19-000281N Yanara Avila-Cana And Julio Cesar Hassan Herrera, On Behalf Of And As Parents And Natural Guardians Of Scarlett Hassan-Avila, A Minor Child vs. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Tuesday, October 27, 2020.

Summary: Intervenors established that the notice requirements of section 766.316 were satisfied.

For Respondent: Elizabeth A. Myers, E squire

Smith Bigman Brock, P.A.

4 44 Seabreeze Boulevard

D aytona Beach, Florida 32118

For Intervenors Good Samaritan Medical Center, Inc.:

RoseMarie Antonacci, Esquire Falk Waas Hernandez & Solomon, P.A.

Suite 210E

1900 Northwest Corporate Boulevar d

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

For Intervenors Marcela Andrea Lazo, M.D.; Barbara Telan, ARNP, CNM;

and Palm Beach Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.A.:

Alex D. Barker, Esquire

Adams/Coogler

16th Floor

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Flor ida 33401

S TATEMENT O F T HE I SSUE

Whether Intervenor Good Samaritan Medical Center, Inc. (Good

Samaritan) , and Intervenors Marcela Andrea Lazo, M.D.; Barbara Telan,

ARNP, CNM; and Palm Beach Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.A. (Palm Beach) ,

satisfied the noti ce requirements set forth in section 766.316 , Florida

Statutes.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On January 4, 2019, Peti tioners filed a “Petition for Benefits Filed Under

Protest Pursuant to Florida Statute Section 766.301 et seq.” (Petition). On

February 7, 2019, t he undersigned issued an Order G ranting Good

Samaritan’s Motion to Intervene. On the same date, the undersigne d issued

an Order G ranting Palm Beach’s Motion to Intervene. On June 12, 2019,

Respondent filed its Notice of Compensability and Request for Evidentiary

Hearing, suggesting that the subject claim is compensable and requesting an

evidentiary hearing. On Jun e 13, 2019, the undersigned issued an Order

requiring the parties to advise by June 26, 2019, whether a hearing would be

required.

On July 31, 2019, Petitioners’ original legal counsel filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel, and said motion was granted on August 8, 2019.

Thereafter, on September 4 , 2019, this matter came before the undersigned

on a previously - noticed telephonic status conference. Petitioner, Yanara

Avila - Cana, participated in the conference pro se and an interpreter was

provided for Petiti oner. During the telephonic status conference, Petitioner s

requested a 60 - day extension to evaluate Respondent’s acceptance of

Petitioners’ claim as compensable and to seek new legal counsel. Neither

Respondent nor Intervenors objected to the requested ext ension. Accordingly,

on September 4, 2019, an Order Granting Extension of Time was issued,

granting Petitioners a n extension of time of 60 days to seek new legal counsel

and evaluate Respondent’s Notice of Compensability. Petitioners were

further ordered t o submit a written status report, on or before November 4,

2019, advising whether Petitioners intend ed to accept the Florida Birth -

Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association ( NICA ) benefits or

whether a final hearing would be required.

On Octob er 22, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Final Order

contending the claim is compensable under the Florida Birth - Related

Neurological Injury Plan (Plan). On October 25, 2019, Good Samaritan filed a Motion for Summary Final Order, also contending that the claim is

compensable under the Plan. On October 28 , 2019, Petitioners, pro se, filed a

Notice of Election of Remedies Declining NICA Benefits, and requested that

the “instant matter with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)

shall be clos ed with prejudice.”

On October 30, 2019, Petitioners’ current counsel filed a notice of

appearance. On October 31, 2019, Petitioners, now through counsel, filed the

following: an Amended Petition Under Protest (Amended Petition); an

Objection to Defendant’ s Motion for Summary Final Order and Motion for a

Stay of Deadlines (Petitioners’ Objection); and a Notice of Election of

Remedies Declining NICA Benefits (Petitioners’ Notice). Pursuant to

Petitioners’ Objection, Petitioners requested 60 days to respond t o the

pending motions for summary final order and to conduct necessary discovery

to respond to the same. Pursuant to Petitioners’ Notice, Petitioners

represented that they “have willfully and voluntarily elected not to pursue any NICA benefits,” and “do no t wish to seek any award or any benefits of

any kind.” Petitioners requested that the instant matter with DOAH be

“closed with prejudice.”

