STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CITY OF CLEARWATER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2819

)

MICHAEL J. OSBORN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in this case in Clearwater, Florida on September 8, 1993 before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner: Deborah S. Crumbley, Esquire

Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzales, P.A.

109 North Bush Street, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33602

For the Respondent: Barry M. Salzman, Esquire

Chambers, Salzman & Bannon, P.A.

520 4th Street North

St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-1191 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent, Michael J. Osborn, should be terminated from employment with the City of Clearwater because of the matters alleged in the termination and dismissal notice issued by the city.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

On March 22, 1993, the City Manager for the City of Clearwater, advised the Respondent in writing that he was dismissed as an employee of the city as of March 26, 1993, outlining in the termination and dismissal notice the reasons for that action. Thereafter, by letter dated March 25, 1993, Respondent's attorney contested the action taken and subsequently demanded a formal hearing. This hearing followed.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Mary Ann Pearson, a registered physical therapist; Jack Dowling, a private investigator; Robert James Baxter, formerly a co-worker of the Respondent in the City's water department; Leslie Stout-Tabackman, an attorney; John C. Brown, a legal assistant to Ms. Stout-Tabackman; Josephine Dixon, water distribution operations supervisor for the city; Thomas Hackett, Respondent's overall supervisor in the

water department; Richmond G. Smith, Assistant Director of Public Works for the city; Evelyn Cone, Human Resources Manager/Employee Relations for the city; and by deposition, the Respondent, Michael J. Osborn. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 15. Respondent testified at the hearing in his own behalf and introduced Respondent's Exhibit A, the deposition of Dr. Joseph

M. Sena, his treating physician. The undersigned also officially recognized Rule 14 of the Clearwater Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations, which rule deals specifically with suspensions, demotions and dismissals of city employees.

A transcript of the proceeding was furnished and subsequent to the receipt thereof, both counsel submitted Proposed Findings of Fact which have been ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent, Michael J. Osborn, has been employed by the City of Clearwater for 9 years, first as a Service Worker I and then a Service Worker II for the Water Division. He began work with the city on December 5, 1983. He was so employed at all times pertinent to the matters at issue herein. Before coming to work for the city he was employed as a construction worker and has an 8th grade education. His general duties with the Water Division ran the gamut of physical stress and included digging, jack hammering and other tasks of a like nature.

   
   

2. Respondent admits that over the years, he has reported a number of injuries to his back. Records of the city reflect 11 reports of incidents involving such injuries. The first took place in March, 1986 and the most recent is the one in issue here. He claims the most serious of his injuries resulted from an automobile accident he had on duty in 1988 when he was rear- ended by a vehicle traveling at a speed of more than 40 miles per hour while he was driving a city truck. As a result of that injury, he was out of work for 3 or 4 days and while he underwent no surgery as a result thereof, he was given treatment and medications for it. When released by the physician, he returned to his regular duties but has complained of continuing soreness in his lower back.

   
   

3. After that accident, Respondent complained to his supervisors about his back problems on 3 or 4 occasions and was given intermittent time off. He was also placed on light duty up to December, 1992. This included painting fire hydrants and line spotting, neither of which gave him any trouble unless it involved physical digging. However, he was also assigned to painting lockers and other areas which did cause him pain when it was necessary for him to stretch or bend to reach areas to be covered. He claims never to have been totally free of back pain and discomfort since the 1988 accident. However, he persisted in doing his work because it was his job to do and he claims he didn't want to complain. This latter assertion, however, is contradicted by the testimony of his coworker, Mr. Baxter, who related Respondent was always complaining about something. In any case, Respondent never sought lighter work and no one ever suggested it.

   
   

4. On the morning of January 4, 1993, Respondent reported to work as usual. Though his associate, Mr. Baxter, was the one who usually filled the water cooler on their truck, on this morning Respondent did so. He took the cooler, which was about 2 - 3 feet tall, off the truck, dumped out the old water, and refilled it with ice and fresh water. When he thereafter stooped with bended knee to pick it up and carry it back to the truck, he experienced a shooting pain down his left leg. This had happened before, but on this occasion

   the pain was unusually bad. He immediately told Mr. Baxter what had happened and suggested the incident be reported. When he saw the supervisor, he was told to fill out the required paperwork and then see the nurse, which he did.

