STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF NURSING, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-2087

)

JOSEPHINE T. LESLIE MICHEL, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in the above-styled matter was heard pursuant to notice by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 13, 1991, in Gainesville, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire

Department of Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

For Respondent: Rodney Smith, Esq.

P.O. Box 628

Alachua, Florida 32615 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Generally, whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint. However, the Respondent admitted the allegations regarding charting. She specifically controverted the allegations of possession and sale of controlled substances and making false reports.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Administrative Complaint filed on July 21, 1989, the Petitioner charged that the Respondent had violated the provisions of Chapters 464.018(1)(g) and/or 464.018(1)(f) and 464.018(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), by making various charting and administration errors; by diverting Darvocet from her employer; by engaging or attempting to engage in the possession, sale or distribution of controlled substances; by making or filing a false report or record which the licensee knows to be false; and for unprofessional conduct, which shall include, but not be limited to, any departure from or failure to conform to, the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.

The Respondent executed her Election of Rights form whereby she elected a formal hearing, pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner requested a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 27, 1991; and a Notice of Hearing was issued on or about April 13, 1991 establishing a hearing date of June 13, 1991 in Gainesville, Florida.

At the formal hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Patricia Williams, Charlene Blackwell, and Patricia Bassett. The Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4 were admitted into evidence. The Petitioner's Exhibit 5 was excluded from evidence. The Respondent's Exhibits 1-4 were admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented only her own testimony. The deposition of Charlene Blackwell was not filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings and is not part of the record. See attached docket sheet.

An official court reporter was present for the formal hearing, and a transcript of the proceedings was ordered by the Petitioner. The transcript contains several errors, chief among these are references to "Hearing Officer Benton". Hearing Officer Benton did not preside at this hearing, and the record is hereby corrected to refer, in all instances, to Hearing Officer Dean.

Further, the transcript does not reflect introduction and receipt into evidence of the Respondent's Exhibits 1-4. The index was corrected by the Hearing Officer to reflect their introduction and receipt into evidence, Transcript pages 54,55.

The Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were read and considered. The Appendix to this Recommended Order set forth which findings were adopted and which were rejected and why.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was licensed as a Registered Nurse in the State of Florida, holding License No. RN 1471852. (Admission #2).

   
   

2. From May 19, 1980 until April 6, 1988, the Respondent was employed at HCA North Florida Regional Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida. (Admission #4).

   
   

3. The Respondent made charting errors or failed to chart as alleged in the Administrative Complaint regarding patients at North Florida Regional Medical Center. This constitutes unprofessional conduct proscribed by Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. See the Respondent's admissions through counsel at hearing.

   
   

4. The Respondent saw a counselor at Charter Springs Hospital for an evaluation. Whether the Respondent was a participant in the Impaired Practitioner's program is unclear, and whether this evaluation was part of that program is also unclear. In the preparation for that interview, the Respondent executed two release forms, Michel's Exhibits 1 and 2.

5. These release forms bear the following direction: PROHIBITION ON REDISCLOSURE: THIS INFORMA-

   TION HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO YOU FROM RECORDS

   WHOSE CONFIDENTIALITY IS PROTECTED. ANY FURTHER REDISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS THE PATIENT PROVIDES SPECIFIC WRITTEN

   CONSENT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE OF THIS INFORMATION.

   
   

6. Michel's Exhibit 3, an information sheet on the intervention program for nurses, states in pertinent part regarding potential release of information as follows quoting from Section 464.0185(6)(b), Florida Statutes:

   
   

   If, in the opinion of such a consultant after consultation with the provider, an impaired nurse who is enrolled in an approved program has not progressed satisfactorily, then the consultant shall disclose to the department all information in his possession regarding such nurse....

   
   

7. The Petitioner offered no evidence that the Respondent was ever accepted into the program. Respondent's Exhibit 4, a screening form for the impaired nurse program, contains the following question and language:

   
   

   "Immediate reason for applying to the IPN program?"

   and, "I understand participation in the

   IPN program will be for at least 2 years from the date of acceptance or beginning of treat- ment."

   
   

8. The Petitioner offered no evidence that a consultant ever determined that the Respondent was not "progressing satisfactorily." The Respondent's admission that she was dismissed from the program falls short of proving lack of progress. There was no predicate established for the release of the information, notwithstanding the prohibition against redisclosure.

