of that regulation is subject to surveys i had various times for various reasons it's id ph conducted a survey in october thirty one two thousand and seven and thereafter issued a notice two thousand and nine shortly before that circuit court of same county issued an injunction against the department of public health in joining the department from imposing flat fines greater than ten thousand dollars of trial split its notice that allege one violation into three violations in order to circumvent the injunction against the eight flatline greater than ten thousand dollars and also whether yes the legal significance of i changed changed great on it went from a single type a violation to three separate high paid violations and one thing that's i think  shows a problem at a church by people doing this they are arguing their act of it was just a correction to conform the legal action more to the allegations on from the surveyor to the injunction had leaving its allegations stat and knocking down the alleged fine from twenty thousand dollars that house dollars the only real change i teach m pleading rules that stops them from doing this in other words or if there was no rose wouldn't go for it because it's like well you know it what is there that would have stopped by n a correction to a incorrect sec taishan or a housekeeping correction to a meeting with need to be done under the authority of the director but repackaging or reading traveling each single violation into multiple violations is something that is action by the department that requires op the authority of the director and direct doesn't mean why because the nursing home care own does that require the record to pass judgement on factual allegations that the on site survey or wrote up the nursing home care act requires the authority of the director the violations make the determination which is the boiler plate language of the id ph by op notice format it self on but there's a number of evidence in the record that indicates it was easy assessed a single type out as type a violation is put together as one single patient type a violation of those strings of their own privacy that my time is up to m ok thank you thank you please of course my name is daniel blocker i'm one of your terms for community the issue i'm going to be speaking about today is the section three day five of the nursing home care act that says the amount of fines for type a violations of the section regarding type a violation clearly shows that for a single type a violation which was issued in this case the amount of the fine should be five or ten thousand dollars something on the harm of life by the department of public health interview the department was had to do something and what it did we believe is comply with that injunction i baited but why with it and the original notice of violation charged twelve taipei violations and assessed one twenty thousand dollars fine for all of those fit it's clear from the original notice of violation  place because they felt the facility had violated the statute in twelve distinct ways and the department was perfectly happy with the certainly twelve violations the serious facts of this case worked on many of the nine that were omitted had to do with contacting  sexual abuse the other nine most of them also dealt with the failure to contact one person so there is nothing in the original notice of violation that indicates this was only one  fact it's clear by listing all of these twelve that there were multiple violations there was just only one fee imposed for all of those twelve but getting back to the amend this when the rosewo injunction entered the department was faced the decision of how to comply with the deputy director had already indicated that a twenty thousand dollars fine was appropriate for this facility w true a valid and appropriate compromise by omitting some of the somewhat redundant violations going ahead with three of  stamp i just want to also clarifying that i don't think it's terribly relevant just so the court is operating under the proper section of the nursing home code for the nursing home act in that situation we look to section three dash seven o two which says that the department has pending on the plaintiff super seven days twenty four hours to investigate and thirty working days to determine the obviously if he had felt that that was an improper way to handle the case and by with the injunction he would have said something in his decision the a r j had granted the motion to amend and the director had the opportunity at that and nine the motion to amend was filed by march sixteenth so considering that the department had to decide how to best comply with the injunction and get its motion on we believe that those thirty one or two i days was certainly of the earliest opportunity world is one type a violation of twelve sections and subsections of the code there's a difference between a violation any code section that's what makes up the  have one violation of a numerous amount of code section can have one violation for each protection that's in effect the id peach redetermination here if we go to agree with you that this is point six ten eight three fifty point six twenty eight three fifty point seven hundred seven fifty eight a one b three when you told walpole those desperate  thousand dollars is a portion of prospal twelve it never would have come back in march a week before the hearing instead we've got to fix this let's take our nine of those code sections and subsections will knock it down to three and that way order on this is an agency that was told by the circuit court that it could impose a fine more than ten thousand dollars but it did it anyway it did it by saying we'll split one into three and then we don't have to worry about what any circuit court judge says or anyone dzogchen place against us on we kind of play for the arguments why that is technically a proper under the nursing home care act but you're out of it i think look at the big picture as well and i recognise that conceptually this was one incident ok but it seems to me by looking at the violations there were numerous duties authority after receiving a survey that alleges numerous code sections in different duties to different residents to initially say for this case we think it's six taipei violations and each get a separate did that at the initial stage time period to initiate a determination a violation they have the authority and discretion to impose a fine for each and every  there's also a determination whether the fine is proportionate and rational to the amount of culpability by the soul so part of that action would be whether the failure to