   
   

5. When Respondent told the nurse what had happened, she questioned him about the incident and then sent him to the walk-in clinic to whom all mobile injured employees are sent. She did not offer him transportation so Mr. Baxter took him there in a city truck.

   
   

6. The doctor at the clinic, after examining him, told him there was nothing they could do for him there and referred him to Dr. Sena, an orthopedic surgeon. Respondent's request to see a chiropractor was refused. When the clinic doctor released Respondent, Mr. Baxter drove him back to the city nurse's office where he picked up the paperwork to take to Dr. Sena's office when he met his January 7, 1993 appointment. In the interim, between January 4 and January 7, Respondent stayed at home and took it easy, taking the medications which had been prescribed for him.

   
   

7. On January 7, 1993, Respondent drove himself to Dr. Sena's office, even though he had been told not to drive, because he had no other way of getting there. Usually, he did not see Dr. Sena but saw Dr. Rehme, Sena's associate, and also a qualified orthopedic surgeon, instead. After the examination on January 7, 1993, Respondent was given a duty excuse until January 13, 1993, reflecting a total disability. He took that document back to the city nurse's office and went home.

   
   

8. The physician's notes of that first examination reflect a diagnosis of acute back strain and spondyolesythesis. He was placed on bed rest and given a duty excuse for one week along with appropriate medications. While Dr. Sena indicated in his testimony that he considered bed rest to mean staying in bed except for meals, toilet, and personal hygiene, Respondent claims he did not understand the doctor's instructions to mean staying in bed for longer than one night. He also asserts the doctor did not tell him what activities he might perform. In any case, he was scheduled to begin physical therapy after his next visit scheduled for January 13, 1993. On that visit, the physical therapy appointment was set up, and he commenced that regimen right away. The doctor's notes concerning the January 13 visit again reflect the Respondent was not to return to work. Dr. Sena indicated that the diagnoses rendered and course of treatment prescribed by either him or Dr. Rheme were based on the representations made as to his condition by the Respondent.

   
   

9. Respondent was referred to Ms. Pearson, the physical therapist who first saw him and conducted an initial evaluation and assessment of his condition at her facility on January 27, 1993. At that time, Respondent showed an increased pulling in his lower back muscles, and he was complaining of back pain and pain down his left leg. He said he could not lift or work at that time. As a result, she prescribed very gentle exercises for him and scheduled him for a return visit on January 29, 1993.

   
   

10. When she saw him that date, he claimed he had increased pain after exercise and soreness in his buttocks and legs. She repeated the previously prescribed exercises and added some new ones and started him on the treadmill to strengthen his muscles. On his next visit to Ms. Pearson on February 1, 1993, Respondent continued to complain of mid to low back pain and on that date and again on his February 3, 1993 visit, she continued the course of treatment. On

    the latter date, however, Respondent complained of pain in his left hip when standing or walking but he indicated his leg weakness was decreasing and his back felt stronger.

    
    

11. During his visit on February 5, 1993, Respondent reported his back was still painful. He said he had seen the doctor that morning and was given a work excuse for an additional 3 weeks. During their conversation, Respondent said he was worried he would hurt himself more if he went back to work. When he came in on February 8, 1993, Respondent complained he had had pain all weekend and that walking was painful. On February 10 and February 12 Respondent cancelled his appointments due to a head cold and Ms. Pearson did not see him again until February 15, 1993 when he indicated his back was stiff and sore but his leg was "OK." On that date, Ms. Pearson observed him limping on his left leg.