On November 20, 2019, Palm Beach filed a Motion For Summary Final

Order , contending Petitioners’ claim is compensab le under the Plan.

On November 21, 2019, a telephonic motion hearing was conducted

regarding Petitioners’ Notice, with counsel for all parties in attendance. In response to the undersigned’s inquiry, Petitioners’ counsel represented and confirmed that it was Petitioners’ intent that the undersigned construe

Petitioners’ Notice as a notice of dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, on November 25, 2019, the undersigned issued a Final Order of Dismissal with prejudice.

Thereafter, this matter came before t he undersigned on Petitioners’

Motion for Rehearing and/or Motion for Relief Based on Mistake,

Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect and/or Exception of Court

Order Entered on November 25, 2019 (Petitioners’ Motion), filed

December 10, 2019. Palm B each and Good Samaritan filed their respective

Notice of Joinder in Petitioners’ Motion. Subsequently, the undersigned

granted Petitioner’s Motion, and the November 25, 2019, Final Order of

Dismissal was rescinded and the file at DOAH was reopened.

Upon reopening the matter, on December 19, 2019, a telephonic case

management conference was conducted to address the pending motions for

summary final order as well as Petitioners’ Objection. On the same date, the

undersigned’s Order Extending Time to Conduct Discovery and Respond to

Pending Motions for Summary Final Order was issued. It was ordered that:

1) all discovery, including written responses to written discovery and

depositions, was to be completed within 50 days from the date of this Order;

and 2) the parties could resubmit any previously filed motions for summ ary

final order, if they so cho se , based on the co mpleted discovery. Petitioners

were granted 60 days from the date of this Order to file any response to the

pending motions for summary final ord er.

After multiple extensions of time, on May 21, 2020, the existing discovery

Order was again extended for 30 days to complete limited remaining

discovery. On June 10, 2020, an Order Requiring Response was issued

directing the parties to file a joint re sponse providing several mutually

agreeable dates in which to conduct the hearing, an estimate of the time required to conduct the hearing, and the parties’ preferred mode for conducting the hearing (in - person, video - teleconference, or Zoom meeting). In

re sponse, a s tatus r eport was filed, wherein the parties requested an

evidentiary hearing on the issue of compensability as raised in the motions at issue , and a separate final hearing on whether the notice r equirements of

section 766.316 were satisfied.

T he evidentiary hearing on compensability was conducted on July 30,

2020, with counse l for all parties in attendance. On August 5, 2020, the

undersigned issued a Partial Summary Final Order gra n ting Respondent and

Intervenors’ respective motions for partial summary final order addressing

compensability. Petitioners’ claim was found and determined to be

compensable. Jurisdiction was reserved to determine whether the notice

requirements of section 766.31 were satisfied and to determine an award pursuant to sec tion 766.31.

On August 20, 2020, p ursuant to notice, a final hearing on the issue of

notice was held by Zoom Conference. At the hearing, Good Samaritan

presented the live testimony of one witness, Dianne Jimenez. The parties

further stipulated and mutual ly agreed to the presentation of their respective

cases solely by the admission of deposition transcripts, affidavits, and documents attached to and in support of their previously filed motions; and

Petitioners’ Notice of Filing Exhibits. The identity of t he exhibits and rulings

regarding each are as set forth in the final hearing T ranscript, which was

filed on August 28, 2020.

Upon the conclusion of the final hearing, the parties stipulated to the

submission of proposed final orders within 30 days of the filing of the

transcript and to the issuance of the undersigned’s Final Order on or before 60 days from the filing of the T ranscript. The parties timely filed proposed

final orders, which have been considered in the preparation of this Final

Order.

F IND INGS O F F ACT

1. Petitioners , Yanara Avila - Cana and Julio Cesar Hassan Herrera, are

the parents and natural guardians of Scarlett Hassan - Avila, a minor.

2. Ms. Avila - Cana graduated from law school in Cuba in 2005, and was a

practicing lawyer until 2011, wh en she began residing in the United States of

America.

3. On June 15, 2016, Intervenor Palm Beach began provi di ng prenatal

care to Ms. Avila - Cana. Dr. Lazo credibly testified that it was Palm Beach’s

policy and practice to provide every new patient with a brochure prepared by

NICA entitled “Peace of Mind for an Unexpected Problem” (NICA brochure)

and to go over the content s of the brochure as part of the patient’s prenatal

packet. The NICA brochure includes a clear and concise explanation of a

patient’s ri ghts and limitations under the Plan.

