94-000889RU
Arbor Health Care Company vs.
Agency For Health Care Administration
Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Tuesday, May 3, 1994.
DOAH Final Order on Tuesday, May 3, 1994.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8ARBOR HEALTH CARE COMPANY, )
13)
14Petitioner, )
16)
17vs. ) CASE NO. 94-0889RU
22)
23AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
28ADMINISTRATION, )
30)
31Respondent, )
33and )
35)
36MANOR CARE OF BOYNTON BEACH, INC., )
43d/b/a MANOR CARE OF SARASOTA )
49COUNTY, )
51)
52Intervenor. )
54___________________________________)
55FINAL ORDER
57Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly
68designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the
80above-styled case on March 22, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.
89APPEARANCES
90For Petitioner: Chris H. Bentley, Esquire
96John L. Wharton, Esquire
100Diane Demor, Esquire
103Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley
1072548 Blairstone Pines Drive
111Tallahassee, Florida 32301
114For Respondent: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire
120Agency For Health Care Administration
125325 John Knox Road, Suite 301
131Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131
134For Intervenor: James C. Hauser, Esquire
140Lauchlin Waldoch, Esquire
143Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen,
147Lewis, Goldman, & Metz
151215 South Monroe Street, Suite 701
157Post Office Box 1876
161Tallahassee, Florida 32301
164STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
168Whether the challenged agency statements are unpromulgated rules, whether
177Respondent (AHCA) has violated the provisions of Section 120.535(1), Florida
187Statutes, by failing to adopt the challenged agency statements as rules and
199whether the challenged agency statements are invalid exercises of delegated
209legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
219The challenged agency statements are (a) that Section 408.037(2)(a), Florida
229Statutes, requires that an application for a Certificate of Need list among its
"242capital projects" other Certificate of Need applications which have been
252preliminarily denied by the Agency and are the subject of a petition for an
266administrative hearing (denied-but-in-litigation CON applications), and (b) that
274failure to list denied-but-in-litigation CON applications constitutes grounds to
283summarily reject a Certificate of Need application without further review.
293PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
295Petitioner (Arbor Health Care) and Intervenor (Manor Care) are competing
305applicants for a Certificate of Need (CON) to be issued by AHCA for a nursing
320home project to be located in Sarasota, Florida. AHCA issued its notice of
333intent to award the CON to Arbor Health Care and to deny all other applications,
348including that of Manor Care. Manor Care challenged the proposed action and the
361matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) where it
373was assigned DOAH Case No. 93-2562. The three parties to this proceeding were
386also parties to DOAH Case No. 93-2562. During the course of DOAH Case No. 93-
4012562, Manor Care asserted in a motion for summary recommended order that Arbor
414Health Care's application for the Sarasota project should be denied because
425Arbor Health Care did not include in its application information required by
437Section 408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes, pertaining to applications for three
446separate projects that are unrelated to the Sarasota project. For each of these
459unrelated projects, a letter of intent had been issued which notified Arbor
471Health of the intent of AHCA to deny Arbor Health's application. For each of
485these unrelated projects, Arbor Health administratively challenged the proposed
494action by proceedings that were pending before the Division of Administrative
505Hearings at the time Arbor Health submitted its application for the Sarasota
517project. Manor Care asserted in DOAH Case No. 93-2562 that Arbor Health's
529failure to include these three projects (referred to as denied-but-in-litigation
539CON applications) in its listing of capital projects was fatal and required the
552summary dismissal or administrative withdrawal of Arbor Health's application for
562the Sarasota project. AHCA filed pleadings in DOAH Case No. 93-2562 by which it
576adopted the rationale asserted by Manor Care and joined in its motion for
589summary recommended order.
592On February 19, 1994, Arbor Health Care filed its petition with the
604Division of Administrative Hearings contending that the agency assertions
613pertaining to denied-but-in-litigation CON applications made in DOAH Case No.
62393-2562 are unpromulgated rules that violate the provisions of Section
633120.535(1), Florida Statutes, and are invalid exercises of delegated legislative
643authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
652On March 10, 1994, AHCA filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition. Arbor
665Health Care filed its response to the Motion to Dismiss on March 14, 1994, and a
681Supplemental Response on March 17, 1994.