    
    

12. On his February 17 visit to the physical therapist, Respondent complained of continued back stiffness and soreness but claimed his leg pain was less. On the 19th he complained of a lot of back pain and spasm. Ms. Pearson verified the spasm through palpation of the muscles but his pain reports are based on his comments. Nonetheless, on February 22, Respondent reported being somewhat better. Ms. Pearson continued the exercises she had prescribed. On February 24, when he came in, he said his back pain was a lot less severe. He related he had been working around the house and on his trailer and reported he thought he'd been videotaped while doing so. At that point, Ms. Pearson advised Respondent that if he had been working on his trailer, he could go back to work and he agreed he could do light duty. He also claims that at one point, on or before February 15, 1993, before he knew he had been video taped, he advised Ms. Pearson he was starting to work on his trailer and she allegedly said it was a good idea. Nonetheless, he failed to show up for his scheduled February 26, 1993 appointment or thereafter.

    
    

13. Ms. Pearson's prescribed treatment exercises contained neither lifting nor more than very light exercising. There was nothing she prescribed that was comparable to lifting a small child, pushing down on a seesaw, or unloading or lifting full sheets of plywood. None of those activities would be consistent with what Respondent reported of his condition or what she observed regarding him. For example, muscle spasm is not something that can be faked. If she palpated and felt spasm or no spasm, she would note as appropriate. Her records of Respondent's treatment show a fairly consistent hardness of muscle, more or less, most of the time she observed him. Respondent indicates, however, that he was usually supervised, during his therapy, by Pearson's assistant since Pearson was not there all the time. When he spoke with her, their conversation was casual. Her testimony as to continuing spasm is not particularly persuasive, therefor, and in any case, muscle spasm alone does not necessarily preclude all activity.

    
    

14. During the course of his physical therapy, Respondent continued to be seen by the orthopedists. On January 22, the doctor noted he was improving nicely and noted the possibility he could return to work in 2 weeks. On February 5, the doctor continued the prescription for physical therapy and bed rest. Between that visit and the Respondent's next scheduled appointment on March 1, 1993, Dr. Sena was furnished the video tape of Respondent's activities which had been taken between January 13, and February 23, 1993 by a private investigator hired by the city to conduct a surveillance on the Respondent. When Mr. Osborn came in for the scheduled visit, the doctor noted that his lumbar strain was resolved and he could return to full time regular duty.

    Osborn indicates that when, toward the end of his series of visits, the doctor suggested he might go back to light duty, he, Respondent, said there was no such

    thing, and the doctor agreed to keep him off work for a few more weeks. This was the only time either doctor suggested he go back to work, however, prior to the termination of his duty excuse.

    
    

15. In that regard, Respondent claims he had been placed on light duty after previous injuries and ended up in more pain than before. He claims he was required, as a part of his "light" duties, to bend and stretch, during painting, all of which, he contends, aggravated his condition. Respondent also admits to having been asked to give his testimony by deposition with regard to another litigation to which he is a party. Though his counsel in that action claims Respondent refused to attend the deposition because he was on bed rest, Respondent denies having given that reason. He claims he refused to be deposed because he felt that to do so might create a conflict in the lawsuit. The counsel's testimony, and that of her paralegal who also spoke with Respondent and recalls much the same as counsel, is considered the better evidence on that issue and it is so found.

    
    

16. Respondent admits to having worked on his trailer but claims that at that time, when he was taped, he was recovered and felt he could return to full duty after he saw the doctor on his next scheduled visit. Because of this, he was trying to get himself into shape to go back to work. By that time, he claims he had no further physical problems and felt he was cured. With regard to the trailer work, however, Respondent claims someone else took the old paneling off and he was putting new paneling on. The trailer was parked in his front yard and he was making no effort to conceal what he was doing. As to the other matters appearing on the video tape, Respondent denies having pushed the child up and down on the seesaw. Though someone may have been assisting on the child's end, the tape clearly shows Respondent to be bending down and up repeatedly with his hands on the end of the seesaw.

    
    

17. This tape, recorded on several different days over the period January 13, through February 23, 1993 shows Respondent walking without any evidence of a limp or of pain, even on the earliest date recorded. He is shown to bend over from the waist, and to squat to place a tag on his auto license plate. On February 15th he is seen carrying 2 filled large trash containers out to the curb, one in each hand and to bend over at the waist to pick up the newspaper. About the same time, he is seen reaching above his head with both arms to affix something to his trailer. Around the same time, he is shown lifting his young granddaughter from the ground, using his arms, and is observed repeatedly climbing up to the top of a slide to help her slide down. He used his arms and his back to push the child up and down on a seesaw, but in all fairness, it must be said he appeared to have been helped in that effort by someone else on the other end.

