STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-4036
)
DOROTHY COKE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On June 5, 1996, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Orlando, Florida, before Daniel M. Kilbride, Hearing Officer, with the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
District 7 Legal Office
400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801
For Respondent: Robert J. Crohan, Jr., Esquire
Wade Coye and Associates 2511 Edgewater Drive
Orlando, Florida 32804 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Respondent's family day care home license should be renewed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Respondent had been licensed by Petitioner to operate a registered family day care home since 1991 and was granted an annual license renewal subsequent to that time. On June 21, 1995 Respondent filed the required renewal application with Petitioner. This application was denied based upon a July 18, 1994 incident, and a November 30, 1993 incident in which a child was burned while in attendance at Respondent's facility. Respondent filed a timely request for an administrative hearing. This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 14, 1995 and this matter was set for hearing. This matter was continued several times at the request of the Respondent until the formal hearing was held on June 5, 1996 in Orlando, Florida.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses: Martha K. Swaggerty, Human Program Services Supervisor for Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services; and Michelle McCree, mother of the child, Vanecia McCree; and Petitioner submitted three exhibits into evidence. Respondent testified in her own behalf and offered the testimony of five witnesses. No documents were offered in evidence. The transcript was prepared and filed on June 13, 1996. Following the granting of Respondent's Request for Extension of time to file proposed findings of fact, Respondent filed her Proposed Recommended Order on July 9, 1996. Petitioner has not filed Proposed Findings.
Explicit rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the Respondent's proposed recommended order may be found in the attached Appendix to Recommended Order, Case No. 95-4036.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed operator of a Family Day Care Home located at 2927 Monte Carlo, Orlando, Florida.
Licenses to operate a Family Day Care Home are issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for periods of one year.
Respondent's license was first issued in 1991 and was last renewed on June 21, 1994. It was valid through June 21, 1995.
Respondent's Family Day Care Home has been closed voluntarily since July 18, 1994.
Respondent submitted an application to renew her license prior to its June 21, 1995 expiration date.
Petitioner denied Respondent's license renewal application by letter dated June 21, 1995.
Petitioner has not cited Respondent for any code violations in her home at the time of the renewal.
At the time of Respondent's application for license renewal, she met all training requirements for an operator of a family day care.
In November of 1993, while in the care of Respondent, a child had suffered burns while at Respondent's family day care home. No charges, criminal or administrative, were filed against Respondent and her license was renewed the following year.
In mid-June, 1994, Vanecia McCree, a 24-month old child began attending Respondent's day care, along with her brother and sister.
On July 18, 1994, the child had been dropped off at Respondent's family day care home by her mother, Michelle McCree, at approximately 10:30- 11:00 a.m.
When the mother dropped off the child on July 18, 1994, she informed Respondent that she wanted the child to change from regular diapers to pull-ups. She requested that Respondent to start potty training the child.
Respondent told Ms. McCree that the child was not ready for pull-ups yet because she displayed no signs of using the restroom on her own.
When Respondent first attempted to have the child use the bathroom on the morning of July 18, 1994, the child appeared "hysterical" and "frantic" and appeared to be in pain.
When Respondent asked the child if she was in pain, the child nodded her head in the affirmative. This caused Respondent to be very concerned about the child's condition.
Respondent did not call the mother or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at that point because she had been informed by the child's grandmother that the child had "knots" in her genital area and that the child had an infection. Respondent had been informed by the child's brother that the child had been taken to the hospital the previous night.
The child was under Respondent's constant supervision the entire day.
The only time during the day that the child was not constantly in the same room as Respondent was while the child was sleeping. During the time the child was napping, Respondent was out of the room during certain periods, but constantly kept the child in her sight.
Throughout the course of the day, the child never fell, never appeared to sustain any injury, and never had an outburst which would indicate she had been injured.
At approximately 4:45 p.m., when Respondent took the child to the restroom, she discovered spots of blood in the child's pull-up diaper.
Upon noticing the spots of blood in the child's pull-up diaper, Respondent immediately telephone the child's grandmother, Barbara McCree.
Respondent telephoned the child's grandmother because the grandmother was the person who arranged for the children to attend her facility.
Respondent told Barbara McCree that she had discovered "a little blood" in the child's diaper and that the child should be taken to the hospital.
Barbara McCree told Respondent that she would call the child's mother to pick up the child, and requested that Respondent save the pull-up diaper and give it to the mother.
The mother arrived at Respondent's family day care home at approximately 5:10 p.m. to pick up her children.
Upon her arrival, Ms. McCree did not examine the child to see where the blood in the diaper might be coming from.
Respondent was upset but gave the pull-up diaper that contained the spots of blood to the mother upon her arrival.
