STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-6192

)

1. AND G.G., )

   )

   Respondents. )

   )

   
   

   RECOMMENDED ORDER

   
   

   Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on April 23, 1992, in Miami, Florida.

   
   

   APPEARANCES

   
   

   For Petitioner: Julie Waldman, Esquire

   Assistant District Legal Counsel

   Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

   401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128

   
   

   For Respondent: Curtis L. Jones, Esquire

   Offices at Bay Point Suite 1460

   4770 Biscayne Boulevard

   Miami, Florida 33137 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

   Whether the proposed confirmed report of child abuse identified as FPSS Report No. 90-1333485 should be amended or expunged.1/

   
   

   PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

   
   

   Respondents are licensed by Petitioner to operate a foster family emergency shelter home. On or about December 27, 1990, Petitioner received a report that Respondents had mentally injured a 17 year old female that had been placed in their temporary care by verbally abusing her. Upon investigating, Petitioner learned of allegations that Respondents had failed to provide adequate supervision for certain minors who had been temporarily placed in their care.

   Thereafter, FPSS Report No. 90-1333485 was compiled which Petitioner proposes to close as a confirmed report of abuse based on the Respondents' alleged failure to provide adequate supervision. The proposed finding that Respondents verbally abused the 17 year old female was abandoned prior to the beginning of the formal hearing.

   Respondents learned of the proposed confirmed report of abuse when their application for the renewal of their license to operate their foster care facility was denied. Respondents thereafter timely contested the findings of the subject report of abuse, and this proceeding followed. The pleadings that were initially submitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings made it appear that Respondents were contesting the denial of the renewal of their license. At the formal hearing, the parties stipulated that the issue was whether the subject report of abuse should be amended or expunged. The style of the case has been amended and the Respondents will be identified by their initials.

   
   

   At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Fidelis Ezewike and of David K. Welch, both of whom are protective services investigators employed by Petitioner. Petitioner presented one exhibit, which was received into evidence. Respondents testified on their own behalf and presented the additional testimony of James Berry, the Respondents' son-in-law. Respondents presented one exhibit, which was received into evidence. Official recognition was taken of Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and of Chapter 10M- 6, Florida Administrative Code.

   
   

   Petitioner requested permission to file as a late-filed exhibit the deposition of Michael Blum, a protective services investigator, who Petitioner had intended to call as a witness until it was learned that Mr. Blum was out of town. Petitioner was given ten days within which to file the deposition, after which, a hearing by telephone on Respondents' objections to the late-filing of the deposition was contemplated. Petitioner was unable to locate the court reporter who took Mr. Blum's deposition, which rendered moot the issue as to the late-filing of the deposition.

   
   

   No transcript of the proceedings has been filed. Rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact may be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondents were operating a shelter home in Opa Locka, Florida, pursuant to License 290-12-5 that had been issued by Petitioner. Respondent W.G. is the husband of Respondent G.G.

      
      

   2. On December 27, 1990, Petitioner received a report in its central abuse center in Tallahassee of alleged child abuse by Respondents at their shelter home in that Respondents were verbally abusing a 17-year-old female that had been placed in their shelter home. Protective services investigator David K. Welch immediately began an investigation of this alleged abuse. He visited the shelter home. Respondent G.G. was present in the shelter home when Mr. Welch made his visit to the home, but she was not in the same room with the children who had been temporarily placed in the custody of the Respondents. At the time of Mr. Welch's visit, Respondent G.G. was present in the home and was providing adequate supervision. Mr. Welch spoke with the Respondents about the allegations of verbal abuse and concluded that the allegations were "indicated". Mr. Welch found insufficient evidence upon which to base a conclusion that the allegation of verbal abuse should be closed as "confirmed".

      
      

   3. During the course of his investigation, Mr. Welch learned of reports from three other protective services investigators of allegations that Respondents often left the children who had been placed in their temporary

      custody without adequate supervision. The three reports, upon which Mr. Welch relied, were from Fidelis Ezewike pertaining to an incident on September 24, 1990, from Iris Silien pertaining to an incident on December 28, 1990, and from Michael Blum pertaining to an incident on an unspecified date in late 1990. At no time did Mr. Welch advise Respondents as to allegations of abuse in the form of inadequate supervision or ask them to explain the arrangements they make for the supervision of the children when they are both away from the foster home.

      
      

   4. The abuse report listed two victims of the alleged neglect, M.L., a female born in February 1974, and L.G., a female born in August 1975. Neither of these alleged victims testified at the formal hearing.

      
      

   5. Mr. Welch had no first had knowledge of the three incidents upon which he relied to close the report as a proposed confirmed report of child abuse based on neglect from inadequate supervision.

