14-003118 Agency For Health Care Administration vs. Usa Rehab And Chiropractic Center, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, April 22, 2015.

Summary: Petitioner proved that Respondent did not secure employee attestations and failed to verify that covered employees maintained active, unencumbered Florida licenses.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE

ADMINISTRATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 3118

USA REHAB AND CHIROPRACTIC

CENTER, INC.,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in this cause was held

by video teleconference between sites in Orlando and Tallahassee,

Florida, on December 1 1 , 201 4 , before Linzie F. Bogan,

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARA NCES

For Petitioner: Warren J. Bird, Esquire

Agency for Health Care Administration

Building 3, Mail Stop 3

2727 Mahan Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

For Respondent: Ri chard D. Sierra, Esquire

Kosto and Rotells, P.A.

Post Office Box 113

Orlando, Florida 32802

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent, USA Rehab and Chiropractic Center, Inc.,

should have a penalty and fine imposed against its license for

alleged statutory and rule violations.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 29, 2014, the Agency for Health Care

Administration (Petitioner or Agency), filed a three - count

Administrative Complaint against USA Rehab and Chiropractic

Center, Inc. (Respondent).

The Administrative Complaint alleges violations of sections

400.991, 400.9935, 408.809, 408.810, Florida Statutes, 1/ and

Florida Administrative Code Rules 59A - 33.008 (2006) and 59A -

33.012 (2006) . Respond ent disputed the allegations in the

Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing pursuant to

section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On July 8, 2014, the matter

was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)

for the assignment of an admin istrative law judge to conduct the

final administrative hearing.

At the hearing, Vanessia Bulger, who is employed by

Petitioner as a health facility evaluator II, testified on behalf

of Petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 10 were received

in evid ence. Petitioner's Exhibit 7 was received in evidence for

the limited purpose of demonstrating that Respondent submitted a

correction plan to address any alleged deficiencies and not for

the purpose of proving the alleged deficiencies .

Respondent offered testimony from Emmanuel L. Nau, M.D., who

is the medical/clinic director for the facility, and Lavaud

Fevry, who is the owner and chief administrator for the facility.

RespondentÓs Exhibit 1 (stamped S28) was received in evidence.

Respondent proffered E xhibit 2 after it was not admitted into

evidence.

The Transcript of the final hearing was filed on

January 22, 2015 . Respondent moved for an extension of time for

the submission of its proposed recommended order, which was

granted. Each party timely fi led a Proposed Recommended Order

which received due consideration in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. On August 23, 2013, Respondent submitted to Petitioner a

Health Care Licensing Application (Application) using AHCA

Recomme nded Form 3110 - 0013, August 2013. The Application was

submitted for the purpose of renewing RespondentÓs license to

operate as a health care clinic.

A. Personnel File and Background Screening Results

2. Section nine of the Application seeks a listing of

RespondentÓs Ðlicensed health care practitioners and all

personnel who provide personal care services to clients or with

access to client funds.Ñ Employees that fall within this

classification are required to submit to, and successfully pass,

a Level 2 background screening. Respondent identified on the

Application four individuals that fell within the designated

category.

3. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A - 33.012(1) directs

that a ÐsurveyÑ will be conducted for Ð[a]pplications for renewal

licens es.Ñ This rule also provides that the survey process Ðis

an onsite inspection and review of the health care clinic

facility or administrative office, by authorized Agency employees

to determine the health care clinicÓs compliance with the minimum

standard s established by the Act, its statutory references and

rules regulating the operation and licensure of health care

clinics.Ñ Vanessia Bulger was assigned to conduct the survey

related to RespondentÓs Application.

4. On November 25, 2013, Ms. Bulger visi ted RespondentÓs

facility for the purpose of conducting the required survey.

Ms. Bulger met with the owner of the facility, Mr. Lavaud Fevry.

While meeting with Ms. Bulger, Mr. Fevry disclosed that after

submitting his Application to the Agency, the hea lth care clinic

hired two additional employees who provided personal care

services to the clinicÓs clients.

