100 for violating duly promulgated rules by designating the same person to act as Assistant Administrator and Director of Nursing of the nursing home. At the formal administrative hearing the Administrator admitted that he served more than one health facility, that at all times pertinent to the hearing the acting Assistant Nursing Home Administrator was also designated as the Director of Nursing, and that she was the only registered nurse on duty. It was admitted that no change had been made after the inspector for the Petitioner Department had called attention to this alleged violation until after the time period allowed for correcting this situation had expired and after the Petitioner had informed Respondent it intended to impose a $100 civil penalty. In mitigation Respondent presented testimony and adduced evidence showing that as the owner and operator of the nursing home he had made an effort to employ registered nurses at the home and that on the date of hearing the nursing home was in compliance with the statutes, rules and regulations. It was evident to the Hearing Officer that the nursing home serves a need in the community and that the residents appreciate the service. Petitioner Department submitted proposed findings of fact, memorandum of law and a proposed recommended order, which were considered in the writing of this order. Respondent submitted a memorandum. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered by the Petitioner assessing an administrative fine not to exceed $50. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. J. E. Speed, Administrator Bonifay Nursing Home 108 Wagner Road Bonifay, Florida 32425 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Edward Grant Markley is and at all material times has been licensed as a real estate broker, Florida license numbers 0268896 and 0530864. The Respondent's most recent licensure was as a broker for Harris Real Estate and Associates, Inc., t/a C-21 Harris Real Estate and Associates, Inc., 6945 103rd Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32210 and Harris Real Estate and Associates, Inc. of Orange Park, 2346 Kingsley Avenue, Orange Park, Florida 32073. From a date uncertain in 1987 to July of 1988, Respondent was the licensed nursing home administrator at Holly Point Manor in Orange Park, Florida. By letter dated August 22, 1988, Respondent was advised that, based upon a complaint, an investigation was being undertaken related to his licensure as administrator of the Holly Point Manor nursing home. The Respondent applied for licensure as a real estate salesman on October 5, 1988. Question 14(a) of the application reads "[h]as any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation, or vocation been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state...upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law, or is any proceeding now pending?" In response to the question, Respondent wrote "see attached". Petitioner's files contain the application but do not contain the attachment. Respondent did not retain a copy of the attachment. Respondent testified that in the attachment he disclosed the investigation related to his licensure as a nursing home administrator. There is no evidence contradicting his testimony. The Respondent's real estate salesman's license was issued effective December 30, 1988. On July 2, 1991, an Administrative Complaint was filed by the Department of Professional Regulation against the Respondent alleging failure to assure competent nursing management, staffing, and care in the referenced nursing home. Following an informal hearing, which left the matter unresolved, the Department of Professional Regulation, on December 18, 1990, filed an Amended Administrative Complaint specifically alleging that an investigation in July of 1988 revealed medical neglect and inadequate supervision and care of patients in the facility. On January 23, 1991, the Respondent executed a voluntary relinquishment of license. The executed document states that the Respondent entered into the agreement "[t]o avoid the necessity of further administrative proceedings in this case" and that the licensure was relinquished "with the provision that Respondent agrees never again to apply for licensure as a nursing home administrator in the State of Florida." At the time the license was relinquished, Respondent was no longer associated with or employed in the nursing home industry. He does not intend to re-enter the industry, and was therefore amenable to relinquishing his license. On February 18, 1991, the Florida Board of Nursing Home Administrators, Florida Department of Professional Regulation, issued a Final Order in which tie Board found "that all the allegations in the Administrative Complaint are accepted and Respondent may voluntary (sic) relinquish his license. " There is no evidence which indicates that the Respondent failed to cooperate in the nursing home investigation or in the instant matter. There is no evidence that Respondent has been unable or unwilling to appropriately discharge his responsibilities as a real estate salesman or broker.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order taking no action against the licensure of Edward Grant Markley as a real estate broker. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether DHRS should approve the application for certificate of need of any one or more of the January, 1987, applicants for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County. STIPULATIONS The parties stipulated to the following facts: All applicants timely filed their respective letters of intent, applications and omission responses with DHRS and the appropriate local health council for the January, 1987, batching cycle. The petitioners each timely filed a petition requesting a Section 120.57(1) hearing and have standing in this proceeding. The parties agree the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties. The CON application content requirements of Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985), apply as that was the statute in effect at the time the applications were filed. The review criteria in Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), apply to this proceeding. The following statutory criteria have been met orare not applicable in this proceeding: Section 381.705(1)(d), (f), (g), (j) and (k) and all of Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Except for the effects the project will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs, the extent to which services will be accessible to schools for health professionals and the availability of alternative uses of such resources for the provision of other health services, Section 381.705(1)(h) is in dispute and remains to be litigated.
Findings Of Fact SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES. HCR's application (CON Action No. 5000) is to construct a 120-bed nursing home consisting of 40,000 square feet at a cost of $3,964,000.00, or $33,033 per bed (including adult day care; $32,1127 when the cost for day care is excluded.) The HCR application describes special programs and services for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder patients in a distinct special care unit and an Alzheimer's day care center, both Identified in the plans submitted by HCR showing special design elements. HCR also proposes to offer sub-acute care and respite care. The HCR nursing home will have 2.08 (120/57.6) patients per staff, which includes the assistant director of nursing and occupational therapy and recreational therapy aides listed by HCR in its application. FCP submitted an application for 30 nursing home beds to be constructed as a part of a retirement facility (CON Action NO. 4993). The 30 beds will comprise approximately 17,558 square feet at a cost of $1,549,599.00, or $51,653 per bed. The Florida Country Place application proposes a patient staff ratio of approximately 2.3 (30/13). Palm Court submitted an application for a 60-bed addition to its existing 120-bed facility (CON Action No. 4987). The 60-bed addition would consist of 15,260 square feet at a cost of $1,472,435.00, or $24,571 per bed. The Palm Court facility is located in Plant City in the far eastern portion of Hillsborough County, near the Polk County line. Palm Court proposed a ratio of 2.31 (60/26) patients per nursing staff. Manor Care submitted an application (CON Action No. 5006) to add 60 beds to an approved certificate of need for 60-beds for which construction has not yet begun. The area to be added would consist of 19,000 square feet at a cost of $2,187,045.00, or $36,451 per bed. The Manor Care addition would include a distinct special care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims and the 60-bed addition would provide a patient staff ratio of 1.98 (60/30.3), which includes a half-time physical therapy aide, a half-time recreational therapy assistant and an assistant director of nursing. Forum submitted an application (CON Action No. 4999) to construct a 120-bed nursing home as a part of a retirement complex. The nursing home element will consist of 49,283 square feet at a cost of $5,053,301.00, or $42,111 per bed. Forum proposes a staffing ratio of 3.0 patients per staff FTE. Forum proposed to provide respite care and hospice care, and adult day care and meals on wheels during or after the second year of operation. HHL submitted an application (CON Action No. 4978) for 120-bed nursing home consisting of 37,700 square feet at a cost of $3,900,000.00, or $32,500 per bed. The HHL facility proposes 2.27 (120/52.8) patients per staff, which includes the rehabilitation assistants and the assistant director of nursing listed by HHL. HHL proposes sub-acute care, respite care, programs for Alzheimer's Disease victims (but not a distinct special care unit) and an Alzheimer's adult day care program of from four to six patients. Cypress submitted an application (CON Action No. 5004) to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Sun City Center in southeastern Hillsborough County. The nursing home described in the application would contain 24,069 square feet at a cost of $2,125,000.00, or $35,419 per bed. But Cypress' estimated construction cost per square foot of $49.81 does not account for inflation and is unreasonably low. Median cost of nursing home construction in Florida is $55 per square foot. It is estimated that Cypress' construction cost estimate is 10-15 percent too low. Assuming that the cost estimate is 12.5 percent too low, the cost of construction would increase to approximately $2,274.485 or $37,914 per bed. Cypress did not detail any special programs in its application and proposed 2.45 (60/24.5) patients per staff. However, this ratio is questionable in view of the confusion surrounding Cypress' evidence regarding staffing and the apparent inaccuracy