      
      

   6. Mr. Ezewike did testify as to the incident of September 24, 1990. Although he found children in the foster home temporarily without adult supervision when he arrived there, he later that day discussed the matter with the Respondents. Respondents explained their temporary absence from the foster home to Mr. Ezewike. Mr. Ezewike was satisfied with the explanation given by the Respondents and was of the opinion that the absence of the Respondents did not merit the filing of an abuse report based on the failure to provide adequate supervision.2/

      
      

   7. Ms. Silien did not testify at the formal hearing. There was no competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondents failed to provide adequate supervision to the identified victims on the date Ms. Silien visited the foster home.

      
      

   8. Mr. Blum did not testify at the formal hearing. There was no competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondents failed to provide adequate supervision to the identified victims on the date Mr. Blum visited the foster home. Respondents' son-in-law testified that he was present at the foster home on the date of Mr. Blum's visit and that he explained to Mr. Blum that he was supervising the children temporarily at the request of Respondents.

      
      

   9. The uncontradicted testimony was that when Respondents have to be away from the foster home on a temporary basis, they entrust the supervision of the children in their custody to their daughter and her husband, who live in close proximity to Respondents and who had agreed to be responsible for supervising the children. Petitioner failed to establish that the temporary arrangements Respondents made for the supervision of the children in their absence from the foster home was inadequate.

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

   10. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

       
       

   11. Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents committed the child abuse alleged in the report of abuse that it proposes to close as a confirmed report of abuse. Section 415.504(4)(d)(3), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has failed to meet that burden.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which amends FPSS Report No. 90-

1333485 to reflect the findings contained herein, which closes said report as unfounded, and which expunges the names of the Respondents as confirmed perpetrators from the central abuse registry.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2 day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2 day of June, 1992.

ENDNOTES

1/ The issue was framed as follows by the Notice of Hearing entered in this case:

Whether Respondents' Foster Family Emergence Shelter Home license should be revoked as proposed by Petitioner in its May 6, 1991, letter to Respondents.

At the beginning of the formal hearing, the parties stipulated that the statement of the issue should be restated. The Statement of the Issue contained in the Recommended Order reflects the stipulation of the parties.

2/ The details of this explanation was not established at the formal hearing.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-6192

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

   
   

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5 and 6 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence.

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a, 6b, and

   7 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

   
   

2. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 6 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached, but are incorporated in the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order.

   
   

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6c are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings pertaining to the Blum deposition are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached, but are incorporated in the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Julie Waldman, Esquire Assistant District Legal

Counsel

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128

Curtis L. Jones, Esquire Offices at Bay Point Suite 1460

4770 Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33137

Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

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.

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-6192

)

W.G. AND G.G., )

)

Respondents. )

)

AMENDED RECOMMENDED ORDER 1/

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on April 23, 1992, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Julie Waldman, Esquire

Assistant District Legal Counsel

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128

For Respondent: Curtis L. Jones, Esquire

Offices at Bay Point Suite 1460

4770 Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33137 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the proposed confirmed report of child abuse identified as FPSS Report No. 90-133485 should be amended or expunged. 2/

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Respondents are licensed by Petitioner to operate a foster family emergency shelter home. On or about December 27, 1990, Petitioner received a report that Respondents had mentally injured a 17 year old female that had been placed in their temporary care by verbally abusing her. Upon investigating, Petitioner learned of allegations that Respondents had failed to provide adequate supervision for certain minors who had been temporarily placed in their care.

Thereafter, FPSS Report No. 90-1333485 was compiled which Petitioner proposes to close as a confirmed report of abuse based on the Respondents' alleged failure to provide adequate supervision. The proposed finding that Respondents verbally abused the 17 year old female was abandoned prior to the beginning of the formal hearing.

Respondents learned of the proposed confirmed report of abuse when their application for the renewal of their license to operate their foster care facility was denied. Respondents thereafter timely contested the findings of the subject report of abuse, and this proceeding followed. The pleadings that were initially submitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings made it appear that Respondents were contesting the denial of the renewal of their license. At the formal hearing, the parties stipulated that the issue was whether the subject report of abuse should be amended or expunged. The style of the case has been amended and the Respondents will be identified by their initials.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Fidelis Ezewike and of David K. Welch, both of whom are protective services investigators employed by Petitioner. Petitioner presented one exhibit, which was received into evidence. Respondents testified on their own behalf and presented the additional testimony of James Berry, the Respondents' son-in-law. Respondents presented one exhibit, which was received into evidence. Official recognition was taken of Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and of Chapter 10M- 6, Florida Administrative Code.

Petitioner requested permission to file as a late-filed exhibit the deposition of Michael Blum, a protective services investigator, who Petitioner had intended to call as a witness until it was learned that Mr. Blum was out of town. Petitioner was given ten days within which to file the deposition, after which, a hearing by telephone on Respondents' objections to the late-filing of the deposition was contemplated. Petitioner was unable to locate the court reporter who took Mr. Blum's deposition, which rendered moot the issue as to the late-filing of the deposition.

No transcript of the proceedings has been filed. Rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact may be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondents were operating a shelter home in Opa Locka, Florida, pursuant to License 290-12-5 that had been issued by Petitioner. Respondent W.G. is the husband of Respondent G.G.

   
   

2. On December 27, 1990, Petitioner received a report in its central abuse center in Tallahassee of alleged child abuse by Respondents at their shelter home in that Respondents were verbally abusing a 17-year-old female that had been placed in their shelter home. Protective services investigator David K. Welch immediately began an investigation of this alleged abuse. He visited the shelter home. Respondent G.G. was present in the shelter home when Mr. Welch made his visit to the home, but she was not in the same room with the children who had been temporarily placed in the custody of the Respondents. At the time of Mr. Welch's visit, Respondent G.G. was present in the home and was providing adequate supervision. Mr. Welch spoke with the Respondents about the allegations of verbal abuse and concluded that the allegations were "indicated". Mr. Welch found insufficient evidence upon which to base a conclusion that the allegation of verbal abuse should be closed as "confirmed".

   
   

3. During the course of his investigation, Mr. Welch learned of reports from three other protective services investigators of allegations that Respondents often left the children who had been placed in their temporary custody without adequate supervision. The three reports, upon which Mr. Welch

   relied, were from Fidelis Ezewike pertaining to an incident on September 24, 1990, from Iris Silien pertaining to an incident on December 28, 1990, and from Michael Blum pertaining to an incident on an unspecified date in late 1990. At no time did Mr. Welch advise Respondents as to allegations of abuse in the form of inadequate supervision or ask them to explain the arrangements they make for the supervision of the children when they are both away from the foster home.

   
   

4. The abuse report listed two victims of the alleged neglect, M.L., a female born in February 1974, and L.G., a female born in August 1975. Neither of these alleged victims testified at the formal hearing.

   
   

5. Mr. Welch had no first had knowledge of the three incidents upon which he relied to close the report as a proposed confirmed report of child abuse based on neglect from inadequate supervision.

   
   

6. Mr. Ezewike did testify as to the incident of September 24, 1990. Although he found children in the foster home temporarily without adult supervision when he arrived there, he later that day discussed the matter with the Respondents. Respondents explained their temporary absence from the foster home to Mr. Ezewike. Mr. Ezewike was satisfied with the explanation given by the Respondents and was of the opinion that the absence of the Respondents did not merit the filing of an abuse report based on the failure to provide adequate 3/ supervision.

   
   

7. Ms. Silien did not testify at the formal hearing. There was no competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondents failed to provide adequate supervision to the identified victims on the date Ms. Silien visited the foster home.

   
   

8. Mr. Blum did not testify at the formal hearing. There was no competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondents failed to provide adequate supervision to the identified victims on the date Mr. Blum visited the foster home. Respondents' son-in-law testified that he was present at the foster home on the date of Mr. Blum's visit and that he explained to Mr. Blum that he was supervising the children temporarily at the request of Respondents.

   
   

9. The uncontradicted testimony was that when Respondents have to be away from the foster home on a temporary basis, they entrust the supervision of the children in their custody to their daughter and her husband, who live in close proximity to Respondents and who had agreed to be responsible for supervising the children. Petitioner failed to establish that the temporary arrangements Respondents made for the supervision of the children in their absence from the foster home was inadequate.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

11. Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents committed the child abuse alleged in the report of abuse that it proposes to close as a confirmed report of abuse. Section 415.504(4)(d)(3), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has failed to meet that burden.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which amends FPSS Report No. 90-

133485 to reflect the findings contained herein, which closes said report as unfounded, and which expunges the names of the Respondents as confirmed perpetrators from the central abuse registry.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1992.

ENDNOTES

1/ Amended to reflect the correct FPSS Report Number on pages 1 and 7.

2/ The issue was framed as follows by the Notice of Hearing entered in this case:

Whether Respondents' Foster Family Emergence Shelter Home license should be revoked as proposed by Petitioner in its May 6, 1991, letter to Respondents.

At the beginning of the formal hearing, the parties stipulated that the statement of the issue should be restated. The Statement of the Issue contained in the Recommended Order reflects the stipulation of the parties.

3/ The details of this explanation was not established at the formal hearing.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-6192

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

   
   

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5 and 6 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence.

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a, 6b, and

   7 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

   
   

2. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 6 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached, but are incorporated in the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order.