4. Palm Beach’s customary policy and practice was to provide the new

patient the NICA brochure in the patient’s primary language. NICA

brochures printed in Spanish, English, and Creole were available in the office.

5. On June 15, 2016, Ms. Avila - Cana was seen at Palm Beach by Barbara

Telan, ARNP, CNM (Midwife Telan). Midwife Telan’s duties included seeing patients in the office, delivering babies, and assisting in surgery. For new patients, Midwife Telan would obtain a patient’s history, conduct a physical

examination, explain Palm Beach’s practice, obtain an ultrasound, and explain to the patient Palm Beach’s “Palm Beach Obstetrics & Gynecology -

Obstetric Informed Consent” (consent form).

6. On June 15, 2016, Midwife T elan provided Ms. Avila - Cana with the

consent form. The four - page consent form addressed several topics including:

genetic testing, routine testing, medications, vaccinations, and labor and

delivery. Of significance to this proceeding, on the last page of the consent

form, the following is provided:

I was furnished information prepared by the

Florida Birth - Related Neurological Injury

Compensation Association (NICA) pursuant to Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, and was advised

that our Doctors (Samuel Le derman, MD, Gloria

Hakkarainen MD, Sylvia Siegfried MD, Joy Cavalaris MD, Lori Sevald MD, Marcela Lazo MD,

Marilynn Nunez and Barbara Telan CNM) are

participating physicians in that program. By participating in this program, limited compensation is availab le in the event that certain types of

qualifying neurological injuries occurs during labor,

delivery or resuscitation in the hospital. For specifics about the program, I understand that I can contact the Florida Birth - Related Neurological

Injury Compensati on Association (NICA), at

PO Box 14567, Tallahassee, FL 32317, Tel No. 1.800.398.2129. I further acknowledge that I have received a copy of the brochure prepared by NICA.

I acknowledge that I read this form and fully

understand its contents. I was given ample

opportunity to ask questions and all questions were answered to my satisfaction.

I also acknowledge that I was given a copy of this

form so that my family and I can review its contents at home and ask questions in the future.

7. Immediately belo w the above - quoted language, the form contains a

signature line for the patient and a signature line for a witness. Ms. Avila -

Cana concedes that she printed her name on the consent form, and signed her

name above the “Patient” line. Her signature on the co nsent form was

witnessed by Midwife Telan.

8. The consent form provided to Ms. Avila - Cana was printed in English;

however, Ms. Avila - Cana’s primary language is Spanish. Accordingly, Sandra

Hoyos, Palm Beach’s Surgical Coordinator, who speaks English and Sp anish,

assisted Midwife Telan during the initial prenatal visit. Although neither

Midwife Telan nor Ms. Hoyos have an independent recollection of the visit,

they credibly testified that, pursuant to their customary and routine practice,

Midwife Telan would explain the consent form in its entirety with the new

patient, and Ms. Hoyos would translate the same from English to Spanish.

Indeed, handwritten on the consent form provided to Ms. Avila - Cana is the

following notation: “Explanation in Spanish by Sandra Hoyos.” Midwife Telan

credibly testified that the notation was her handwriting.

9. Midwife Telan and Ms. Hoyos testified that , pursuant to Palm Beach’s

customary practice and routine, Ms. Avila - Cana was provided with the NICA

brochure on June 15, 2016. Th ereafter, pursuant to Palm Beach’s customary

practice, the executed consent form was scanned into Ms. Avila - Cana’s

medical chart.

10. Ms. Avila - Cana testified at her deposition that she did not receive a

NICA brochure from Palm Beach. Her deposition testim ony is contradicted by

the deposition testimony of Midwife Telan and Ms. Hoyos. The undersigned

finds, based upon the totality of credible evidence, that it is more likely than

not that Ms. Avila - Cana was provided a NICA brochure during her prenatal

visit at Palm Beach on June 15, 2016; and that Palm Beach provided notice

to Ms. Avila - Cana of its participation in the Plan.

11. Ms. Avila - Cana presented to Good Samaritan on January 8, 2017. On

this occasion, she was presented with a form entitled “Notice to Obstetrical

Patient.” This form provided as follows:

I have been furnished information by Good

Samaritan Medical Center prepared by the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation

Association, and have been advised that this

hospital participat es in that program. Physicians

and midwives and their groups providing care at the Good Samaritan Medical Center, are or may be

participating in that program, wherein certain

limited compensation is available is available in the event certain neurological injury may occur during

labor, delivery or resuscitation. For specifics on this program, I understand that I can contact:

Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury

Compensation Association - NICA

Post Office Box 14567

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 4567

Telep hone: (850) 488 - 8191 or Toll Free: 1 - 800 -

398 - 2129

I further acknowledge that I have received a copy of

the brochure prepared by NICA.

12. The form also contained the above - quoted language in Spanish and

Creole.

13. Immediately below the above - quoted la nguage, the form contains a

line for the “NAME OF PATIENT PRINTED,”a line for “SIGNATURE OF

PATIENT,” a line for “SIGNATURE OF WITNESS,” and a line for “NAME

OF WITNESS PRINTED.” Ms. Avila - Cana concedes that, on January 8,

2017, Good Samaritan provided her with the form, and that her name and

signature is on the form.

14. Ms. Avila - Cana testified, however, that she did not recall reading the

document (or any document provided her on that occasion). She further

testified that “nobody explained anything abou t NICA to me” and that she

did not receive the NICA brochure as indicated on the form.

15. On January 16, 2017, Ms. Avila - Cana again presented to Good

Samaritan. Dianne Jimenez, who was employed by Good Samaritan as a

patient access registrar, conducted t he registration process for Ms. Avila -

Cana. Ms. Jimenez is fluent in Spanish and regularly communicates in

Spanish with patients who present to the hospital. Ms. Jimenez credibly

testified that she had no difficulty in communicating with Ms. Avila - Cana.

1 6. On this occasion, Ms. Avila - Cana was being admitted to the Labor and

Delivery department. As part of the obstetrical packet, and pursuant to Good

Samaritan’s customary practice, Ms. Jimenez presented Ms. Avila - Cana with

the same Notice to Obstetrical Pa tient form as described above. Ms. Jimenez

credibly testified that she provided Ms. Avila - Cana a chance to read the form

in Spanish prior to asking her to sign. Ms. Avila - Cana again printed her

name and signed the form. The form was then witnessed by Ms. J imenez’s

signature.

17. Ms. Jimenez also provided credible testimony that she provided the

NICA brochure in Spanish. She credibly testified that it was her routine

practice to explain to the patient that the brochure explains what would

happen if the baby had a neurological injury, and that if the patient had any

questions to call the telephone number on the form and contained in the

NICA brochure.

18. Ms. Avila - Cana testified that, despite her signature on the form, she

again did not receive the NICA bro chure on January 16, 2017. Her deposition

testimony is contradicted by the deposition testimony of Ms. Jimenez. The

undersigned finds, based upon the totality of credible evidence, that it is more likely than not that Ms. Avila - Cana was provided a NICA bro chure during

her hospital visits to Good Samaritan on January 8, 2017, and January 16, 2017; and that Good Samaritan provided notice to Ms. Avila - Cana of its

participation in the Plan.

C ONCLUSIONS O F L AW

19 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of

these proceedings. §§ 766.301 - 766.316, Fla. Stat.

20 . The Plan was established by the Legislature “for the purpose of

providing compensation, irrespective of fault, for birth - related neurological

injury claims” relating to births occ urring on or after January 1, 1989.

§ 766.303(1), Fla. Stat.

21 . Section 766.301(2) provides that it is “the intent of the Legislature to

provide compensation, on a no - fault basis, for a limited class of catastrophic

injuries that result in unusually hig h costs for custodial care and

rehabilitation.” The injured infant, her or his personal representative,

parents, dependents, and next of kin may seek compensation under the Plan

by filing a claim for compensation with DOAH. §§ 766.302(3), 766.303(2),

and 766.305(1), Fla. Stat. The ALJ has exclusive jurisdiction to determine

whether a claim filed under the Plan is compensable. § 766.304, Fla. Stat.

22 . In discharging this responsibility, pursuant to section 766.309(1), the

ALJ must make the following deter minations based upon all available

evidence:

(a) Whether the injury claimed is a birth - related

neurological injury. If the claimant has

demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the

administrative law judge, that the infant has

sustained a brain or spinal cor d injury caused by

oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury and that

the infant was thereby rendered permanently and

substantially mentally and physically impaired, a

rebuttable presumption shall arise that the injury

is a birth - related neurological injury as defined in

s. 766.302 (2).

(b) Whether obstetrical services were delivered by a

participating physician in th e course of labor,

delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate

postdelivery period in a hospital; or by a certified

nurse midwife in a teaching hospital supervised by

a participating physician in the course of labor,

delivery, or resuscitation in the immed iate

postdelivery period in a hospital.

(c) How much compensation, if any, is awardable

pursuant to s. 766.31 .

(d) Whether, if raised by the claimant or other

party, the factual determinations regarding the

notice requirements in s. 766.316 are satisfied.

2 3 . At issue here is whether Intervenors Palm Beach and Good Samaritan

complied with the notice requirements of section 766.316. Specifically, with

respect to Palm Beach, Petitioners contend that Palm Beach’s consent form

was not f urnished by NICA, and, therefore, is insufficient. Petitioners also

maintain that the notice requirements were not met because Ms. Avila - Cana

did not receive a copy of the NICA brochure, which was furnished by NICA,

from Palm Beach or Good Samari tan. 1

24. As the proponents of the proposition that appropriate notice was given

or that notice was not required, the burden on the issue of notice is upon

Palm Beach and Good Samaritan . Tabb v. Fla. Birth - Related Neurological

Injury Comp. Ass’n , 880 So. 2d 1253, 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

2 5 . Section 733.316 provides as follows:

Notice to obstetrical patients of participation

in the plan. — Each hospital with a participating

physician on its staff and each participating

physician, other than residents, a ssistant residents,

and interns deemed to be participating physicians

under s. 766.314 (4)(c), under the Florida Birth -

Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan

shall provide notice to the obstetrical patients as to

the limited no - fault alternative for birth - related

neurological injuries. Such notice shall be provided

on forms furnished by the association and sha ll

include a clear and concise explanation of a

patient’s rights and limitations under the plan. The

hospital or the participating physician may elect to

have the patient sign a form acknowledging receipt

of the notice form. Signature of the patient

acknow ledging receipt of the notice form raises a

rebuttable presumption that the notice

requirements of this section have been met. Notice

need not be given to a patient when the patient has

an emergency medical condition as defined in

s. 395.002 (8)(b) or when notice is not practicable.

1 Petitioners in their Proposed Final Order do not make a specific argument that Good

Samaritan failed to comply with the requirements of section 766.316; however, as Petitioners

are not advocating for NICA benefits, Good Samaritan’s notice compliance is addressed.

26. Petitioners’ contentions that Palm Beach failed to provide the NICA

brochure an d failed to provide notice to Ms. Avila - Cana “on forms furnished

by the association,” is not supported by the evidence.

27. As set forth in the Findings of Fact, the greater weight of the evidence

establishes that, on June 15, 2016, Palm Beach provided Ms . Avila - Cana with

the NICA brochure in Spanish. The brochure is furnished by NICA and

includes a clear and concise explanation of a patient’s rights and limitations under the Plan.

28. Palm Beach elected to have Ms. Avila - Cana sign its consent form

acknowl edging her receipt of the NICA brochure. The consent form also

provided notice to Ms. Avila - Cana of its participating physicians in the Plan.

Pursuant to section 766.316, Ms. Avila - Cana’s signature on the consent form,

acknowledging receipt of the NICA bro chure, raises a rebuttable presumption

that the notice requirements of section 766.316 have been met.

29. While Ms. Avila - Cana testified that she did not receive the NICA

brochure, her testimony on this issue is contradicted by the testimony of

Midwife Te lan and Ms. Hoyos, whose testimony is found to be more credible.

Accordingly, it is concluded that Palm Beach met its burden of establishing it

satisfied the notice requirements of section 766.316.

30. As set forth in the Findings of Fact, the greater wei ght of the evidence

establishes that, on January 8, 2017, and again on January 16, 2017, Good Samaritan provided Ms. Avila - Cana with the NICA brochure in Spanish. The

brochure is furnished by NICA and includes a clear and concise explanation

of a patient’s rights and limitations under the Plan.

