02-003254 Agency For Health Care Administration vs. Avante At Leesburg, Inc., D/B/A Avante At Leesburg
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, December 13, 2002.


View Dockets  
Summary: Agency did not meet its burden of proof in that it did not prove that a Class III deficiency was not corrected within the time frame established by the agency. Recommend dismissal of Administrative Complaint.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )

13ADMINISTRATION, )

15)

16Petitioner, )

18)

19vs. ) Case Nos. 02 - 3254

26) 02 - 3255

30AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC., )

35d/b/a AVANTE AT LEESBURG, )

40)

41Respondent. )

43_____________________ _____________)

45RECOMMENDED ORDER

47A hearing was held pursuant to notice on October 23, 2002,

58by Barbara J. Staros, assigned Administrative Law Judge of the

68Division of Administrative Hearings, in Leesburg, Flo rida.

76APPEARANCES

77For Petitioner: Jodi C. Page, Esquire

83Agency for Health Care Administration

882727 Mahan Drive

91Mail Station 3

94Tallahassee, Florida 32308

97For Respondent: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire

103Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire

107Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis

1112180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100

117Winter Park, Florida 32790 - 2011

123S TATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

128Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the

136Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be

145imposed.

146PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

148The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) filed an

157Administrative Complain t on July 12, 2002, for the imposition of

168an administrative fine alleging an uncorrected Class III

176deficiency. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint alleged

182that Respondent failed to meet professional standards of quality

191by its failure to properly f ollow and implement physician

201orders. Avante at Leesburg, Inc. (Avante) requested a formal

210administrative hearing, and AHCA forwarded the case to the

219Division of Administrative Hearings on or about August 19, 2002.

229AHCA filed a second Administrative Compl aint against Avante

238on July 12, 2002. The second Administrative Complaint again

247alleges an uncorrected Class III deficiency and seeks to assign

257a conditional license. Specifically, the second Administrative

264Complaint alleges that Avante was not in substa ntial compliance

274with applicable laws and rules by failing to meet professional

284standards of quality by its failure to properly follow and

294implement physician orders. Avante requested a formal

301administrative hearing and the case was forwarded to the

310Divis ion of Administrative Hearings on or about August 19, 2002.

321Respondent filed a Motion to Consolidate which was granted,

330consolidating Case Nos. 02 - 3254 and 02 - 3255. A hearing was

343scheduled for October 23, 2002, in Leesburg, Florida.

351At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of two

359witnesses, Stephen Burgin and Selena Beckett. Petitioner's

366Exhibits numbered 1 through 10, 14 and 15 were admitted into

377evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Nancy Strake,

385Theresa Miller, Vicki Cannon, and Alice Markhan. Respondent's

393composite Exhibit numbered 1 was admitted into evidence.

401A Transcript, consisting of one volume, was filed on

410November 4, 2002. The parties requested more than ten days

420after the filing of the Transcript in which to file proposed

431recommended orders. That request was granted. The parties

439timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders which have been

447considered in the preparation of this recommended order.

455FINDINGS OF FACT

458Stipulated facts

4601. AHCA is the agency responsible for the lic ensing and

471regulation of skilled nursing facilities in Florida pursuant to

480Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A - 4,

491Florida Administrative Code.

4942. At all times material hereto, Avante was licensed by

504Petitioner as a skilled nursing faci lity. Avante operates a

514116 - bed nursing home located in Leesburg, Florida.

5233. On or about March 28, 2002, AHCA conducted a complaint

534investigation at Avante.

5374. Based on AHCA's findings during the March 28, 2002,

547complaint investigation, federal tag F 281(D) was cited against

556Avante.

5575. On or about May 13, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey at

569Avante.

5706. Based on AHCA's findings during the May 13, 2002,

580survey, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante.

5887. Resident E.S. was admitted to Avante on March 11, 2002,

599with diagnoses including e. coli sepsis, anemia, and

607schizophrenia with an order for serum albumin levels to be

617performed "now and yearly."

6218. Resident E.S.'s resident chart failed to reflect that a

631serum albumin test had been performed for Resi dent E.S. at any

643time from the date of his admission on March 11, 2002, until

655March 28, 2002. Avante failed to follow the orders of Resident

666E.S.'s physician due to its failure to perform a serum albumin

677test on Resident E.S. at any time between March 11, 2002, and

689March 28, 2002.

6929. Resident R.L. was admitted to Respondent's facility on

701May 6, 2002 with diagnoses including gastrointestinal

708hemorrhage, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease,

715A - fib, pneumonia, diverticulitis, gout, fracture of r ight arm,

726and cancer of the prostate.

