Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $9,000.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 1 Filed December 26, 2012 3:52 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 3. The six-month survey cycle is imposed and conditional licensure status is imposed beginning on 9/19/2011 and ending on 10/06/2011. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this al day of Decente — , 2012.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this sh ay of , 2012. Richard Shoop, Agency k Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit | (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Tria Lawton-Russell Jonathan S. Grout, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Attorney for Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 2011 (Electronic Mail) Winter Park, FL 32790 (U.S. Mail) Cathy M. Sellers Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings | Electronic Mail)
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the applications of Urban Edge Family, Ltd. (Application No. 2011-236C), and Urban Edge Apartments, Ltd. (Application No. 2011-235C), are entitled to Proximity Tie-Breaker Points with regard to a "medical facility," as defined in the 2011 Universal Cycle Instructions.
Findings Of Fact Findings of Fact 1 through 29 were stipulated to by the parties and appeared in their Prehearing Stipulation. Each Petitioner is a Florida limited partnership with its address at 700 West Morse Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida 32789. Each is in the business of providing affordable rental housing units in the State of Florida. Florida Housing is a public corporation, with its address at 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32310, organized to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing and refinancing housing and related facilities in the State of Florida. Background Florida Housing administers various affordable housing programs, including the following: Housing Credit (HC) Program pursuant to section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and section 420.5099, Fla. Stat., under which Florida Housing is designated as the Housing Credit agency for the state of Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48, F.A.C.; and HOME Investments Partnerships (HOME) Program pursuant to section 420.5089, and Rule 67-48. The 2011 Universal Cycle Application, through which affordable housing developers apply for funding under the above- described affordable housing programs administered by Florida Housing, together with Instructions and Forms, comprise the Universal Application Package or UA1016 (Rev. 2-11), adopted and incorporated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004(1)(a). Because the demand for HC and HOME funding exceeds that which is available under the HC program and HOME program, respectively, qualified affordable housing developments must compete for this funding. To assess the relative merits of proposed developments, Florida Housing has established a competitive application process known as the Universal Cycle pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48. Specifically, Florida Housing's application process for the 2011 Universal Cycle, as set forth in Rule 67-48.001 through 67-48.005, involves the following: The publication and adoption by rule of a "Universal Application Package," which applicants use to apply for funding under the HC and HOME Programs administered by Florida Housing; The completion and submission of applications by developers; Florida Housing's preliminary scoring of applications (Preliminary Scoring Summary); An initial round of administrative challenges in which an applicant may take issue with Florida Housing's scoring of another application by filing a Notice of Possible Scoring Error ("NOPSE"); Florida Housing's consideration of the NOPSEs submitted, with notice (NOPSE scoring summary) to applicants of any resulting change in their preliminary scores; An opportunity for the applicant to submit additional materials to Florida Housing to "cure" any items for which the applicant was deemed to have failed to satisfy threshold or received less than the maximum score; A second round of administrative challenges whereby an applicant may raise scoring issues arising from another applicant's cure materials by filing a Notice of Alleged Deficiency ("NOAD"); Florida Housing's consideration of the Cures and NOADs submitted, with notice (final scoring summary) to applicants of any resulting change in their scores; An opportunity for applicants to challenge, by informal or formal administrative proceedings, Florida Housing's evaluation of any item in their own application for which the applicant was deemed to have failed to satisfy threshold or received less than the maximum score; Final scores, ranking of applications, and award of funding to successful applicants, including those who successfully appeal the adverse scoring of their application; and An opportunity for applicants to challenge, by informal or formal administrative proceedings, Florida Housing's final scoring and ranking of competing applications where such scoring and ranking resulted in a denial of Florida Housing funding to the challenging applicant. Petitioners timely submitted their two applications for financing in Florida Housing's 2011 Universal Cycle. In Application No. 2011-236C (DOAH Case No. 12-1615), Petitioner Urban Edge Family, Ltd., applied for $1.46 million in annual federal tax credits to help finance the development of its project, a 64-unit multi-family apartment complex in Pinellas County, Florida, known as Urban Edge--Phase II. In Application No. 2011-235C (DOAH Case No. 12-1616), Petitioner Urban Edge Apartments, Ltd., applied for $1.66 