of the staffing presented by the application. DHRS is the state agency that preliminarily reviewed and passed on the applications and is responsible for final agency action on them. DHRS PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND ACTION. HCR, FCP, Palm Court, Manor Care, Forum, HHL, Cypress, and others filed their applications for community nursing home bed certificates of need for Hillsborough County in the January, 1987, batching cycle. On June 18, 1987, DHRS issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in which it denied all of the applications except HCR's, FCP's and VHA/Oxford's (for 120 beds). Review of the SAAR in light of the evidence introduced at the final hearing indicates that DHRS erred in reviewing the applications in at least the following respects: Manor Care. -- The SAAR indicates that DHRS was not cognizant that Manor Care had a final approval for a 60-bed nursing home CON (No. 4155) to which to add the 60 beds applied for in this case, CON Action No. 5006. The SAAR was somewhat critical of the Manor Care proposal for being a two-story structure. It appears that DHRS confused the proposal to add 60-beds (CON Action No. 5006) with a parallel contingent proposal to build a new 120-bed facility (CON Action No. 5005), which Manor Care eventually withdrew during the final hearing. Actually, CON Action No. 5006, added to the approved CON No. 4155 for a new 60-bed nursing home, would result in a one-story 120-bed nursing home. On page 7 of the SAAR, DHRS indicated its understanding that Manor Care had not specified a location for its proposal. Later, on page 11, the SAAR acknowledges the true fact that Manor Care's proposed nursIng home would be located in the Northwest Hillsborough County subdistrict, which is the Local Health Plan's first priority for location of additional nursing home beds in DHRS District 6. HHL. The SAAR (p. 13) states that Convalescent Services, Inc. (CSI), the management corporation HHL and other limited partnerships for which the Kellett Brothers are the general partners, has no other nursing homes in Florida. While technically correct, Kellett limited partnerships do have other nursing homes in Florida. Staffing tables on page 17 of the SAAR are incorrect, attributing no LPNs to the HHL proposal instead of 6 and only 36 aides instead of 38. On page 18 of the SAAR, the table of patient privileges incorrectly states that the HHL applications had no patients' bill of rights. Also on page 18 of the SAAR, DHRS incorrectly omitted adult day care and community outreach from the table of programs provided by HHL. On page 26 of the SAkR, it gives HHL's private pay private room rate ($101) as its semi-private room rate (actually $69.92) The SAAR Review Matrix incorrectly omits adult day care, community outreach and sub-acute care from HHL's proposed programs and omits HHL's patients' bill of rights. Forum. -- The SAAR starts out on page 3 by misidentifying Forum as being affiliated with Hospital Corporation of America. On pages 4, 6 and 15, the SAAR incorrectly fails to recognize that a retirement living center (apartments) is part of the overall development Forum proposes. The semi-private room rate of $110 attributed to Forum's application on page 26 of the SAAR is wrong; it should have been $85. Cypress. -- The Review Matrix in the SAAR failed to identify several services and programs Cypress stated in its application that it would offer. The matrix did not recognize that Cypress would offer social activity functions within the community, would offer rehabilitation, would provide some Alzheimer's type services, (which Cypress called supportive care and mentally frail services) and physically frail services. Cypress also spoke of hospice care and respite care in its application, as well as specialized rehabilitation, physical therapy, and speech therapy. Cypress also spoke of community outreach programs, psychiatric services, home health agencies, and numerous other areas that were not recognized by DHRS in its matrix. However, there are valid reasons for some of these omissions. On May 9, 1988, the first day of the final hearing, VHA/Oxford withdrew its application. On the afternoon of May 17, 1988, DHRS announced it was supporting the grant of Palm Court's application since VHA/Oxford had withdrawn. But the only evidence to support the new DHRS position was through the testimony of Reid Jaffe, DHRS Health Services and Facilities Consultants Supervisor, who did not express a personal opinion but acted as a messsenger to relay the positions taken by others at DHRS who did not testify. NUMERIC NEED. Rule 10.5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, is a methodology for calculating net numeric need for nursing home beds. Under the methodology, gross numeric need is calculated essentially by multiplying the population of two age cohorts projected on the planning horizon by a use rate. The use rate is calculated by divIding current population by the current number of licensed beds. To obtain net need in a health planning sub-district, the methodology first prorates the gross need in the entire district, using the proportion of current licensed beds in the subdistrict to the current licensed beds in the district, and adjusts the resultant by a current occupancy rate factor (occupancy rate /0.90); then, the number of licensed beds, plus 90 percent of the number of approved beds in the subdistrict, are subtracted from the adjusted gross need in the subdistrict. With three exceptions, the parties agree on how net numeric need is calculated under the rule methodology. The parties disagree only on the current licensed bed count, the current approved bed count, and the occupancy rate at one facility that has both community nursing home beds and sheltered nursing home beds. (Sheltered nursing home beds generally are not factored into the formula.) As for the licensed bed count, the issue is whether The Home Association, a 96-bed facility in Hillsborough County, should be included as a licensed community nursing home facility or excluded as a sheltered facility. At hearing, all of the parties presenting evidence on the issue except Forum counted The Home Association's 96 beds as licensed community beds. Forum excluded The Home Association from the licensed bed count because it was not listed on the Department's Community Nursing Home Report for January 1, 1988. This same report reflects three other facilities in Hillsborough County in which the beds were formerly sheltered but as of August 1, 1987, began to be counted by the Department as community beds. Forum conceded, however, that if the Department recognizes The Home Association as a community facility, then it would be appropriate to include those beds in the licensed bed count under the rule formula. In its proposed recommended order, even Forum agrees that The Home Association beds are included in the licensed bed count. Two issues are presented relating to the inventory of approved beds under the rule formula: the date at which approved beds are to be counted; and whether the 120 beds under Careage CON #4714 and Manor Care's 60 beds under CON #4155 were approved at the pertinent time. On the first question, Forum again stands alone. In the face of a rule which is silent as to the date on which approved beds are to be counted, Forum suggests that they be counted cn the same day licensed beds are counted, December 1, 1986, for this batch. All other interested parties follow the Department's general practice of counting approved beds as of the date the State Agency Action Report for this batch was executed, June 18, 1987. Forum supports its position on the ground that use of the same date for both licensed and approved beds avoids the prospect that beds may be "lost" from the calculation if they are not licensed as of December 1, 1986, but become licensed before June 18, 1987, and therefore are no longer approved beds on that latter date. The argument is meritless. There is no evidence of any "lost" beds under this policy for this batch. Indeed, the evidence is that such beds are not lost: 120 beds at Carrollwood were licensed on December 15, 1986, after the December 1 licensed bed cut-off and before the June 18, 1987, SAAR date. These beds were included in the approved bed inventory on June 18, 1987. The Department's policy under its numeric need rule is to count approved beds as of the execution date of the SAAR. Under this policy, the need for beds in the future is predicated on the number of beds currently or soon to be available to meet the need. When more than seven months can elapse after licensed beds are counted but before the agency decision is formulated, it makes sense to count beds approved during this intervening period. A 120-bed award to Careage in the prior batch was published by DHRS in the Florida Administrative Weekly of January 23, 1987, reflecting approval on January 7, 1987. However, DHRS then received criticism.of the approval, and a new supervisor in charge initiated a second review of the circumstances and of the Careage approval. The second review did not conclude until after June 18, 1987. When it did, DHRS re- affirmed its decision to approve Careage and issued a CON for 120 beds on August 18, 1987. Although the Careage CON was issued after June 18, 1987, DHRS proved that there is a rational basis for including it in the approved bed count under these unusual circumstances. The Careage CON represents 120 beds approved in the batching cycle preceding the one at issue in this case. Counting the 120 beds as approved promotes sound health planning. The projection of net need on the planning horizon is predicated on the most accurate count of approved beds from prior batching cycles that can be anticipated to come on line in the near future. As of June 18, 1987, there were 308 other beds approved but not yet licensed in Hillsborough County. Included among these 308 approved beds are 60 beds awarded to Manor Care under CON 4155 by Stipulation dated March 30, 1987. By mistake, DHRS did not count Manor Care's 60-bed CON in the SAAR. This mistake was not discovered, and DHRS served discovery responses and took a final position on need, as required by prehearing orders, that did not count the Manor Care CON. But this mistake f fact should now be corrected, even if it could have been discovered earlier through the use of due diligence, so that the health planning decision resulting from these de novo proceedings will be predicated on the correct facts. See Gulf Court Nursing Center v. HRS, 483 So.2d 700, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). It is appropriate to include Manor Care's finally approved 60 beds in the rule formula. Adding Careage's 120 beds, the total approved bed count is 428. The final variation accounting for the differences in the parties' calculations