5. Ms. Bulger wrote the names of the two new employees on

her copy of section nine of the Application and further

identified these employees with the letters ÐCÑ and ÐD.Ñ

Employee ÐCÑ is Eugene Grazette and employee ÐDÑ is Dexter K.

John. For employee ÐC , Ñ Ms. Bulger wrote ÐEugene Grazette Î 8 -

31 - 15 Î NO BGÑ and for employee ÐDÑ she wrote ÐDexter K. John 10 -

17 - 09 BG.Ñ Ms. Bulger testified that ÐN O BGÑ stands for Ðno

background screening results.Ñ

6. The Administrative Complaint does not allege that

employee ÐCÑ had not passed a Level 2 background screening at the

time of the survey conducted by Ms. Bulger. Count I of the

Administrative Complain t does allege, however, that Respondent

failed to maintain a copy of the Level 2 background screening

results in the personnel file for employee ÐC.Ñ

7. It is undisputed that employee ÐC , Ñ during all times

relevant hereto, possessed a valid health provid er license that

authorized him to deliver personal care services to RespondentÓs

clients. Additionally, the evidence also establishes that on

September 18, 2013, approximately two months before the survey,

Respondent, via electronic submission, requested a Level 2

background screening for employee ÐC.Ñ

8. Ms. Bulger, as part of the survey process, completed a

ÐHeath [sic] Care Clinic Surveyor Worksheet & Facility

Questionnaire.Ñ Item nine of the questionnaire asks , Ð[i]s there

a log of all natural perso ns required to be screened and who have

been screened under Level 2 criteria?Ñ In response to this

question, Ms. Bulger wrote ÐNO - New Chiropractor Î m a ssage

therapist not listed.Ñ The questionnaire does not ask on any of

its 10 pages whether a copy of the Level 2 background screening

results is maintained in the personnel files of the employees of

the clinic. At the time of the survey, employee ÐCÓsÑ personnel

file did not contain a copy of the results from his Level 2

background screening.

B. Attest ation Regarding Background Screening

9. Section 10 of the Application is labeled ÐAffidavit.Ñ

Mr. Fevry provided the following attestation in support of the

Application:

I, Lavaud Fevry, hereby swear or affirm that

the statements in this application are true

and correct. As administrator or authorized

representative of the above named

provider/facility, I hereby attest that all

employees required by law to undergo Level 2

background screening have met the minimum

standards of sections 435.04, and 408.80 9(5),

Florida Statutes (F.S.) or are awaiting

screening results.

10. Count I of the Administrative Complaint also alleges

that when Mr. Fevry met with Ms. Bulger during the survey he

informed her that:

he had no affidavit or documentation that the

empl oyees, including the Medical Director,

had . . . attest[ed] to meeting the

requirements for qualifying for employment

pursuant to Florida law and agreeing to

inform the employer immediately if arrested

for any of the disqualifying offenses while

employed b y the employer per chapter 435,

Florida Statutes.

The evidence establishes that RespondentÓs employees had not

completed the required attestations until after the survey.

11. In December 2013 Respondent submitted a plan of

correction to address problems related to employee attestations.

12. Exactly 21 months prior to the survey that provides the

basis for the instant dispute, Petitioner, on February 23, 2012,

conducted a survey of RespondentÓs clinic. As a part of this

earlier survey , Respondent was a lso cited for failing to ensure

that required staff completed attestations, subject to penalty of

perjury, wherein they acknowledged meeting the requirements for

employment and agreeing to immediately inform Respondent if

arrested for a disqualifying offen se.

C. Verifying Florida L icenses

13. Em m anuel Nau, M.D. has served as RespondentÓs

medical/clinic director since August 2009. Dr. Nau, at all times

relevant hereto, held Florida Department of Health medical

license number ME48249. Dr. Nau, as medica l director for

RespondentÓs clinic, acknowledges that he has legal

responsibility for the clinic as specified in section 400.9935,

Florida Statutes.