73110. Resident R.L.'s resident chart reflects that Resident

739R.L. was neither offered or administered Tylenol by Avante's

748staff at any time between May 9, 2002, and May 13, 2002.

760Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record

76711. The correction date given to Respondent for the

776deficiency cited, Tag F281(D), as a result of the March 28,

7872002, complaint investigation was April 28, 2002.

79412. Respondent does not dispute the deficiency cited by

803AHCA as a result of the March 28, 2 002, complaint investigation.

815Thus, facts and circumstances surrounding the May 13, 2002,

824survey visit to Avante is the source of this dispute.

83413. The purpose of the May 13, 2002 survey visit to Avante

846by AHCA was for annual certification or licensure. In an annual

857license survey, a group of surveyors goes to a facility to

868determine if the facility is in compliance with state and

878federal requirements and regulations. Part of the process is to

888tour the facility, meet residents, record reviews, and talk to

898families and friends of the residents. During the licensure

907visit on May 13, 2002, the records of 21 residents were

918reviewed.

91914. Stephen Burgin is a registered nurse and is employed

929by AHCA as a registered nurse specialist. He has been employed

940by A HCA for three years and has been licensed as a nurse for six

955years. He also has experience working in a hospital ER staging

966unit and in a hospital cardiology unit. Nurse Burgin has never

977worked in a nursing home. Nurse Burgin conducted the complaint

987inv estigation on March 28, 2002, and was team leader for the

999licensure survey visit on May 13, 2002, at Avante. He was

1010accompanied on the May 13, 2002, visit by Selena Beckett, who is

1022employed by AHCA as a social worker. Both Nurse Burgin and

1033Ms. Beckett ar e Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT)

1042certified.

104315. During the course of the May 13, 2002, licensure

1053survey visit, Ms. Beckett interviewed Resident R.L. As a result

1063of this interview, Ms. Beckett examined Resident R.L.'s

1071medication administration record (MAR) to determine whether he

1079was receiving pain medication for his injured left elbow.

108816. As a result of reviewing Resident R.L.'s record,

1097Ms. Beckett became aware of a fax cover sheet which related to

1109Resident R.L. The fax cover sheet was da ted May 8, 2002, from

1122Nancy Starke, who is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a

1134staff nurse, to Dr. Sarmiento, Resident R.L.'s attending

1142physician. The box labeled "Please comment" was checked and the

1152following was hand written in the section entitl ed "comments":

"1163Pt refused Augmentin 500 mg BID today states it causes him to

1175have hallucinations would like tyl for pain L elbow."

118417. According to Nurse Starke, the fax to Dr. Sarmiento

1194addressed two concerns: Resident R.L.'s refusal to take

1202Augmenti n and a request for Tylenol for pain for Resident R.L.'s

1214left elbow. She faxed the cover sheet to Dr. Sarmiento during

1225the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on May 8, 2002. Despite her

1238fax to Dr. Sarmiento, which mentioned pain in R.L.'s left elbow,

1249her dail y nurse notes for May 8, 2002, reflect that Resident

1261R.L. was alert, easygoing, and happy. He was verbal on that day

1273meaning that he was able to make his needs known to her. Her

1286daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002 contain the notation: "Pt

1297refused augment in today. Dr. Sarmiento faxed." According to

1306Nurse Starke, she personally observed Resident R.L. and did not

1316observe any expression of pain on May 8, 2002, nor did Resident

1328R.L. request pain medication after she sent the fax to

1338Dr. Sarmiento.

134018. The fa x cover sheet also contained the hand written

1351notation: "Document refused by PT. OK 5/9/02" with initials

1360which was recognized by nurses at Avante as that of

1370Dr. Sarmiento. The fax sheet has a transmission line which

1380indicates that it was faxed back to A vante the evening of May 9,

13942002.

139519. Nurse Starke also provided care to Resident R.L. on

1405May 11, 2002. According to Nurse Starke, Resident R.L. did not

1416complain of pain on May 11, 2002.

142320. Theresa Miller is a registered nurse employed by

1432Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Miller provided care to Resident

1443R.L. on May 9 and 10, 2002, during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

1457shift. Nurse Miller's nurses notes for May 9 and 10, 2002,

1468reflect that she observed Resident R.L. to be alert, easygoing,

1478and happy. Her notes also reflect that Resident R.L. was verbal

1489on those dates, meaning that he was able to tell her if he

1502needed anything. She did not observe Resident R.L. to have any

1513expression of pain on those dates, nor did Resident R.L. express

1524to her that he was in any pain.

153221. Vicki Cannon is a licensed practical nurse employed by

1542Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Cannon has been a licensed

1553practical nurse and has worked in nursing homes since 1998.