    
    

18. On February 23, 1993, while at the city dump, he is shown to climb into the bed of his pickup truck and pull trash and scrap lumber, including what appear to be numerous 4 by 8 foot sheets of plywood, out of the truck by himself and toss them into the pit. Later that same day, he was observed working on the reconstruction of his trailer, carrying full sheets of plywood and affixing them to the trailer's frame without assistance. He used hand and power tools in his work and repeatedly sat, squatted, got down on his hands and knees, twisted his back and waist and did other things apparently inconsistent with his claimed condition, all without apparent pain or discomfort. His activity was not consistent with his continued limping and claims of pain to Ms. Pearson as she reported it.

19. Dr. Sena opined, from his review of the video tapes referred to above, that if Respondent could do the things he was observed to be doing on the tapes, he would be capable of performing his regular duties and was not temporarily totally disabled from the first day shown on the tapes, January 13, 1993. The functions which Respondent could perform, consistent with his initially reported condition and the instructions as to bed rest given him by the doctor, would include driving to and from the doctor's office and light physical interaction with his grandchild. If Respondent could do those things other than driving to the office visits, however, in the doctor's opinion, he could do light duty. On the other hand, however, he should not be able to work on his trailer if that work included lifting and placing heavy sheets of plywood. If Respondent could accomplish the letter acts, he would most likely suffer no disability and could work at his regular job.

    
    

20. It should be noted that none of the notes prepared be either doctor who saw Respondent, Rheme or Sena, specifically indicated what Respondent represented or portrayed his physical condition to be to them or the office staff. The notes are not detailed and reflect only diagnosis, and prescribed treatment. In light of Dr. Sena's comments that the physicians' notes are based, in great part, on what the patient relates to them, it must be found that Respondent made representations consistent with their diagnosis of continued pain and disability. These representations would appear, at least from February 15, 1993 on, to have been less than accurate.

    
    

21. On January 4, 1993, Respondent filled out a notice of injury for Josephine Dixon, Water Distribution Operations Supervisor for the city, and a superior in Respondent's chain of supervision. She has observed Respondent come to the work place during his recuperation period driving his pickup truck with his lawn maintenance equipment in tow. He admits he operates a limited lawn maintenance service for four clients in his off-duty time, but denies having engaged in any lawn maintenance activities during the period in question however and there is no evidence he did.

    
    

22. Ms. Dixon reiterates Respondent's long series of back injuries and indicates that in the year prior to the instant injury it was sometimes difficult to find a partner for him because of his reputation for not carrying his share of the workload. The only coworker to testify at the hearing was Mr. Baxter who related nothing either to confirm or contradict this allegation. The performance report rendered on Respondent just prior to the injury in question, however, reflects an overall rating of I. (Improvement Needed). Mr. Hackett, Respondent's overall supervisor, discussed his performance with Respondent's immediate supervisor. The general opinion is that while Respondent is technically very capable, he has a history of being somewhat lazy, and many employees did not want to work with him because he did not carry his share of the load.

    
    

23. Mr. Hackett has no knowledge of any specific representations Respondent made to his doctor. However, when considering the Respondent's history of repeated back injuries; his apparent lack of disability shown in the tapes recorded by the private investigator, and the indications by coworkers that Respondent did not pull his share of the load, Hackett and other responsible city officials concluded that Respondent's claim was without merit. At this juncture he admits perhaps Respondent should have been counselled on his ability to do his job earlier on, but this was not done. In deciding to initiate the termination action, he coordinated with and secured the concurrence of the city's risk management staff.

