The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should deny Petitioner's application for renewal of its standard assisted living facility license with a limited mental health component.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is responsible for licensing and regulating assisted living facilities in Florida pursuant to Part III, Chapter 400, Florida Statutes (2001). Pursuant to that responsibility, the Agency is authorized to conduct surveys and follow-up surveys, to make visits and inspections of assisted living facilities, and to investigate complaints. Oakland Manor is an assisted living facility located at 2812 North Nebraska Avenue, in Tampa, Florida, licensed and regulated pursuant to Part III, Chapter 400, Florida Statutes (2001), and Rule Chapter 58A-5, Florida Administrative Code. The facility's license has a limited mental health component. Rory and Lisa McCarthy have owned and operated Oakland Manor since about December 1999. Mrs. McCarthy is the administrator of the facility. Between the dates of December 14, 2000 and September 18, 2001, the Agency conducted three appraisal visits, a moratorium monitoring visit, a complaint investigation, and a biennial license renewal survey of the facility. The Agency noted the results of these inspections on a form referred to as Agency Form 3020-0001 ("Form 3020"). The Form 3020 is the document used to charge assisted living facilities with deficiencies that violate applicable law and rules. The Form 3020 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number. Each tag of the Form 3020 includes a narrative description of the allegations against the facility and cites the relevant rule or law violated by the alleged deficiency. In order to protect the privacy of the residents, the Form 3020 and this recommended order refer to the subject resident by a number rather than by a name. There are 24 tags at issue in the proceeding, some having been cited as repeat or uncorrected deficiencies. An uncorrected deficiency is one that was previously cited and has not been corrected by the time designated or by the time of the Agency's follow-up visit. A repeat deficiency is one that the facility has been cited for and that has been corrected, but after the correction, the deficiency occurs again. Section 400.419, Florida Statutes, requires that the Agency assign a class rating to the deficiencies alleged in its Form 3020. The classification rating assigned to a deficiency is based on the nature of the violation and the gravity of its probable effect on facility residents. On December 14, 2000, the Agency conducted an appraisal visit of Oakland Manor. As a result of this visit, the Agency cited the facility with four Class III deficiencies, including a Tag A519 deficiency for failure to maintain minimum staffing to meet the residents’ needs, a Tag A1001 for failure to provide a safe environment, Tag A1024 for failure to provide beds for two residents, and Tag A1033 for failure to provide each bathroom with a door in good working order to ensure privacy for residents. The Agency conducted a second appraisal visit of Oakland Manor on March 12, 2001, and cited the facility for seven deficiencies, including three uncorrected deficiencies from the December 14, 2000, visit. According to the Form 3020 for the March 12, 2001, appraisal visit, the uncorrected deficiencies were cited as Tag A519, for failure to provide minimum staffing; Tag A1001, failure to provide a safe environment; and Tag A1024, for failure to provide clean, comfortable mattresses. In addition to the alleged uncorrected deficiencies, the Agency cited the facility for four new deficiencies under Tag A210, Tag A212, Tag A523, and Tag A1004. Tags A519, A523, and A1001 were rated as Class II deficiencies. The other tags cited were rated as Class III deficiencies. Because the Agency found new violations of Tags A519, A1001, and A1024, and deficiencies under those same tag numbers were identified in December 2000, the Agency deemed those violations or deficiencies to be uncorrected deficiencies. On March 13, 2001, the day after the second appraisal visit, the Agency entered an Order of Immediate Moratorium ("Order"). The Order was based on the alleged violations cited from the March 2001 appraisal visit and stated that the conditions at the facility presented a significant threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents. Under the Order, Oakland Manor was prohibited from admitting any residents. On June 13, 2001, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation based on a complaint that the Agency had received. The Form 3020 summarizing the Agency's findings during the June 13, 2001, investigation did not cite Oakland Manor for any continuing violations, but alleged that there was a violation of Tag A1114, relating to staff records standards. The A1114 deficiency was assigned a Class II violation. The Agency conducted a biennial license and limited mental health renewal survey on June 28, 2001. This survey is required for continued licensure. As a result of the biennial survey, the Agency cited Oakland Manor with the following ten deficiencies, none of which had been previously cited: Tags L200, L201, L202, L203, L400, A525, A634, A1005, A1101, and A1103. All of these tags were assigned Class III ratings. On September 18, 2001, the Agency conducted an appraisal/monitoring visit. As a result of this visit, the Agency cited Oakland Manor with two violations, Tag A519, related to staffing standards, and Tag A1004, related to physical plant standards, both of which were assigned Class III ratings. Because Oakland Manor was cited for deficiencies under Tag 519 during the March 12, 2001, visit, the Agency noted that the deficiency of Tag A519 was a repeat violation. The Form 3020 for each survey or visit indicated when each alleged violation should be corrected. In some cases, a specific date was given. In other instances, the correction was to be implemented "immediately." DECEMBER 14, 2000, APPRAISAL TAG A519 Tag A519 requires a facility to maintain the minimum staffing hours set forth in Rule 58A-5.019(4), Florida Administrative Code. Because Oakland Manor had a resident census of 26 in November 2000 and through the first two weeks of December 2000, the facility was required to have minimum staff hours of 294 per week. Based on a review of the facility's staffing schedule for the time in question, the Agency surveyor properly concluded that the facility did not maintain the required minimum staff hours of 294 in November 2000 and the first two weeks of December 2000. As a result of this finding, the Agency properly cited Oakland Manor with a Tag A519, Class III deficiency. DECEMBER 14, 2000, APPRAISAL: TAG A1001 The second violation for which Oakland Manor was cited was a Tag A1001 deficiency, which requires that assisted living facilities "be located, designed, equipped, and maintained to promote a residential, non-medical environment, and provide for the safe care and supervision of all residents." See Rule 58A- 5.023(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The violation was rated as a Class III deficiency. The allegation that Oakland Manor failed to meet the requirements of Tag A1001 is based on the following observations noted on the Form 3020: there were electrical wires and light fixtures hanging loose from the ceiling in the hallway on the first floor; the residents' room walls were dirty, the rooms had a foul odor and the smell of urine; the floors of the facility were dirty; residents were observed smoking in their beds; the toilet tank lid was missing; and discharge water from the washing machine in the breezeway was running over the walkway in the patio area. At the time of the survey, one resident's room had dirty walls and also had a foul odor. The floors of the facility were dirty and had food particles on them, and the facility had an "unpleasant odor." Also, two residents were observed smoking in their bedrooms, despite the facility's no smoking policy. Contrary to the observation noted on the Form 3020, there were no light fixtures hanging loose from the ceiling, nor had that situation ever existed. At hearing, there was no evidence presented by the Agency that there were light fixtures hanging loosely from the ceiling. The electrical wires, referred to in the Form 3020, were slightly visible and coming from a 9-foot ceiling. However, there were wire nuts on the wires and, thus, the wires were not a danger to the residents. There was water coming from the washing machine as noted by the Agency surveyor. Mr. McCarthy does not deny that allegation, but the water coming from the washing machine was "feed" water going into the machine and not "discharge" water as noted in the Form 3020. This problem was resolved the following day when Mr. McCarthy purchased and had a new washing machine installed. The surveyor observed one toilet that did not have a toilet tank lid. The owners do not dispute this, but the lid was not "missing" as noted on the Form 3020, but had likely been removed by one of the residents. When a resident removes the toilet tank lid, staff members routinely replace the lid. The surveyor was unaware of any regulation that requires the facility to secure the lids to prevent the residents from removing them. DECEMBER 14, 2000, APPRAISAL: TAG A1024 The third alleged violation for which the facility was cited was Tag A1024, which refers to the physical plant standard set forth in Rule 58A-5.023(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code. That standard requires that each resident bedroom or sleeping area, where furnishings are supplied by the facility, shall at a minimum, be furnished with, among other things, a clean comfortable bed with a mattress. It is alleged that this standard was not met as evidenced by the observation that the mattress in Room No. 10 was torn, and the filler appeared to be coming out of the mattress. The undisputed testimony was that the torn mattress was not being used by any resident of the facility, but was a mattress that was not being used. The Notice of Intent to Deny mischaracterizes the surveyor's findings under Tag A1024 as "failure to provide beds for two residents." This allegation was not addressed or proven by the Agency. DECEMBER 14, 2000, APPRAISAL: TAG A1033 The fourth alleged violation, cited under Tag A1033, relates to the physical plant standard set forth in Rule 58A- 5.023(5), Florida Administrative Code. That standard requires that each bathroom have a door in working order to assure privacy and that the entry door to the bathrooms with a single toilet is required to have a lock which is operable from the inside by the resident, with no key needed. The Agency alleged that this standard was not met in that the bathroom door on the first floor was not operable because the door was missing the striker plate that keeps the door tightly closed into the frame. The Agency noted that as a result of this alleged defect, residents using that bathroom did not have privacy. Based on Mr. McCarthy's testimony, there was a door leading into the bathroom, which had a working lock. In addition, the door with the missing striker plate had a hook and eye that allowed the door to be secured from the inside. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL TAG A519 Tag A519 requires the facility to meet the minimum staffing required by Rule 58A-5.019(4), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the resident census of 25 for March 4-12, 2001, and the surveyor's review of the staff work schedule for that week, Oakland Manor was cited for a Tag A519 deficiency. According to the facility's staff work schedule, there were 208 total staff hours for that week and not the required minimum staffing hours. The Form 3020 stated that the "[l]ack of adequate staffing has resulted in a malfunctioning sewage system which poses an immediate risk to the residents, staff, and public." In making this allegation, the Agency apparently assumed that the residents caused the sewage system problems and that if there had there been adequate staffing, these problems would not have occurred. The Agency then alleged that the malfunctioning sewage system posed an immediate risk to the residents, staff, and public. However, these assumptions and allegations are not supported by any evidence. There is no evidence that the sewage system problems were caused by the residents and/or lack of staffing. Moreover, there is nothing in this record which supports the claim that the malfunctioning sewage system posed an "immediate risk" to the residents, staff, or public. Clearly, there was a Tag A519 deficiency in that the facility failed to maintain the weekly minimum staff hours required. Also, because the facility had been cited for a Tag A519 deficiency during the December 14, 2000, appraisal, the Agency properly found that the Tag A519 deficiency, cited during the March 12, 2001, appraisal was an uncorrected deficiency. However, in this instance, the violation did not "directly threaten the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the facility residents." Accordingly, the violation is not a Class II deficiency, as alleged by the Agency, but is a Class III deficiency. MARCH 12, 2001 APPRAISAL: TAG A523 As stated on the Form 3020, Tag A523 requires that, notwithstanding the minimum staffing ratio, all facilities have enough qualified staff to provide resident supervision, and provide or arrange for resident services in accordance with resident scheduled and unscheduled service needs, resident contracts, and resident care standards. See Rule 58A- 5.019(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency alleged that Oakland Manor failed to meet this standard. The determination that Oakland Manor failed to meet the standard required by Tag A523 was based on the surveyor's observation and interview with the facility administrator. On the day of the survey, from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 11:00 a.m., the surveyor noticed that there was a strong odor of sewage coming from the basement area and standing water on the basement floor. The surveyor learned from the administrator that the matter came to her attention that morning and that a plumber had been called and had corrected a similar problem a week earlier. Mr. McCarthy explained that the lift station malfunction and the overflow of sewage into the basement had occurred the day of the Agency inspection. After a plumber came to the facility to repair the lift station and was unable to do so, an electric company was called and came out and immediately repaired the lift station. The Form 3020 notes that when the lift station backed up the week before, the plumber found t-shirts, garbage bags, bandannas, and a stick of deodorant clogging up the lift station. From this alleged statement, the surveyor erroneously concluded that some of the residents had thrown these and possibly other items into the lift station. In view of this assumption, the surveyor alleged on the Form 3020 that: The lift station back up is occurring due to a lack of supervision of qualified staff to provide resident supervision and allowing the residents to freely access the lift station in the yard and put items in it. The size and accessibility of the lift station also poses a threat to residents due to the possibility of a fall while throwing in inappropriate items. The lift station was in the yard of the facility, but the residents do not have free access to the lift station, except the top external lid of the lift station. The residents can not remove the lid covering the lift station because the lid is made of steel and weighs over 200 pounds. Accordingly, the residents can not throw items in the lift station and, thus, there is no threat to the residents "due to the possibility of a fall while throwing" items into the lift station, as alleged by the Agency. The Agency deemed the Tag A523 violation as a Class II deficiency and required that the facility correct the deficiency immediately. The Agency failed to establish this allegation. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A1001 The standards of Tag A1001 are stated in paragraph 20. Based on the surveyor's observations, Oakland Manor was again cited for a Tag A1001 deficiency. Tag A1001 was deemed by the Agency to be an uncorrected deficiency and designated a Class II violation. In the Form 3020, the Agency listed the following 12 alleged facts as the basis for the cited deficiency: Two large ladders were lying on the floor in the hallway, partially blocking access through the hallway. The bathtub and shower in the first floor shower room were badly stained and mildewed. In Room No. 1, the toilet was not working and there was an accumulation of feces in the toilet bowl. In Room No. 3, there were piles of dirty laundry, trash, and cigarette ashes in the middle of the room. The wall and floors throughout the facility were dirty. In Room No. 8, there was an electric space heater in front of full length curtains. In Room No. 10, there were cigarette butts on the floor and the resident in the room was observed smoking, although smoking is not allowed in the facility. In the second residential building, the first bathroom had a dirty floor and the vinyl was very worn and there was no lid on the "toilet back." In the second residential building television room, there was a resident smoking even though there is a no smoking sign posted. There was a strong sewer odor emanating from the facility basement and the basement had standing water. The staircase to the second floor of the main building was covered with dirt and grime. The overhead light in the second floor hallway was not working and the staircase was very dark. The ladders, referred to in the Form 3020, were not lying on the floor but were leaning against a recessed part of the wall in the hallway. They were not blocking the passageway and, even with the ladders in the hallway, there was enough room for a 215-pound man to walk through the hall into the adjacent room. The reason the ladders were in the hall was that Mr. McCarthy was painting the facility. At the end of each day, when Mr. McCarthy was finished painting, he stored the ladders in an office in back of the kitchen or in a shed in the back of the facility. The surveyor reported that the bathtub and shower in the first floor shower room were badly stained and mildewed. Mrs. McCarthy testified that the shower stall is made of heavy marble and is original to the 100-year-old house and that many of the stains can not be scrubbed off. The substance the surveyor described as mildew was shampoo. The toilet in Resident Room No. 1 was described in the Form 3020 as having an accumulation of feces and not working. The toilet was stopped up, but was working and was put back into flushing order that same day, immediately upon the problem being called to her attention. The residents in that room placed female products in the toilet and caused it to stop up. However, the toilet was functioning in all respects when it was not stopped up. In Resident Room No. 3, there were piles of dirty laundry, trash, and cigarette ashes in the middle of the room. This was not disputed. Every shift, staff is suppose to sweep, mop, and make sure that the room is cleaned out, but sometimes the residents put their laundry on the bed. The walls and floors throughout the facility were dirty as reported in the Form 3020. In an effort to keep the walls clean, they are painted every three or four months. The Agency surveyor observed a space heater in Room No. 8, which she characterized as a fire hazard. However, the heater was not plugged in and was not in use at that time. When the heater is in use, it is in the middle of the room and not near the curtain. In Room No. 10, the surveyor observed cigarette butts on the floor and the resident in the room was observed smoking, even though the facility had a no smoking policy and all residents were given copies of that policy, upon admission. In Oakland Manor’s second residential building, the surveyor observed that the floor was dirty and the vinyl was torn, and there was no lid on the toilet back. Mr. McCarthy confirmed that the vinyl was worn and did not dispute that the floor was dirty. At the time of the Agency inspection, the worn dirty vinyl was in the process of being replaced. With regard to the toilet backs, the residents remove the toilet tank lids, but they are always put back on. The Agency surveyor observed a resident smoking in the television room, even though there was a “No Smoking” sign posted in the room. At Oakland Manor, smoking in violation of the house rules is a continuing problem that the administrator and staff make efforts to correct. The Agency surveyor observed that there was standing water in the basement and a strong sewer odor coming from the basement. Other facts related to this observation are discussed in paragraphs 35 and 36. Mrs. McCarthy does not dispute this allegation, but the problem was promptly correctly. Mr. Carthy corrected the problem within 48 hours; he went into the basement and “squeegeed” all the standing water and otherwise treated the floor to dry it and deodorize it. The surveyor determined that the overhead light in the second floor hallway of the main house was not working. She reached this conclusion after she first observed the dark hallway and then tried to turn on the light and was unable to do so. There is no indication that the surveyor asked facility staff to turn on the light or inquired as to how the switch worked. The light operates by a three-way switch, and although there are two switches, only one of them turns on the light. Also, there are two lights in the stairwell so that if one light is burned out, the other one still works, but it does not appear that the inspector knew how to operate the three-way switch. No testimony was presented by the Agency regarding the allegation concerning the staircase to the second floor of the main house. Based on the Agency’s findings in the paragraph 40-d, e, and j, above, the facility was properly cited for the Tag A1001 deficiency. This was an uncorrected deficiency. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A1004 Tag A1004 requires that all windows, doors, plumbing, and appliances in assisted living facilities be functional and in good working order. See Rule 58A-5.023(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. According to the Form 3020, Oakland Manor failed to meet this standard as evidenced by windows in the facility that were not functional and in good working order and failing to promptly repair broken glass, which "may result in injury to residents or staff." The surveyor observed the following: a large window pane in the front door was broken, the lower window pane in the dining room window was covered over with plywood, the first floor rear bathroom window was hanging off the hinge and the screen was missing; and the window pane of the outside door leading to the ramp was broken and covered with a garbage bag. The owners do not dispute that the pane in the front door was broken, but testified that the material was not glass, but Plexiglas. The door had been broken by one of the residents the day of the survey. Mr. McCarthy replaced the Plexiglas pane the same day and, four or five days later, replaced the entire front door with a solid door. As to the allegation that the lower half of the dining room window was covered with plywood, that there was not a glass pane in the lower part of the window. Rather, the plywood was placed there instead of the glass and was put in with trim molding and sealed with caulking. It appears that the window was designed that way to serve as a "fixed" window. The Agency acknowledged that window had been like that before the McCarthys purchased the facility. Moreover, the Agency had not previously indicated that this was a violation of any regulation. Although the Agency offered no suggestions to address its concern with the “fixed” window, Mr. McCarthy replaced the plywood with Plexiglas in an attempt to comply with the Agency requirements. The surveyor's observation regarding the first floor rear bathroom window was reversed. There was a screen on hinges that opened and closed and the top hinge of the screen was pulled out and hanging over a bit. However, the screen was there and the window was functional. Mrs. McCarthy does not dispute that the outside door had a broken glass pane that was covered with a garbage bag. The glass pane had been broken out earlier that day and the entire door was replaced within a day or so of the Agency's appraisal visit. The observations noted in paragraph 61 constitutes a violation of Tag A1004. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A1024 The Tag A1024 requires that each resident room in an assisted living facility be furnished with, among other things, a clean comfortable mattress. See Rule 58A-5.023(4)(e)1., Florida Administrative Code. According to the Form 3020, the Agency alleged that Oakland Manor failed to comply with this standard in that "the facility did not provide appropriate beds for two residents." No mention is made in the Form 3020 of which residents did not have appropriate beds. The alleged Tag A1024 deficiency was based on the two reported observations of the surveyor. First, the Form 3020 notes that in Room No. 10, the surveyor observed "a medical crutch being used as a mattress support on one bed." Second, the surveyor noted her observation that in Room No. 4, there was "a ripped mattress with the filling coming out of the rips." The owners testified that the crutch was not being used to support the mattress and that bed was not being used by any of the residents. Mr. McCarthy did not know why the crutch was under the mattress, but it was not there for support because of the construction of the bed. As to the second observation, the owners do not dispute that the mattress also in Room No. 4 was ripped. However, the bed with the torn mattress was not being used by anyone and has been replaced. Finally, there were appropriate beds for all the residents because at the time of this survey, there were 26 residents and 32 beds. This testimony was not disputed by the Agency. Tag A1024 was deemed by the Agency to be an uncorrected deficiency and was designated as a Class III violation. The Agency gave the facility until March 15, 2001, to correct the deficiency. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A210 Four additional new violations were cited as a result of the Agency's March 12, 2001, appraisal visit. These violations or deficiencies were assigned Tag A210, Tag A212, Tag A523, and Tag A1004. Tag A210 requires compliance with the standards set forth in Rule 58A-5.024, Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that assisted living facilities maintain the records prescribed therein "in a form, place and system ordinarily employed in good business practice and accessible to the department and [A]gency staff." Rule 58A-5.024(1)(m), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the facility maintain all fire safety inspection reports issued by the local authority having jurisdiction or the State Fire Marshal within the past 2 years. In an interview, which occurred during this visit, the facility administrator advised the Agency surveyor that the fire inspection reports were not on the premises, but at the administrator's home. Based on this statement by the administrator, the Agency properly concluded that this standard was violated because the fire inspection records were maintained at the owner/administrator's home, and were not in a place accessible to Agency staff as required by the applicable rule. MARCH 12, 2001, APPRAISAL: TAG A212 The Tag A212 relates to facility records standards. According to the Form 3020, Oakland Manor failed to meet this standard in that it violated Rules 58A-5.020(3) and 58A- 5.024(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code. The former rule requires that "copies of inspection reports [relating to food hygiene] issued by the county health department for the last two years . . . be on file in the facility." The latter rule requires that all sanitation inspection reports issued by the county health department within the past two years be maintained in a form, place, and system ordinarily employed in good business practice and accessible to department or agency staff. The Form 3020 indicates and it is undisputed that the most recent copy of the sanitation inspection report was not on the premises, but at the administrator's home. MARCH 13, 2001, ORDER OF IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM On March 13, 2001, the day following the Agency’s March 12, 2001, appraisal visit to Oakland Manor, the Agency imposed a Moratorium on Admissions to the facility, which has remained in effect. JUNE 12, 2001, MORATORIUM MONITORING VISIT TAG A528 In the Notice of Denial, the Agency alleged that a Moratorium monitoring visit was made to Oakland Manor on June 12, 2001, during which the facility was cited for violating Tag A528. The Agency failed to establish this violation. JUNE 13, 2001, COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION TAG A1114 On June 13, 2001, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation of Oakland Manor. As a result of the investigation, the Agency alleged that the facility violated Tag A1114 by failing to include in an employee’s file documentation of compliance with Level 1 screening. The standards under Tag A1114 are set forth in Section 400.4275(2), Florida Statutes, and Rules 58A-5.019(3) and 58A-5.024(2)(a)3., Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant Rule 58A-5.019(3), Florida Administrative Code, a Level 1 screening is required for all employees hired after October 1, 1998, to provide personal services to residents. Also, personnel records for each staff member should include documentation of compliance with Level 1 background screening for all staff. See Subsection 400.4275(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A-5.024(2)(a)3., Florida Administrative Code. Mr. and Mrs. McCarthy did not dispute this allegation. According to the Form 3020, the employee in question had been hired by the facility on or about May 15, 2001. Mrs. McCarthy told the surveyor that she had applied for the background screening about two weeks prior to the June 13, 2001, complaint investigation, but it had not yet been received. Later that day, the administrator provided the surveyor with a copy of an arrest report from the Tampa Police Department. The arrest report did not satisfy the standards required under Tag A1114. The deficiency constituted a failure to comply with the requirements of Tag A1114, and was properly designated a Class II deficiency. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY TAG L200 Tag L200 requires assisted living facilities with a limited mental health license, such as Oakland Manor, to have a copy of each mental health resident’s community living support plan. See Subsection 400.4075(3)(a), Florida Statutes. In addition, Tag L200 requires that the mental health case manager and the mental health resident, in conjunction with the facility administrator, prepare the community living support plan within 30 days of admission to the facility or within 30 days after receiving the appropriate placement assessment. See Subsection 400.402(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A.5.029(2)(c)3.a., Florida Administrative Code. According to the Form 3020, the surveyor reviewed the file of Resident 1, a limited mental health resident who was admitted to the facility on November 23, 1993, and did not find the resident’s community living support plan. The resident’s record did have the annual community living support plan, but the surveyors simply missed or inadvertently overlooked the document. There was a community living support plan in Resident 1’s file that was signed by the resident, the resident’s counselor, and the former facility administrator, and dated February 17, 1999. Attached to the community living support plan were progress notes, with the last entry dated October 14, 1999. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY TAGS L201, L202, L203, AND L400 Oakland Manor was cited for violating standards under Tags L201, L202, L203, and L400, all of which relate to community living support plans. Tag L201 requires that the community living support plan include the components enumerated in Rule 58A- 5.029(2)(c)3.a.(i)-(vi) and (viii), Florida Administrative Code. Tag L202 requires the assisted living facility to make the community living support plan available for inspection by the resident, the resident’s legal guardian, the resident’s health care surrogate, or other individuals who have a lawful reason to review the plan. See Subsection 400.4075(3)(c), Florida Statutes. Tag L203 requires that the community living support plan to be updated annually in accordance with See Rule 58A- 5.029(2)(c)3.a.(vii), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, Tag L400 requires the facility to assist the mental health resident in carrying out the activities identified in the individual’s community living support plan. See Subsection 400.4075(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The alleged deficiencies cited under Tags L201, L202, L203, and L400 were all based on the surveyor’s finding that the file of Resident 1 did not contain a community living support plan. In light of the finding in paragraph 80, that the annual community support plan was in the resident’s file, the Agency did not establish the deficiencies listed under Tags L201, L202, and L400. Oakland Manor failed to comply with the standards of Tag L203, in that the community living support plan had not been updated annually as required by the foregoing rule. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY: TAG A525 Tag A525 was assigned to Oakland Manor based on the Agency's determination that for two facility employees, scheduled to work alone on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, there was no documentation that they had received first aid training. This alleged deficiency constitutes a failure to comply with the staffing standards in Rule 58A-5.019(4)(a)4., Florida Administrative Code, which requires that at least one member who is trained in first aid and CPR be in the facility at all times. Oakland Manor was properly cited for a violation of Tag A525 which was designated a Class III deficiency. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY: TAG A634 The Agency assigned a Tag A634 deficiency to Oakland Manor based on its determination that Oakland Manor failed to meet the medication standards set forth in Section 400.4256(1), Florida Statutes. That provision requires the facility to advise the resident or the resident's guardian or surrogate that the resident may receive assistance with self-administration of medication from an unlicensed person and that such assistance will not be overseen by a licensed nurse. As support for this violation, the Form 3020 noted that based on a review of three residents' files, there was no documentation that the facility had informed the residents as required by Section 400.4256, Florida Statutes. The facility does inform residents appropriately, based on documents included in the admissions package. However, the surveyors did not look anywhere except the residents’ files for that documentation. The residents also signed a letter giving their informed consent to comply with the Agency regulations, and a copy of that letter was faxed to the Agency soon after the citation. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY: TAG A1005 As part of this survey, the Agency assigned a Tag A1005 deficiency, alleging that the facility failed to meet the physical plant standard required by Rule 58A-5.023, Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that all furniture and furnishings be clean, functional, free of odors, and in good repair. This deficiency was based on a surveyor's observation of the main bathroom on the first floor of the main building. During a tour of the facility, the Agency surveyor observed human excrement on the bathroom floor, on the outside of the toilet bowl, and on the toilet seat. The surveyor also observed that an adult brief, filled with human excrement, had been thrown against the wall. After this was brought to the administrator's attention, the bathroom was cleaned immediately. However, several hours later, when the surveyor returned to the area, human excrement again had been smeared on the toilet seat. A few minutes prior to the surveyor returning to the bathroom, a resident exited the bathroom. Therefore, it is very likely that the resident who was in the bathroom soiled the toilet seat after it had been cleaned. The facility staff has a regular cleaning schedule and, pursuant to that schedule, the bathrooms are checked and cleaned several times, as necessary. However, the residents are entitled to their privacy in the bathrooms and staff does not check the bathroom every time a resident uses it. Tag A1005 was designated a Class III deficiency, and the facility was required to and did correct this deficiency immediately after it was discovered. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the Agency did not properly cite the facility for a violation of this tag. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY TAGS A1101 AND A1103 The Agency cited Oakland Manor for a Tag A1101 deficiency for failure to adhere to the staff record standards in Rule 58A-5.024(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that the personnel records of each facility staff member contain the verification of freedom from communicable disease, including tuberculosis. The Tag A1101 deficiency was based on a review of eight personnel files, which revealed three files that contained no documentation that the respective employees were free from communicable disease. The three employees, for whom there was no documentation, had been hired two or three months prior to the June 28, 2001, re-licensure survey, on March 20, April 4, and April 20, 2001. JUNE 28, 2001, LICENSE RENEWAL SURVEY TAG A1103 The Agency cited Oakland Manor for a deficiency under Standards of Tag A1103. That tag requires that, within 30 days of being hired, a facility staff member must "submit a statement from a health care provider, based on an examination conducted within the last six months, that the person does not have any signs or symptoms of a communicable disease including tuberculosis." See Rule 58A-5.019(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The rule further provides that such "freedom from tuberculosis must be documented on an annual basis." The Tag A1103 deficiency was assigned based on the Agency's review of the personnel files of eight of the facility’s staff members. The Form 3020 states that the files of four employees, W.W., L.M., J.V., and M.J., hired July 5, 1992, November 1999, April 23, 2001, and March 20, 2001, respectively, did not contain documentation of freedom from tuberculosis, obtained from a test in the last 365 days. The Agency's finding that the facility failed to comply with the staffing standards in Rule 58A-5.019(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, is well-founded as it relates to the staff members employed on July 5, 1992, and November 1999. However, the requirement that freedom from tuberculosis must be documented annually can not be the basis for the Tag A1103 deficiency, as it relates to the two employees hired on March 20, 2001, and on April 23, 2001, only two or three months from the date of the survey. SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, APPRAISAL VISIT TAG A519 On September 18, 2001, the Agency conducted an appraisal visit of the facility and cited it for a Tag A519 deficiency, which relates to failure to maintain minimum staffing standards required in Rule 58A-5.019, Florida Administrative Code. The cited deficiency was based on the fact that the facility census was sixteen. In accordance with the foregoing rule, on the day of the September visit, the resident facility was required to have a weekly minimum of 253 staffing hours, but the facility only had 208 hours. Based on its review of records proved by the facility, the Agency properly concluded that the facility did not meet the minimum staffing standards for the first two weeks of September 2001. The Agency designated the Tag A519 as a Class III deficiency and properly noted that this was a "repeat deficiency." SEPTEMBER 18, 2001, APPRAISAL TAG A1004 Tag A1004 requires that the windows, doors, plumbing, and appliances of the facility be in good working order. See Rule 58A-5.023(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency found that Oakland Manor was in violation of this standard. According to the surveyor, the basis for this alleged violation was that "certain light fixtures throughout the facility were being maintained in an unsafe manner" and that "numerous bare (uncovered by globe or shade) light bulbs were observed, specifically in the dining area and in the main building bathrooms." The Agency concluded that the "unprotected bulbs are in danger of being broken, putting the residents at risk." Although the Agency cited the facility for the exposed light bulbs, the surveyor testified that there is not a specific tag that addresses the hazards of a light bulb, but the designated Tag A1004 “was the best available citation, quite frankly.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the survey reports to delete and/or modify the deficiencies described in the Forms 3020 that are not supported by the record and granting Oakland Manor's application for renewal of its assisted living facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 4th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: A. S. Weekley, Jr., M.D., Esquire Holland and Knight LLP 400 North Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Eileen O'Hara Garcia, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Sebring Building, Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lisa McCarthy, Administrator Oakland Manor ALF 2812 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether, on the basis of her handicap, Respondent discriminated against Petitioner as alleged in Petitioner’s Housing Discrimination Complaint, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“FFHA”).