687Manor Care's Petition to Intervene was filed on February 25, 1994, and was
700granted by Order dated March 14, 1994. On March 18, 1994, Manor Care filed a
715Motion to Dismiss the Petition. On the morning of the hearing, Arbor Health
728Care filed a Motion to Strike Manor Care's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that
743it was not timely filed.
748The final hearing was conducted March 22, 1994. At the commencement of the
761hearing, the pending motions were denied without prejudice to the rights of the
774parties to raise the same issues in their post-hearing submittals. Arbor Health
786Care's Motion to Strike Manor Care's Motion to Dismiss filed on March 22, 1994,
800was rendered moot by that ruling.
806At the formal hearing, Arbor Health Care presented the testimony of
817Elizabeth Dudek, the chief of AHCA's CON section. Arbor Health Care offered
829seven exhibits, AHCA offered one exhibit and Manor Care offered four exhibits.
841All exhibits, except for Arbor Health Care's Exhibit 6, were accepted into
853evidence. Official recognition was taken of Chapters 120 and 408, Florida
864Statutes, and of Chapters 59C-1 and 60Q-2, Florida Administrative Code.
874A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. AHCA did not timely file a
888post-hearing submittal, but it did file a notice on April 27, 1994, that it was
903joining in the post-hearing submittal that was filed by Manor Care. Rulings on
916the proposed findings of fact submitted by Arbor Health Care and by Manor Care
930may be found in the Appendix to this Final Order.
940FINDINGS OF FACT
9431. Arbor Health Care is an owner, operator, and developer of nursing homes
956with a continuing presence in the State of Florida. Arbor Health Care has been
970a provider of nursing home care in Florida for over seven years and has been an
986active applicant for Certificates of Need (CON) for nursing home facilities in
998Florida. Arbor Health Care owns and operates seven nursing homes in the State
1011of Florida, and currently has under construction, or has a CON authorizing
1023construction of, additional nursing home facilities in the State of Florida.
1034Arbor Health Care currently has several applications for a CON for nursing home
1047beds pending before AHCA and is currently involved in administrative proceedings
1058before the Division of Administrative Hearings relating to the AHCA's notices of
1070intent to grant and/or deny various applications for a CON. Arbor Health Care
1083has been, and expects to continue to be, an active participant in the CON
1097application and review process for nursing home beds in the State of Florida.
11102. AHCA is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to
1125implement and enforce the CON program in Florida.
11333. Manor Care owns and operates nursing homes and owns other health care
1146facilities in the State of Florida. Manor Care has filed numerous applications
1158for CONs related to provision of nursing home services in Florida, has several
1171outstanding applications, and is the recipient of notices of intent from AHCA to
1184approve and/or deny such applications. Manor Care has been, and expects to
1196continue to be, an active participant in the CON application and review process
1209for nursing home beds in the State of Florida.
12184. In December 1992 Arbor Health Care and Manor Care, along with other
1231providers, submitted competing applications for a CON to construct an 81-bed
1242nursing facility in Sarasota, Florida (the Sarasota project). AHCA
1251comparatively reviewed the applications and issued its State Agency Action
1261Report and its notice of intent to grant the application submitted by Arbor
1274Health Care and to deny all other applications, including the application
1285submitted by Manor Care.
12895. In April of 1993, Manor Care filed a formal challenge to the AHCA's
1303proposed denial of its application for the Sarasota project and to the proposed
1316intent to grant Arbor Health Care's application for that project. That
1327proceeding was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned
1338DOAH Case No. 93-2562. Manor Care filed a motion for summary recommended order
1351in Case No. 93-2562 contending, in part, that Arbor Health Care's application
1363for the Sarasota project should be dismissed because Arbor Health Care failed to
1376comply with the provisions of Section 408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes,
1385pertaining to the minimum content of an application for a CON.