14. On the day of the license renewal survey, Ms. Bulger

inquired of Dr. Nau as to whether, in his capaci ty as medical

director, he was verifying that all practitioners at the clinic

who were providing health care services or supplies to clinic

patients had active, unencumbered Florida licenses. Dr. Nau, in

response to the inquiry, admitted to Ms. Bulger tha t he had not

verified the license status of the clinicÓs practitioners. There

was , however, no evidence indicating that RespondentÓs

practitioners did not actually possess active, unencumbered

Florida licenses during the period in question. Additionally, no

evidence was offered that Respondent had previously been cited

for committing violations of this nature.

15. In December 2013 Respondent submitted a plan of

correction that was designed to shore up its system of verifying

that its employees have act ive, unencumbered Florida licenses.

D. Failure to Document ÐWhenÑ and ÐWhatÑ

16. Ms. Bulger testified that during the survey, Respondent

failed to produce, upon request, confirmation that Dr. Nau

documented, for the two years prior to the survey, com pliance of

when and what action was taken relative to several of the

functions, duties and clinic responsibilities enumerated in

section 400.9935(1)(a) - (g), Florida Statutes.

17. When Ms. Bulger, on the day of the survey, questioned

Dr. Nau about the om issions, he admitted that he failed to

document and to maintain for the previous two years, records

demonstrating Ð compliance , when and what action Ñ he took in

regards to the performance of his functions, duties, and

responsibilities as medical director fo r the clinic.

18. Dr. Nau also admitted during the final hearing that he

had not been listing in his reports all information related to

the performance of his duties as medical director of RespondentÓs

clinic. No evidence was offered that Respondent had previously

been cited for committing violations of this nature.

19. In December 2013 Respondent submitted a plan of

correction designed to ensure that clinic reports adequately

address those matters required by statute and rule.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

20 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the

parties to this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2014).

21. This is a proceeding in which Petitioner seeks to

suspend or revoke RespondentÓs license to op erate as a health

care clinic. Because disciplinary proceedings are considered to

be penal in nature, Petitioner is required to prove the

allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and

convincing evidence. DepÓt of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Ste rn &

Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d

292 (Fla. 1987).

22. Clear and convincing evidence Ðrequires more proof than

a Òpreponderance of the evidenceÓ but less than Òbeyond and to

the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.ÓÑ In re Graziano , 696 So.

2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). As stated by the Florida Supreme Court,

the standard:

entails both a qualitative and quantitative

standard. The evidence must be credible; the

memories of the witnesses must be clear and

without confusion; an d the sum total of the

evidence must be of sufficient weight to

convince the trier of fact without hesitancy.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)(citing, with

approval, Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA

1983)); see also In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005).

ÐAlthough this standard of proof may be met where the evidence is

in conflict, it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.Ñ

Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590 So. 2d 986, 989

(Fla. 1991).

23. Pet itioner is limited to proving the charges and

allegations pled in the Administrative Complaint. Cf. Trevisani

v. Dep't of Health , 908 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Aldrete

v. Dep't of Health, Bd. of Med. , 879 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA

2004); Ghani v. D ep't of Health , 714 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA

1998); Willner v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., Bd. of Med. , 563 So. 2d

805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

24. Disciplinary provisions such as the referenced sections

must be strictly construed in favor of the licensee. Elama riah

v. DepÓt of ProfÓl Reg. , 574 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990);

Taylor v. DepÓt of ProfÓl Reg. , 534 So. 2d 782, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA

1988). Disciplinary statutes must be construed in terms of their

literal meaning, and words used by the Legislature may not be

expanded to broaden their application. Latham v. Fla. CommÓn on

Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Beckett v.

DepÓt of Fin. Servs. , 982 So. 2d 94, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008);

Dyer v. DepÓt of Ins. & Treas. , 585 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 1s t

DCA 1991).

A. Count I(a) - Employee CÓs Personnel File

25. Section 400.991(5)(b), Florida Statutes, of the Health

Care Clinic Act, provides that the Agency for Health Care

Administration, as part of the licensing requirements for health

care clinics such as that operated by Respondent, Ðshall require

level 2 background screening for applicants and personnel as

required in s. 408.809(1)(e) pursuant to chapter 435 and s.