million in annual federal tax credits to help finance the development of a second project, an 80-unit multi-family apartment complex in Pinellas County, Florida, known as Urban Edge Apartments. For both applications, Petitioners initially submitted for Proximity Tie-Breaker Points medical facility coordinates purporting to be an entrance to Bayfront Medical Center in Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioners' applications were initially awarded the full 4.0 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for proximity to Bayfront Medical Center. Subsequently, competing applicants submitted NOPSEs asserting that the coordinates submitted for Bayfront Medical Center were, in fact, located at the nearby All Children's Hospital (the "Hospital"). In response to the NOPSEs filed against Petitioners' applications, Florida Housing rescinded its preliminary scoring with regard to the medical facility and awarded Petitioners zero points for proximity to a medical facility. Petitioners subsequently submitted Cures to their applications providing different medical facility coordinates, this time for the Hospital emergency department and asserting that the emergency room of the Hospital met Florida Housing's definition of "medical facility" for purposes of awarding Proximity Tie-Breaker Points. In response to the submitted Cures, competing applications filed NOADs disputing the status of the Hospital as a medical facility under the definition included in the 2011 Universal Cycle Instructions. After review of the submitted Cures and NOADs regarding the status of the Hospital emergency room as a "medical facility," Florida Housing again rejected the Hospital emergency room as a medical facility and awarded zero Proximity Tie-Breaker Points to both applications for this service. Urban Edge (235C) Application Status and Scoring The Urban Edge application (2011-235C) meets all threshold requirements for consideration for funding. The Urban Edge application (2011-235C) is entitled to 79.00 points (excluding all Tie-Breaker points). The Urban Edge application (2011-235C) is entitled to 6.00 Ability to Proceed Tie-Breaker Points. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge on the Exhibit 25 (Surveyor Certification form), submitted with its Cure for a medical facility, represent a point on the doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the emergency department at the Hospital. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure for the Tie Breaker Measurement Point (TBMP) were unchanged from its original TBMP, and they represent a point that is on the Urban Edge development site. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge for a medical facility in the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure represent a point that is within .25 miles of the Urban Edge TBMP. If the medical facility designated by Urban Edge on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure qualifies as a medical facility under Florida Housing's rules, then Urban Edge is entitled to 4.0 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for a medical facility; and Urban Edge would be entitled to a total of 34.75 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points. If Urban Edge had relied on the alleged location of the exterior entrance to Bayfront Medical Center as stated in NOPSE No. 519, then it would have received only 3.5 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for a medical facility, for a total Proximity Tie-Breaker Point score of 34.25. Urban Edge II (236C) Application Status and Scoring The Urban Edge II application (2011-236C) meets all threshold requirements for consideration for funding. The Urban Edge II application (2011-236C) is entitled to 79.00 points (excluding all Tie-Breaker points). The Urban Edge II application (2011-236C) is entitled to 6.00 Ability to Proceed Tie-Breaker Points. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge II on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure for a medical facility represent a point on the doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the emergency department at the Hospital. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge II on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure for the TBMP was unchanged from its original TBMP, and they represent a point that is on the Urban Edge II development site. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge II for a medical facility on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure represent a point that is within .25 miles of the Urban Edge II TBMP. If the medical facility designated by Urban Edge II on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure qualifies as a medical facility under Florida Housing's rules, then Urban Edge II is entitled to 4.0 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for a medical facility, and Urban Edge II would be entitled to a total of 34.00 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points. If Urban Edge II had relied on the alleged location of the exterior entrance to Bayfront Medical Center as stated in NOPSE No. 515, then it would have received only 3.5 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for a medical facility, for a total Proximity Tie-Breaker Point score of 33.50. Urban Edge II timely filed its Petition contesting Florida Housing's scoring of its application, whereupon Florida Housing forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The following Findings of Fact are based on testimony and documentary evidence presented at final hearing: Florida Housing defines medical facilities, for purposes of determining Proximity Tie Breaker Points, as "[A] hospital, state or county health clinic or