13966. Section 408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part,
1405that an application for a CON shall include the following:
1415(2) A statement of the financial resources
1422needed by and available to the applicant to
1430accomplish the proposed project. This
1435statement shall include:
1438(a) A complete listing of all capital
1445projects, including new health facility
1450development projects and health facility
1455acquisitions applied for, pending, approved,
1460or underway in any state at the time of the
1470application, regardless of whether or not
1476that state has a certificate-of-need program
1482or a capital expenditure review program
1488pursuant to section 112 of the Social Security
1496Act. The department may, by rule, require
1503less-detailed (sic) information from major
1508health care providers. The listing shall
1514include the applicant's actual or proposed
1520financial commitment to those projects and
1526an assessment of their impact on the
1533applicant's ability to provide the proposed
1539project.
15407. Manor Care argued in Case No. 93-2562 that Arbor Health Care's
1552application for the Sarasota project was deficient because it failed to include
1564three projects, referred to as denied-but-in-litigation CON applications, within
1573its listings of its capital projects. For each of these projects, Arbor Health
1586Care's application for a CON had been preliminarily denied by AHCA. As to each
1600project, Arbor Health Care had administratively challenged the denial in
1610proceedings that were pending and still in litigation before the Division of
1622Administrative Hearings at the time of Arbor Health Care's application for the
1634Sarasota project. Consequently, no final order had been entered as to any of
1647these three projects and whether Arbor Health Care would be issued a CON for one
1662or more of these three projects had not been resolved.
16728. On July 30, 1994, AHCA filed in DOAH Case No. 93-2562 a pleading
1686agreeing with and adopting that portion of Manor Care's motion to dismiss
1698grounded on Arbor Health Care's failure to include the three denied-but-in-
1709litigation CON applications within its capital projects listing.
17179. AHCA interprets the provisions of Section 408.037(2)(a), Florida
1726Statutes, as requiring that denied-but-in-litigation CON applications be
1734included within the applicant's capital projects listing. The position of AHCA
1745is that any application that fails to contain the minimum information required
1757by Section 408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes, should be summarily dismissed or
1767administratively withdrawn. AHCA has maintained this interpretation of Section
1776408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and has applied this interpretation to all
1786applications for a CON since the statute became effective in 1987.
179710. AHCA's statement that denied-but-in-litigation CON applications must
1805be included within an applicant's capital projects listing has never been
1816adopted as a rule.
182011. The term "capital project" is not defined in Chapter 408, Florida
1832Statutes. AHCA adopted what is now codified as Rule 59C-1.002(9), Florida
1843Administrative Code, effective January 31, 1991. That rule defines the term
"1854capital project" as follows:
"1858Capital project" means a project involving
1864one or more expenditures which has received
1871final approval via authorization to execute
1877for which capitalization will be required
1883under generally accepted accounting principles.
1888For the purpose of this definition, final
1895approval includes letters of intent to issue
1902a certificate of need issued by the agency.
191012. Also effective January 31, 1991, AHCA adopted what is now codified as
1923Rule 58C-1.008(5)(h), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that an
1932application for a CON contain listing of all capital projects ". . . as defined
1947in rule 59C-1.002(9)."
195013. Section 408.037(4), Florida Statutes, requires that a resolution from
1960the applicant's governing authority accompany each application for a CON for new
1972nursing home facilities in Florida. This resolution must contain certain
1982representations and commitments to the project for which application is made and
1994constitutes "authorization to execute" within the meaning of Rule 59C-1.002(9),
2004Florida Administrative Code. Section 408.037(4), Florida Statutes, provides as
2013follows:
2014(4) A certified copy of a resolution by the
2023board of directors of the applicant, or other
2031governing authority if not a corporation,
2037authorizing the filing of the application;
2043authorizing the applicant to incur the
2049expenditures necessary to accomplish the
2054proposed project; certifying that if issued a
2061certificate, the applicant shall accomplish
2066the proposed project within the time allowed
2073by law and at or below the cost contained in
2083the application; and certifying that the
2089applicant shall license and operate the facility.
209614. An application for a CON for a project involving capital expenditures
2108that contains the resolution required by Section 408.037(4), Florida Statutes,
"2118has received final approval via authorization to execute" within the meaning of
2130Rule 59C-1.002(9), Florida Administrative Code, and meets the definition of a
"2141capital project" contained in the first sentence of that rule.
215115. On March 11, 1994, AHCA caused to be published in the Florida
2164Administrative Weekly, Volume 20, Number 10, at pages 1434-35, a Notice of
2176Proposed Rule. The proposed rule would amend AHCA's existing Rule 59C-1.002(9),
2187Florida Administrative Code, to read:
2192(9) "Capital project" means a project
2198involving a capital expenditure, as defined
2204in subsection (8) of this rule, which the
2212applicant has approved via authorization to
2218execute. For projects subject to certificate
2224of need review, capital project also means a
2232project involving a capital expenditure for
2238which a letter of intent to grant a
2246certificate of need has been issued; or a
2254project involving a capital expenditure for
2260which a letter of intent to deny a
2268of need is in litigation, or could still be
2277certificate litigated within any remaining
2282part of the 21-day period provided by
2289s. 408.039(5)(a), F.S.
229216. The proposed rule incorporates the agency statement that denied-but-
2302in-litigation CON applications must be listed in the applicant's capital
2312projects listings and removes any doubt that applied-but-in-litigation CON
2321applications must be included in an applicant's capital projects listing.
233117. AHCA's position that Section 408.37(2)(a), Florida Statutes, requires
2340that denied-but-in-litigation CON applications be included in the capital
2349projects listing is merely an application of the plain language of the statute.
2362Each of the three applications for CONs referred to as denied-but-in-litigation
2373CON applications contains the commitment required by Section 408.037(4), Florida
2383Statutes. These three applications are clearly for CONs that have been applied
2395for and are pending within the meaning of Section 408.037(2)(a), Florida
2406Statutes.
240718. If an applicant fails to list denied-but-in-litigation CON
2416applications in its capital projects listings, it has failed to provide
2427information required by Section 408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
243419. If an application for a CON is deemed incomplete and administratively
2446withdrawn prior to comparative review, the applicant no longer has that
2457application pending and cannot obtain a CON based on that application.
2468CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
247120. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the
2481parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Sections 120.535 and
2493120.56, Florida Statutes.
249621. As an owner, operator, and developer of existing and proposed nursing
2508home facilities in the State of Florida, Arbor Health Care is substantially
2520affected by AHCA's statements pertaining to the required contents of
2530applications for CONs. Consequently, Arbor Health Care has the requisite
2540standing to bring this proceeding. Manor Care's assertion that Arbor Health
2551Care lacks standing because it has not as of yet suffered any adverse action as
2566a result of the challenged statements is rejected as being without merit. See,
2579Professional Firefighters of Florida, Inc. v. Department of Health and
2589Rehabilitative Services 396 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Likewise without
2600merit is Arbor Health Care's assertion that Manor Care lacks standing to
2612intervene in the challenge brought pursuant to Section 120.535, Florida
2622Statutes.
262322. As the challenger, the burden is upon the petitioner to demonstrate,
2635by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged agency assertions
2646constitute rules as defined by Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. See,
2656Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, Humana, Inc. v. Department of Health and
2667Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and Agrico Chemical
2679Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA
26911978).
269223. Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, defines the term "rule" as
2702follows:
2703(16) "Rule" means each agency statement of
2710general applicability that implements,
2714interprets, or prescribes law or policy or
2721describes the organization, procedure, or
2726practice requirements of an agency and
2732includes any form which imposes any
2738requirement or solicits information not
2743specifically required by statute or by an
2750existing rule. The term also includes the
2757amendment or repeal of a rule. . . .
276624. In St. Francis Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and
2777Rehabilitative Services, 553 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), at page 1354, the
2790court stated:
2792We recognize that an agency interpretation of
2799a statute which simply reiterates the
2805legislature's statutory mandate and does not
2811place upon the statute an interpretation that
2818is not readily apparent from its literal
2825reading, nor in and of itself purport to
2833create rights, or require compliance, or to
2840otherwise have the direct and consistent
2846effect of the law, is not an unpromulgated
2854rule, and actions based upon such an
2861interpretation are permissible without
2865requiring an agency to go through rulemaking.