   
   

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6c are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings pertaining to the Blum deposition are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached, but are incorporated in the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Julie Waldman, Esquire Assistant District Legal

Counsel

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128

Curtis L. Jones, Esquire Offices at Bay Point Suite 1460

4770 Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33137

Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,

Petitioner, CASE NO.: 91-6192 RENDITION NO.: HRS-92-311-FOF-RCE

vs.

W. G. and G. G.,

Respondents.

/

FINAL ORDER

This cause came on before me for the purpose of issuing a final agency order. The Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) in the above-styled case submitted a Recommended Order to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The Recommended Order entered June 2, 1992, by Hearing Officer Claude B. Arrington is incorporated by reference.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order except where inconsistent with the following:

The department's abuse report is competent evidence; thus the Hearing Officer's conclusion in paragraph 7 of the findings of fact that there was no competent evidence that respondents failed to provide adequate supervision of their foster children on the date of Ms. Silien's visit is rejected. See HRS Exhibit 1, page 5 and 6.

Section 415.504(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes (1991), provides that the department's investigative report is competent evidence in an administrative hearing. This provision was modeled after Section 61.20, Florida Statutes (1989), which provides that the department's investigative report on the fitness of a parent, where custody is at issue, is admissible. In Allen vs. Childress, 448 So2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) the Court held that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to admit and consider the information and conclusions contained in the report in making a custody decision. See also Beech Aircraft Corp. vs. Rainey, 448 U. S. 153, 109 S. Ct.

439, 102 L ed. 2d 445 (U. S. 1988) (the report and the conclusions and opinions of the investigator on the cause of a plane crash expressed in the government's investigative report are admissible), Wright vs. Department of Education, 523 So2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (Hearing Officer properly relied on case file reports in ruling on eligibility for vocational rehabilitative services), and Desmond vs. Medic Ayers Nursing Home, 492 So2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (HRS inspection report was admissible to prove that employment of a workers compensation claimant was concurrent with a staph epidemic at the nursing home).

Thus, in a Section 120.57 administrative review of a denial of a request for expunction of an abuse report, the Hearing Officer should receive and consider the department's investigative report in making his or her recommendation on the request for expunction.

The department is obligated to accept the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to identify respondents as having abused her their foster children. Thus, the report cannot be classified as confirmed.

A proposed confirmed report 1/ is defined as:

... a report made pursuant to Section 415.504 when a child protective investigation alleges that abuse or neglect has occurred and which identifies the alleged perpetrator.

Section 415.503(16), Florida Statutes (1991). An unfounded report is defined as:

... a report made pursuant to Section 415.504 when an

investigation determines that no indication of abuse or neglect exists.

Section 415.503(17), Florida Statutes (1991). Where tracking of either the name of the child or a facility appears advisable, the legislature has authorized, as an alternative to the classification system, retention of a report for seven years when a report is closed without classification. Chapter 91-57, Laws of Florida, effective May 9, 1991, amending Section 415.504(4)(c), Florida Statutes. The option to close without classification may be used even though the alleged abuse or neglect occurred before May 9, 1991. W. M. vs. State, 553 So2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied 564 So2d

490 (Fla. 1990).

A confirmed report of abuse triggers a statutory disqualification from licensure and employment in positions of special trust. Sections 39.001, 39.076, 110.1127, 242.335, 393.0655, 394.457, 396.0425, 397.0715, 400.478,

400.497, 402.305, 402.311, 402.313, 409.175, and 409.176, Florida Statutes

(1991). No such disqualification is triggered by a report classified as unfounded or closed without classification.

Returning to the present case; the one remaining issue is whether the report should be classified as unfounded, or closed without classification.

The special vulnerability of foster children and the findings regarding lack of adult supervision set forth in the investigative summary of the abuse report justify retention of the report.

Based upon the foregoing, it is

ADJUDGED, that respondent's request for amendment be GRANTED. Report number 90-133485 shall be closed without classification.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.

Robert B. Williams Secretary

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

by Director, Office of State and Local Programs

ENDNOTE

1/ Under Section 415.503(6), Florida Statutes (1991), a confirmed report is a proposed confirmed report which has been sustained after administrative review or by waiver of administrative review.

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF HRS, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Copies furnished to: Julie Waldman, Esquire

Asst. District Legal Counsel District 11 Legal Office

401 NW 2nd Avenue, Suite 5424 Miami, FL 33128

Curtis L. Jones, Esquire Offices at Bay Point 4770 Biscayne Boulevard

Suite 1460

Miami, FL 33137

Claude B. Arrington Hearing Officer

DOAH, The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

Mardella Nottebaum

District 11 Screening Coordinator

401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Suite 712

Miami, FL 33128

William Frieder, Esquire (OSLS)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was sent to the above named people by U. S. Mail this 20 day of July, 1992.

R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 (904)488-2381

Docket for Case No: 91-006192

Orders for Case No: 91-006192