   
   

9. While evidence was presented concerning the failure to chart, there was no evidence of failure to file out those forms required to be annotated when control substances are administered. No evidence was received regarding Respondent's alleged possession of drugs, sale of drugs, and falsification of records.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

11. The Petitioner has charged the Respondent with violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides that the following acts shall be grounds for disciplinary actions:

    
    

    (g) Engaging or attempting to engage in the possession, sale, or distribution of con- trolled substances as set forth in Chapter 893, for any other than legitimate purposes.

    (f) Unprofessional conduct, which shall in- clude, but not be limited to, any departure from, or the failure to conform to, the min- imal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice, in which case actual injury

    need not be established.

    (d) Making or filing a false report or re- cord, which the licensee knows to be false, intentionally or negligently failing to file

    a report or record required by state or federal law....

    
    

12. The Respondent admits the allegations of failing to chart medications for patients in a professional manner, contrary to Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Transcript page 79.

    
    

13. Nursing notes are not required to be kept by law, and the Petitioner failed to produce any admissible evidence that the Respondent made any false reports required to be kept by law. Petitioner attempted to offer the opinion of a nursing expert that failing to chart was an indication of possession or sale of controlled substances. Respondent's objections to this line of questioning were sustained because there was insufficient evidence to support a question about the probability of that outcome, and the witness lacked the expertise necessary to offer an opinion on the probability of a diversion or sale occurring.

    
    

14. The Petitioner's entire case was based upon hearsay. Although hearsay can be introduced to support otherwise admissible evidence, hearsay standing alone may not form the basis of a finding of fact. Further, the reports of the Respondent's interview with the psychologist (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) was excluded from evidence because (1) it contained hearsay not attributable to the Respondent, see Transcript page 54; (2) it was confidential; and (3) the limited waiver of confidentiality did not permit re-release by those who received copies of the report, see Michel's Exhibits 1 & 2. While the statutes appear to permit the release of information by the consultant to the Board if the impaired nurse has not progressed satisfactorily (See Section 464.0185(6)(b), Florida Statutes), the release of the information is inconsistent with the notice on the form prohibiting the re-disclosure of information by the recipient of the information. Further, there is no evidence that the Respondent failed to progress satisfactorily.

    
    

15. The Board and the Petitioner are bound to respect its agent's representations of confidentiality to the Respondent contained in its release of information form in the absence of a showing that the Respondent failed to progress satisfactorily in the program. If Charter Springs Hospital and the counselor were not agents of the Board, then they are bound by the representations of confidentiality, notwithstanding the Respondent's progress in the program.

    
    

16. Based upon the Respondent's admissions, she is guilty of a violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, regarding unprofessional conduct in charting.

    
    

17. The Board asked that Respondent be assessed by a psychiatrist, psychologist or licensed mental health counselor experienced in substance abuse to determine if she is safe to practice; that she be placed upon probation for two years; and be given a civil fine of $500.

    
    

18. It is noted that the alleged violations occurred in June of 1987. It is now four (4) years later. The Respondent has lived with these allegations for four (4) years with no evidence of further trouble concerning drugs or charting. It would appear that the Respondent has cured her problem, or her

alleged problem never existed. Similarly, these past four years have been effectively a probation with these charges pending against the Respondent. A civil penalty in this case is specifically rejected because the Respondent offered to admit the charges proven. The Board rejected the Respondent's admission and the Respondent was forced to assume the costs to defend herself in a full hearing at which the Respondent prevailed on the charges which she controverted. Most importantly, the Petitioner presented no evidence to support the Petitioner's other charges. This is not a case of weighing evidence, or considering the credibility of competing witnesses. There was no admissible evidence against the Respondent. In fact, but for the admissions of the Respondent, the Petitioner would have been hard put to prove all of the allegation of improper charting. It would be unfair to fine the Respondent under these circumstances in which the Board has forced the Respondent to bear the costs of her defense against these unsubstantiated charges brought by Petitioner.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and considering the length of time since the events and the lack of proof of the other charges, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent receive a letter of reprimand.

RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

STEPHEN F. DEAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of July, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2087

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Duplicates paragraph 2.

2. Adopted, as amended.

3-4. Adopted and combined.

5-19. Unnecessary in light of the Respondent's admission that she did not chart professionally in violation of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes.