408.809.Ñ

26. Section 408.809, Florida Statutes, provides, in part,

that:

(1) Le vel 2 background screening pursuant to

chapter 435 must be conducted through the

agency on each of the following persons, who

are considered employees for the purposes of

conducting screening under chapter 435[ : ]

* * *

(e) Any person, as required by authorizing

statutes, seeking employment with a licensee

or provider who is expected to, or whose

responsibilities may require him or her to,

provide personal care or services directly to

clients or have access to client funds,

personal property, or livin g areas . . . .

27. Section 435.06(2), Florida Statutes, provides,

in part, that:

(a) An employer may not hire, select, or

otherwise allow an employee to have contact

with any vulnerable person that would place

the employee in a role that requires

back ground screening until the screening

process is completed and demonstrates the

absence of any grounds for the denial or

termination of employment. If the screening

process shows any grounds for the denial or

termination of employment, the employer may

not hire, select, or otherwise allow the

employee to have contact with any vulnerable

person that would place the employee in a

role that requires background screening

unless the employee is granted an exemption

for the disqualification by the agency as

provi ded under s. 435.07.

* * *

(d) An employer may hire an employee to a

position that requires background screening

before the employee completes the screening

process for training and orientation

purposes. However, the employee may not have

direct co ntact with vulnerable persons until

the screening process is completed and the

employee demonstrates that he or she exhibits

no behaviors that warrant the denial or

termination of employment.

28. Petitioner does not cite, nor has the undersigned

found, any specific statute requiring that an applicant for

health care clinic license renewal maintain a copy of Level 2

background screening results in an employeeÓs personnel file.

29. Florida Administrative Code Rules 59A - 33.002 (2006) ,

59A - 33.060 (2006) , and 59A - 35.090 (2006) are the AgencyÓs rules

regarding the requirements for background screenings , and nothing

in either of the rules directs that background screening results

must be kept in an employeeÓs personnel file.

30. Rule 59A - 33.002(1)(e) provi des, in part, that

an applicant for license renewal shall include with the

application :

[a]ll information required . . . to enable

the Agency to evaluate and determine

compliance with the Act regarding background

screening [and] [t]his information must

inc lude the identification of all individuals

who must be the subject of Level 2 background

screening under standards established in

Chapter 435 and Section 400.991(7)(d), F.S.,

as required on AHCA Form 3110 - 0013, July

2006, Application for Health Care Clinic

Licensure, adopted by reference.

31. Rule 59A - 35.060(1)(w) provides that applicants for

licensure must apply Ðusing the program specific formsÑ and

health care clinics must use ÐAHCA Form 3110 - 0013, Rev. July

2009.Ñ

32. There is nothing in the expres s provisions of either of

these rules requiring that Level 2 background screening results

be kept in an employeeÓs personnel file. While it is possible

that AHCA Form 3110 - 0013, July 2006, and AHCA Form 3110 - 0013,

Rev. July 2009, require that Level 2 back ground screening results

be maintained in an employeeÓs personnel file, the undersigned is

unable to draw any conclusions as to what the referenced forms

require , given that the y are not a part of the record in this

proceeding.

33. Rule 59A - 35.090(3)(a) provides that Ð[p]ersons required

to undergo Level 2 background screening in accordance with a

licensure application, must submit the completed and signed

fingerprint card and screening fee with an application for

licensure to the appropriate Agency licens ing unit.Ñ Like the

other cited rules, this rule is also devoid of any requirement

that Level 2 background results be maintained in an employeeÓs

personnel file.

34. Rule 59A - 33.012(5)(r) provides that health care

clinics, at the time of the survey, sha ll have readily available

for review a Ð[l]og of all natural persons required and who have

been screened under Level 2 criteria of Chapter 435 and Section

400.991, F.S.Ñ Ms. Bulger, in her survey report, notes that

Respondent did not maintain a log showin g that employee ÐCÑ was

Ðrequired to be screened . . . [or was] screened under Level 2

criteria.Ñ Despite the fact that Ms. BulgerÓs survey finding

corresponds precisely with rule 59A - 33.012(5)(r), Petitioner,

nevertheless, charged Respondent with violati ng rule 59A -

33.012(5)(h) , which directs applicants for licensure to make

employee personnel files available to the surveyor. Rule 59A -

33.012(5)(h) is silent as to what is required to be in an

employeeÓs personnel file , and Petitioner has failed to prove b y

clear and convincing evidence that the cited rule includes Level

2 background screening results within its scope. Petitioner has

failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to this

allegation.