24. This action was approved by Richmond Smith, the city's Assistant Director of Public Works who saw Respondent on several occasions when he would come into the building to pick up his check. At no time did Respondent appear to him to show any major evidence of injury. It was Mr. Smith's decision to terminate the Respondent from his city employment for falsifying city records and for making a false claim. His decision was based in large part on his review of the video tapes previously discussed. He asserts, however, that if Respondent had come in with a supported determination that because of this injury he could not do his job, city personnel could and would have made an accommodation and given him alternative work. The initiative for this option rests with the employee, however, and Respondent at no time sought it.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

25. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

26. In its Termination and Dismissal Notice by which the Petitioner seeks to terminate Respondent's employment with the city, it cites as the misconduct forming the basis for its action his alleged violation of Rule 14, section 1, paragraphs (k) and (q) of the Civil Services Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater. These provisions read:

    
    

    An employee may be disciplined when he:

    (k) Has violated any lawful and reasonable official regulation or order or failed to obey any lawful and reasonable direction made and given to him by his superior officer when such violation or failure to obey amounts to insubordination or serious breach of discipline which may reasonably be expected to result in a lower morale in the department

    or to result in loss, inconvenience, or injury to the City or to the public.

    (q) Has failed to comply with or violated the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 13 relative

    to sick leave.

    
    

27. As Petitioner herein, the City has the burden of proof in this matter which requires it to establish Respondent's guilt of the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. DiLeo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).

    
    

28. The theory upon which Petition seeks to assert discipline herein is initially based upon Respondent's report to his superiors that he injured his back On January 4, 1993. As a result of that alleged injury, he was placed under a physician's care and was, by that physician, further referred for physical therapy. That treatment commenced, initially with the physician, on January 7, 1993 and continued until the last visit on February 24, 1993 to the physical therapist. Respondent did not keep his appointment with the physician scheduled for February 26. All during this time, from the date of the injury until he returned to work on March 2, 1993, Petitioner was, upon the order of the physician, restricted from work and covered by workers' compensation benefits.

29. Petitioner claims that the Respondent's representations to his physicians and to the physical therapists, which resulted in his being continued on a non-work status and coverage by workers' compensation, were knowing falsifications of insurance or medical records and constituted false claims and misrepresentations in an attempt to obtain sickness or accident benefits. Those representations are claimed to be false in that the videotapes of his activity at various times during the period in question show conduct inconsistent with the reported injury and medical condition.

    
    

30. There is no doubt Respondent indicated to his physicians that he had been injured and clearly described symptoms sufficiently serious to result in an initial determination he was unable to work, and it is also clear that his continuing representations to the physicians, though there is no direct evidence of the nature of these representations, were nonetheless of a nature designed to cause them to continue the injured status. Respondent admits that on the one occasion his doctor suggested he might return to light duty, he indicated to the doctor that there was no such status. Clearly this is not true. There is a provision for light duty which, properly applied, could have been safely accomplished by Respondent. He claims that on a previous occasion when he had been assigned "light" duty, the tasks assigned were equally as aggravating to his conditions as would be normal duty tasks, but his claim that his failure to complain was motivated by a fear of discharge, is unsupported. The evidence of record, far from demonstrating a potential for retaliation for complaining, reveals a continuing willingness on the part of city officials to work with Respondent in the resolution of his physical difficulties.

    
    

31. Turning to the physical therapy, Ms. Pearson was advised by Respondent on several occasions that he was continuing to have pain at various locations within the treated area. She frequently described him as walking with a limp, and she notes that she repeatedly palpated his lower back muscles and found them to be in a state of spasm. Yet it is significant that Respondent only after he found he was being videotaped did he first indicate to Ms. Pearson his willingness to return to work .

    
    

32. There is clearly a contradiction in the evidence between the testimony of the Respondent and that of Petitioner's witness. To be sure, aside from the repeated claims of pain to Ms. Pearson there is no direct evidence of the representations he made to his physicians. Only Dr. Sena's testimony of the basis for physician notes and the notes themselves exist provide any basis for inferring the nature of Respondent's representations to them. In this case, however, this is enough.