walk-in clinic (that does not require a prior appointment) that provides general medical treatment or general surgical services at least five days per week to any physically sick or injured person." (This definition is found on page 34 of the Florida Housing Instructions portion of the application.)1/ All Children's Hospital is licensed by the State of Florida as a Class II hospital with 162 acute care beds, 35 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) Level 2 beds, and 62 NICU Level 3 beds. The Hospital is classified as a specialty hospital for children and is known as a pediatric health care facility. Emergency services at the Hospital are provided through an on-site emergency department. The emergency department, per the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), must provide emergency services to any person, regardless of age, who presents in an emergent state. The emergency department at the Hospital is within .25 miles of the sites proposed for Petitioners' projects. Florida Housing contends that the emergency department of the Hospital is not a medical facility as defined by Florida Housing's rules. Because the emergency department is part of a specialty hospital which serves only children, Florida Housing takes the position that the medical facility selected by Petitioners does not provide services to "any" physically sick or injured persons. Florida Housing's director, Mr. Auger, stated that no distinction is made between a hospital and its emergency room, i.e., if a hospital holds a specialty license, then the entire hospital is considered a specialty hospital. He did not opine as to the impact of EMTALA on that statement. Mr. Auger did, however, address the correlative situation of a specialty grocery store (as grocery stores are another place which can provide tie-breaker points to an applicant in close proximity). If an ethnic grocery was located near a proposed project, it could be counted for proximity points if it also met all the rule requirements for a grocery store, e.g., sufficient square footage, appropriate air conditioning, necessary food products, etc. Presumably, a specialty hospital could also satisfy the proximity requirements, so long as it met all other requirements for a medical facility. Petitioners provided a letter from the Hospital in its Cure documents which stated in full: "This letter confirms that the Emergency Center at All Children's Hospital is open 24/7 and will treat all patients in accordance with EMTALA." The letter was written by Tim Strouse, the Hospital's vice-president of facilities and support services. Mr. Strouse is not a physician. Mr. Strouse did not know the Hospital's protocol for handling non-pediatric patients in its emergency center. He was of the opinion that generally such a patient would be sent across the street to Bayfront Medical Center. However, he did believe that essentially all services offered in the Hospital were available in the emergency center. Two expert witnesses testified, in the abstract, concerning the process for treating patients who present to an emergency room.2/ It is clear that once a person appears at a specialty hospital's emergency room, there is an initial triage performed to determine the level of treatment needed. If the person requires medical care to stabilize his or her condition, such care must be provided by the emergency room under EMTALA. It does not matter whether the person would be a candidate for admission to the specialty hospital after stabilization; any and all care the hospital is authorized to provide can be given to that patient in order to resolve the emergency situation. There was no testimony provided by a physician or other health care worker from the Hospital concerning how it handled emergency center patients. Absent such testimony, it is not possible to ascertain exactly how the Hospital complies with EMTALA requirements. If, as Mr. Strouse believed, an adult patient would merely be transferred 130 feet across the street to Bayfront Medical Center without further treatment, then there would not seem to be any provision of medical services. However, if the medical experts who testified were correct and stabilization of patients involved the provision of medical services, then the Hospital may be a medical facility under the Florida Housing rules. The Hospital representative was provided several scenarios involving the treatment of different kinds of patients presenting with various and sundry ailments. In each case, the representative, who was not a physician, attempted to suggest how the Hospital might treat those individuals. The representative could not opine, however, as to whether general medical treatment would be provided in any of the scenarios. From the evidence presented, the Hospital provides an extensive array of services to its pediatric patients, including, but not limited to: cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, colon and rectal surgery, endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology, internal medicine, nephrology, neurology, obstetrics, ophthalmology, orthopedics, plastic surgery, pulmonary medicine, radiology, thoracic surgery, and urology. It must be presumed that those same services could theoretically be provided in the emergency department as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, finding that Petitioners, Urban Edge Family, Ltd., and Urban Edge Apartment, Ltd's, applications satisfy the requirements for all four Proximity Tie-Breaker Points relating to proximity to a medical facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: From 1968 to the present time, petitioner University Home Foundation, Inc. has owned and operated the Convalescent Center of Gainesville, a 