EMERALD OAKS (BEVERLY ENTERPRISES-FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A BEVERLY GULF COAST-FLORIDA, INC.), APPELLANT,
v.
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Agency properly issued a conditional nursing home license based on sufficient evidence of Class II deficiencies, and the burden to prove pressure sores were unavoidable rests with the facility.
[1] A nursing home facility must demonstrate that a pressure sore developed by a patient after entering the facility was unavoidable, as per federal regulations.
[2] The finding of a single Class II deficiency is sufficient to require a nursing home's operating license to be downgraded to "conditional."
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) cited Emerald Oaks nursing home for deficiencies, leading to a "conditional" operating license. Eme…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Emerald Oaks, challenges the issuance of a “conditional” rated nursing home operating license issued by appellee, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency). We affirm.
Emerald Oaks is a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota. The Agency, pursuant to chapter 400, Florida Statutes (1997), is responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable state and federal regulations governing nursing homes. The Agency conducted an inspection of Emerald Oaks on August 3, 1998, and as a result, cited a number of deficiencies regarding five patients which, if proved, qualified as Class II deficiencies resulting in the issuance of a mandatory “conditional” license. Because the finding of only one Class II deficiency is sufficient to require a standard license to be downgraded to “conditional,” we affirm as we find that sufficient, competent evidence was presented to support the findings of Class II deficiencies in regard to at least two of the five patients.
In addition to issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, Emerald Oaks argues that the burden of demonstrating that a patient’s pressure sore was “unavoidable” was improperly shifted to Emerald Oaks. We disagree, concluding that the federal rule applicable to the quality of care necessary to prevent pressure sores mandates that a nursing home facility demonstrate that a pressure sore developed by a patient after entering the facility was unavoidable.
42 C.F.R. § 483.25(c) provides in pertinent part as follows:
Sec. 483.25 Quality of care.
* * * * *
(c) Pressure sores. Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility must ensure that-
(1) A resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the individual’s clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable; and (2) A resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing.
(Emphasis supplied.)
We therefore conclude that the Agency in a license reduction hearing has the burden to show that a patient developed a pressure sore after entering the facility without a pressure sore. Once the Agency has proved that fact, it then becomes necessary for the facility to go forward, in the nature of an affirmative defense, with proof to demonstrate that the pressure sore was unavoidable.
Affirmed.
THREADGILL and BLUE, JJ., Concur.