287225. The agency statement challenged in this proceeding that denied-but-in-
2882litigation CON applications must be included in the capital projects listing of
2894an application for a CON is not a rule as the term rule is defined by Section
2911120.52(16), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has failed to establish that the
2922agency has asserted any requirement that is not apparent from an application or
2935reading of the statute. The proof is compelling that the agency's assertion in
2948the underlying case that instigated this petition was predicated on existing
2959statute and did not impose any requirement not contained within the existing
2971statute.
297226. Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as
2982follows:
2983(1) Rulemaking is not a matter of agency
2991discretion. Each agency statement defined as
2997a rule under s. 120.52(16) shall be adopted
3005by the rulemaking procedure provided by s.
3012120.54 as soon as feasible and practicable to
3020the extent provided by this subsection . . .
3029* * *
3032(a) Rulemaking shall be presumed feasible
3038unless the agency proves that:
3043* * *
30463. The agency is currently using the
3053rulemaking procedure expeditiously and in
3058good faith to adopt rules which address the
3066statement.
3067* * *
3070(2)(a) Any person substantially affected by
3076an agency statement may seek an administrative
3083determination that the statement violates
3088subsection (1). . . .
3093* * *
3096(4) When a hearing officer determines that
3103all or part of an agency statement violates
3111subsection (1), the agency shall immediately
3117discontinue all reliance upon the statement
3123or any substantially similar statement as a
3130basis for agency action.
3134(5) Subsequent to a determination that an
3141agency statement violates subsection (1), if
3147an agency publishes, pursuant to s. 120.54(1),
3154proposed rules which address the statement and
3161proceeds expeditiously and in good faith to
3168adopt rules which address the statement, the
3175agency shall be permitted to rely upon the
3183statement or a substantially similar statement
3189as a basis for agency action. . . .
319827. Even if it were determined that the challenged statement is an
3210unpromulgated rule, AHCA established that it is currently using the rulemaking
3221process expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules that incorporate the
3233challenged agency statement, which is all that is required by Section 120.535,
3245Florida Statutes.
324728. Section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
3255(1) Any person substantially affected by a
3262rule may seek an administrative determination
3268of the invalidity of the rule on the ground
3277that the rule is an invalid exercise of
3285delegated legislative authority.
328829. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, defines the term "invalid
3297exercise of delegated legislative authority" as follows:
3304(8) "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative
3310authority" means action which goes beyond the
3317powers, functions, and duties delegated by the
3324Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an
3332invalid exercise of delegated legislative
3337authority if any one or more of the following
3346apply:
3347(a) The agency has materially failed to
3354follow the applicable rulemaking procedures
3359set forth in s. 120.54;
3364(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of
3372rulemaking authority, citation to which is
3378required by s. 120.54(7);
3382(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or
3388contravenes the specific provisions of law
3394implemented, citation to which is required by
3401s. 120.54(7);
3403(d) The rule is vague, fails to establish
3411adequate standards for agency decisions, or
3417vest unbridled discretion in the agency; or
3424(e) The rule is arbitrary or capricious.
343130. The challenge to the agency statement that denied-but-in-litigation
3440CON applications must be contained in an applicant's capital projects listing is
3452not a rule. Consequently, the challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida
3463Statutes, must be denied. Even if the challenged statement were considered an
3475unpromulgated rule, any challenge thereto would be limited to the provisions of
3487Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, and not subject to challenge under Section
3498120.56, Florida Statutes, until promulgated as a rule. This is not to suggest
3511that the propriety of an agency's "unpromulgated rule" could not be tested in a
3525Section 120.57 hearing. See, Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes.
353331. AHCA, as the agency responsible for the administration of the CON
3545program in Florida, has the authority to administratively withdraw or to
3556otherwise reject an application for a CON that fails to provide information
3568required by statute. AHCA's assertion in DOAH Case No. 93-2562 that Arbor
3580Health Care's application for the CON for the Sarasota project should be
3592administratively withdrawn is not a rule as defined by Section 120.52(16),
3603Florida Statutes, and is not subject to challenge in this proceeding pursuant to
3616Section 120.535 or Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
3623ORDER
3624Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
3637ORDERED that Arbor Health Care's challenges pursuant to Section 120.535 and
3648120.56, Florida Statutes as set forth in its petition be, and the same hereby
3662are, DENIED.