B. Count I(b) - Attestation Regarding Background Scree ning

35. Section 435.05(2) provides that every covered employee

who is required by law to submit to a Level 2 background

screening Ðmust attest, subject to penalty of perjury, to meeting

the requirements for qualifying for employment pursuant to this

cha pter and agreeing to inform the employer immediately if

arrested for any of the disqualifying offenses while employed by

the employer.Ñ Section 408.809 also directs that licensees must,

under penalty of perjury, attest by affidavit compliance with the

pro visions of chapter 435. Petitioner proved by clear and

convincing evidence that Respondent failed to comply with the

attestation requirements.

C. Count II - Monitoring Florida L icenses

36. Section 400.9935, Florida Statutes, provides, in part,

as foll ows:

(1) Each clinic shall appoint a medical

director or clinic director who shall agree

in writing to accept legal responsibility for

the following activities on behalf of the

clinic. The medical director or the clinic

director shall:

* * *

(b) Ensure that all practitioners providing

health care services or supplies to patients

maintain a current active and unencumbered

Florida license.

* * *

(f) Ensure compliance with the recordkeeping,

office surgery, and adverse incident reporting

requi rements of chapter 456, the respective

practice acts, and rules adopted under this part

and part II of chapter 408.

37. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A - 33.008(1) provides

as follows:

[a] licensed health care clinic may not

operate or be maintained without the day - to -

day supervision of a single medical or clinic

director as defined in Section 400.9905(5),

F.S. The health care clinic responsibilities

under Sections 400.9935(1)(a) - (g), F.S.,

cannot be met without an active, appointed

medical or clinic director. Failure of an

appointed medical or clinic director to

substantially comply with health care clinic

responsibilities under Rule 59A - 33.012,

F.A.C. and Sections 400.9935(1)(a) - (g), F.S.,

shall be grounds for the revocation or

suspension of the li cense and assessment of a

fine pursuant to Section 400.995(1), F.S.

38. With regards to section 400.9935(1)(b), Florida

Administrative Code Rule 59A - 33.012(5) provides that in order to

facilitate a license survey, the health care clinic shall have

avail able for review at the time of survey Ðthe professional

license or facsimile of the license for the medical or clinic

directorÑ and Ð[c]opies of professional licenses issued by the

respective boards and the Department of Health under the several

practice a cts.Ñ

39. The clear and convincing evidence establishes that on

the day of the license renewal survey, Dr. Nau, in his capacity

as medical director, failed to demonstrate that he was

systematically verifying that practitioners at the clinic, who

provided health care services or supplies directly to clinic

patients, had active, unencumbered Florida licenses.

D. Count III - Failure to Document ÐWhenÑ and ÐWhatÑ

40. With regards to section 400.9935(1)(f), Florida

Administrative Code Rule 59A - 33.008(1) pr ovides, in part, that

Ð[t]he health care clinic responsibilities under section

400.9935(1)(a) - (g), F.S., cannot be met without an active,

appointed medical or clinic director.Ñ Furthermore, rule

59A - 33.012(5)(s) directs that a health care clinic shall ha ve

available for review at the time of the survey Ð[d]ocumentation

for the past two years or from the date of licensure, whichever

is earlier, demonstrating in writing compliance, when, and what

action was taken by the medical or clinic director to perform the

functions, duties and clinic responsibilities under section

400.9935(1)(a) - (g), F.S.Ñ

41. The clear and convincing evidence establishes that

Dr. Nau failed to document and maintain for the two - year period

preceding the survey, records demonstrating Ð compliance , when and

what action Ñ he took in regards to the performance of his

functions, duties, and responsibilities as medical director for

the clinic.