1. Rejected as contrary to the facts. There was no evidence that the Respondent was accepted into the IPN project for nurses. There is an admission tht she was dismissed from it. However, the grounds and status for dismissal were not established by evidence or admissions.

2. Rejected as not being based upon the evidence presented.

22-24. Unnecessary in light of the Respondent's admission that she did not chart professionally in violation of Chapter 646, Florida Statutes.

25-26. Admitted for the purpose of establishing the reason for the Charter Springs evaluation.

1. Exhibit 5 was excluded upon objection by the Respondent because of the confidential nature of the examination and information developed in it and the limits on the release of this information. In addition, the exact source of the information is uncertain. The information in the report not only came from the Respondent but from other persons at the hospital.

2. Exhibit 5 was excluded upon objection by the Respondent because of the confidential nature of the examination and information developed in it and the limits on the release of this information. In addition, the exact source of the information is uncertain. The information in the report not only came from the Respondent but from other persons at the hospital.

3. Source is "Deposition, page 5"; however, no deposition was ever introduced into the record. See attached copy of the docket sheet and transcript.

4. Exhibit 5 was excluded upon objection by the Respondent because of the confidential nature of the examination and information developed in it and the limits on the release of this information. In addition, the exact source of the information is uncertain. The information in the report not only came from the Respondent but from other persons at the hospital.

5. Adopted as paragraph 2 of this Recommended Order.

6. Irrelevant.

33-35. Unnecessary in light of the Respondent's admission that she did not chart professionally in violation of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes.

36-37. Exhibit 5 and testimony surrounding it was excluded.

1. Admission does not support the proposed factual statement. The testimony does not support the proposed factual statement.

2. The Respondent signed out for drugs for patients at approximately the same time the doctor changed the orders. It is possible that the Respondent had no knowledge of the doctor's orders had changed.

34. (SIC) Appears to duplicate paragraph 34. See comments for paragraph 34 above.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing

Department of Professional Regulation

504 Daniel Building

111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202

Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional

Regulation

Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Rodney Smith, Esquire

P.O. Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF NURSING

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Petitioner,

vs. DPR CASE NO.: 0100863

DOAH CASE NO.: 91-2087

JOSEPHINE T. LESLIE MICHEL,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

Respondent, Josephine T. Leslie Michel, holds Florida license number RN 1471852 as a registered nurse. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint. seeking disciplinary action against the license.

Respondent requested a formal hearing and one was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order has been forwarded to the Board pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. A copy of the Recommended Order is attached to and by reference made a part of this Order. Petitioner filed exceptions to the Recommended Order to which Respondent made no timely response. The exceptions are attached to and made a part of this Order.

The Board of Nursing met on October 10, 1991, in Orlando, Florida, to take final agency action. The Board has reviewed the entire record and the exceptions filed in this case.

EVIDENTIARY RULINGS AND RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS

Petitioner proffered Exhibit Five, a report by Charline Blackwell, R.N., that contains incriminating statements about and by Petitioner. Ms. Blackwell was deposed about the statements in rebuttal, (Hearing Transcript p. 92) and was also present as a witness at the formal hearing. Respondent claimed a psychotherapist-patient privilege. Said proffered Exhibit and deposition are attached to and made a part of this Final Order.

Petitioner argues that as a matter of law Respondent could not claim a psychotherapist-patient privilege since Ms. Blackwell was not a psychotherapist under Section 90.503, Florida Statutes. No evidence exists in the record to substantiate Respondent's claim of privilege. If Ms. Blackwell were, Petitioner argues, the release of that information to a third party waives the privilege. (Transcript pages 49-50, Exhibits 1 and 2).

The Board finds it was error to exclude that information for both legal grounds asserted. Having reviewed the information in Exhibit Five and the Deposition, the Board finds it constitutes competent, substantial evidence.

Exception 1 - The Board rejects the Hearing Officer's proposed finding of fact 7 and grants the exception. The dismissal from the IPN as determined in finding of fact 8 constitutes competent, substantial evidence that Respondent had been in the program from which she admits she was dismissed.

Exceptions 2 through 6 - Because of the Board's ruling that the proffered evidence was erroneously excluded and now constitute a part of the record, these exceptions are granted. Further, any legal conclusions of an agency relationship as found by the hearing officer on page 7 have no competent, substantial evidentiary basis vis-a-vis the Board, the Department, or Charter Springs Hospital. Counsel for Respondent conceded Exhibit 5 was a document kept in the regular course of business (Transcript page 36) and has therefore waived any hearsay objection. Admissions by Respondent against her interest are clearly exceptions to hearsay.