3664DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County,
3677Florida.
3678___________________________________
3679CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON
3682Hearing Officer
3684Division of Administrative Hearings
3688The DeSoto Building
36911230 Apalachee Parkway
3694Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
3697(904) 488-9675
3699Filed with the Clerk of the
3705Division of Administrative Hearings
3709this 3rd day of May, 1994.
3715APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0889RU
3722The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by
3736Petitioner, Arbor Health Care Company.
37411. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
37558, and 12 are adopted in material part by the Final Order.
37672. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in
3779part by the Final Order, but are rejected to the extent they
3791are contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions
3801reached.
38023. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in
3814part by the Final Order, but are rejected to the extent they
3826are unnecessary to the conclusions reached.
38324. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as
3844being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since it is
3853found that denied-but-in-litigation CON applications meet the
3860definition contained in the first sentence of the rule.
38695. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 11 and 16 are
3881rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.
38896. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 13 and 14 are
3901adopted in part by the Final Order or are subordinate to the
3913findings made.
39157. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 15 are rejected
3926for failure to comply with Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida
3934Administrative Code, and because the proposed findings are
3942unnecessary to the conclusions reached.
3947The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by
3960Intervenor, Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc., d/b/a Manor Care of Sarasota
3972County.
39731. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
398717, 21, and 22 are adopted in material part by the
3998Recommended Order.
40002. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, and
401324 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions
4022reached.
40233. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14,
403515, and 16 are treated as preliminary matters, but are
4045rejected as findings of fact because they are unnecessary to
4055the conclusions reached.
40584. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 23, 25, 26, 27,
407028, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 are legal
4083arguments that are rejected as findings of fact, but they are
4094subordinate to the conclusions of law contained in the Final
4104Order.
4105COPIES FURNISHED:
4107Chris H. Bentley, Esquire
4111John L. Wharton, Esquire
4115Diane Demor, Esquire
4118Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley
41222548 Blairstone Pines Drive
4126Tallahassee, Florida 32301
4129Richard A. Patterson, Esquire
4133Agency For Health Care Administration
4138325 John Knox Road, Suite 301
4144Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131
4147James C. Hauser, Esquire
4151Lauchlin Waldoch, Esquire
4154Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen,
4158Lewis, Goldman, & Metz
4162215 South Monroe Street, Suite 701
4168Post Office Box 1876
4172Tallahassee, Florida 32301
4175Liz Cloud, Chief
4178Bureau of Administrative Code
4182The Elliot Building
4185Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
4188Carroll Webb, Executive Director
4192Administrative Procedures Committee
4195Holland Building, Room 120
4199Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
4202Sam Power, Agency Clerk
4206Agency for Health Care Administration
4211The Atrium, Suite 301
4215325 John Knox Road
4219Tallahassee, Florida 32303
4222Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel
4227Agency for Health Care Administration
4232The Atrium, Suite 301
4236325 John Knox Road
4240Tallahassee, Florida 32303
4243NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
4249A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial
4263review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are
4273governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are
4284commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Agency Clerk of the
4300Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing
4311fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or
4324with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the party
4337resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the
4352order to be reviewed.
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 02/07/1996
- Proceedings: Record returned from First District Court filed.
- Date: 09/22/1994
- Proceedings: Index, Record, Certificate of Record sent out.
- Date: 07/20/1994
- Proceedings: Payment in the amount of $62.00 for indexing filed.
- Date: 07/14/1994
- Proceedings: Index & Statement of Service sent out.
- Date: 06/07/1994
- Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from DCA filed. DCA Case No. 1-94-1760.
- Date: 06/02/1994
- Proceedings: Certificate of Notice of Administrative Appeal sent out.
- Date: 06/02/1994
- Proceedings: Notice of Administrative Appeal filed.
- Date: 04/27/1994
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice filed.
- Date: 04/08/1994
- Proceedings: Manor Care`s Proposed Final Order, Including Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed.