    
    

33. Review of the video tapes, even that one dating back to January 13, 1993, 9 days after the injury, show the Respondent to be ambulating and squatting to put on is new license tag without any outward manifestation of pain or restriction. One month later, while still out on work disability, he was taped carrying two loaded large trash cans to the curb, one in each hand, without apparent difficulty. He could bend, twist, stoop, and turn without any outward show of discomfort. Ten days later, his handling of the plywood both at the dump and at his home is totally inconsistent with any continuing medical problems related to this case.

34. This is not to say Petitioner was not injured initially. His disability appears to have cleared up long before February 24, 1993, however, and his continued representation of pain and discomfort, well after direct evidence shows his activity inconsistent with such a representation, constitutes a violation of Rule 14(k) in that it is a serious breach of discipline which not only may be expected to but did, in fact, result in a loss to the City.

    
    

35. What is more, Respondent's continued unjustified use of sick leave, when he, in reality, was no longer disabled, is malingering and constitutes a violation of Section 2(h)(1), Rule 13, which provides:

    
    

    1. Sick leave shall not be considered a privilege to be used at the employee's discretion but shall be used only for his absences:

       1. Due to personal illness or physical incapacity caused by factors over which the employee has no reasonable immediate control.

    
    

36. Respondent's counsel suggests that when the first tape of Respondent's activities was made, the City should have contacted Dr. Sena to discuss the surveilled activities and the availability of light-duty work which might be available. There is no evidence the city had access to those tapes until after the last tape was made, and in any event, the matter having been referred to the physician, it was not the province of the city to interfere in the ongoing doctor-patient relationship. This is not, as counsel suggests, a case of the city keeping information from the doctor. Instead, it is a case of a city worker continuing to report disability and discomfort when concrete evidence to the contrary appears.

    
    

37. The action sought by the Petitioner appears to be consistent with the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action published by the City. The instant offense, as established by the evidence, is the third disciplinary action taken against the Respondent since September, 1991. Notwithstanding the urging of Respondent's counsel that the nature of the evidence of misconduct be taken in mitigation of the "harsh" proposed penalty, Respondent's below standard performance of duty, as memorialized by the most recent rating reflecting improvement was needed, does not justify either mitigating the action proposed or the granting of clemency.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:

RECOMMENDED that Respondent herein, Michael J. Osborn, be terminated from employment with the City of Clearwater for cause, as outlined in the Record of Personnel Action dated March 18, 1993, effective March 26, 1993.

RECOMMENDED this 27th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1993.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2819

The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to

Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.

FOR THE PETITIONER:

Petitioner's counsel submitted a Proposed Order which contains Proposed Findings of Fact which are not numerically identified. For the purpose of reference herein, they have been numbered in sequence from 1 to 42 as they appear.

Upon review of each individual proposal, they have been accepted and, as appropriate, have been incorporated herein.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

1. Accepted and incorporated herein.

2. First sentence rejected. Balance accepted.

3. First sentence accepted. Second and third sentences rejected. Fourth and fifth sentences accepted. Sixth sentence modified. Doctor's notes show Respondent to be improving nicely Respondent to be "improving nicely." Doctor's comments from notes accepted. Balance accepted.

4. First through third sentences accepted. Fourth sentence rejected in part as it asserts the tapes serve as foundations of the city's charges. This is not totally accurate. They serve as evidence of Respondent's condition which appears inconsistent with the information given by his to his physicians. Balance accepted.

5. First through fourth sentences are a restatement of testimony, not proper finding of fact. Fifth and sixth sentences are a comment on the evidence. Balance, through second next to last sentence, is a restatement of the testimony. Next to last and last sentences are comments on specific testimony.

6. Paragraph is no more than a restatement of evidence.

7. Rejected as contra to the better weight of the evidence.

8. Rejected.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Deborah S. Crumbley, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez Post Office Box 639

Tampa, Florida 33601

Barry M. Salzman, Esquire Chambers, Salzman & Brannon Post Office Box 1191

St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-1191

Michael J. Wright City Manager

City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748

Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748

Gary Fernald, Esquire

501 South Ft. Harrison Clearwater, Florida 34616

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 consult with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 93-002819

Orders for Case No: 93-002819