concurring.
To the extent that the Letter of Correction requires the home health care agency to submit a plan of correction within 10 days of the date of the Letter of Correction, it is an order. Furthermore, to the extent that the Letter of Correction prohibited, for a period of two years, the agency from providing training to its staff, it is an order.
Although the Statement of Deficiencies, in and of itself, may only be a statement of factual findings concerning the precise deficiencies perceived by the ISDH surveyor, it is a prerequisite to the issuance of a Letter of Correction. It is the latter, rather than the Statement of Deficiencies itself, which constitutes, at least in part, an order.
This conclusion on my part, however, may be of little practical assistance to Advantage because the agency’s plan of correction, as to the correction of state deficiencies, does not result in any adverse impact upon its “legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities or other legal interests.” I.C. § 4-21.5-1-9. The agency’s plan of correction is merely placed in the ISDH file and held for a period of three years to serve as a basis for monitoring the agency’s continuing compliance.
The federal aspect of the Statement of Deficiencies and the accompanying Letter of Correction is quite a different matter. It carries with it an immediate adverse impact in that it precludes the agency from providing training to its staff and employees. This very much affects the rights, duties, privileges, and immunities of the health care agency.
The argument presented by ISDH that the appropriate recourse for Advantage is to refuse to submit the Plan of Correction is disingenuous at best. ISDH would have the agency await a revocation of the health care license and only then obtain review pursuant to AOPA. Such an illogical imposition with its attendant consequences cannot be what our General Assembly or our concept of due process contemplates.
Although each and every factual finding and conclusion made in the survey report may not be subject to review scrutiny, portions of the Statement of Deficiencies and accompanying Letter of Correction must certainly be subject to such review.
For these reasons, I concur in the reversal of the Summary Judgment and in the remand for further proceedings.