31. On both occasions Good Samaritan elected to have Ms. Avila - Cana

sign its consent form acknowledging her receipt of the NICA brochure. The consent form also provided notice to Ms. Avila - Cana of Good Samaritan’s

p articipation in the Plan. Ms. Avila - Cana’s signature on the consent form,

acknowledging receipt of the NICA brochure, raises a rebuttable presumption

that the notice requirements of section 766.316 have been met.

32. Ms. Avila - Cana’s testimony that she di d not receive the NICA

brochure on January 8, 2017 , or January 16, 2017, was contradicted by

Ms. Jiminez, whose testimony was found to be more credible. Accordingly, it

is concluded that Good Samaritan met its burden of establishing it satisfied

the notic e requirements of section 766.316.

33. Petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence that the Intervenors

did not provide notice on forms furnished by NICA or that the Intervenors’

consent form is insufficient or defective. The NICA brochure is the fo rm

furnished by NICA that satisfies the statutory requirement of a “clear and

concise explanation of a patient’s rights under the plan.” Dianderas v. Fla. Birth - Related Neurological , 973 So. 2d 523, 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Petitioners failed to present su fficient evidence that NICA furnishes a

required form that, in addition to the brochure, hospitals and participating physicians must utilize in satisfying the notice requirement.

C ONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

ORDERED:

1. Intervenors Marcela Andrea Lazo, M.D.; Barbara Telan, ARNP, CNM;

and Palm Beach Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.A., satisfied the notice

requirements of section 766.316.

2. Intervenor Good Samaritan Medical Center, Inc. , satisfied the noti ce

requirements of section 766.316.

3 . The parties are accorded 30 days from the date of this Order to resolve,

subject to approval of the ALJ, the amount and manner of payment of an

award to Petitioner s ; the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the

filing of the claim, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and the

amount owing for expenses previously incurred. If not resolved within such

period, the parties shall so advise the ALJ, and a hearing will be scheduled to

resolve such issues . Once resolved, an award will be made consistent with

section 766.31.

4. In the event Petitioners file an election of remedies declining or

rejecting NICA benefits, this case will be dismissed with prejudice and

DOAH’s file will be closed.

D ONE A ND O RD ERED this 27th day of October, 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

T ODD P. R ESAVAGE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filin g (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 27th day of October, 2020.

C OPIES F URNISHED :

(via certified mail)

Yanara Avila - Cana

Julio Cesar Hassan Herrara

1001 West Lakewood Road

West Palm Beach, Florida 33405

(Certified No. 7019 2970 0000 6014 2055 )

Kenney Shipley, Executive Director

Florida Birth - Related Neurological

Injury Compensation Association

Suite 1

2360 Christopher Place

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(eServed)

(Certified No. 701 9 2970 0000 6014 2062 )

Elizabeth A. Myers, Esquire

Smith Bigman Brock, P.A.

444 Seabreeze Boulevard

Daytona Beach, Florida 32118

(eServed)

(Certified No. 7019 2970 0000 6014 2079 )

Maria D. Tejedor, Esquire

Diez - Arguelles & Tejedor

505 North Mills Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32803

(eServed)

(Certified No. 7019 2970 0000 6014 2086 )

RoseMarie Antonacci, Esquire

Falk Waas Hernandez & Solomon, P.A.

Suite 210E

1900 Northwest Corporate Boulevard

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

(eServed)

(Certified No. 7019 2970 0000 6 014 2093 )

Alex D. Barker, Esquire

Adams/Coogler

16th Floor

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

(eServed)

(Certified No. 7019 2970 0000 6014 2109 )

Amie Rice, Investigation Manager

Consumer Services Unit

Department of Health

40 52 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C - 75

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3275

(Certified No. 7019 2970 0000 6014 2116 )

Shevaun L. Harris , Acting Secretary

Health Quality Assurance

Agency for Health Care Administration

2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(eServed)

(Certified No. 7019 2970 0000 6014 2123 )

N OTICE O F R IGHT T O J UDICIAL R EVIEW

Review of a final order of an administrative law judge shall be by appeal to the District Court of Appeal pursuant to section 766.311(1), Florida Statutes.

Rev iew proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of administrative appeal with the a gency c lerk of the Division of Administrative

Hearings within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy,

accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the

appropriate District Court of Appeal. See § 766.311(1), Fla. Stat., and Fla.

Birth - Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Carreras , 598 So. 2d 299

(Fla. 1st DCA 1992).