Ms. McCree took the child home prior to examining her. When she checked the child, her diaper was full of blood.
Ms. McCree took the child to the hospital where she was examined, and on the following day had stitches to close a laceration in her vaginal area.
Because of the nature of the injury, it was elected to take the child to the operating room for examination under anesthesia; however the child had eaten two bags of potato chips and some Coke during the extended stay in the emergency area causing the delay in performing the surgical procedure.
There was no significant bleeding at the time of the initial examination on July 18, 1994.
The injury was corrected surgically on the following morning.
It has not been determined when the injury to the child occurred.
After extensive examination of the genital area, the injury appeared to be most consistent with a traumatic injury.
Following the completion of the investigation, no criminal charges were filed, nor any administrative action taken against Respondent's license.
Petitioner's decision to deny Respondent's license renewal was based upon the Licensing Supervisor's belief that the injury to Venecia McCree occurred while the child was in Respondent's care.
Respondent's license renewal application was not denied based on any other reason.
There was no medical determination that the injury to the child had occurred while the child was in Respondent's care.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Sections 402.301 - 402.319, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10M-10, Florida Administrative Code, govern the licensing of Family Day Care Homes and the Petitioner is charged with their enforcement.
At the time Respondent's license wad due to be renewed, she met the application, background screening, and training standards required by the Florida Statutes and Chapter 10M-10, Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). When a loss of livelihood is implicated in administrative proceedings, an elevated standard of proof is necessary to protect the rights and interests of the individual. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987). The sanction of denying a license renewal "should be directed only toward those who by their conduct have forfeited their right to the privilege, and then only upon clear and convincing proof of substantial causes justifying the forfeiture."
Id. at 294-95.
Section 402.310, Florida Statutes authorizes Petitioner to deny, suspend, or revoke a license or impose an administrative fine for the violation of any provision of sections 402.301 - 402.319 or the rules adopted thereunder.
In determining the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken for a violation, Section 402.310(b), Florida Statutes, provides that Petitioner shall
consider the severity of the violations, actions taken by the licensee to correct the violation or remedy complaints, and any previous violations of the licensee.
Petitioner's decision to deny the renewal of Respondent's license was based upon the Licensing Supervisor's belief that the child, Venecia McCree, was injured while in the care of Respondent. It was established that "but for" the Licensing Supervisor's conclusion that the injury to the child occurred while the child was in Respondent's care, Respondent's license renewal application would not have been denied.
Petitioner's conclusion is unsupported by the credible testimony of the witnesses or the medical evidence, in that neither the Physician's Report nor the Operative Report prepared by the treating physicians indicate any medical finding as to the time when the injury occurred to the child. Such an unsupported conclusion cannot form the basis of a denial of a license renewal application.
Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated any provision of Sections 402.301 - 402.319, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 10M-10, Florida Administrative Code, which resulted in the injury occurring to the child.
Petitioner has failed to prove any violation by Respondent of any provision of the law or the rules which would warrant the denial of her license renewal application.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent's application for renewal of her Family Day Care license be GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 14th day of August, 1996.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4036
To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.
Petitioner did not file proposed findings.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.
Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,
36, 37, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part), 41, 42, and 43.
Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 7, 8, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part).
COPIES FURNISHED:
Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office
400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801
Robert J. Crohan, Jr., Esquire Wade Coye and Associates
2511 Edgewater Drive
Orlando, Florida 32804
Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Richard Doran General Counsel
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 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 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-4036
)
DOROTHY COKE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
CORRECTED RECOMMENDED ORDER
On June 5, 1996, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Orlando, Florida, before Daniel M. Kilbride, Hearing Officer, with the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
District 7 Legal Office
400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801
For Respondent: Robert J. Crohan, Jr., Esquire
Wade Coye and Associates 2511 Edgewater Drive
Orlando, Florida 32804 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Respondent's family day care home license should be renewed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Respondent had been licensed by Petitioner to operate a registered family day care home since 1991 and was granted an annual license renewal subsequent to that time. On June 21, 1995 Respondent filed the required renewal application with Petitioner. This application was denied based upon an incident which occurred on July 18, 1994 incident and a November 30, 1993 incident in which a child was burned while in attendance at Respondent's facility. Respondent filed a timely request for an administrative hearing. This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 14, 1995 and this matter was set for hearing. This matter was continued several times, at the request of the Respondent until the formal hearing, which was held on June 5, 1996 in Orlando, Florida.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses, Martha
Swaggerty, Human Program Services Supervisor for Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and Michelle McCree, mother of the child, Vanecia McCree, and submitted three exhibits into evidence. Respondent testified in her own behalf and offered the testimony of five witnesses. No documents were offered in evidence. The transcript was prepared and filed on June 13, 1996. Petitioner filed its Proposed Recommended Order on June 28, 1996. Following the granting of Respondent's Request for Extension of time to file proposed findings of fact, Respondent filed her Proposed Recommended Order on July 9, 1996.