119-bed skilled care nursing home. In early 1977, petitioner submitted an application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a new 120-bed skilled care nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. Due to the bed need projection of the 1976 Florida State Plan for Construction of Hospitals and Related Medical Facilities, petitioner submitted a revised application for an 83-bed skilled care facility. It is petitioner's intention, should a certificate of need be issued, to downgrade the present Convalescent Center of Gainesville to an intermediate care nursing facility and to build the new facility as an 83-bed skilled facility. Petitioner's revised and completed application was acknowledged by respondent effective June 3, 1977. In the latter part of October, 1976, the respondent denied an application for a certificate of need for a 91-bed nursing home in Gainesville, Florida, proposed by Hill-Guthrie Associates. This adverse determination by respondent resulted in an administrative hearing. On June 8, 1977, the Hearing Officer entered an order finding that the procedural deficiencies surrounding the timeliness of the review process on the Hill-Guthrie application should be construed as an approval of the proposal to construct the 91-bed nursing home. On July 28, 1977, respondent issued a certificate of need to Hill-Guthrie Associates. The 1975 Florida State Plan projected a bed need for Alachua County of 91. The 1976 Plan projected a need for 83 long term care beds for the year 1981. The 1977 Plan, which was not accepted by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare until July 19, 1977, calls for a long term bed need of 106 by the year 1982. These plans do not distinguish between skilled and intermediate care bed needs. Due to federal regulations, the projected need figures do not include patients under 65 years of age. Testimony at the hearing indicated that between 10 and 14 percent of patients in nursing homes are under The figures in the State Plans are derived by subtracting from the projected number of beds needed for the area's population the number of beds presently existing in the area. In this instance, Alachua County presently has three existing nursing homes with a capacity of 332 beds. The projected number of beds needed in the 1976 and 1977 Plans (83 and 106, respectively) do not take into consideration the 91 bed proposal of Hill-Guthrie Associates, for which a certificate of need was issued on July 28, 1977. If the Hill-Guthrie home is completed, Alachua County would be overbedded by eight beds under the 1976 Plan and underbedded by fifteen beds under the 1977 Plan. On June 23, 1977, the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. (HPC), which serves a sixteen county area, held a public hearing to receive comments on the petitioner's revised proposal for an 83-bed skilled care nursing home. Among the items discussed at the hearing were the effects of the Hill- Guthrie decision and the correctness of the figures contained in the State Plan. (Exhibit No. 2) The Staff of the HPC prepared a report on petitioner's application and recommended that a certificate of need be denied. The Staff Report considered the twelve criteria suggested by respondent and found that the proposal was not in conformity with plans, standards and criteria; that there are less costly alternatives to the proposed project; that the proposal would not promote cost containment; and that there was no documented need for the project. More specifically, the Staff found that the Hill-Guthrie approval for 91 beds would exceed by eight the 83 beds needed in Alachua County under the 1976 State Plan. Since Hill-Guthrie proposed construction at a cost of $11,407.00 per bed and petitioner's proposed cost was $13,614.00 per bed, the Staff determined that it would be less costly to utilize existing facilities and to construct the Hill- Guthrie Nursing Home than to build a more expensive facility that would create an overbedded situation. (Exhibit D) The HPC Project Review Committee held its hearing on July 14, 1977, and petitioner's president, Mr. Paul Allen, presented his comments in response to the Staff Report. He contested the population and bed need projections contained in the State Plan, and the Hill-Guthrie decision was discussed. The Committee voted to follow the Staff's recommendation to deny the petitioner a certificate of need. (Exhibits No. 3 and D) The HPC's Executive Committee meeting was held on July 25, 1977. Mr. Allen spoke to the committee, disagreeing with the figures contained in the State Plan and requesting the committee to vote only on his application and disregard the Hill-Guthrie proposal since a certificate of need to Hill-Guthrie had not yet been issued. Thereafter, the HPC voted to recommend to respondent denial of petitioner's application for a certificate of need for the same reasons set forth in the Staff Report. (Exhibits No. 4 and D) By letter dated August 23, 1977, respondent's administrator, Art Forehand, notified petitioner that its project proposal was not in conformity with established standards, plans and criteria. The 1976 State Plan was specifically referenced, but respondent stated that it also considered petitioner's proposal in accordance with the recently adopted 1977 State Plan (Exhibit No. 1) At the hearing, Mr. Forehand testified that his decision was based upon nonconformity with the State Plan without a detailed showing that a need existed irrespective of said Plan. The issuance of a certificate of need to Hill-Guthrie played a large role in Forehand's decision.