A state appeals court has upheld a decision by the New York Department of Health to revoke a Mount Vernon company’s home health care license.
The Third Appellate Court in Albany confirmed on Nov. 6 that the health department’s 2023 decision to revoke Dunkez Private Home Care Inc.’s license for 36 regulatory violations was proper.
The state found multiple violations that posed a serious and imminent danger to patients, the panel of five appellate justices concluded, rendering Dunkez “unable to continue to serve a very vulnerable segment of the state’s population.”
Dunkez was incorporated in 2006 and has operated from addresses in Yonkers and Mount Vernon.
Licensed home health care agencies provide services such as nursing, personal hygiene care and housekeeping to support patients in their homes. The services must be prescribed by a physician or a nurse practitioner and must be supervised by a registered nurse.
State inspectors conduct unannounced site visits to ensure compliance with health department regulations. In 2019, according to the appellate court’s decision, inspectors found numerous deficiencies in Dunkez’s patient and personnel records. Inspectors looked again in 2021 to see what had been done and found that problems had not been fixed.
The health department suspended Dunkez’s license for 30 days, yet the company continued to operate.
In 2022, the health department charged Dunkez with 36 violations and sought to revoke its license.
Inspectors found no evidence of patient discharge records, for example, no documentation of clinical assessments of patients, no evidence of medical orders or progress reports, and failure to document criminal history checks on home health aides. After many attempts to meet with or telephone the company’s registered nurse, one inspector concluded that Dunkez did not employ a registered nurse.
In 2023 the health department’s Chief Administrative Law Judge, Natalie J. Bordeaux, sustained all 36 charges, including 19 violations that posed dangers to patients. She recommended revocation of the license and a $24,000 penalty.
Commissioner of Health James V. McDonald adopted her findings and recommendations.
Last year, Dunkez petitioned the appellate court to annul the health department’s actions, arguing that the findings were not based on substantial evidence or due process and that the license revocation and $24,000 penalty were “so disproportionate as to shock the sense of fairness.”
The appellate justices found the testimony of three health department inspectors and a regional program manager, as well as 86 exhibits, persuasive.
Dunkez’s president and vice president, two aides, and a patient’s relative also testified. But none, the justices concluded, contradicted the health’s department’s evidence.
Instead, the president and vice president “attempted to excuse their noncompliance by arguing that [Dunkez] delegated its duties” to an outside organization. Such contracts are allowed, according to the justices, but do not diminish the licensed agency’s responsibilities to ensure compliance with rules and regulations.
The justices also found that revocation of the license and a $24,000 penalty were appropriate.