Explicit rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the parties' Proposed Recommended Orders may be found in the attached Appendix to Recommended Order, Case No. 95-4036.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed operator of a Family Day Care Home located at 2927 Monte Carlo, Orlando, Florida.
Licenses to operate a Family Day Care Home are issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for periods of one year.
Respondent's license was first issued in 1991 and was last renewed on June 21, 1994. It was valid through June 21, 1995.
Respondent's Family Day Care Home has been closed voluntarily since July 18, 1994.
Respondent submitted an application to renew her license prior to its June 21, 1995 expiration date.
Petitioner denied Respondent's license renewal application by letter dated June 21, 1995.
Petitioner has not cited Respondent for any code violations in her home at the time of the renewal.
At the time of Respondent's application for license renewal, she met all training requirements for an operator of a family day care.
In November of 1993, while in the care of Respondent, a child had suffered burns while at Respondent's family day care home. No charges, criminal or administrative, were filed against Respondent and her license was renewed the following year.
In mid-June, 1995, Vanecia McCree, a 24-month old child began attending Respondent's day care, along with her brother and sister.
On July 18, 1994, the child had been dropped off at Respondent's family day care home by her mother, Michelle McCree, at approximately 10:30- 11:00 a.m.
When the mother dropped off the child on July 18, 1994, she informed Respondent that she wanted the child to change from regular diapers to pull-ups. She requested that Respondent to start potty training the child.
Respondent told Ms. McCree that the child was not ready for pull-ups yet because she displayed no signs of using the restroom on her own.
When Respondent first attempted to have the child use the bathroom on the morning of July 18, 1994, the child appeared "hysterical" and "frantic" and appeared to be in pain.
When Respondent asked the child if she was in pain, the child nodded her head in the affirmative. This caused Respondent to be very concerned about the child's condition.
Respondent did not call the mother or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at that point because she had been informed by the child's grandmother that the child had "knots" in her genital area and that the child had an infection. Respondent had been informed by the child's brother that the child had been taken to the hospital the previous night.
The child was under Respondent's constant supervision the entire day.
The only time during the day that the child was not constantly in the same room as Respondent was while the child was sleeping. During the time the child was napping, Respondent was out of the room during certain periods, but constantly kept the child in her sight.
Throughout the course of the day, the child never fell, never appeared to sustain any injury, and never had an outburst which would indicate she had been injured.
At approximately 4:45 p.m., when Respondent took the child to the restroom, she discovered spots of blood in the child's pull-up diaper.
Upon noticing the spots of blood in the child's pull-up diaper, Respondent immediately telephone the child's grandmother, Barbara McCree.
Respondent telephoned the child's grandmother because the grandmother was the person who arranged for the children to attend her facility.
Respondent told Barbara McCree that she had discovered "a little blood" in the child's diaper and that the child should be taken to the hospital.
Barbara McCree told Respondent that she would call the child's mother to pick up the child, and requested that Respondent save the pull-up diaper and give it to the mother.
The mother arrived at Respondent's family day care home at approximately 5:10 p.m. to pick up her children.
Upon her arrival, Ms. McCree did not examine the child to see where the blood in the diaper might be coming from.
Respondent was upset but gave the pull-up diaper that contained the spots of blood to the mother upon her arrival.
Ms. McCree took the child home prior to examining her. When she checked the child, her diaper was full of blood.
Ms. McCree took the child to the hospital where she was examined, and on the following day had stitches to close a laceration in her vaginal area.
Because of the nature of the injury, it was elected to take the child to the operating room for examination under anesthesia; however the child had eaten two bags of potato chips and some Coke during the extended stay in the emergency area causing the delay in performing the surgical procedure.
There was no significant bleeding at the time of the initial examination on July 18, 1994.
The injury was corrected surgically on the following morning.
It has not been determined when the injury to the child occurred.
After extensive examination of the genital area, the injury appeared to be most consistent with a traumatic injury.
Following the completion of the investigation, no criminal charges were filed, nor any administrative action taken against Respondent's license.
Petitioner's decision to deny Respondent's license renewal was based upon the Licensing Supervisor's belief that the injury to Venecia McCree occurred while the child was in Respondent's care.
Respondent's license renewal application was not denied based on any other reason.
There was no medical determination that the injury to the child had occurred while the child was in Respondent's care.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Sections 402.301 - 402.319, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10M-10, Florida Administrative Code, govern the licensing of Family Day Care Homes and the Petitioner is charged with their enforcement.