under the formula is the manner in which the occupancy rate should be computed at John Knox Village, a facility containing both community and sheltered beds. The issue is whether the patient days in this mixed facility should be prorated between the two types of beds or whether the full patient days for both types of beds should be used in calculating the occupancy rate in the facility. There is no separate report of occupancy by bed type for this mixed facility. The number of patient days delivered in the community beds at John Knox is not known. If the patient days for the entire facility are prorated according to the percentage the community beds bear to the total number of beds, there is a necessary but wholly unsupported and speculative assumption that the proportion of patient days delivered in community beds is identical to the proportion of community beds. DHRS historically has been unwilling to make this assumption and has always included the total number of beds and patient days in mixed facilities to determine the occupancy rate under the community bed rule. The rationale supporting this policy has been appropriately explicated on the record. The use of prorated patient days to determine occupancy in mixed facilities, as suggested by DHRS for the first time at final hearing, also is a change from the position the Department took when exhibits were exchanged and the prehearing stipulation was executed and then relied on by the parties. Because the Department, as a party litigant, did not prorate in its prehearing submissions, it cannot do so at hearing in the absence of fraud, mistake of fact, or newly discovered evidence. No evidence of any such extenuating circumstances was presented. The only explanation DHRS gave for changing its treatment of the John Knox occupancy data was that more accurate recent data (using daily census data instead of first day of the month census data) furnished by the Local Health Council was prorated. But DHRS just as easily could have prorated the older, less accurate data if it had chosen to take that position at the time the parties were required to take final positions in prehearing procedures. The Department, therefore, is precluded from adopting a posture at hearing relating to the treatment of patient days in mixed facilities which is different from that reflected in the Department's prehearing stipulation and exchanged exhibits. In summary, the appropriate numeric need calculation must include The Home Association in licensed beds, count both Careage's 120-bed CON and Manor Care's 60-bed CON in the approved bed count, and use the full John Knox bed complement and patient days in determining the Hillsborough County occupancy rate. Using these factors in the rule methodology, the net need for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County for the January, 1990, planning horizon is 231, as reflected in the calculation included in the attached Appendix To Recommended Order, Case Nos. 87-3409, etc. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, provides that DHRS normally may not approve more beds than the numeric net need calculated under rule methodology. In this case, none of the circumstances specified in the rule that would justify exceeding the numeric net need were proven by the evidence. At the same time, the rule does not require DHRS to fill all, or as much as possible, of the numeric net need by attempting to "mix and match" applications to come as close as possible to the calculated number. LOCAL GEOGRAPHIC NEED PRIORITIES. The current, 1985 District VI Local Health Plan provides that, after consideration of numeric bed need under the rule need methodology, its "priority need rankings" should be considered in the competitive review for new nursing homes. Hil1sborough County, Northwest, is priority rank number one. HCR, FCP, Manor Care, Forum and HHL all propose to locate their nursing homes there. Cypress proposes to locate in Sun City Center and Palm Court is in Plant City, both in Hillsborough County, Southeast, an area ranked fifth in priority in District VI. Plant City is close to Polk County, which the Local Health Plan designates as the fourth ranked area in priority. Cypress proposes its 60-bed nursing home approximately 1/4 mile down the road from an existing nursing home called Sun Terrace, operated by CSI. Quality of care concerns have arisen due to rapid fill-up of 60 additional beds recently licensed at Sun Terrace and opened in September, 1987. See Findings of Fact 83-87, below. As a result, Sun Terrace has imposed on itself a moratorium on new admissions until quality of care concerns can be addressed. In part as a result of the moratorium, Sun Terrace's occupancy rate at the time of the final hearing was only approximately 65 percent, leaving 42 empty beds. MEDICAID NEED. One of the three major considerations for competitive review of nursing home CON applications in the Longterm Care section of the 1985-1987 State Health Plan is "resource access." Except as reflected in the priority rankings, geographic access is not an issue in this proceeding. (Priority/Policy 7 of the Local Health Plan, setting a goal of providing for nursing home services within 30 minutes travel time of 90 percent of urban residents and within 45 minutes travel time of 90 percent of rural residents, already has been achieved in District VI.) But, to address concern for financial access, Priority/Policy 2 of the Local Health Plan provides that applicants "should commit, at a minimum, to serve Medicaid eligible patients in proportion to the representation of elderly poor in the subdistrict." In Hillsborough County, Northwest, where all but two of the applicants propose to locate, the elderly poverty rate is 18.6; in Hillsborough County, Southeast, where Cypress and Pal:n Court would be located, the elderly poverty rate is 15.6 percent. The applicants propose to commit the following percentages of their nursing home beds to the care of Medicaid- 4 eligible patients: HCR, 70 percent; FCP, 70 percent; Manor Care, 30 percent; HHL, 45 percent; Palm Court, 70 percent; and Cypress, approximately 10 percent. Cypress proposed in its application to commit 10 percent of its beds for Medicaid use. It attempted to update its application to provide for a 15 percent Medicaid commitment. The update was said to have been the result of a decrease in the average age of the residents of Sun City Center, Cypress' proposed primary service area, from 73 to 70. But the percentage was calculated by first estimating 60 percent private pay and "backing down" to a Medicare percentage of 25 percent, leaving 15 percent Medicaid. The evidence was persuasive that this attempted update was not due to extrinsic factors. See Conclusions of Law 20 to 25, below. Forum has committed only to have 50 percent of its beds Medicaid- certified and to meet the requirements of Priority/Policy 2. Although Priority/Policy 2 is written as a minimum Medicaid percentage, no evidence was presented from which to determine how high a percentage of Medicaid commitment is desirable. There was, e.g., no evidence on which to find that a Medicaid percentage as high as four times the elderly poverty rate is more desirable than a percentage approximately equal to or perhaps just a bit higher than the elderly poverty rate. To the contrary, the only evidence on the subject was that DHRS does not now consider the Medicaid percentage to be as important as it was considered to be in the past and that DHRS now just checks to see that the percentage approximates the elderly poor rate in the County. NEED FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PROGRAMS. Description Of The Disease And The Need. There is a need in Hillsborough County for additional nursing home beds and services for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims. There is no known nursing home in Hillsborough County which provides a distinct care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims. There is an estimated unmet need by Alzheimer's patients for nursing home care in Hillsborough County of approximately 1,271 by July, 1989. DHRS has recommended that "preference should be given to applicants for new nursing home beds which propose the development of special Alzheimer's units" and "greater preference should be given to units that will also provide adult day care and/or respite care." Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that was discovered at the turn of the century. It primarily affects persons over the age of 60. The term "related disorders" is used because some non-Alzheimer's disorders mimic Alzheimer's Disease symptoms and create many of the same needs for specialized care. Typically, Alzheimer's Disease results in gradual memory loss and, as memory loss progresses, results in the need for ever- increasing personal care. In the earlier stages, the victim is often in reasonably good physical condition and simply exhibits signs of recent memory loss. However, as memory loss increases, various activities of daily living are disrupted. Victims encounter more serious physical problems and exhibit symptoms such as wandering, significant weight loss, clumsiness, incontinence and antisocial behavior. In the last stages of the disease, the victim requires increasingly intense medical attention, becomes totally dependent on others, and may eventually require total skilled nursing care. The intensity of care required for the Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victim increases as the disease progresses. In early stages, the victims are typically cared for at home by a family member. The nature of care required for an Alzheimer's Disease or related disorders victim is very exhausting for the care giver. Toward the end of the first stage of the disease when the victim requires increasing supervision, the victim can be maintained longer in the home if there is available to the care giver some form of occasional rest, such as adult day care or respite care. Adult day care and respite care provide opportunities for the primary care giver to "take a break". See Findings of Fact 133 to 135, below. An Alzheimer's Disease patient usually requires inpatient nursing home care late in the second stage of the disease. If the patient is ambulatory, he often exhibits a wandering behavior. Approximately 50 percent of the Alzheimer's victims admitted to a nursing home have the potential to wander. Ultimately, Alzheimer's victims become bed-ridden and require skilled or sub- acute nursing home care, including tube feedings, cathethers, and artificial life support. Historically, ambulatory Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes have been mixed with other patients. The Alzheimer's victim has often disrupted life in the nursing home because of the victim's wandering, incontinence, confusion, and socially unacceptable behavior. Because of these characteristics, some nursing homes avoid admitting Alzheimer's patients and others control problem behavior with sedation and physical restraint. A separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the Alzheimer's disease victim and allows the victim to maintain his cognitive capabilities for as long as possible, without restraint and sedation. Nursing home patients who do not suffer from Alzheimer's and related diseases are often agitated and disrupted by the Alzheimer's patients' unacceptable social behavior. A separate unit for Alzheimer's Disease victims accommodates the needs of the non-Alzheimer's patient by eliminating unpleasant, often violent encounters between dementia victims and other patients. Distinct Alzheimer's special care units provide better care for Alzheimer's disease and related disorder victims for several reasons. A separate unit eliminates the tendency of the Alzheimer's disease patient to disrupt the remainder of the nursing home. A separate unit provides a smaller, safer, specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the unique needs of the Alzheimer's disease victim. A separate unit is preferable to mixing Alzheimer's patients with non- Alzheimer's patients. Traditional nursing home programs and activities are often inappropriate and counterproductive for the Alzheimer's patient. HCR's Proposal. The 120-bed nursing home proposed by HCR will help meet the needs in Hillsborough County for adult day care, respite care, sub-acute care and a special care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims. The programs and services will enable the HCR nursing home to provide at one location a complete continuum of care from the least intense level of care in adult day care to total (sub-acute) care. HCR's Alzheimer's special care unit will incorporate special design features, special patient activities and programs and higher staffing levels to meet the unique needs cf Alzheimer's disease victims. These features are intended to compensate for memory loss and provide a safe environment where cognitive capabilities can be maintained for as long as possible while patients enjoy personal freedom without the use of restraints and sedation which have typified the treatment of unmanageable Alzheimer's and dementia patients. The architectural design of the HCR nursing home will accommodate the tendency of Alzheimer's victims to wander by allowing the victims to ambulate in circular patterns through the facility and the adjacent court yard and by providing an electronic warning system to prevent inadvertent exit from the nursing home. Patient bathrooms are specially designed to avoid fright and confusion through the use of automatic lighting fixtures, appropriate coloring and distinctly shaped fixtures and waste baskets. Calming colors, color coding, carefully selected art work, special floor coverings and labeling are provided. Separate dining and activities areas enable the nursing home to provide programs and activities for Alzheimer's disease victims in a more effective and efficient manner than would be possible if the same areas also had to be used for non- Alzheimer's Disease victims. The proposed HCR nursing home includes a discreet area designed for an adult day care center, which will share some resources with the nursing home. The program will accommodate 12 persons and be operated in accordance with adult day care regulations. The physical spaces include an entry separate from the main nursing home entry, a lobby, an office, a therapeutic kitchen for use by the patients, toilet facilities, an activities center, and a lounge with an adjacent covered porch. The adult day care program will be staffed by a nurse director, an assistant and volunteers. The participants in this program will be provided with various activities of daily living in an environment developed for Alzheimer's Disease victiMs. This program is intended to provide placement for persons not yet in need of in-patient care and will provide an alternative to premature nursing home admission. Manor Care's Proposal. Manor Care proposes a dedicated 30-bed specialized unit for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. In 1985, Manor Care perceived the need to treat Alzheimer's patients in a manner different than patients in the general nursing home population. Manor Care's task force of nurses, administrators, architects, and designers developed an Alzheimer's program which recognizes the special needs of the patient. Manor Care now operates 21 special dedicated Alzheimer's units throughout the country and is planning 16 additional Alzheimer's units. Manor Care's comprehensive Alzheimer's program encompasses five components: (1) environment, (2) staffing and training, (3) programming, (4) specialized medical services, and (5) family support. Environment. The proposed 30-bed Alzheimer's unit will be separate from the rest of the facility and self-contained, with its own dining room, activities room, lounge, quiet/privacy room, nurses sub-station, director's office, and outdoor courtyard. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's residents enables staff to provide individualized attention and special assistance. By providing a simple and separate dining environment, residents are no longer embarrassed by confusion and agitation displayed in the presence of non-Alzheimer's residents during mealtime. A separate lounge area is provided for families to visit with residents. In a typical nursing center, the family must visit a confused resident in the presence of other families; families of Alzheimer's residents can find this embarrassing. A separate lounge makes visitation more desirable for Alzheimer's residents and families. The quiet/privacy room can be used by families as a quiet area to visit with a family member, by residents who want to spend time alone, or by staff persons and residents for individualized programming away from the activity on the unit. The outdoor courtyard, which is enclosed and accessible to the unit through the activities room and hallway door, allows Alzheimer's residents to walk outside freely without wandering off. The Manor Care Alzheimer's unit is specially designed with features which reduce environmental stress by minimizing glare (using parabolic lenses), noise and bold patterns which increase agitation in Alzheimer's residents. Throughout the unit, a residential, uncluttered atmosphere is emphasized, using soft, contrasting colors and textures. The unit also contains visual cues to increase orientation. Furnishings are functional, durable and easy to maintain. Staffing and Training. The Alzheimer's unit has its own specialized staff including a Unit Director, Activities Director, and nursing staff. The unit is staffed at a higher "nurse to resident" ratio than the rest of the facility. Staffing patterns emphasizu continuity to ensure that residents receive individualized care. The nurses become f;i1iar with the behavior and abilities of each resident and are able to render care appropriately. Programming. The goal of programming and activities in the Alzheimer's unit is to improve the quality of life of the Alzheimer's resident. This specialized programming results in reducing the use of medications and restraints necessary to manage the Alzheimer's resident. The Manor Care Alzheimer's activity program is success-oriented; staff provide activities designed to allow Alzheimer's residents to succeed more frequently. (They usually fail when mixed in with the general nursing home population.) specialized Medical Services. The use of consultant medical specialists is an integral part of Manor Care's Alzheimer's Program. Specialists provide diagnostic and treatment services for Alzheimer's residents upon admission to the unit, and thereafter when deemed medically appropriate. Family support. Family support is another important aspect of the Manor Care Alzheimer's program. Families are very supportive of the unit's programming and have benef itted from the understanding and support available to them. The Others' Proposals. None of the other applicants propose specialized units for the care of patients with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's sufferers will be treated in an "open unit" at the HHL facility and will be placed as compatibly as possible with other residents. Although these residents will be able to intermingle with other residents, their movements will be monitored by the "wander guard" system and all doors will be equipped with buzzers connected to the nurse's stations. The HHL facility will be designed to incorporate secure courtyards and other areas where residents will be free to wander safely throughout the living areas. The facility's nursing personnel will be specially trained to provide services to Alzheimer's sufferers. The proposed HHL facility will also offer an adult Alzheimer's day care program. Although the program will be small (accommodating between four to six individuals) it will interface with the Alzheimer's program offered to the in-house residents. As with the respite program, the Alzheimer's adult day care program will give the families of Alzheimer's disease sufferers an opportunity to take a breather during the day, and the participants will benefit from the special Alzheimer's programs and activities offered. With its proposed 60-bed addition, Palm Court plans to add a program directed specifically at persons suffering from Alzheimers and related brain disorders. Currently, it does not have one. Neither FCP nor Forum make any particular provision for the care of Alzheimer's patients. FCP points out that its facilities in other states historically have cared for this special category of patient, primarily through use of high quality, thereapy-oriented programs, especially at the earlier stages of the disease. Cypress proposes to locate off of a central core: a 60-bed nursing home, offering both intermediate and skilled care, with its own recreation area and dining, serviced from the central kitchen; (2) a 20-bed assisted living unit (which Cypress also calls "supportive care") for mentally frail and physically strong individuals which has its own outdoor recreation area and dining area; and (3) another 40 assisted living beds broken into two 20-unit wings for mentally strong and physically frail individuals, with their own dining and recreation area, including outdoor recreation. The various levels of care are separate since each of the levels have different needs and methods of treatment. However, Cypress will only accept in the mentally frail, physically strong wing, Alzheimer's-type patients who are in the earlier stages of the disease. QUALITY OF CARE. Priority/Policy 9 of the 1985 Local Health Plan states: "Applicants should be evaluated as to their