1563Nurse Cannon provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11 and 12 ,

15752002, on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Her nurse's notes

1587for May 11, 2002 reflect that Resident R.L. was sullen but alert

1599and verbal. Resident R.L. had blood in his urine and some

1610discomfort. Nurse Cannon contacted Dr. Sarmiento by telephone

1618on Ma y 11, 2002, to inform him of Resident R.L.'s symptoms that

1631day. Nurse Cannon noted on Resident R.L.'s physician order

1640sheet that she received a telephone order from Dr. Sarmiento to

1651give Resident R.L. Ultram PRN and Levaquin, discontinue

1659Augmentin, order BMP and CBC blood work, and a urology consult.

1670Ultram is an anti - inflammatory and a pain medication. Ultram is

1682stronger than Tylenol. The notation "PRN" means as requested by

1692the patient for pain. Levaquin is an antibiotic.

170022. Nurse Cannon faxed the order to the pharmacy at

1710Leesburg Regional Medical Center. By the time Nurse Cannon left

1720Avante for the day on May 11, 2002, the Ultram had not arrived

1733from the pharmacy.

173623. On May 12, 2002, Resident R.L. had edema of the legs

1748and blood in his urine. Nurse Cannon notified Dr. Sarmiento of

1759Resident R.L.'s symptoms. Resident R.L. was sent to the

1768emergency room for evaluation based on Dr. Sarmiento's orders.

1777Additionally, Nurse Cannon called the pharmacy on May 12, 2002,

1787to inquire about the Ultram as it had not yet arrived at the

1800facility. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of

1809May 12, 2002.

181224. Alice Markham is a registered nurse and is the

1822Director of Nursing at Avante. She has been a nurse for more

1834than 20 years and has been employed at Avante for a little over

1847two years. She also has worked in acute care at a hospital.

1859Nurse Markham is familiar with Resident R.L. She described

1868Resident R.L. as alert until the period of time before he went

1880to the hospital on May 12, 2002. She was not aware of any

1893expressions of pain by Resident R.L. between May 9, 2002 until

1904he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. Nurse Markham meets

1916frequently with her nursing staff regarding the facility's

1924residents.

192525. During the licensure survey, Nurse Markham became

1933aware of Ms. Beckett's concerns regarding Resident R.L. and

1942whether he had received Tylenol. She called Dr. Sarmiento to

1952request an order for Tylenol for R.L. The physician order sheet

1963for R.L. contains a notation for a telephone order for Tylenol

"1974PRN" on May 14, 2002, for joint pain and the notation, "try

1986Tylenol before Ultram." The medical administration record for

1994R.L. indicates that Resident R.L. received Ultram on May 13 and

200514 and began receiving Tylenol on May 15, 2002.

201426. AHCA 's charge of failure to meet professional

2023standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement

2033physician orders is based on the "OK" notation by Dr. Sarmiento

2044on the above - described fax and what AHCA perceives to be

2056Avante's failure to follow and implem ent that "order" for

2066Tylenol for Resident R.L.

207027. AHCA nurse and surveyor Burgin acknowledged that the

"2079OK" on the fax cover sheet was not an order as it did not

2093specify dosage or frequency. He also acknowledged that the

2102nursing home could not administe r Tylenol based on

2111Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" on the fax cover sheet, that it would not

2123be appropriate to forward the "OK" to the pharmacy, that it

2134should not have been placed on the resident's medication

2143administration record, and that it should not have been

2152a dministered to the resident. However, Nurse Burgin is of the

2163opinion that the standard practice of nursing is to clarify such

2174an "order" and once clarified, administer the medication as

2183ordered. He was of the opinion that Avante should have

2193clarified Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" for Tylenol on May 9, 2002,

2203rather than on May 14, 2002. Nurse Burgin also was of the

2215opinion that it should have been reflected on the resident's

2225medication administration record and treatment record or TAR.

223328. In Nurse Markham's op inion, "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento on

2244the fax cover sheet does not constitute a physician's order for

2255medication as it does not contain dosage or frequency of

2265administration. Nurse Markham is also of the opinion that it

2275should not have been forwarded to the p harmacy, transcribed to

2286the medication administration record, or transcribed on the

2294treatment administration record. According to Nurse Markham,

2301doctor's orders are not recorded on the treatment administration

2310record of a resident. Nurse Markham is of th e opinion that the

2323nursing staff at Avante did not deviate from the community

2333standard for nursing in their care of Resident R.L. from May 8,

23452002 to May 14, 2002.

