Florida Hosp. v. AHCA, 1D01-1887.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Citation823 So.2d 844
Docket NumberNo. 1D01-1887.,1D01-1887.
PartiesFLORIDA HOSPITAL (Adventist Health, etc.), Appellant, v. State of Florida AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, etc., Appellee.
Decision Date20 August 2002

823 So.2d 844

FLORIDA HOSPITAL (Adventist Health, etc.), Appellant,
v.
State of Florida AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, etc., Appellee

No. 1D01-1887.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 20, 2002.


823 So.2d 845
J. Robert Griffin, Esq. of Tilton & Metzger, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant

Gregory J. Philo, Esq. for the Agency for Health Care Administration, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

LEWIS, J.

Appellant, Florida Hospital, appeals a final order of appellee, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), which approved a recommended order from the Division of Administrative Hearings finding that appellant violated sections 395.002(15) and 395.0197(6), Florida Statutes (1997), by failing to report a hypoxic event that caused brain damage to a patient as a Code 15 occurrence. Appellant raises three arguments on appeal. We affirm the first issue without further discussion. In its second argument, appellant contends that AHCA's construction and interpretation of the term "brain damage" were impermissible because they

823 So.2d 846
were inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutes. Finally, appellant argues that AHCA's construction and interpretation of the term "brain damage" were vague and unconstitutional as applied. We affirm, holding that AHCA's construction and interpretation of the term "brain damage" are consistent with the plain meaning of the statutes, are not vague and were not unconstitutionally applied to appellant

On June 9, 1998, S.P., a 95 year-old patient at Florida Hospital, became comatose, cyanotic and unresponsive after she became disconnected from her ventilator machine. While an employee of Florida Hospital heard S.P.'s room alarm sound, the nurses' station alarm failed to sound. It could not be determined as to how long S.P. remained disconnected from the ventilator. The medical staff of Florida Hospital then provided S.P. with respirator assistance and immediately transferred her back to the cardiac care unit, which is where S.P. had been prior to the ventilator incident. While in the cardiac care unit, S.P. received intensive therapeutic care and massive blood transfusions.

From June 10, 1998 through June 11, 1998, the consulting neurologist indicated in his progress notes that S.P. had a guarded prognosis and was not receptive to outside stimuli. From June 12, 1998 through June 17, 1998, the progress notes indicated that S.P. was improving. S.P.'s neurologist then noted that S.P. was "at baseline, neurologically stable." In other words, S.P.'s neurological condition returned to the state that it had been prior to the ventilator disconnection.

Subsequent to the ventilator incident, appellant took several remedial measures to prevent any future incidents of this type. Appellant's Code 15 committee reviewed S.P.'s case to decide whether or not it warranted Code 15 treatment, which consists of reporting to AHCA within fifteen days of the incident. The Code 15 committee voted against such Code 15 treatment, believing that since S.P. recovered to her neurological baseline, no brain damage had occurred. Instead of filing the incident as a Code 15, appellant reported the occurrence as an adverse incident in its Annual Report of Incidents.

AHCA filed an administrative complaint against appellant alleging a violation of section 395.0197(6), Florida Statutes (1997), for failure to report a hypoxic event that caused brain damage to patient S.P. as a Code 15 occurrence. In December 2000, a formal hearing was held. The ALJ, in accepting AHCA's interpretation that S.P. had suffered brain damage, found that S.P. suffered transient or temporary brain damage and appellant should have reported the incident as a Code 15. The ALJ recommended that AHCA had justification pursuant to section 395.0197(10), Florida Statutes (1997), to levy a $5,000.00 administrative fine against appellant. AHCA accepted both the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law. This appeal followed.

Pursuant to section 395.0197(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), appellant, as a licensed hospital facility, is required to report to AHCA within fifteen days of occurrence, any "adverse or untoward incident" that results in "brain or spinal damage to a patient." An "adverse or untoward incident" is defined as:

an event over which health care personnel could exercise control, which is probably associated in whole or in part with medical intervention rather than the condition for which such intervention occurred, and which causes injury to a patient, and which:
(a) Is not consistent with or expected to be a consequence of such medical intervention;
823 So.2d 847
(b) Occurs as a result of medical intervention to which the patient has not given his or her informed consent;
(c) Occurs as the result of any other action or lack of any other action on the part of the hospital or personnel of the hospital;
(d) Results in a surgical procedure being performed on the wrong patient; or
(e) Results in a surgical procedure being performed
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Frazier v. Alexander, 05-81142-CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • May 31, 2006
    ...construction or application of a statute if special agency expertise is not required." Florida Hosp. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 823 So.2d 844, 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citing Doyle v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 794 So.2d 686, 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)). The State Defendants do not argue that ......
  • Russ v. State, 1D01-0205.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 19, 2002
    ...in each is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear, definite meaning. See Florida Hosp. v. State of Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin., 823 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In summary, the words in question "convey[] a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured......
  • Hous. Opportunities Project v. SPV Realty, LC, 3D15–1132
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 21, 2016
    ...agency's interpretation conflicts with the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute." Fla. Hosp. v. Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. , 823 So.2d 844, 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; see also Donato v. Am. Tel. Co. , 767 So.2d 1146, 1153–54 (Fla. 2000) (rejecting deference rule in favor of plain......
  • Gaudet v. Board, 4D03-340.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 13, 2004
    ...-------- Notes: 1. See PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988), and Fla. Hosp. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 823 So.2d 844, 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2. A review of the many licensing statutes in the state revealed only one other statute with a rule-making requirement and th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Standards of review under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 81 No. 4, April 2007
    • April 1, 2007
    ...Parlato v. Secret Oaks Owners Ass'n, 793 So. 2d 1158, 1162 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2001). (25) Fla. Hosp. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 823 So. 2d 844, 847-48 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2002); see also Sullivan v. Florida Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 890 So. 2d 417, 420 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2004) (agency afforded......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT