Ai cae teat Bae -Drive, Key Biscayne, FL 33149-2002. Nw | ‘ad ye wees 8 STATE OF FLORIDA Ge < DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULIC EON 25 a, BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS £745) 4 4) GE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND fog On *, PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Ope Cy Ca Petitioner, vs. Case Number 98-21786 ¢ JOTRS CAROL VAN ORSDEL, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, (Petitioner), files this Administrative Complaint against CAROL VAN ORSDEL, (Respondent), and says: 1. The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of funeral and cinerator facility establishments, and the practice of funeral directing and embalming, pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 470, Florida statutes, _2.. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed funeral director and embalmer, having been issued funeral director and embalming license FE 0003292. 3. The Respondent's last known address is 680 Curtiswood 4 + 4 i 4 funeral director in sgnd ° __cinerator 4. At all times material hereto the Respondent was an employee of, and/or a Corporate Officer, and/or a supervisor, and/or manager of, Van Orsdel Mortuaries, Inc. (hereafter Van Orsdel). Van Orsdel owns and/or operates numerous funeral establishments in Dade County, to include Van Orsdel Northside Funeral Chapel, and the Van Orsdel Mortuaries, and also owns and/or operates the Van Orsdel Crematory. 5. At all times material hereto, licensed funeral director and embalmer Tom Nicolette, Florida funeral director and embalming license FE 0003112, was employed by Van Orsdel. Nicolette was a funeral director at the Van Orsdel Northside Funeral Chapel, and/or the Van Orsdel Mortuaries, which are licensed pursuant to funeral home establishment license FH 0000156, and co-located at 3333 NE 2°? Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida 33137-3804. 6. As a Van Orsdel employee, Tom Nicolette was also the “charge of supervision at the Van Orsdel _ Crematory, also known as Van Orsdel Crematory Company acility, icensed pursuant is a cinerator (crematory), whic to crematory license FC 0000092, and also located at 3333 NE “Miami, Dade County, FL 33137-3804. — “As the funeral director in charge of supervision at the ility, Tom Nicolette was responsible for making | 4 a 4 “special Sr sure the facility, its operations, and all persons employed in the facility, complied with all applicable state and federal laws and rules. 8. On or about June 29, 1995, two stillborn babies were delivered: 1. A stillborn baby boy, named Sunny Gonzalez, son of Liza Rodriguez (now Liza Gonzalez, and hereafter referred to as Mrs. Gonzalez) and Frank Gonzalez, was delivered at South Miami Hospital; 2. A stillborn baby girl, named Magdalena Morales, daughter of Magda and Jose Morales, was delivered at Mercy Hospital in Miami. 9. The respective families chose Van Orsdel to handle the necessary funeral arrangements, and the remains of both of the babies were transported to Van Orsdel Northside Chapel and/or Van Orsdel Mortuary and/or the crematory, on or about June 30, 1995. 10. Acting at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez, their friend, Kathy Bennett, contacted Van Orsdel and made arrangements for Sonny Gonzalez's remains to be buried, to include paying van Orsdel for the arrangements. “ITY “Phe funeral ‘services for Sonny Gonzalez were planned for July 1, 1995, at Miami Memorial Park cemetery, for burial in a art of the cemetéry called Babyland. | ng at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Morales, their friend, Carie Madera, contacted Van Orsdel and made arrangements for Magdalena Morales' remains to be cremated, to include paying “Magdalena Morales. Ww . _ Ned Van Orsdel for the cremation and attendant costs. 13. Due to negligence at Van Orsdei, Magdalena Morales' remains were prepared for burial, and were in fact buried, on July 1, 1995, at Miami Memorial Gardens, instead of Sonny Gonzalez's remains. 14. Despite the fact that the remains of Magdalena were clearly identifiable, to include having an identifying tag affixed to the body, and were clearly not the remains of an infant boy, the error was not discovered by Van Orsdel prior to the burial. 15. Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez attended the funeral service for Sonny Gonzalez, not knowing that the wrong remains were being buried in their son's burial plot. 16. The following week, on Friday, July 7, 1995, Van Orsdel employee Ronald Siders went to his workplace at Van Orsdel, and as part of his duties, was scheduled to cremate the remains of 17. expecting to find the ‘remains of Magdalena Morales, and instead found only the remains of Sonny Gonzalez. 18. Mr. Siders quickly realized that a mistake had been made, and the “wrong baby buried, and so informed Tom Nicolette. 19. “Nicolette then contacted ‘the Respondent, in her capacity as a corporate officer of Van orsdel, “and/or in her capacity as a supervi'soe and/or manager at van Orsdel, in the absence of her Nicolette’ s plans to cremate their infant son. wh . ed brother, licensed funeral director Donald van Orsdel, and discussed the situation with her. 20. After discussing the situation, the Respondent and Tom Nicolette both agreed that it would be better not to tell the parents the truth about the error in disposition of the remains of the two infants, and that instead it would be best to simply leave Magdalena Morales in Sunny Gonzalez's grave, and cremate Sonny Gonzalez and give his cremains to Mr. and Mrs. Morales under the guise that the cremains were really those of their daughter, Magdalena Morales. 21. Tom Nicolette, with the knowledge, and/or permission, and/or consent, of the Respondent, then personally cremated the remains of Sonny Gonzalez, placed them ina box, labeled it Magdalena Morales, and ‘allowed the ashes to be given to Magdalena Morales’ father, Mr. Morales, on or ‘about July 17, 1995. 22. At no time did Mr. or Mrs. Gonzalez, or Cathy Bennett, give verbal or written authorization for the cremation of Sonny Gonzalez, nor were they ¢ told of the Respondent and Tom 23. The , Respondent allowed the cremains of Sonny Gonzalez to be given to Mr. Morales, with full knowledge that the cremains were Morales‘ daughter, Magdalena Morales. 24. On or about July ‘Lo™ or 11 1995, Tom Nicolette lied to employee Ronald Siders, in an effort to cover up the actions he we wd and the Respondent had taken. Nicoletté told Mr. Siders that the mistake had been remedied over the weekend (July 8-9, 1995) by having the remains of Magdalena Morales exhumed, and burying Sonny - Gonzalez in the plot at Babyland instead. (25. At the time Nicolette made these representations to Mr. Siders, he knew them to be untrue, and lied to cover up the truth regarding the actions he and the Respondent had really taken regarding disposition of the remains of the two infants. 