235029. Nurse Cannon also is of the opinion that the "OK" by

2362Dr. Sarmiento does not constitute a physician's order for

2371medication.

237230. The Administrative Complaints cited Avante for failure

2380to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly

2390follow and implement a physician's order. Having considered the

2399opinions of Nurses Burgin , Markham, and Cannon, it is clear that

2410the "OK" notation of Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet did

2422not constitute a physician's order. Without Dr. Sarmiento's

2430testimony, it is not entirely clear from a review of the fax

2442cover sheet that the "OK" relate s to the reference to Tylenol or

2455the reference to Resident R.L.'s refusal of Augmentin.

2463Accordingly, Avante did not fail to follow a physician's order

2473in May 2002.

247631. As to AHCA's assertion that Avante failed to meet

2486professional standards by not clar ifying the "OK" from

2495Dr. Sarmiento, this constitutes a different reason or ground

2504than stated in the Administrative Complaints. Failure to

2512clarify an order is not the equivalent of failure to follow an

2524order. There is insufficient nexus between the defic iency cited

2534on March 28, 2002 and the deficiency cited on May 13, 2002.

2546Accordingly, Avante did not fail to correct a Class III

2556deficiency within the time established by the agency or commit a

2567repeat Class III violation.

257132. Moreover, the evidence shows that the nursing staff

2580responded to the needs of Resident R.L. Resident R.L. expressed

2590pain in his left elbow to Nurse Starke on May 8, 2002.

2602Resident R.L. was alert and could make his needs known. He did

2614not express pain or a need for pain medicatio n to Nurse Miller

2627on May 9 or 10, 2002 or to Nurse Cannon on May 11 or 12, 2002.

2643Rather, Nurse Cannon noted a change in his condition, notified

2653Dr. Sarmiento which resulted in Resident R.L. being sent to the

2664emergency room. Resident R.L. returned to Avan te the evening of

2675May 12, 2002, and received Ultram for pain on May 13, 2002, when

2688the medication reached Avante from the pharmacy.

269533. The evidence presented does not establish that Avante

2704deviated from the community standard for nursing in its actions

2714s urrounding the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento. In weighing the

2724respective opinions of Nurses Burgin and Markham in relation to

2734whether the community standard for nursing was met by the

2744actions of Respondent, Nurse Markham's opinion is more

2752persuasive.

2753CONCLUSI ONS OF LAW

275734. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2764jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case.

2774Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.

278035. The Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 02 -

27903254 seeks to i mpose a $1,000.00 administrative fine for failure

2802to meet professional standards of quality by its failure to

2812properly follow physician orders in violation of Rule 59A -

28224.1288, Florida Administrative Code, and 42 CFR 483.20

2830(k)(3)(i). The Administrative Co mplaint specifies that this is

2839a Class III deficiency.

284336. The Administrative Complaint in Case No. 02 - 3255 seeks

2854to assign a conditional licensure status to Respondent based

2863upon Petitioner's determination that Respondent was not in

2871substantial complianc e with applicable laws and rules due to

2881the presence of an uncorrected Class III deficiency at the

2891survey conducted on May 13, 2002. The Administrative Complaint

2900asserts that the Class III deficiency was first cited during a

2911complaint investigation conduc ted on March 28, 2002, and was

2921uncorrected at the time the survey was conducted on May 13,

29322002.

293337. Further, the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 02 -

29433255 seeks to assess costs related to the investigation

2952pursuant to Section 400.121(10), Florida Statutes, in an

2960unspecified amount.

296238. The burden of proof in this proceeding is on the

2973agency. Because of the proposed penalty of an administrative

2982fine in Case No. 02 - 3254, the agency is required to prove the

2996allegations against Respondent by clear an d convincing

3004evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern &

3014Co ., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996) . In Case No. 02 - 3255, the

3030agency is required to prove the allegations against Respondent

3039by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Department o f

3049Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla.

30591st DCA 1981).

306239. Section 400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that

3069a conditional rating means that the facility, due to the

3079presence of one or more Class I or Class II deficiencies, or a

3092Class III deficiency not corrected within the time established

3101by the agency, is not in compliance with established criteria.

311140. Section 400.419, Florida Statutes, defines a Class III

3120deficiency and sets forth the parameters of any administrative

3129fi ne to be imposed regarding such deficiency. Section 400.419,

3139Florida Statutes, reads in pertinent part as follows:

3147400.419 Violations; administrative fines. --

3152(1) Each violation of this part and adopted

3160rules shall be classified according to the

3167nature of the violation and the gravity of

3175its probable effect on facility residents.