achievement of superior quality ratings by DHRS and other indications of quality as available." Track Record. At the time of application, three of the nursing homes operated by HCR in Florida had superior licenses and the remaining homes had standard licenses. FCP has one nursing home in Florida. It is rated standard by DHRS. None of the facilities operated by FCP's principals, the Phillipses, has ever been in receivership or had a Medicaid or Medicare certification revoked. The Phillipses have an excellent reputation in Ohio for their operation and management of nursing homes and have remained in positive standing with federal and state certification agencies. Manor Care's proposed 60-bed addition will be owned by Manor Care of Florida, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor HealthCare Corporation. Manor HealthCare Corporation is a publicly-held corporation which owns and operates about 130 nursing homes in various states. Manor Care owns and operates nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLFs) in Florida. All nine Florida nursing homes exceed DHRS licensure standards; the majority of Manor Care's Florida facilities hold a superior license rating. Manor Care has never had a license denied, revoked, or suspended in Florida. Manor Care has opened three nursing homes in Florida in recent years. All three are superior rated. Palm Court Nursing Home has a superior license, with zero deficiencies, from DHRS' Office of Licensure and Certification with the most recent inspection having occurred between May 2 and May 4 immediately preceding the beginning of the final hearing. It is managed by National Health Corp., Murpheesboro, Tennessee. National Health Corp is an owner-operator of other facilities and either owns or operates some 19 facilities in Florida. It has managed Palm Court Nursing Home since its inception and, if the 60 bed addition is approved, will manage the addition. Forum has never had a license denied, revoked or suspended, nor had a facility placed in receivership. Forum has never had any nursing home placed in receivership at any time during its ownership, management or leasing. Forum has a history of providing quality of care and owns and operates facilities in other states which hold superior ratings. Forum has a corporate policy of seeking to attain a superior rating in those states which have such a system. Forum presently owns and operates one facility in Florida. That facility is rated standard and was acquired by Forum within the past two years. That facility, which only has 35 nursing beds, is not a prototype of what Forum proposes in this case. Seventeen (17) of the twenty-one (21) nursing homes currently managed by CSI are located in states which utilize a superior rating system. Of the facilities that are eligible to receive superior licenses, CSI maintains superior ratings in over 80 percent of its beds. CSI's Sun Terrace in Sun City Center was the subject of an extensive survey issued by the Office of Licensure and Certification, an arm of DHRS, in April, 1988, that cited numerous deficiencies in the areas of quality of care, staffing, and programs at the Sun Terrace facility. The licensure survey also cited violations of state and federal laws in the handling of controlled substances and problems with resident care plans at the facility. The findings of DHRS in its licensure survey of Sun Terrace appear to be serious matters, the resolution of which is clearly within the control of CSI. Following the opening of the second 60 beds at Sun Terrace in September, 1987, the facility experienced a shortage of nursing personnel which necessitated a greater use of agency personnel to staff the facility. The problems cited by DHRS at Sun Terrace were largely the result of the increased use of agency personnel, lack of documentation, a newly licensed administrator, and the unexpected resignation of the director of nursing. Even before the DHRS licensure survey, CSI had taken affirmative action to address the problems at Sun Terrace, including a voluntary moratorium on new admissions. In response to the recent problems at Sun Terrac, CSI has moved toward more centralized management of its facilities. CSI now requires administrators to adhere very closely to the corporate policies and procedures. Further, the addition of a second full-time nurse/consultant will double the frequency of quality of care monitoring visits at CSI facilities. The problems experienced at Sun Terrace are atypical of CSI-managed facilities. When CSI's policies and procedures are properly followed, the result is excellent nursing care and services. But the problems at Sun Terrace are examples of what can happen when an organization attempts to expand operations more rapidly than it should. In this connection, CSI has received seven CONs since July 1984. Two of the seven are preliminary approvals that have been challenged and have not yet gone to hearing. One was the 60-bed addition to Sun Terrace which is now licensed. Another is a 73-bed nursing home in Brevard County which is expected to open within the next several months, and another is a 21-bed addition project in Collier County. Cypress has never operated a nursing home and has no track record. Staffing. Staffing arrangments are important considerations in assessing the quality of care to be expected from a proposal, but there is not necessarily a proportional correlation between staffing and quality. How staffing affects quality also depends on the breadth and types of programs to be offered. For example, Alzheimer's programs and sub-acute care will require higher staffing ratios. HCR, FCP, Manor Care, Palm Court and Forum all propose staffing arrangments that meet or exceed state requirements. See Findings Of Fact 1-5, above. Cypress' application, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired in its proposed staffing. The staffing plan presented by Cypress on its Updated Table 11 fails to meet the requirements of Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. Specifically, no provision has been made for an activity director (10D-29.116), a medical director (10D-29.107), a pharmacy consultant (10D-29.112), or a medical records consultant (10D-29.118), all of which are required by rule. (Cypress attempted to explain that it would have a pharmacy consultant on contract who would bill patients separately.) Further, no provision has been made for utilization review to monitor the appropriateness of the placement of residents, as required by Rule 10D-29. Cypress' Updated Table 11 provides for LPNs of 1.5 FTEs on the first shift and night shift and 6.0 FTEs on the second shift. The second shift LPN coverage is over-staffed by 4 1/2 FTEs which will result in inefficiency. Rule 10D-29.108, F.A.C., requires staffing of nursing assistants on all shifts. The Cypress staffing plan makes no provision for nursing assistants on the second shift. In testimony, Cypress attempted to explain that Table 11 was wrong and that the second shift LPNs should have been aides. The proposes Cypress nursing home will not offer 24-hour RN coverage. The third shift has no RN coverage. Based upon the proposed staffing pattern appearing in Cypress' Updated Table 11, its proposed facililty would not qualify for licensure under Florida regulations, much less qualify for a superior rating. Cypress has not secured or identified the day-to-day management of the proposed nursing home. No medical director has been secured or identified. Quality Assurance programs. All of the applicants except Cypress have existing quality assurance (QA) programs that are adequate to assL're quality of care. From the evidence HCR's, Manor Care's, HHL's and Forum's QA programs are comparable and are the best among the applicants. Palm Court has had results comparable to or better than the others , which is itself evidence of an adequate QA program. Meanwhile, CSI, despite an evidently superior QA program, has experienced quality programs due to rapid fill-up of its 60 additiional beds at Sun Terrace. Cypress has no experience operating a nursing home. Not surprisingly, it professes to desire quality and to plan to implement stringent QA programs. But its plans at this stage are not as developed and detailed as the existing QA programs being used by the other applicants at other facilities. Other Factors. Whether Therapies Are In-House or Contracted. Assuming a need for it, and reasonable cost of providing it, provision of therapies--e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy-- in-house generally is preferable to providing them by contracts with third parties. From an operational and administrative perspective, there are advantages to providing physical therapy services (PT) on an in- house basis. Contracted physical therapy staff tend to be available only for scheduled treatments; in-house staff are always available to assist staff and perform unscheduled maintenance therapy. In-house physical therapy staff work regularly with the nursing home staff. They are present within the facility anc learn the operation of the nursing home facility better than outside agencies. Manor Care proposes to provide in-house physical therapy staff, as opposed to employing outside physical therapy staff on a contract basis. The evidence was that the other applicants plan to provide all of these therapies through third- party contracts. Palm Court has one full-time PT assistant who works under the direction of a licensed physical therapist who now divides time among three 120- bed nursing homes managed by National Health Corp. The service of this licensed physical therapist is provided as part of National Health Corp's management services. Having to cover another 60 beds at Palm Court will spread the service even thinner. In addition, Palm Court's administrator conceded that the single PT assistant in Palm Court's application will not be enough once 60-beds are added to the facility; two will be required. Of course, the trade-off (implied in Finding of Fact 102, above) for providing in-house therapy is that it is less efficient if full use of the services is not required. De-institutionalization. FCP, Forum and Cypress have made special efforts to "de- institutionalize" nursing home care at their proposed facilities. All three proposals emphasize the provision of nursing care within aresidential development--a combination of retirement apartments, assisted living accommodations and nursing home. (See also this concept's impact on Continuum of Care concerns, Findings of Fact 114-127, below.) FCP's proposed facility is designed with a residential appearance to facilitate and implement the philosophy of de-institutionalization co:tained in its application. It reflects FCP's modular approach to care with residential units in wings tied to a common area of support services. The support services