E. Penalty and Administrative Fine

42. Section 400.995, Florida Statutes, provides, in part,

as follows:

(1) In addition to the requirements of part

II of chapter 408, the agency may deny the

application for a license renewal, revoke and

suspend the license, and impose

administrative fines of up to $5,000 per

violation for violations of the require ments

of this part or rules of the agency. In

determining if a penalty is to be imposed and

in fixing the amount of the fine, the agency

shall consider the following factors:

(a) The gravity of the violation, including

the probability that death or seri ous

physical or emotional harm to a patient will

result or has resulted, the severity of the

action or potential harm, and the extent to

which the provisions of the applicable laws

or rules were violated.

(b) Actions taken by the owner, medical

director, or clinic director to correct

violations.

(c) Any previous violations.

(d) The financial benefit to the clinic of

committing or continuing the violation.

43. Rule 59A - 33.008(1) provides, in part, that the

Ð[f]ailure of an appointed medical or clini c director to

substantially comply with health care clinic responsibilities

under Rule 59A - 33.012, F.A.C. and [s]ection 400.9935(1)(a) - (g),

F.S., shall be grounds for the revocation or suspension of the

license and assessment of a fine pursuant to [s]ectio n

400.995(1), F.S.Ñ

44. As to Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint,

the clear and convincing evidence establishes that Respondent

substantially failed to comply with the provisions of the

governing statutes and rules. While it is true, with r espect to

Count III, that Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to

document ÐwhenÑ and ÐwhatÑ in some of his reports, the

undersigned is unable to determine the extent of RespondentÓs

non - compliance as there was no analysis of the reports offered

into e vidence by Petitioner. The requirement of substantiality

cannot be met by simply offering the deficient reports into

evidence Ðen masseÑ without any supporting analysis.

45. In considering the factors enumerated in section

400.995(1), there was no evide nce establishing the gravity of the

violations. This lack of evidence weighs against license

revocation.

46. The evidence establishes that Respondent has taken

action (e.g. , submitting appropriate employee attestations) aimed

at correcting th e various d eficienc ies . This positive step by

Respondent weighs against license revocation.

47. A second offense for failing to secure employee

attestations does not in itself weigh in favor of license

revocation. However, t he fact that Count I is the same as the

violation committed by Respondent some 21 months prior justifies

the imposition of a substantial monetary fine. Count II of the

Administrative Complaint is a first offense occurrence and this

weighs against license revocation.

48. Finally, there was no credible evidence offered

establishing that Respondent derived a financial benefit as a

consequence of or incentive for committing the enumerated

violations. The absence of such evidence weighs against license

revocation.

49. In considering the totalit y of the circumstances,

RespondentÓs license should be suspended for 10 business days

(five days each for Counts I and II), and a fine imposed in the

amount of $1,500 for Count I and $2,000 for Count II. Count III

of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed because

Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that Respondent failed to substantially

comply with its health care clinic record keeping

responsibilities.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings o f Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care

Administration enter a Final Order finding that USA Rehab and

Chiropractic Center, Inc. , violated sections 400.991, 400.9935 ,

408.809, and 435.05(2), Florida Statutes. It is also recommended

that the Agency suspend RespondentÓs health care clinic license

for 10 business days and impose against Respondent a fine in the

amount of $3,500. Finally, it is recommended that Count III of

the Administrative Complaint be dismissed.

DON E AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April , 2015 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LINZIE F. BOGAN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Flor ida 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 22nd day of April , 2015 .

ENDNOTE

1/ Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the

version in effect at the time of the transactions that form the

bases of the charges.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Warren J. Bird, Esquire

Agency for Health Care Administration

Building 3, Mail Stop 3

2727 Mahan Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(eServed)

Richard D. Sierr a, Esquire

Kosto and Rotells, P.A.

Post Office Box 113

Orlando, Florida 32802

(eServed)

Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary

Agency for Health Care Administration

Building 3, Mail Stop 1

2727 Mahan Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(eServed)

Stuart Williams, Gen eral Counsel

Agency for Health Care Administration

Building 3, Mail Stop 3

2727 Mahan Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(eServed)

Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk

Agency for Health Care Administration

Building 3, Mail Stop 3

2727 Mahan Drive

Tallahassee, Fl orida 32308

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

wi ll issue the Final Order in this case.