3181The agency shall indicate the classification

3187on the written notice of the violation as

3195follows:

3196* * *

3199(c) Class 'III' violations are th ose

3206conditions or occurrences related to the

3212operation and maintenance of a facility or

3219to the personal care of residents which the

3227agency determines indirectly or potentially

3232threaten the physical or emotional health,

3238safety, or security of facility resid ents,

3245other than class I or class II violations.

3253A class III violation is subject to an

3261administrative fine of not less then $500.00

3268and not exceeding $1,000.00 for each

3275violation. A citation for a class III

3282violation must specify the time within which

3289the violation is required to be corrected.

3296If a class III violation is corrected within

3304the time specified, no fine may be imposed,

3312unless it is a repeated offense.

3318* * *

3321(2) In determining if a penalty is to be

3330imposed and in fixing the amount of the

3338f ine, the agency shall consider the

3345following factors:

3347(a) The gravity of the violation, including

3354the probability that death or serious

3360physical or emotional harm to a resident

3367will result or has resulted, the severity of

3375the action or potential harm, and the extent

3383to which the provisions of the applicable

3390laws or rules were violated.

3395(b) Actions taken by the owner or

3402administrator to correct violations.

3406(c) Any previous violations.

3410(d) The financi al benefit to the facility

3418of committing or continuing the violation.

3424(e) The licensed capacity of the facility.

343141. Rule 59A - 4.1288, Florida Administrative Code,

3439incorporates by reference certification rules a nd regulations

3447found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities.

345842. 42 CFR 483.20(k)(3)(i)(tag F281) provides, "The

3465services provided or arranged by the facility must meet

3474professional standards of quality."

347843. AHCA has not met its burde n of proof in regard to the

3492imposition of a fine in that it failed to prove that Avante did

3505not correct a deficiency within the time specified or that it

3516committed a repeat offense of a Class III deficiency. AHCA's

3526assertion at hearing that Avante failed to meet professional

3535standards by not clarifying the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento

3544constitutes a different reason or ground than stated in the

3554Administrative Complaints. There is insufficient nexus between

3561the deficiency cited on March 28, 2002, and the deficie ncy cited

3573on May 13, 2002. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to correct a

3585deficiency within the time specified and did not commit a repeat

3596Class III violation to support the imposition of a fine as

3607contemplated by Section 400.419(1)(c).

361144. AHCA has not m et its burden of proof as to the

3624imposition of a conditional license in that it did not prove

3635that a Class III deficiency was not corrected within the time

3646frame established by the agency as contemplated by Section

3655400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes.

3658RECOMME NDATION

3660Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

3669of Law set forth herein, it is

3676RECOMMENDED:

3677That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a

3686final order dismissing the Administrative Complaints issued

3693against Respondent, Avan te at Leesburg.

3699DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2002, in

3709Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3713BARBARA J. STAROS

3716Administrative Law Judge

3719Division of Administrative Hearings

3723The DeSoto Building

37261230 Apalachee Parkway

3729Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3734(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

3742Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3748www.doah.state.fl.us

3749Filed with the Clerk of the

3755Division of Administrative Hearings

3759this 13th day of December, 2002.

3765COPIES FURNISHED:

3767Jodi C. Page, Esquire

3771Agency for Health Care Administration

37762727 Mahan Drive

3779Mail Station 3

3782Tallahassee, Florida 32308

3785Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire

3789Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire

3793Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis

37972180 Park Avenue North, Suite 100

3803Post Office Box 2011

3807Winter Park, Florida 32790 - 2011

3813Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk

3817Agency for Health Care Administration

38222727 Mahan Drive

3825Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431

3831Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 5403

3836Va linda Clark Christian, General Counsel

3842Agency for Health Care Administration

38472727 Mahan Drive

3850Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431

3856Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 5403

3861NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3867All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

387715 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to

3889this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will

3900issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2003
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2003
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held October 23, 2002) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2002
Proceedings: Agency`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2002
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 11/04/2002
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2002
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Staros from J. Page enclosing additional page to Petitioner`s exhibit no. 6 filed.
Date: 10/23/2002
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2002
Proceedings: Joint Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Pre-Hearing Instructions (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s First Set of Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2002
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for October 23 and 24, 2002; 10:00 a.m.; Leesburg, FL).
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2002
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation issued. (consolidated cases are: 02-003254, 02-003255)
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2002
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2002
Proceedings: Motion to Consolidate (case requested to be consolidated 02-3254, 02-3255) (filed by Respondent via facsimile)
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2002
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2002
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2002
Proceedings: Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2002
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BARBARA J. STAROS
Date Filed:
08/19/2002
Date Assignment:
08/21/2002
Last Docket Entry:
04/18/2003
Location:
Leesburg, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):