are extensive. There are activities areas, craft areas, exercise rooms, therapy areas, a beauty salon and barber shop, men's and women's recreational areas, private dining rooms, a community dining room, screened patios and porches, a newsstand, a bank, a post office, a library, a chapel, a screened-in gazebo, and a swimming pool. The exterior amenities of the design include a pond, an exercise course, a sitting deck, and a putting green. The center core and its recreation and therapy programs are designed to encourage interact ion among the residents in all the different levels of care. Although the third floor, where the nursing home is located, also has a secondary lounge and supplemental dining area, the primary dining area, as well as all of the other amenities, are on the first floor to enhance the interaction. The 30-bed size of FCP's proposed nursing home unit is a part of the original Phillips concept of a de- institutionalized setting, enabling the provision of more personalized care. Where there are fewer residents to care for, a better rapport between the residents and the care givers and a more family-type, personal atmosphere are achieved. This 30-bed concept previously has been approved by the Department in Lee and Polk Counties. Those projects are operationally, structurally, and physically identical to this proposed project. The symmetrical, 3-story design minimizes the amount of travel distance for the resident at the farthest unit to the amenities of the center core and its services. The nursing unit is on the third and smallest floor so that the distance by elevator to the central core for the nursing home iesidents is at a minimum'while still providing those residents with the greatest opportunity for quiet time. Privacy is an essential element in achieving high quality of care. The semi-private room plan utilized in this proposal is a unique approach to maximizing privacy for each resident. A permanent partial partition separating the two beds in each room effectively creates two private rooms. This provides a private space for each resident with his or her own thermostat, window, storage space, television, and telephone accommodation, and heightened auditory privacy. There will be equal access to and control of the vestibule and bathroom for each resident. The 585 gross square feet per bed in the FCP proposal is approximately one-third greater than standard nursing home room configuration. Forum's proposal's chief effort in furtherance of the goal of deinstitutiona1izationother than the continuum of care concept and overall residential appearance--is in the relatively large and "up-scale" living areas. The Cypress facility will include a central core dividing the two 60- bed portions of the project. The central core will include an administrative area, a chapel, a beauty and barber shop, enclosed courtyard, physical and occupational therapy, dining, a central kitchen, and a laundry area. One trade-off for de-institutionalization is cost. Both FCP and Forum generally cost more than the others. Cypress claims not to, but its projected construction cost of $49 per square foot is unrealistically low. See Findings of Fact 147 and 149, below. PROGRAMS (OTHER THAN ALZHEIMER'S). Continnum of Care. As just alluded to, several of the proposals emphasize the placement of their nursing home within a larger community of persons needing different levels of care. FCP. FCP proposes the construction of a 30-bed nursing unit as part of a family owned and operated, 120-unit, full continuum of care facility for the elderly. The facility also contains 60 independent living apartments and 30 adult congregate living units. The full continuum of care is proposed in a uniquely designed, de-institutionalized, home-like atmosphere. FCP offers a therapeutic community offering individualized, personalIzed care in small self- contained units, each specializing in various levels of care ranging from day care and respite care, through apartments for the elderly and assisted living, to skilled, post-hospital rehabilitation. The continuum of care will provide a homogeneous environment through which residents can move as their medical and personal needs change. Forum. Forum Group, Inc., is a national company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers in a number of states. Forum's proposed nursing home will be part of a total retirement living center containing two other levels of care, assisted living (or ACLF units) and independent apartment units. Forum's proposal calls for provision of a continuum of care, from independent living to assisted living to nursing care, all on the same campus. Cypress. Cypress Total Care would be part of an overall medical project known as Cypress Park. The corporation was formed and a master plan was created, to be developed in two phases. Phase I is a 120-bed nursing facility consisting of 60 skilled and intermediate nursing beds, the subject of these proceedings, and 60 personal care units. Phase II would consist of a 290-unit adult congregate living facility (ACLF) and 143 units of independent villa housing on a golf course with nature trails and other amenities. Also proposed in Phase II would be units of medical offices and commercial health-related facilities to support the community. The area selected by Cypress is adjacent to the Sun Hill Medical Arts Building and the Community Arts Building, as well as a hospital owned by Hospital Corporation of America known as Sun City Hospital. These components would be worked into the overall master plan proposed by Cypress. Cypress proposes a multi-level assessment program. The 120-bed Cypress Park Community facility will have an independent level one facility in Sun City Center which will admit healthy elderly residents. These elderly may have canes, but no walkers or wheelchairs, and they will function normally in their activities of daily living. These individuals may prepare two meals a day in their apartments, or have them in the dining room. The main meal will be in the dining room. Social services and activities will be provided and recommended to the independent living residents to enhance their lifestyles. A home health agency is planned as a part of the center so that house calls can be made to insure that any necessary medications are taken and that residents receive the services they might need from time to time. (Cypress has not yet applied for a CON for its home health agency.) The next level of living is for patients who need more assistance. These are residents who require 24-hour companion service. These patients do not require skilled nursing care and do not require the institutional environment of a nursing home. Some of these paients may be in the first stage of Alzheimer's, or they may be physically frail, but not enough to require skilled nursing care. This level is primarily for those individuals who are physically frail and mentally strong or mentally frail and physically strong. The physically frail and mentally strong may have limited ambulatory capabilities, need assistance in activities of daily living, need medication, or need all their meals prepared. As noted above, this level of services also will be provided to individuals who are physically strong but mentally frail. The majority of these people will be Alzheimer's residents, they must be carefully monitored 24 hours a day and receive strong psychological support. The next level of care offered is for individuals who require some nursing care and no longer qualify for the level two care described above. This will be intermediate nursing care and will consist of care from certified nursing aides and licensed practical nurses. These individuals do not require skilled nursing care. Rehabilitation is the key to this portion of the plan, and the rehabilitative center will be involved to constantly push these individuals to the point of rehabilitation where they can reenter an independent lifestyle. If individuals progress further, they can move into the skilled nursing care center in which they will receive care not only from nursing aides and licensed practical nurses, but also from registered nurses. The final level would be acute hospital care which would be provided by the existing Sun City Hospital. The medical staff who are involved in the Cypress project also are on the medical staff of the Sun City Hospital and will be working and consulting with individuals both in the acute hospital care and the nursing home setting to provide appropriate levels of care to the individuals who need it. The nursing home will share IV teams, work with tracheotomy patients, A.D.A. dieticians, accounting services, and other services with the existing hospital in Sun City Center. Palm Court. Palm Court, while currently a free-standing 120- bed nursing home, is located on property where construction of a 360-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) is now starting. In addition, Palm Court has transfer agreements with area hospitals including Plant City Hospital, South Florida Baptist Hospital, Brandon Humana Hospital and Lakeland Regional Medical Center. It also has formal working relationships with home health agencies and with elderly programs in the area. The Others. The other applicants--HCR, Manor Care and HHL-- propose free-standing nursing homes. But all can be expected to make efforts to achieve transfer and other agreements with local hospitals, home health agencies and providers of care for the elderly where reasonable and appropriate. Sub-Acute Care. The HCR nursing home will be staffed and equipped to provide sub- acute care. The sub-acute care services provided by HCR will include high tech services such as ventilator care, IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation, and short and long term rehabilitation. HCR currently provides a wide variety of these sub-acute services in its existing nursing homes. CSI currently provides sub-acute nursing services at its existing Florida facilities. Those services include ventilators, hyperalimentation, intravenous therapy, Clinitron beds, heparin pumps, nosogastric and Jejunoscopy tube feedings, subclavian lines, and Hickman catheters. These service will be provided at HHL's proposed facility. Forum will provide skilled and intermediate care, and the following services will be offered at the proposed facility: Sterile dressing changes for decubitus care. Brittle diabetics on sliding scale insulin. Continuous administration of oxygen. Sterile case of tracheotomies. Ventilators. Continuous bladder irrigation. Hyper-alimentation or N-G feeding. IV treatment. Special medication monitoring (e.g. heparin, comadin). New post-operative cases facing hospital discharge as a result of D.R.G. reimbursement. The skilled nursing services to be provided by FCP include parenteral nutrition, internal