Findings Of Fact HABC is a PHA that administers vouchers used in Brevard County, Florida, as part of the HCV Program. Petitioner, Karenlee Krason, began receiving an HCV Program voucher ("voucher") in 2009. In 2019, she rented a two-bedroom house at 407 Ward Road Southwest, Melbourne, Florida, 32980 ("Ward Unit"). HABC granted a reasonable accommodation to Petitioner by approving a second bedroom for her oxygen equipment. On July 30, 2019, Petitioner's landlord notified her in writing that her lease would not be renewed for the Ward Unit. Ms. Alysha Connor, a Section 8 Technician at the HABC, scheduled a relocation appointment on October 9, 2019, to assess Petitioner's plan for finding new housing. HABC issued Petitioner a voucher authorizing her to find new housing within 60 days. HABC is not responsible for finding suitable housing for voucher recipients. However, HABC repeatedly attempted to assist Petitioner in finding a new place to reside. Petitioner notified HABC that she found a place to rent at Las Palmas Apartments, located at 1915 Agora Circle, Unit 101, Palm Bay, Florida 32909 (“Agora Circle Unit"). In an e-mail dated November 5, 2019, Petitioner requested that her voucher include reimbursement for expenses relating to her certified service animal. A Request for Tenancy Approval was submitted for the Agora Circle Unit for a potential move-in date of December 1, 2019. All rental units must meet minimum standards of health and safety and pass a Housing Quality Standard (“HQS”) inspection, as determined by HABC in cooperation with HUD. The Agora Circle Unit failed an inspection conducted by HABC on November 18, 2019. HABC identified the conditions/items needing to be addressed in order to pass inspection. In the meantime, HABC obtained an extension on Petitioner's Ward Unit lease with her landlord. The lease would not expire until December 31, 2019. An additional inspection of the Agora Circle Unit was performed on November 27, 2019, at which time the Agora Circle Unit passed HABC's re- inspection. However, Petitioner communicated to HABC that she no longer wanted to rent the Agora Circle Unit. Petitioner now expressed a desire to rent a unit at 409 Mercury Avenue Southeast, Unit 103, Palm Bay, Florida ("Mercury Unit"). The Mercury Unit passed HABC's inspection on December 11, 2019. However, issues arose with Petitioner refusing to submit an application for her daughter's background check. HABC had offered to pay the required application fee, but the landlord revoked Petitioner's application approval because she failed to comply with the landlord's request for the background check. By this time, Petitioner's lease extension for the Ward Unit had expired, as of December 31, 2019. However, Petitioner was still residing in the unit. On January 9, 2020, HABC attempted to obtain another extension on Petitioner's lease, but the landlord refused the request. Nonetheless Petitioner continued to live in the Ward Unit as she searched for alternative housing. On February 3, 2020, Petitioner's realtor, Bruce Reilly, contacted HABC regarding a unit located at 1642 Lizette Street Southeast, Palm Bay, Florida ("Lizette Unit"). Mr. Reilly inquired whether Petitioner could afford the unit. HABC provided Mr. Reilly its calculations on what Petitioner could qualify for. There were no further communications from Mr. Reilly. During this time, Petitioner's landlord at the Ward Unit provided her with notice to vacate the unit by February 29, 2020. Furthermore, the landlord communicated to HABC that he would no longer accept rent from HABC for the following month. Two days before her deadline to vacate the Ward Unit, Petitioner sent an email to HABC advising that she had located a unit at 3025 Thrush Drive, Unit 101, Melbourne, Florida (''Thrush Unit"). Petitioner advised HABC that the property needed to be inspected the following day. The Request for Tenancy Approval ('"RFTA") packet submitted by Petitioner for the Thrush Unit was incomplete. Although HABC was closed for business on Friday, February 28, 2020, HABC made arrangements for one of its employees to inspect the Thrush Unit that day. In addition, HABC's CEO, Michael Bean, accelerated the process to allow Petitioner to relocate to the Thrush Unit immediately so she would not become homeless. Later that day, Petitioner notified HABC that the Thrush Unit had been rented to another individual. Throughout the relocation process, Petitioner was granted numerous extensions on her voucher. At the end of each year, HABC conducts a mandatory review of the financial information provided by Section 8 voucher recipients through the Enterprise Income Verification (“EIV”) system. EIV provides a comprehensive online system for the determination and verification of various resident information and income that PHAs use to determine rental subsidies. On or about January 2020, EIV reported that Petitioner's daughter was working at Cumberland Farms. Petitioner had failed to disclose this fact. Upon contacting Petitioner to discuss this omission, Petitioner continued to assert that her daughter was not employed. HABC proceeded to investigate this matter further. Throughout its investigation, HABC retrieved employment records from Cumberland Farms. This documentation confirmed that Petitioner’s daughter indeed worked at Cumberland Farms. Moreover, Florida Power and Light billing records disclosed that Petitioner’s daughter no longer resided at the residence occupied by Petitioner. In light of the above revelations, HABC began the process of terminating Petitioner's voucher because she had violated HABC's policies and regulations. Specifically, Petitioner violated HABC’s policy by failing to disclose additional household income and by failing to disclose that her daughter was no longer living at the Ward Unit. On February 3, 2020, HABC emailed Petitioner, outlining its findings, and notifying her that HABC would be terminating her voucher effective March 31, 2020. HABC informed her she had the option to request a hearing before termination. Petitioner elected to have an informal hearing to contest her termination from the program. The informal hearing was held on February 14, 2020. Petitioner appeared by telephone. At the hearing, Petitioner was combative and refused to answer questions posed by Hearing Officer G. Phillip J. Zies. She abruptly ended the telephone call before the conclusion of the hearing. At the hearing, HABC recommended the Hearing Officer not terminate Petitioner's voucher. On the same day as the hearing, the Hearing Officer decided to make Petitioner's status "conditionally eligible" subject to her making arrangements with HABC to stay in the HCV Program within seven (7) days of the hearing. On February 19, 2020, HABC reached out to Petitioner via email providing a list of documents she needed to complete, including: A Retroactive Payment Plan; Nicole Krason’s tax returns from 2017, 2018, and 2019 tax years; Copies of updated driver's licenses from Petitioner and Nicole Krason; and An Updated Lease Agreement from Nicole Krason. As of October 9, 2020, the date of Ms. Disco’s affidavit, Petitioner has failed to provide any of the documents requested above. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s failure to comply with HABC's documentation requests, HABC has extended Petitioner's voucher until December 31, 2020. Petitioner’s voucher originally expired on November 30, 2019, but has been extended through December 31, 2020. During the period of the extension, Petitioner was required to complete her annual recertification in order to remain eligible under the HCV Program. HUD mandates HABC must conduct an annual re-examination of a participant's eligibility for the HCV Program. The purpose of the annual re-examination is to establish that every family's eligibility for assistance is based on their income, as determined in accordance with program rules. During the annual recertification process, Petitioner requested that her daughter be deemed a “live-in aid” so that her daughter's income would not count towards the household income. However, Petitioner declined to continue with this process because she wanted the voucher to transfer to her daughter. According to HUD guidelines, Petitioner's daughter would not qualify as a live-in aide, eligible for rental assistance or occupancy in a subsidized unit, because her daughter had lived as an "other household adult" between 2008 and 2019. HABC's administrative plan does not allow prior, or current, household adults to be live-in aides. Participants must provide information requested by HABC because changes in income or family composition can affect the amount of assistance a tenant is eligible to receive. Those who fail to cooperate in providing such information can have their voucher terminated. On or about July 30, 2020, HABC sent Petitioner an annual recertification packet in order for her to complete the annual recertification process. This packet needed to be completed by September 1, 2020. On September 17, 2020, HABC sent a letter to Petitioner advising her she had not completed the annual recertification packet and that she would need to complete the packet in order to remain eligible under the HCV Program. On September 23, 2020, Petitioner returned the packet, but it was incomplete. Specifically, Petitioner did not provide proper documentation for her out-of-pocket medical expenses. HABC requested the proper documentation be submitted to complete the annual recertification process. Petitioner did provide HABC with a letter from Health First Alliance Group confirming her continued need for medical equipment. Independent of the proceedings before FCHR, HUD also investigated the handling of Petitioner's case by HABC. The scope of HUD’s investigation was to determine whether HABC discriminated against Petitioner in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and its implementing regulations found at 24 CFR, Part 8. Section 504 provides that no otherwise qualified individual with disabilities shall, solely on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance from HUD. HUD’s investigation led to a finding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that an unlawful discriminatory housing practice had occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 24th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) LaShawnda K. Jackson, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. Suite 1400 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) KarenLee Krason c/o General Delivery Melbourne, Florida 32901 (eServed) Francis