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the determination of the respondent Office of Community Medical Facilities to deny petitioner's application for a certificate of need to construct and operate an 83-bed skilled care nursing home in Alachua County be upheld and affirmed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Art Forehand Administrator Office of Community Medical Facilities 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Selig I. Goldin, Esquire Post Office Box 1251 Gainesville, Florida 32602 James Mahorner, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a settlement agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED on this the SWS day of fac, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. lizabeth f Vf el Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration v. Little Hannah Home Services, Inc. (Case No.: 13-1575MPI; Provider No.: 684222496; C. I. No.: 12-1580-000) Final Order Page 1 of 2 Filed April 2, 2014 3:59 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies Furnished to: Richard J. Diaz, Esquire Law Offices of Richard J. Diaz, P.A. 3127 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Coral Gables, Florida 33134 rick@rjdpa.com (Via Electronic Mail) Willis F. Melvin, Jr., Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Eric W. Miller, Inspector General Agency for Health Care Administration Richard Zenuch, Bureau Chief Medicaid Program Integrity Finance & Accounting HQA {via email) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to the above named addresses by electronic mail or interoffice mail this / y of Al 2014. =f . (Stroop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. 3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630 Agency for Health Care Administration v. Littte Hannah Home Services, Inc. (Case No.: 13-1575MPI; Provider No.: 684222496; C. 1. No.; 12-1580-000) Final Order Page 2 of 2
Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the Agency For Health Care Administration (the "Agency") concerning Certificate of Need ("CON") Application No. 10131 filed by The Shores Behavioral Hospital, LLC (hereinafter “The Shores”) to establish a 60-bed adult psychiatric hospital and CON Application No. 10132 The entity is a limited liability company according to the Division of Corporations. Filed March 14, 2012 2:40 PM Division of Administrative Hearings to establish a 12-bed substance abuse program in addition to the 60 adult psychiatric beds pursuant to CON application No. 10131. The Agency preliminarily approved CON Application No. 10131 and preliminarily denied CON Application No. 10132. South Broward Hospital District d/b/a Memorial Regional Hospital (hereinafter “Memorial”) thereafter filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the Agency’s preliminary approval of CON 10131, which the Agency Clerk forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”). The Shores thereafter filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to challenge the Agency’s preliminary denial of CON 10132, which the Agency Clerk forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH”). Upon receipt at DOAH, Memorial, CON 10131, was assigned DOAH Case No. 12-0424CON and The Shores, CON 10132, was assigned DOAH Case No. 12-0427CON. On February 16, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order of Consolidation consolidating both cases. On February 24, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction based on _ the _ parties’ representation they had reached a settlement. . The parties have entered into the attached Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1). It is therefore ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Agency will approve and issue CON 10131 and CON 10132 with the conditions: a. Approval of CON Application 10131 to establish a Class III specialty hospital with 60 adult psychiatric beds is concurrent with approval of the co-batched CON Application 10132 to establish a 12-bed adult substance abuse program in addition to the 60 adult psychiatric beds in one single hospital facility. b. Concurrent to the licensure and certification of 60 adult inpatient psychiatric beds, 12 adult substance abuse beds and 30 adolescent residential treatment (DCF) beds at The Shores, all 72 hospital beds and 30 adolescent residential beds at Atlantic Shores Hospital will be delicensed. c. The Shores will become a designated Baker Act receiving facility upon licensure and certification. d. The location of the hospital approved pursuant to CONs 10131 and 10132 will not be south of Los Olas Boulevard and The Shores agrees that it will not seek any modification of the CONs to locate the hospital farther south than Davie Boulevard (County Road 736). 3. Each party shall be responsible its own costs and fees. 4. The above-styled cases are hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this 2. day of Meaich~ , 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELIZABETH DEK, Secretary AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement after the Agency reviewed additional materials. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. 2014 Fond DONE and ORDERED on this the xo May of 7 > PSF in Tallahassee, Florida. Lk hb fe LIZABETH DUDEK, SECRFAARY Agency for Health Cate Administration Filed February 26, 2014 1:27 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Daniel Lake, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Jayson V. Baboolal Sabitry Investments, Inc. d/b/a Windsor Place Retirement Home 1850 NE 26" Street Wilton Manors, Florida 33305 (U.S. Mail) Robert E. Meale Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Rick Zenuch, Chief, Medicaid Program Integrity Finance and Accounting HQA Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Facility) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to oop, Esquire Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