nutrition, tracheostomy care, respirator care, skin wound decubitus care, ostomy care, and head trauma care. Palm Court also will provide sub-acute care. Adult Day Care Adult day care is a part of the specialized Azfleimer's program HCR proposes. In addition, HHL, FCP and Forum offer adult day care. Respite Care. HCR and Manor Care offer respite care as part of their Alzheimer's programs. Both will have no minimum length of stay and no extra charge over the regular daily rate for nursing home care. All the others except Palm Court also offer respite care, but Cypress' proposal for respite care is sketchy. HHL says it will offer respite care at no extra charge. D. Hospice. Only HCR, Forum and HHL offer hospice care as part of their nursing home programs. F. Rehabilitation and Community Outreach. All of the applicants propose rehabilitative (or restorative) care and some kind of community outreach programs. The distinctions among the ideas expressed by the applicants are not particularly competitively significant. However, the manner in which the therapies are delivered can be significant. See Finding of Facts 102 to 105, above. HOW SOON THE PROJECT BECOMES OPERATIONAL. Because there is a shortage of nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, there is a valid concern how long it would take for the holder of a CON to get its facility operational. Priority/Policy 3 of the 1985 Local Health Plan gives expression to this concern as follows: In competitive reviews, preference should be given to applicants with a documented history of implementing certificates of need within the statutory time frames. Of the applicants who have developed nursing homes in the past (i.e., excluding Cypress), all but Palm Court have a history of timely implementing their CONs. Palm Court had to request an extension of time in implementing its existing 120-bed facility. But Palm Court bought the CON for that project from the original owners in 1982 or 1983. Palm Court then had to secure another, more suitable location, re-design the facility, get construction financing and enter into a construction contract before construction could begin. This delayed the project and resulted in administrative litigation to decide whether Palm Court should lose the CON for failure to timely implement it or be given an extension of time. Palm Court prevailed, and the facility opened in September, 1985. HHL, through CSI, also has a history of timely implementing CONs but recent expansion in Florida raises some question whether it can continue to be as timely in implementing this CON, along with the others. See Findings of Fact 82-87,98, and 100, above. Generally, an addition of beds to an existing nursing home can be constructed more quickly than a new facility, giving Palm Court an advantage in potential speed of implementation. similarly, Manor Care, which is prepared to begin construction on its finally approved 60-bed CON, has an advantage over the others, as well as a potential construction cost savings over Palm Court. See Findings of Fact 146, below. COST OF CARE. Cost of Construction And Development. Advantage of Additions. Within limits placed on recovery of capital costs under the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement programs now in place (which, to some extent, are emulated by private health care insurers and employers' health benefit plans), construction and development costs generally are reflected in the charges patients pay for nursing home care. Additions, such as Palm Court's and Manor Care's proposals, have a cost advantage over the other proposals. Construction sites already have been prepared, and it is not ncessary to duplicate some features already incorporated in the original structure, such as the kitchen, laundry and building plant. Due to delays in finalization of its approved CON for 60 beds, Manor Care has the fortuitous additional potential cost advantage of being able to construct both the "original facility" and the 60-bed "addition" at the same time. Quality vs. Cost Trade-Off. Other than the cost advantage of adding on, and of saving the contractor's fee by using an in-house construction team (as HCR does), reduced cost of construction generally will reflect reduced quality. For example, some of the quality features incorporated in the proposals of Forum, FCP and Cypress will cost more. See Finding of Fact 113, above. Put another way, lower costs may result in lower patient charges but also may result in lower quality, everything else being equal. The costs of construction of the various proposals may be found in Findings of Fact 1 to 7, above. It should also be noted at this point that Cypress' facility design has features--primarily unusual wall and roof angles and one water heater requiring larger pipe sizing-- which make its construction costs appear lower than they should be. Cost Overruns. The applicants' respective records for cost overruns in implementing CONs mirror their records for timeliness. See Findings of Fact 138-143, above. Cypress has no track record; all the others except Palm Court have experienced no cost overruns; Palm Court's $1.3 million cost overrun was precipitated by the need to secure another site and re-design the facility after it acquired the CON for 120 beds; and CSI, which would be responsible for implementing HHL's proposal, is involved in recent expansion which could affect its ability to bring all of its' CONs on line within budget. Cost of Operations. Economies of Scale--Size of Facility. In addition to construction and development costs, cost of operations are reflected in patient charges. It generally is accepted that a 120-bed nursing home is the optimal size for operational efficiencies. In this respect, the proposals by HCR, Forum and HHL have an advantage over the others. Manor Care has the advantage of proposing to expand a less efficient 60-bed nursing home to an optimally efficient 120-bed facility. To some extent, the generally accepted principle that 120-bed nursing homes are more desirable may have become dated. Two of the proposals--FCP's and Cypress'--combine some of the operating efficiencies of a 120-bed nursing home with the continuum of care and quality of care that can be achieved in a 120-bed living complex that incorporates a smaller nursing unit with other living units of different levels of care. By c(Jmparison, these type facilities are less institutionalized than a 120-bed nursing home, whether free-standing or incorporated within a larger complex with other living units. See Findings of Fact 106 to 113, above. Economies of Scale--Size of Organization. Economies of scale also can be realized from the size of the organization that owns or manages a nursing home. The proposals of all of the applicants except Cypress benefit from this principle, Palm Court to a lesser extent than the others, including in the area of quality assurance, nurse training and nurse recruiting. At the time of hearing, HCR operated nine nursing homes in Florida. HCR has approximately twelve nursing homes scheduled to begin construction in Florida within the next year. Nationwide, HCR operates more than 125 facilities containing approximately 16,000 beds. HCR has designed and built over 200 nursing homes and related health care facilities. HCR realizes substantial savings by using national contracts for the purchase of furniture, equipment, hardware and other operating supplies. Forum, as a national company, has the experience and purchasing power to cut operational costs through national purchase contracts and through economies and improvements experienced at the local level with a total retirement facility all on one campus. The Manor Care Florida Regional Office offers the services of a Regional Director, a Regional Nurse, a Nurse Recruiter, and a Comptroller to work with the corresponding departments of the Manor Care Florida nursing homes. FCP's long term plans are to develop homes in clusters, currently concentrating on the central west coast area of Florida. FCP has previously been granted certificates of need in Lee County and Polk County and has been recommended by the Department for a certificate of need in Hillsborough County. This cluster will operate under a unified local administration and share rehabilitative, medical, social, dietary and transportation personnel, enhancing economies of operation. CSI was formed in 1978 for the purpose of operating extended care facilities, including nursing homes and retirement centers. Since that time, the company has grown to its current operations of twenty-one (21) nursing homes, two (2) retirement centers and one (1) home for the aged located in seven states. Historically, much of this growth has occurred through the acquisition of existing facilities, although more recently the focus has shifted to the development of new facilities. Because CSI has established "national accounts" for the acquisition of movable equipment CSI can purchase nursing home equipment and furnishings and other operating supplies for HHL at reduced prices. (3) Patient Charges. The applicants propose the following room charges for semi-private rooms. Applicant Medicaid Medicare Private Pay HCR 60.94 76.00 75.00 FCP 60.00 65.00 80.00 Manor Care 1/ 69.37 ---- 72.57 HHL 66.30 109.33 2/ 72.76 Forum 67.18 80.67 79.50 Palm Court 77.00 100.00 77.00 Cypress 58.00 65.00 69.00 However, Cypress' charges are suspect; they probably are unrealistically low. Palm Court's charges also are suspect. It is difficult to understand from the evidence whether they are charges or Medicaid reimbursements. It also is difficult to tell if they are current or projected. In any event, they do not relate to the information in Palm Court's pro forma. As previously alluded to, patient charges do not necessarily proportionately reflect construction and development and operating efficiencies. They also are affected by programs and quality. BUILDING DESIGN AND ENERGY FEATURES. Patient Care and Safety. Overall, HCR's design is excellent. Functional elements are effectively inter-related, the building is designed to be open to landscaping, sunlight and court yards, and there is a wide range of amenities. Cypress' patient rooms are smaller than allowed under state requirments. The state minimum in Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code, is 80 net square feet per bed for multi-bed and 100 net square feet in a single room. Cypress' proposal only has approximately 65.58 gross square feet per bed. Cypress' building design also has rooms that are approximately 130 feet from the nurses' stations and clean utility and soiled utility rooms, 10 feet over the state maximum under Rule 10D-29.121(24), Florida Administrative Code. Forum's :4 floor plan also violates this standard. Rule 10D-29.121(6), Florida Administrative Code, requires a 20 foot clear view out