Sheppard, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. Suite 1400 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Michael D. Begey, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. Suite 1400 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner's application for an emergency shelter care home license should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners received a respite care license from Respondent on February 23, 1990 which allowed Petitioners to babysit foster children for short periods of time. This license expired by its terms on February 23, 1991. On January 20, 1991, Petitioners applied for a license to provide emergency shelter family home care for dependent children. Petitioners have a son, approximately 23 years of age, who lives with them and who has certain psychiatric problems. Respondent denied Petitioners' application on April 5, 1991 on the basis that Petitioners lacked the ability to provide for the psychological development of foster children due to the emotional instability in their home. Respondent reached that conclusion based on the medical opinion of Dr. Horatio Arias, M.D., a psychiatrist who was employed by Respondent and who provided psychological treatment to Petitioners' son. Petitioners' son, while under Dr. Arias' medical attention, was administered psychotropic medication for a mental disorder. Dr. Arias opined that Petitioners should not be given the responsibility of caring for foster children as such children are often from abused, neglected, or abandoned families and they are, at times, aggressive. Dr. Arias related instances wherein Petitioner, Mr. French, shouted and hollered at his son and there were often shouting and screaming matches between Mr. French and his son. The son felt threatened by Mr. French "because the patient (the son) didn't agree with him on certain things. (Deposition of Arias pp. 32-33). Based on the relationship between Mr. French and his son, Respondent ran away from home and went to a crisis center supervised by Respondent. He stayed in the center for a short while and was thereafter admitted to a state psychiatric hospital. He was released from the hospital and now lives with Petitioners. Mr. French admits that he has, at times, had shouting matches with his son and that he talks louder than normal because he is hard of hearing. He also acknowledged that he should be wearing two hearing aids based on his hearing impairment. The placement of foster children in Petitioners' home could cause stress which would negatively impact on their son who lives with them. This could result in behavior regression (by the son). Such placement could also cause psychological regression for the foster children which would negatively impact their psychological development. Dr. Arias opined that if Petitioners were allowed to care for foster children in their home, that such be done on a temporary basis in a trial manner. Children tend to tease and upset persons who suffer from psychiatric problems such as Petitioners' son. (Respondent's Exhibit 2, p. 8) It is not feasible for Petitioners to be licensed to provide emergency shelter care on a trial basis as it is impossible to determine how long the placement will last or how many children will need to be placed with the Petitioners at any given time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioners' application for a license to provide emergency shelter family home care at this time. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Wendell and Alta French, pro se 6133 Shirley Avenue Gibsonton, Florida 33534 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33614
The Issue Whether Respondents, Donna and Randy Morrison, managers of Hillside Mobile Home Park, discriminated against Petitioners, Linda Parah and Andrew Loveland, Sr., by failing to make reasonable accommodation for Petitioners' service animal necessary to afford equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rental premises in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Sections through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2004).1
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses' demeanor and manner while testifying, character of the testimony, internal consistency, and recall ability; documentary materials received in evidence; stipulations by the parties; and evidentiary rulings during the proceedings, the following relevant and material facts are found: On June 24, 2004, Andrew Loveland, Sr., made application for tenancy at Hillside Mobile Home Park, Inc. (Hillside), 39515 Bamboo Lane, Zephyrhills, Florida 33542, when he completed and signed Respondents' "Application for Tenancy" form. The prospective tenants listed were Andrew Loveland, Sr., and Linda Parah. Ms. Parah did not sign the application. As of June 24, 2005, Petitioners listed their then-current address as 5824 23rd Street, Lot 1, Zephyrhills, Florida 33542. The application for tenancy form listed Ms. Parah as one of the persons to reside in the rental dwelling and, as such, was a "person associated with the intended renter," Mr. Loveland. The tenancy application signed by Mr. Loveland contained the following acknowledgement: [U]nder penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and the facts alleged are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Prospectus and Rules and Regulations of Hillside Mobile Home Park, Inc. Mr. Loveland, though present at the proceeding, chose not to challenge his written acknowledgment of receiving a copy of the Prospectus and the Rules and Regulations of Hillside, and the undersigned accordingly finds that Mr. Loveland received a copy of the Prospectus and the Rules and Regulations of Hillside on June 24, 2004, and was fully informed of his duties and obligations as a tenant of Hillside therein contained. On June 24, 2004, neither Mr. Loveland nor Ms. Parah informed or advised management of any medical disability(s) suffered, requiring companionship (living in the trailer) of a dog (comfort or service). Petitioners did not, at that time, request Respondents to make any reasonable accommodations for any mental and/or physical disability(s) that required the presence of their service dog in the rented premises. No copy of management's park prospectus or rules was offered in evidence, and, accordingly, a finding of receipt thereof is made, but no findings herein are based on the specific content therein. On or after June 24, 2004, Petitioners and their dog occupied the leased premises 6528 Pecan Drive, Hillside Mobile Home Park, Zephyrhills, Florida 33542. The credible evidence of record convincingly demonstrated management had knowledge that Petitioners and several other park tenants owned dogs. Tenants, often times together, walked their dogs about the trailer park in sight of management and other residents. Based upon the above, it is concluded that management was or should have been aware that other tenants, including Petitioners, had dogs in the trailer park. On October 21, 2004, management, by and through its attorney, by certified mail, made demand upon Petitioners to cure noncompliance within seven days (October 28, 2004) or vacate premises for noncompliance with the park prospectus or rules, to wit: You have been driving your golf cart behind and between mobiles. Residents must govern themselves in a manner that does not unreasonably disturb or annoy other residents. We have had several complaints regarding this issue. Please drive and walk on the streets only. (Emphasis added) Ms. Parah acknowledged the golf car incident, explaining that Mr. Loveland occasionally drove his golf cart through the trailer park and not always on the walkways during the evening hours. She insisted, however, that after receipt of the October 21, 2004, notice to cease from management, Mr. Loveland discontinued driving his golf cart behind and between mobile homes during the evenings and nights and, during the day, restricted his cart driving to only the park roadways. By letter dated November 5, 2004, to Mr. Loveland, Respondents issued a "Notice of Termination of Tenancy," for failure to correct the (October 21, 2004, notice of violation-- driving golf cart) within seven days. Accordingly, his tenancy was to be terminated 35 days from the postmarked date of delivery of the notice. On November 11, 2004, S. D. Hostetler, a tenant whom management did not call to testify, allegedly filed the following hand-written complaint letter to management: On 11-3-04 at around 3 am I was awaken by a loud sound. I got up to see what it was and it was an older red golf cart going through the camping section, it must not have a muffler on it, that morning I did complain to the management about some one going around the Park that early in the morning with such a noisey [sic] scooter. I later found out it was Andrew Loveland. The above-written document was not notarized; the author was not made available and subject to cross-examination. This document therefore is unsupported hearsay and insufficient to support and establish the factual content therein to wit: "[O]n 11-3-04 around 3 a.m., Mr. Loveland was driving his golf cart through the camping section and, thus, failed to correct the October 21, 2004, notice of violation--driving golf cart, within 7 days." This complaint did, however, establish the fact that management received a complaint about Mr. Loveland from another tenant after having given him notice to cease and desist. On November 18, 2004, two weeks after the golf cart notice of noncompliance termination, Respondents, by certified mail delivered on November 22, 2004, made demand upon Petitioners to cure noncompliance within seven days or vacate premises for a second noncompliance with the park prospectus or rules, to wit: "(A) You have a dog and dogs are not allowed in the park." The November 22, 2004, copy of the notice to cure noncompliance was received by Mr. Loveland as evidenced by a copy of a U.S. Certified Mail delivery receipt signed by Mr. Loveland. In the December 13, 2004, letter from Attorney Schlichte addressed to Andrew Loveland (only), Re: Notice of Termination of Tenancy (reference November 18, 2004, 1st Notice of Rule Violation; i.e. you have a dog and dogs not allowed), Petitioners were given 30 days to vacate the premises. It is significant and noted that as of December 13, 2004, Ms. Parah had not made a demand or request upon management for "reasonable accommodations for her service animal necessary to afford the Petitioner an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rental premises," as alleged in the administrative complaint. Ultimate Factual Determinations On February 