26. Mr. Siders contacted an attorney, and told him about the switch of remains, and as a result the Gonzalez's quickly learned the truth of what had happened. 27. The knowledge that the wrong baby had been buried in what they thought was their son's grave was devastating to the Gonzalez's, as was the knowledge that they had been deceived by the Respondent, and/or Van Orsdel Crematory; and finally, that the remains of their son had been cremated against their wishes and without their consent by Nicolette, with the full knowledge of the Respondent. _ . . also provided Van Orsdel with a bag -ems that. they wanted buried with Sonny “Gon alez. These items were Gestroyed and/or ‘disposed of, by the Respondent directly, or Py Nicolette with her | knowledge, and without the ‘permission of the ‘Gonzalez! Ss. 29. only after Nicolette and/or the Respondent and/or corporate bobbed ok wo | ) officers at Van Orsdel, became aware that the parents of Magdalena Morales, and/or Sonny Gonzalez knew the truth of what had happened, did the Respondent reveal the true sequence of events as outlined above. 30. The Respondent's actions in permitting, condoning, authorizing, and/or failing to prevent Nicolette from: cremating the remains of Sonny Gonzalez; deliberately mislabeling Sonny Gonzalez's cremains as the cremains of Magdalena Morales; and allowing them to be given to Mr. Morales under the guise that they were in fact his daughter Magdalene’s cremains; were deceptive, fraudulent, and untrue. 31. The Respondent took no action to notify the families of © either of the infants regarding the truth of what happened, and had decided that it would be in the best interest of the two families that they never be told the truth regarding the disposition of the remains of the two infants. | 32. The Respondent did not report the truth of what had happened regarding the disposition of the remains of the infants to any State, Federal or local agency, to include the State of Florida Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers. Ps eg 33. The Petitioner incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through thirty-two as though fully set forth in this Count I. Sn 34. Section 455.227 (1) (m), Florida Statutes, provides that making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of a profession or employing a trick or scheme in or related to the practice of a profession are act(s) which shall constitute grounds for discipline as specified in Section 455.227(2), Florida Statutes. 35. Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 470.036(1) (a), Florida Statutes by violating a provision of Section 455.227(1), Florida Statutes, to wit: Section 455.227(1) (m), Florida Statutes. . COUNT II 36. The » Petitioner incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through thirty-two though fully set forth in this Count Il. 37. Based d upon the foregoing, the Respondent is guilty of having violated Section 470.036(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by committing “fraud, deceit, ; negligence, incompetency, ot misconduct in the practice of funeral directing or embalming, funeral “operation, cinerator facility operation or refrigeration service operation. COUNT III 38. The Petitioner ‘incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through ‘thirty-two as though fully set forth in this Count III. ‘wo ; — ; ww 39. Section 470.0255 (1), Florida Statutes, states that at the time of the arrangement for a cremation performed by any person licensed pursuant to this chapter, the person contracting for cremation services shall be required to designate his or her ‘intentions with respect to the disposition of the cremated remains of the deceased in a signed declaration of intent which shall be provided by and retained by the funeral or direct disposal establishment. A cremation may not be performed until a legally authorized person gives written authorization for such cremation. The cremation must be performed within 48 hours after a specified time, which has been agreed to in writing by the person authorizing the cremation. 40. Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 470.036(1) (h) by violating any provision of Chapter 470 and any “rules promulgated pursuant thereto, to wit: violation of Section 470.0255(1), Florida Statutes, by her actions of authorizing and/or permitting Nicolette to cremate the remains of Sonny Gonzalez without the written permission of a legally authorized person. — COUNT iV. Al. ‘The Petitioner incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through. thirty-two as though fully set forth in this Count IV. practice, 42. Based upon the foregoing the Respondent violated Section 470.036(1) (k), Florida Statutes, by misrepresentation or fraud in the conduct of the business of or profession of the licensee. COUNT V 43. The Petitioner incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through thirty-two as though fully set forth in this Count V. 44. Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 470.036(1) (h), Florida Statutes, by violation of Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, to wit: violation of Section 455.227(1) (i), Florida Statutes, by failing to report the misconduct, fraud, and/or violations of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes committed by Tom Nicolette. . WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers enter an Order imposing one or more of the following penalties: revocation or suspension of the - Respondent’s License, restriction of the Respondent’ s imposition of | an administrative fine not to exceed $5, 000 per violation, issuance of a | reprimand, ‘placement of the Respondent on probation, assessment of costs associated with investigation and prosecution, “imposition of any or all penalties delineated Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board is authorized to impose pursuant to Chapters 455, and/or 470, Florida Statutes, 10 Cr) and/or the rules promulgated thereunder. th Signed this Jd day of November 1999, OMAS G. THOMAS Chief Attorney COUNSEL FOR DEPARTMENT: | / {: (8-97 Elizabeth Masters, Senior’ Attorridy Florida Bar Number 401640 Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Case # 98-21786 : FILED Department of Business and Professional Regulation DEPUTY CLERK cur Brandan Licht “DATE lA- 3 “44 me Teen

Docket for Case No: 00-001238