room windows. Cypress' design also violates this standard. Manor Care's floorplan is the most compact one- story design. It has four compact wings off a central core. Forum proposes a two-story structure, creating a potential increased hazard for patients with reduced mobility. But DHRS rules provide for nursing homes of more than one floor, and required safety features, which Forum will provide, keep the potential to an insignificant minimum. FCP proposes a three-story facility with the nursing home on the third floor adjacent to the elevators connecting it to the first floor central core and amenities. FCP, too, adequately addresses DHRS safety concerns and actually could be more convenient to more nursing home patients than a one-story structure. Energy Conservation Features. All of the applicants propose to insulate their facilities for energy efficiency, some, e.q., HHL, somewhat better than others. Building design itself also affects energy consumption. Cypress' high exterior building surface area makes it a less energy-efficient design; Manor Care's compact design aces it a more energy-efficient design. FCP's three-story design also is a more energy-efficient design. Cypress' design incorporates only one water heater. This will produce line loss and lower energy efficiency, as well as potential total loss of hot water. (Cypress also has only one electrical plant.) Other Unique Design Features. Several unique features in FCP's room design helps "de- institutionalize" the facility and contributes to overall quality of care. Similarly, residents at FCP will be able to offer their guests refreshments from the kitchen at any time of the day or nights and children, spouses, and entire families will be encouraged to join residents for meals as often as they wish, assisting in the maintenance of ties with the community. Dining may be either communal or in the several lounge areas and private dining rooms. One of Cypress' unique design features is of the bizarre and morbid variety--a room designed to store deceased residents. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY. The short-term and long-term feasibility of the proposals of HCR, FCP, Manor Care, Forum and HHL was never seriously questioned and was easily proven. Not so with Palm Court and Cypress. Palm Court. The duty to defend the immediate and long term financial feasibility of Palm Court's project rested with Steve Jones. Mr. Jones, who was not involved in the preparation of the application, offered his opinion that the Palm Court 60-bed addition would be feasible in the immediate and long terms. In giving his opinion of the project's financial feasibility, Mr. Jones stated he believed the pro forma in years 1 and 2 relate back to the corresponding tables in the application; but acknowledged he performed no analysis of his own, but rather he took the information provided him at face value. The pro forma is one of the key components of an application, as literally the heart of the application ties directly or indirectly into developing the pro forma, including Tables 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 25, as well as the amortization schedule. It is a required component of the application. Section 381.494(4)(e), F.S. (1985). Mr. Jones was asked to render an opinion on the reasonableness of Tables 8, 10, 11 and 25, which he did. On cross examination, however, Mr. Jones acknowledged he did not evaluate existing staff at Palm Court to determine the reasonableness of the pro forma. He did not verify the projected management fee and, in fact, stated he didn't know if it was included as a line item under "administration and general" on the pro forma nor how the management fee was computed. Mr. Jones, who has never prepared all the financial information in a CON application, also admitted he didn't know what current nursing salaries were in Hillsborough County, or any other salaries for that matter. He further acknowledged that he could not testify that the application's hourly wage times the number of working hours in a year would give you the stated nursing salaries. In sum, Mr. Jones admitted his opinion of the project's feasibility was based solely on his review of Tables 8, 11, 20 and 25 and his firm's involvement in the preparation of Palm Court's two most recent cost reports and not on the pro forma filed with Palm Court's application. Mr. Jones' accounting firm, in preparing Palm Court's cost reports, does not conduct an audit or express any opinion relating to the reasonableness of the statement of revenues and expenses. Joseph Lennartz, an expert in financial feasibility analysis, gave persuasive testimony outlining the inconsistencies in Palm Court's application. Palm Court's total revenue projections appearing in Table 7 for years 1 and 2 do correspond to the daily room and board revenues appearing in the pro forma, yet none of the Table 7 revenue projections correspond to the projected charges on Table 8. Assuming the salaries on Table 11 do not include fringe benefits, all FTE's and salaries on Table 11 are not accounted for in the pro forma. The pro forma salaries are significantly lower than on Table 11: RNs ,- understated by $12,426 LPNs - understated by $30,518 CNAS -understated by $239,541 Social Worker - understated by $2,983 Dietary - understated by $3,009 Maintenance - understated by $10,165 Activities - understated by $4,486 Housekeeping - understated by $6,365 Laundry & Linen - understated by $6,498 Admin & General - understated by $2,560 Palm Court's salary information on Table 11 is in 1987 dollars and needs to be inflated forward at least two to three years. Palm Court's current average salaries exceeded the proposed salaries on Table 11--including the administrator's salary, proposed at an annual salary of just over $31,000 when it actually was over $50,000 in 1987. Based on Palm Court's answers to interrogatories, Palm Court's management fee is not accurately reflected in the pro forma and is $44,559 too low in year 2; the projected dietary expense is understated by $112,386 in year 2; the projected housekeeping expense is understated by $46,609 in year 2; the projected laundry expense is understated by $35,308 in year 2; and plant expenses are understated by $100,116 in year 2. The terms of debt financing appearing on Table 2 of Palm Court's application do not conform to the amortization table, causing the interest expense line item on the pro forma to be understated. Cypress. As previously alluded to, the reasonableness of Cypress' projected Medicaid and Medicare rates appearing on its Updated Table 8 has not been established by competent substantial evidence. The Cypress pro forma fails to make provision for interest expense, depreciation, and property tax expense. These omissions represent an understatement of expenses as follows: YEAR ONE YEAR TWO INTEREST $177,818 $176,186 DEPRECIATION $110,000 $100,000 PROPERTY TAXES 2,200 25,000 (at assessed value 75 percent of market) TOTAL $290,018 $301,186 When interest, depreciation, and property taxes are included in the Cypress pro forma, the result is a loss of $90,000 in year one and $80,000 in year two. Furthermore, from a cash flow perspective, Cypress will incur a cash loss of $2,037 in year one and a cash gain of just $6,342 in year two. If property taxes are based on an assessed value at 100 percent of fair market value, there would be a $2,000 cash loss even in year two. It is not unusual for a nursing home to experience a negative cash flow in its first year of operation due to its low occupancy. However, it is unusual for a nursing home to experience a negative cash flow, as the Cypress facility will, while operating at optimal occupancy (95 percent). Cypress' owner/investors are willing to proceed with the project because they expect to be able to use some of the approximately $90,000 per year tax loss in years one and two to offset personal income, resulting in a cash on cash return of approximately $23,000 or 5.4 percent. Cypress' Table 1, "source of funds" states that the applicant has $425,000 "in hand". In fact, Cypress does not have those funds in hand. They are in the hands of the Cypress owner/investors. So far they have contributed $90,000 to the venture and will have to contribute not only an additional $425,000 to fund the nursing home but also an unspecified larger sum to fund Cypress planned ACLF and other projects. The evidence suggests that at least $425,000 more of equity contribution would be required for the rest of the project. Cypress did not prove that its proposed facility is financially feasible, either in the immediate or long term. BALANCED CONSIDERATION. Giving a balanced consideration to all of the statutory and rule factors addressed in the preceding findings, it is found that there is a net need for 231 community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, that the applications of HCR, FCP and Manor Care should be granted and that the other applications should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting the applications of HCR (CON Action No. 5000), FCP (CON Action No. 4993) and Manor Care (CON Action No. 5006) and denying the applications of Forum (CON Action No. 4999), HHL (CON Action No. 4978) Palm Court (CON Action No. 4987) and Cypress (CON Action No. 5004). RECOMMENDED this 14th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 14th day of November, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Danette Wilkins was licensed by the Board of Nursing and held License #17317-2 issued by the Board. Respondent was given notice of the formal hearing as required by mail at 321 North Clark Street, Starke, Florida 32091. Neither the notice nor other mail sent to her by the Hearing Officer was returned. Notice is deemed adequate, and Respondent did not appear or request a continuance. By order of the Board Respondent's license as a registered nurse was suspended from April 24, 1981, until April 23, 1982, one year from receipt of the signed Counter-Stipulation by the Board. Barbara M. Hunter, the Administrator of Tanglewood Nursing Home, was present at the termination of the home's employee known as Danette Wilkins (date of birth: 10/07/36; Social Security #262-48-7112). The employee spoke with Hunter about her prior employment and disciplinary problems with the Board of Nursing. The employee was Danette Wilkins. Respondent was employed at Tanglewood Nursing Home from June 16, 1981, until July 18, 1981, as a registered nurse and performed the duties of a registered nurse during the course of her employment. At the time she was employed her license was suspended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Danette Wilkins be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Danette Rae Wilkins 321 North Clark Street Starke, Florida 32091 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