28, 2005, 76 days after receipt of management's December 13, 2004, first Notice of Rule Violation (no dog allowed) and filing of Eviction Compliant in Pasco County Court,2 Petitioners made their first written request to management for reasonable accommodation under the American Disabilities Act as follows: Dear Sir: I am requesting reasonable accommodation under the American with Disability Act to have rules and regulations of the Park (Hillside) sent to me. On my pet. I have documentation from my physician Joseph Nystrom, M.D. on my service, my comfort dog. And this can be furnished upon request! Rules and Regulations were not clear to fact that Mr. Andrew Loveland, Sr. never had them unless you can show pictures on the grass 10/21/2004. I feel that your violating Mr. Loveland and my civil right under fair housing rules. [sic] Please acknowledge our reasonable accommodation as stated above by Tuesday of next week 3/8/2005. Accordingly, Linda Alan Parah Andrew Alton Loveland, Sr. cc: C.J. Miles Deputy Dir. Fair Housing Continu [sic], Inc., 1-888-264-5619. Having provided a copy of the Prospectus and the Rules and Regulations of Hillside on June 24, 2004, to Mr. Loveland, management's refusal to provide a second copy was a reasonable nondiscriminatory business decision. The offer to provide "documentation from my physician Joseph Nystrom, M.D. on my service, my comfort dog," imposed no obligation upon management to accept such offer. Within the totality of circumstances then present, ignoring Petitioners' offer to provide medical and/or willingness statements regarding their medical, physical, and mental disabilities, requiring the presence of a service/comfort dog by Respondents, is not found to have been discriminatory. On or about May 19, 2005, Pasco County Court entered Final Judgment of Eviction against Andrew Loveland and Unknown Tenant (i.e. Linda Parah). The Pasco County Sheriff's Office, pursuant to Final Judgment of Eviction for Removal of Tenant entered by the Pasco County Court, evicted Petitioners from Respondents' rented premises of Hillside, 39515 Bamboo Lane, Zephyrhills, Florida 33542. Petitioners submitted an abundance of credible evidence relating to their physical and mental health conditions. As to Mr. Loveland, Dr. Nystrom's written and signed notation concluded that Mr. Loveland's condition required: "Motorized wheelchair multi-level spinal stenosis- medically necessary and due to his illness, the presence of his little Dog is medically necessary." The document contained hearsay evidence to which counsel for Respondents did not raise an objection and is, thus, accepted by the undersigned. This document was dated after the date Mr. Loveland received his second notice regarding failure to correct and the filing of the complaint for eviction. As to Ms. Parah, Tracey E. Smithey, M.D., East Pasco Medical Group, reported her medical conclusion stating in part that: "Linda Parah, was seen in my office on 11-20-03, 01-19-04 and today (April 8, 2004). She had been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Depressed type. She is prescribed Paxi, Xanax, and Ambien. She has been referred for psychotherapy also." Dr. Smithey did not include in her written document that Ms. Parah had to have a dog for her condition. Dr. Smithey, as had Dr. Nystrom, signed the document. The document contained hearsay evidence to which counsel for Respondents did not raise an objection and is, thus, accepted by the undersigned. Had Petitioners made their request for reasonable accommodations and presented their medical reports, evidencing their medical conditions and limitations, to include the need of Mr. Loveland for his comfort dog, to Respondents on or before June 24, 2004, or even as late as on or about November 18, 2004, Petitioners would have, arguably, established the requisite basis for finding of a request for reasonable accommodation. There is, however, insufficient evidence of record to support a finding that Petitioners, Mr. Loveland nor Ms. Parah, made a reasonable accommodation request to Respondents for the housing of the comfort dog for Mr. Loveland. The sequence of dated events and documented evidence is an inference that after receiving the notice to vacate for the two alleged rule violation(s), Petitioners did not make a request for reasonable accommodation to management for Mr. Loveland's dog, but rather offered to provide medical support of Mr. Loveland's need for a comfort dog should Respondents request such proof. Respondents were under no duty or obligation to do so and did not make such a request.3 Petitioners failed to establish that either Mr. Loveland or Ms. Parah: (1) made a request for reasonable accommodation based upon the demonstrated disability of Mr. Loveland; (2) the animal in question was a medically required service (comfort dog) animal for Mr. Loveland; (3) the requested accommodation was necessary to permit full enjoyment by Mr. Loveland of the rental premises; and (4) thereafter, management denied their reasonable accommodation request for Mr. Loveland. In short, and based upon the findings of fact herein, Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioners; rather, management terminated Petitioners' tenancy for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, to wit: off-road driving of a golf cart and unapproved dog within the rental unit in violation of park rules and regulations after written notice to correct the noted violations. Management's Counsel's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs There is not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate a finding that Petitioner, Mr. Loveland, who did not testify, knew or should have known that his claim and defense presented during this proceeding was not supported by material facts. Likewise, Respondent made no query of Ms. Parah (referred to in the eviction complaint as "unnamed tenant") that elicited statements or acknowledgements from which reasonable inference could be drawn to demonstrate that within the situational circumstances Ms. Parah knew or should have known the claim herein made was not supported by material facts.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order: Dismissing Petitioners', Linda Parah and Andrew Loveland's, Petition for Relief; and Denying Respondents' counsel's motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 16th day of March, 2006.
The Issue Should Petitioner be assessed a late fee for failure to timely file its renewal application for its Home Health license?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was licensed as a Non-Certified Home Health Agency, license no. HHA203220961, with an effective date of October 1, 1997, and an expiration date of September 30, 1998. The Agency furnished Petitioner an application for renewal of its license in June 1998. The renewal application was due to be filed with the Agency 60 days before the expiration of Petitioner's then current license. Petitioner's application for renewal of its then current license was received by the Agency on August 28, 1998. To avoid any late fees, Petitioner's renewal application should have been filed with the Agency no later than August 2, 1998. Petitioner's renewal application was filed 26 days late. Petitioner did not deny that its renewal application was filed late. By letter dated November 2, 1998, the Agency notified Petitioner that its renewal application had been received on August 29, 1998, when in fact the renewal application was received on August 28, 1998. The letter further advised Petitioner that it was being assessed a late fee of $2,700.00. This late fee was calculated by multiplying the number of days late (27) times $100.00 per day. The date received set out in the letter of November 2, 1999, was incorrect and the number of days should have been 26. Therefore, the correct amount of the late fee should have been $2,600.00. The lateness of the renewal application was due to a financial hardship that Petitioner was suffering at that time because Petitioner had to purchase a Medicaid surety bond. There were not enough funds for both the surety bond and application renewal fee. Petitioner has a waiver (Medicaid) for care of certain handicapped persons contracted with the Human Services Foundation which requires a surety bond. Petitioner provides respite home health aid nurses and homemaker's services. There was no evidence that Petitioner had ever been late before in filing its license renewal application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the mitigating circumstances, it is recommended that the Agency enter a final order imposing a late fee of $500.00 to be paid by Petitioner within 60 days of the date of the final order, subject to any other condition the Agency may deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edmund N. Jackson, Administrator Elite Health Care Services, Inc. Post Office Box 2444 Arcadia, Florida 34265 Karel Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the following findings are made: The position of Executive Director of the Sanford Housing Authority became available on July 31, 1981, upon the resignation of Lewis B. Cox, a white male who had held the position for approximately eighteen months. His letter of resignation was dated July 13, 1981. By her letter dated July 27, 1981, addressed to Joseph Caldwell, Chairman, Petitioner informed the Respondent of her application for the vacancy. At the time she had been employed by Respondent for approximately nine and a half years as Social Services Director and as Director of Management. Lewis Cox's letter of resignation included his recommendation that Petitioner be promoted as his successor. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) Petitioner is a black female. Respondent is a public agency responsible for various housing and community development programs, including rentals to low and moderate income individuals. It receives government subsidies, primarily from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is also supported by rental income. Its governing body is a five-member board of commissioners which during the relevant period consisted of the following: Joseph Caldwell, Chairman (Black, Male) Eliza Pringle, Vice-Chairperson (Black, female) Mary Whitney, Commissioner (Black, female) J. Wain Cummings, Commissioner (White, male) Leroy Johnson, Commissioner (Black, male). On August 13, 1981, at the meeting following Lewis Cox's resignation as Acting Executive Director, the Board appointed Petitioner as Acting Director. No one was appointed to fill her position of Director of Management and she continued to serve in both capacities until the regular Executive Director was finally appointed. This process took approximately fourteen months, from July 31, 1981, until September 29, 1982. As Acting Director, the Petitioner advertised the vacancy by placing notices in the local paper and in professional newsletters. Over one hundred applications or resumes were received. At the suggestion of the Board attorney, the commissioners were each provided copies of all resumes and each selected his or her five top candidates. This was later narrowed to a list of six candidates to be interviewed. Petitioner was the only female candidate on the list. On January 7, 1982, the Board met to appoint an Executive Director. Two separate votes were taken at the meeting and both yielded the same result: Petitioner received two votes and three other candidates received one vote each; none received a majority. On January 16, 1982, the Board met and voted again. Again, the votes were taken twice, with the same result: Petitioner received two votes, Thomas Wilson III received two votes and Willie King, Sr. received one vote. Willie King was designated "second choice" by three commissioners. On January 29, 1982, the Board voted to appoint Willie King, Sr. as Executive Director. While he was not the first choice of any commissioner, he received four votes as second choice. None of the first choice candidates received a majority. (Petitioner's Exhibits #3 - 7, Minutes of Meetings of the Housing Authority of the City of Sanford) Willie King, Sr. declined the appointment. Thus, the process continued with interviews, discussions, and failure to reach a decision, until September 29, 1982, when the Board met, interviewed Elliott Smith, Coordinator of the C.E.T.A Youth Employment Program, and voted again. He was appointed Executive Director after receiving a three-vote majority. At the same meeting Petitioner was commended for her service and for having saved the Housing Authority money by filling two positions. She was then informed that she would resume her position as Director of Management. (Petitioner's Exhibit #10, Minutes of meeting) At the time of final hearing, she was still in that position. Petitioner's lengthy service with the Housing Authority gave her experience in virtually every aspect of the agency's housing programs. The grant programs were primarily handled by the Executive Director. Elliott L. Smith, at the time of his appointment as Executive Director, had no experience in housing programs. He did, however, have approximately seven years experience as coordinator of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Program (C.E.T.A.) for the Seminole County School Board in Sanford, Florida. This is a federal grant program. He also had administrative experience as a supervisor in a mill. (Respondent's Exhibit #1) The advertisements for the position did not require housing program experience, but rather emphasized the need for management experience and familiarity with federal, state, and local programs, and government regulations. (Petitioner's Exhibits #13 and #14). It must be noted that Petitioner's Exhibit #13, an invoice and the text of classified ad in the Evening Herald, was received into evidence without objection. However, the date on the invoice is January 9, 1980, and apparently relates to a prior recruiting effort rather than the 1981 vacancy. It is presumed that since it, like Petitioner's Exhibit #14, was submitted as an example of the recruitment ads, the requirements for the position did not substantially change. Both candidates, Petitioner and Mr. Smith, met the minimum requirements for the position. The Housing Authority has a personnel policy which is recommended by the Executive Director and adopted by the Board. The policy in effect during the relevant period provided very general guidance to the Board in making its appointment: one sentence on the merit system, a nondiscrimination clause and the statement that, "Vacated or newly established positions shall be filled to the fullest extent consistent with efficient operations, by the promotion of qualified, employees." (Petitioner's Exhibit #11). The commissioners, most of whom were newly appointed, had their individual notions of what qualifications the Executive Director should have. No specific objective criteria were developed to assist them in the selection process beyond the policy referred above and the minimum requirements in the vacancy notices. The common, overall goal of the Board, however, was to restore respectability to the Housing Authority. The Sanford black community was split into factions and this impacted the Board which consisted of a majority of black commissioners. The majority of tenants were also black. Relations between the tenants and staff were strained and a negative audit from the U.S. Department of HUD (U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) had just been received. Staff morale was low. A previous Executive Director, Thomas Wilson, III who served from 1972 until 1980, was fired by the Board amid rumors of financial mismanagement of the block grant program. This was the same Thomas Wilson who was considered a serious contender for the position when his successor, Lewis Cox, resigned. (See paragraph 4, above). During the recruitment and hiring process, the commissioners received intense pressure from the various factions in the community supporting various candidates or urging certain qualifications. Amid the procedural and political chaos surrounding the hiring, several notable rumors or controversies emerged. One such rumor was that Commissioner Cummings had made a statement to the effect that Petitioner had done a good job, but that it was a job for a man and he could not vote for her. He denies that statement and any prejudice against the Petitioner on account of her sex or race. He alleges that he voted against her because she was so closely connected to Thomas Wilson, having worked directly under him during his controversial tenure as Executive Director. Commissioner Whitney also denied in her testimony at the hearing that she heard the statement from Mr. Cummings. This testimony conflicts with her signed statement dated February 1, 1982, received into evidence, over objection, as Petitioner's Exhibit #16. On cross- examination, she denied having drafted the statement and could not remember who brought it to her to be signed. The statement is not a sworn statement. Commissioner Whitney consistently voted for hiring the Petitioner. Commissioner Eliza Pringle did not hear the alleged statement by Commissioner Cummings either, but she generated a controversy on her own. At some point during review of the applications, she commented that photographs would be nice since they would reveal whether the applicant was male or female. She explained that the comment was a flippant remark on some of the names of the applicants. She denied any sexist animus. She stated that the Petitioner is related to her through some distant cousins who, in turn, are related to the McCoys, a prominent black family connected to one of the black Sanford factions. One of the McCoys held two terms on the Housing Authority Board. Commissioner Pringle did not wish to fuel the factionalism by hiring a relative. She supported Elliot Smith because, as a former school teacher, she was familiar with his C.E.T.A work in the schools, and felt he could make a contribution to the community. Commissioner Leroy Johnson voted for Thomas Wilson to be hired back to his former position. He thought Wilson needed another chance and had the best experience. Later, when Elliot Smith was interviewed, he supported Smith because of his skills in working with people and in writing federal grants. Elliott Smith was a contender late in the hiring process because his C.E.T.A. position was eliminated. No woman has ever been Executive Director of the Sanford Housing Authority. Petitioner conceded, however, that even if Lewis Cox had been a woman he would have been hired because of his strong financial background. Willie King, the candidate who was offered the appointment, but declined, also had a background in financial affairs. As protracted as the process was, a common bond of frustration joined all the commissioners in their search for an Executive Director. Like a deus ex machina, Elliott Smith appeared on the scene at the eleventh hour, fourteen months after the vacancy was created, and obtained the three votes necessary for a majority. By those who voted for him, he was viewed as having the necessary skills without the close ties to the Housing Authority which appeared to taint the other leading candidates.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Human Relations Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner and denying Petitioner's claim for relief. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, 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 20th day of January, 1986. APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-2640 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. The statement that all prior Executive Directors had been males is adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 5. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 1 and 4. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 6 and 7. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 3. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 9. The first sentence regarding the absence of any objective standards is too broad to be consistent with the evidence. Rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. See paragraph 8 and 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 5, except that Smith was appointed on September 29, 1982, rather than September 19th. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9 and 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 11, except the final sentence, which is unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, although it is accepted that black politics is one factor in the decision-making function of the board. See paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. Adopted in part in paragraph 11. The last sentence is rejected as being inconsistent with the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. Adopted in substance in conclusions of law, paragraph 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Betsy Howard, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harry L. Lamb, Esquire 621 N. Fern Creek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Ned N. Julian, Esquire Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32771