Exception 7 - Because of the Boards legal ruling finding that Exhibit 5 and the Deposition constitute competent. substantial evidence, this exception is granted. The Findings of Fact number 9 is modified to show that there was evidence regarding Respondent's diversion of drugs for her own possession.

Exception 8 - The Board considers this a Motion to Strike. Ordinarily under Sections 90.408 and 90.410, F.S., settlements and plea offers are not admissible and are irrelevant. However, Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order with a recommended penalty. To the extent that the hearing officer states the Board made an offer, that is clearly erroneous. The Department requested the hearing officer recommend disciplinary action to the Board, which is entirely proper. Further the Board does not impose civil fines, but is authorized to impose administrative fines.

The Board grants the exception 8 to the extent that it clarifies the erroneous facts stated by the hearing officer.

Exception 9 - The Board considers this a Motion to Strike. In administrative law disciplinary proceedings there are no statutes of limitations. If the hearing officer has attempted to apply some equitable principle such as laches, the Board finds no support for equity. To receive equity, one must do equity. The Administrative Complaint was filed July 21,

1989. Respondent is entitled to a formal hearing and to pursue discovery in preparation. Respondent has not refuted and, the Board deems admitted, that Respondent bore some responsibility for delaying the resolution.

The Board takes issue with the Hearing Officer's finding that, "The Respondent has lived with these allegations for four (4) years with no further trouble concerning drugs or charting." There is absolutely nothing in the record that there are no and have never been any other complaints filed with the department. Nor were there any witnesses or evidence presented by any supervisors or employers to attest to the lack of charting or drug problems.

Such a conclusion by the Hearing Officer is gross speculation. Therefore the Exception is granted and the improper language is stricken.

Exception 10 - The Board reiterates that it does not impose civil penalties but can as a disciplinary action impose an administrative fine. Any negotiations between the Department and Respondent are irrelevant. Cf. Sections

90.408 and 90.410, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Board ever negotiated with Respondent. The Board considers any trouble or expense born by the Department, the Board, or the licensee to be completely irrelevant to the fact-finding function of a formal hearing. The Board therefore grants the exception.

Exceptions 11 through 13 - The Board makes no finding of perjury as the Petitioner suggests. However because of previous rulings made by the Board in this Order, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that Respondent diverted drugs from her employer. In lieu of the exceptions, the Board strikes all of page 8 of the Conclusions of Law.

Exception 14 - In essence Petitioner seeks to have the Board reject the recommended penalty. Due to evidentiary errors and the granting of the exceptions as noted, the recommended reprimand is rejected.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The board accepts the Recommended Findings of Fact in paragraphs 1 through

6 of the Recommended Order. All other findings of fact are as discussed in rulings on exceptions.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Board accepts the Recommended Conclusions of Law on page 5 and the top of page 6 of the Recommended Order through Respondents admission.

The Board accepts only that portion of the middle paragraph of page 6 of the recommended order that Petitioner failed to prove sale or possession by way of false reporting. The balance of the conclusion of law is rejected except for the finding of unprofessional conduct, Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1987). The Board also finds her guilty of possession of controlled substances, Section 464.018(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1987). All other conclusions as stated in rulings on exceptions constitute conclusions of law.

PENALTY

Based on the Findings of Fact, the license of Josephine T. Leslie Michel is suspended until the Board receives an in-depth psychological evaluation from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other licensed mental health counselor

experienced in the treatment of chemical dependency which is deemed acceptable by the Chairman and Executive Director of the Board. That evaluation must specifically recommend that she is presently able to engage in the safe practice of nursing. The evaluation must contain evidence that the evaluator knows the reason for referral.

The license of Josephine T. Leslie Michel is then suspended; however, that suspension will be stayed so long as she complies with the conditions of probation. Her license is placed on probation for two (2) years with the following requirements:

The licensee shall not violate chapters 455 or 464, Florida Statutes, the rules promulgated pursuant there to, any other state or federal law, rule, or regulation relating to the practice or the ability to practice nursing. The licensee must report any change in her address, telephone number, employment, employer's address or telephone number, or any arrests, in writing by certified mail within 5 working days to the Probation Supervisor at the Board of Nursing Office, 904/359-6331, 111 Coastline Drive, East, Suite 516, Jacksonville, FL 32202.