- Date: 04/08/1994
- Proceedings: Arbor Health Care Company`s Proposed Final Order filed.
- Date: 03/29/1994
- Proceedings: Transcript w/cover ltr filed.
- Date: 03/22/1994
- Proceedings: Arbor Health Care Company's Motion to Strike Manor Care's Motion to Dismiss & exhibit-A filed.
- Date: 03/22/1994
- Proceedings: (joint) Prehearing Stipulation filed.
- Date: 03/21/1994
- Proceedings: Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care - Sarasota County's Notice of Hearing filed.
- Date: 03/21/1994
- Proceedings: Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care - Sarasota County's Notice of Hearing filed.
- Date: 03/18/1994
- Proceedings: Letter to WJK from Richard A. Patterson (re: parties dispensing w/the prefiled direct expert testimony requirement) filed.
- Date: 03/18/1994
- Proceedings: Manor Care's Motion to Dismiss w/Exhibit-A filed.
- Date: 03/17/1994
- Proceedings: Supplement to Arbor Health Care Company's Response to Motion to Dismiss Petition filed.
- Date: 03/16/1994
- Proceedings: Arbor Health Care Health Care Company's Response to Intervenor's First Request for Production of Documents; Notice of Service of Answers toManor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care - Sarasota County's First Interrogatorie s; Notice of Taking Depo
- Date: 03/16/1994
- Proceedings: Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care - Sarasota County's Notice of Service of Answers to Arbor Health Care Company's First Set of Interrogatories; Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care - Sarasota County's Response to First Reque
- Date: 03/15/1994
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion to Reopen the Record for the Receipt of Newly Discovery Evidence and Motion to Extend Time for Filing Post-Hearing Submissions filed.
- Date: 03/14/1994
- Proceedings: Order Granting Intervention sent out (Intervenor: Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc., d/b/a Manor Care-Sarasota County)
- Date: 03/14/1994
- Proceedings: Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care - Sarasota County's Notice of Cancellation of Hearing filed.
- Date: 03/14/1994
- Proceedings: Arbor Health Care Company`s Response to Motion to Dismiss Petition filed.
- Date: 03/11/1994
- Proceedings: Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care-Sarasota County`s Notice of Hearing filed.
- Date: 03/11/1994
- Proceedings: (Intervenor) Manor Care's Motion to Expedited Discovery filed.
- Date: 03/10/1994
- Proceedings: Intervenor's First Request for Production of Documents to Arbor Health Care Company; Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care - Sarasota County's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
- Date: 03/10/1994
- Proceedings: Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care - Sarasota County`s Certificate of Service of First Interrogatories to Arbor Health Care Company; Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care - Sarasota County`s First Interrogatories to Arbor Heal
- Date: 03/10/1994
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 03/10/1994
- Proceedings: Arbor Health Care Company's First Request for Production of Documentsto Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. filed.
- Date: 03/10/1994
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion to Dismiss Petition for an Administrative Determination of A Violation of Section 120. 535 and A Determination That the Challenged "Rule" Constitutes and Invalid filed.
- Date: 03/09/1994
- Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Re-set Hearing sent out (Hearing reset for 3/22/94; 10:00am)
- Date: 03/07/1994
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Appearance filed.
- Date: 03/07/1994
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion to Re-Set Hearing filed.
- Date: 02/25/1994
- Proceedings: Manor Care's Petition to Intervene filed.
- Date: 02/22/1994
- Proceedings: Order of Assignment sent out.
- Date: 02/22/1994
- Proceedings: Letter to L. Cloud from JY sent out.
- Date: 02/22/1994
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 3/21/94; 10:00am; Talla)
- Date: 02/22/1994
- Proceedings: Prehearing Order sent out.
- Date: 02/18/1994
- Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Determination of a Violation of Section 120.535 and a Determination that the Challenged "Rule" Constitutes an Invalid Exercise of Delegated Legislative Authority filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON
- Date Filed:
- 02/18/1994
- Date Assignment:
- 03/18/1994
- Last Docket Entry:
- 02/07/1996
- Location:
- Tallahassee, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- Agency for Health Care Administration
- Suffix:
- RU