) CASE NO. 78-320
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on March 24, 1978, in Chattahoochee, Florida.
For Petitioner: Jon D. Caminez, Esquire
For Respondent: James G. Mahorner, Esquire
Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments and briefs of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following:
Dr. Carmen M. Feril was employed by the Florida State Hospital as a psychiatrist II effective March 5, 1976, which appointment was made with full staff privileges. Dr. Feril was offered housing on the hospital grounds when she began employment there in 1976. She was subsequently asked by hospital officials to vacate her house which request dated January 9, 1978 and signed by Daniel Atoman, M.D., acting Clinical Director who on January 9, 1978, requested that Ms. Feril vacate quartes no. 263 by March 1, 1978, since [she] was not occupying the residence full-time". It is based on this request from acting Clinical Director Atoman that the Petitioner initiated the petition here in pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), alleging that her substantial interests were being affected by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
At all times material herein, the housing policy in effect which is the subject matter of this petition, was dated March 31, 1977, and is contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The parties stipulated that the Respondent offers housing to professionals at a reduced and attractive rental as an inducement to
secure professionals. Doctors and other professionals at the hospital are given a written contract of employment which includes no provisions for housing nor is there any written contract of housing. The Petitioner introduced no evidence of an oral contract for housing other than her statement that she was told that housing was available and that other inducements of employment such as laundry and dining room services were in effect on a modified basis. More than half of the doctors employed at the hospital live on the grounds and most also maintain private residences.
The pertinent part of the housing policy in effect and which is contained Petitioner's Exhibit 1 provides as follows:
Should the needs of an employee for housing space change materially, housing assignments will be reviewed to accommodate these needs as nearly as circumstances permit.
The Respondent, relying upon such provision asked the Petitioner to leave when the housing committee learned that during May, 1977, Petitioner bought a home in Tallahassee. Based on the Respondent's determination that the Petitioner, having purchased the residence in Tallahassee and was therefore under utilizing the house on the hospital grounds, asked her (Petitioner) to vacate pursuant to provision D-2 of the housing policy. Since the Respondent was involved in on going efforts to attract a new clinical director. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to present her views to the housing committee in a meeting which lasted approximately one hour. Based on the committees unanimous opinion, she was asked to vacate the house on the hospital grounds. Other factors relied upon by Respondent was the committee's unanimous opinion, when was asked to vacate the house on the hospital grounds. Other factors relied upon by Respondent was the committees determination that Petitioners children, ages 14, 15 and 10, were all enrolled in schools in Leon County since September, 1977; Petitioner's substantial amount of time spent at the Leon County residence and the Respondent's need to utilize the facility then occupied by Petitioner to attract a new clinical director. Respondent introduced testimony to the effect that the housing committee was in the process of reviewing all housing assingments in an effort to free up housing for new recruits and that the committee had, in the past, requested a doctor to vacate his hospital quarters because he had other available housing.
Based on the foregoing and the absence of any evidence that housing was not a contractual right of employment but was rather a convenience provided
by Respondent on an as available and as needed basis as explained in the housing policy plus the fact that the housing policy authorizes the committee to reevaluate an employees housing needs and to make changes based on a change in need, the conclusion is inescapable that Respondent was here authorized to request the Petitioner to vacate the quarters provided her on the hospital grounds pursuant to Section D-2 of the housing policy. The Respondent here afforded Petitioner notice of its intended actions and provided her an opportunity to voice any concern respecting any alleged breach by Respondent of the effective housing policy. Petitioner having failed to introduce any evidence showing that the action by Respondent in implementing the notice provisions of the housing policy to request Petitioner to vacate the quarters afforded her was in any manner arbitrary or capricious, I shall recommend that this agency action be upheld.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Respondent introduced during this hearing, competent and substantial evidence in support of its decision to request Petitioner to vacate the hospital quarters provided her based on its assessment that the Petitioner's housing needs had changed within the meaning of Section D-2 of the housing policy in effect.