The licensee shall submit written reports to the Probation Supervisor at the Board of Nursing office, which contain the licensee's name, license number, current address, name, address, and phone number of each current employer, whether employed as a nurse or not, and a statement by the licensee describing her employment. This report shall be submitted to the Probation Supervisor every three (3) months in a manner as directed, by the Probation Supervisor.

If the licensee fails to submit two quarterly reports, the Board shall lift the stay of suspension and suspend the license of Josephine Michel. The Board delegates the authority to impose suspension to the Executive Director and the Chairman of the Board. Reinstatement shall require her to appear before the Board to demonstrate her present ability to comply with all conditions of this Order and to engage in the safe practice of nursing.

Upon employment the licensee must make and furnish a copy of this Order to her nursing supervisor who shall acknowledge this probation to the Board office. The licensee shall be responsible for assuring reports from the nursing supervisor will be furnished to the Probation Supervisor every three (3) months. That report shall describe the licensee's work assignment, work load, level of performance and any problems. The Probation Supervisor shall inform the Board regarding any report indicating an unprofessional level of work or other problem at the next scheduled Board or probable cause panel meeting. Any unsatisfactory reports shall be grounds for modification of the terms of this probation.

The licensee shall submit to random blood and/or urine tests at times and places arranged by the Department. At unannounced times the investigator shall present herself to the licensee and request a blood or urine sample to be provided immediately in the presence of the investigator. The licensee shall provide complete information and documentation concerning usage of any over the counter or prescribed medications or any substance that might effect the test results and which had been taken in the period since the last random specimen was obtained. All costs connected with the random testing shall be borne by the licensee. If the licensee refuses to comply with this condition, she shall be required to attend the next Board meeting to show cause why the probation should not be modified and the license suspended.

The licensee shall not consume alcohol at any time during the term of this probation.

The licensee shall not consume, or otherwise self medicate, with any controlled substances or legend drugs unless prescribed by a duly licensed practitioner. However, the drugs shall only be consumed, ingested, or injected for a medically justifiable purpose. The licensee shall immediately advise the Probation Supervisor of any controlled substances which she is taking. That notification, in writing, shall provide the name, strength and dosage of the controlled substance, the name of any and all practitioners responsible for prescribing, administering, dispensing, or ordering the controlled substance, and the medical reason for which the drug is prescribed.

The licensee shall obtain or continue with counseling with a psychiatrist, psychologist or other recognized mental health care practitioner and shall cause progress reports to be submitted to the Probation Supervisor every three months during treatment until discharged by the practitioner. If the licensee fails to participate in counseling or fails to submit two quarterly reports, she will be required to attend the next Board meeting to show cause why the probation should not be modified or the license suspended.

The licensee must pay a $1,000 administrative fine within sixty days.

The licensee's failure to comply with the terms of this Probation Order without the prior written consent of the Board shall be a violation of this Probation. The probation shall not be terminated until the licensee has complied with all terms of probation.

The board delegates the authority to the Executive Director and the Chairman of the Board to lift the stay of suspension. If suspended, she must appear before the Board to establish her ability to comply with all terms of this Order and to demonstrate her present ability to engage in the safe practice of nursing.

The licensee shall pay all costs necessary to comply with the terms of the Order. Such costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of preparation of investigative and probationary reports detailing the compliance with this probation, the costs of obtaining and analyses of any blood or urine specimens submitted pursuant to this Order, and administrative costs directly associated with the licensee's probation.

Pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, the parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Final Order by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the agency and by filing the filing fee and one copy of a notice of appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty days of tide date that this order is filed.

This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Board. Done and Ordered this 3rd day of January , 1992.

BOARD OF NURSING

Sandra Darling, ARNP Vice Chairman

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been furnished by certified mail to JOSEPHINE MICHEL, RR 2, Box 715-E, Newberry, Florida 32669, RODNEY SMITH, ESQUIRE, Post Office Box 628, Alachua, Florida 32615, and by interoffice mail to TRACEY HARTMAN, Attorney at Law, Department of Professional Regulation, 1940 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230, Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550, FL 32399- 0773 this 3rd day of

January , 1992.

Judie K. Ritter Executive Director

Docket for Case No: 91-002087

Orders for Case No: 91-002087