At the time Respondent's license wad due to be renewed, she met the application, background screening, and training standards required by the Florida Statutes and Chapter 10M-10, Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). When a loss of livelihood is implicated in administrative proceedings, an elevated standard of proof is necessary to protect the rights and interests of the individual. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987). The sanction of denying a license renewal "should be directed only toward those who by their conduct have forfeited their right to the privilege, and then only upon clear and convincing proof of substantial causes justifying the forfeiture."
Id. at 294-95.
Section 402.310, Florida Statutes authorizes Petitioner to deny, suspend, or revoke a license or impose an administrative fine for the violation of any provision of sections 402.301 - 402.319 or the rules adopted thereunder.
In determining the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken for a violation, Section 402.310(b), Florida Statutes, provides that Petitioner shall consider the severity of the violations, actions taken by the licensee to correct the violation or remedy complaints, and any previous violations of the licensee.
Petitioner's decision to deny the renewal of Respondent's license was based upon the Licensing Supervisor's belief that the child, Venecia McCree, was injured while in the care of Respondent. It was established that "but for" the Licensing Supervisor's conclusion that the injury to the child occurred while the child was in Respondent's care, Respondent's license renewal application would not have been denied.
Petitioner's conclusion is unsupported by the credible testimony of the witnesses or the medical evidence, in that neither the Physician's Report nor the Operative Report prepared by the treating physicians indicate any medical finding as to the time when the injury occurred to the child. Such an unsupported conclusion cannot form the basis of a denial of a license renewal application.
Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated any provision of Sections 402.301 - 402.319, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 10M-10, Florida Administrative Code, which resulted in the injury occurring to the child.
Petitioner has failed to prove any violation by Respondent of any provision of the law or the rules which would warrant the denial of her license renewal application.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent's application for renewal of her Family Day Care license be GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 27th day of August, 1996.
APPENDIX TO CORRECTED RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4036
To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.
Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2 (in part), 4, 6 (in part), 7, 8 (in
part), 9, 10, 11 (in part), 12 (in part), 13, 15 (in part), 16 (in part), 17 (in
part), 18, 19 (in part), 20 (in part), and 23.
Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 2 (in part), 3, 5, and 8 (in part), 11 (in part), and 12 (in part).
Rejected as hearsay: paragraph 6 (in part), and 14.
Rejected as argument or a comment on the evidence: paragraphs 15 (in part), 16 (in part), 17 (in part), 18 (in part), 20 (in part), 21, 22 and 23.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.
Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,
36, 37, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part), 41, 42, and 43.
Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 7, 8, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part).
COPIES FURNISHED:
Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office
400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801
Robert J. Crohan, Jr., Esquire Wade Coye and Associates
2511 Edgewater Drive
Orlando, Florida 32804
Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Richard Doran General Counsel
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 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 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 27, 1996 | Corrected Recommended Order sent out. Hearing held 6/5/96. |
| Aug. 14, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 06/05/96. |
| Jul. 09, 1996 | (Respondent) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jun. 28, 1996 | Order sent out. (PRO's due 7/8/96) |
| Jun. 27, 1996 | (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1996 | Respondent`s Request for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact And Conclusions of Law; Order Extending Time for Respondent to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (for Hearing Officer signature) filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | Transcript filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | (Robert J. Crohan) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| May 30, 1996 | Amended Order Continuing Final Hearing sent out. (Video Final Hearing set for 6/5/96; Orlando & Tallahassee) |
| May 23, 1996 | Order Continuing Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 6/5/96; 9:00am; Orlando) |
| Apr. 03, 1996 | Second Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 5/24/96; 9:00am;Orlando) |
| Nov. 29, 1995 | Order Continuing Hearing sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled by separate order) |
| Nov. 28, 1995 | Respondent's Motion for Continuance of Hearing filed. |
| Nov. 27, 1995 | Letter to DMK from Dorothy Coke (RE: returning pleadings from case file that was forwarded to respondent) filed. |
| Oct. 09, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 11/29/95; 1:00pm; Orlando) |
| Sep. 18, 1995 | Petitioner's Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Aug. 16, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Aug. 14, 1995 | Notice; Request for Administrative Hearing, letter form; Agency Action letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 14, 1996 | Recommended Order | Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence violations of child care rules; Time of injury to child not established. |
SISLYN GONSALVES DAYCARE vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 95-004036 (1995)
DEBORAH SCURRY vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 95-004036 (1995)
JACQUELINE BIZZELL vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 95-004036 (1995)
MARCIA EDWARDS FAMILY DAY CARE HOME vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 95-004036 (1995)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES vs THORPE LINDSEY, 95-004036 (1995)
