Findings Of Fact On August 6, 1980, the Respondent Gerald B. Natelson, was charged in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, with violating Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, Title 21, USC, by knowingly and willingly, combining, conspiring, confederating and agreeing with others to distribute and possess with intent to distribute, marijuana, methaqualone and hashish, Schedule I and II controlled substances. The Respondent Natelson pled guilty to violating Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, Title 21, USC, as charged in Count I of the Indictment, by knowingly conspiring with others to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The amount or quantity of marijuana which was involved in the conspiracy set forth in Count I, is not identified in the Indictment, the Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order entered December 22, 1980, or Judge Aronovitz's Order Granting Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, and Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Natelson v. United States, Case No. 82-542 SMA, entered May 10, 1982. The Indictment, at paragraphs 12, 14 and 22, sets forth the Respondent's involvement in the conspiracy, which consisted of meeting in Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on April 1 and 4, 1979, and Phoenix, Arizona, on June 1, 1979, with specifically named co-conspirators. Jose Fanelo, president of Universal Casualty Insurance Company and formerly regional director for the Department of Insurance, and Les Lloyd, regional investigator for the Department of Insurance, established that the Respondent had been a fit and trustworthy insurance agent. Additionally, the Respondent submitted various documents, identified as Respondent's Exhibits 2- 13, which support the opinions expressed by Fanelo and Lloyd that the Respondent is a fit and trustworthy insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing its Administrative Complaint against the Respondent Gerald B. Natelson. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "C" Private Investigator License, license number C86-00509. The Respondent has held that license at all times material to this proceeding. On July 4, 1994, the Respondent intentionally struck N.S. (a minor) with a flashlight. The striking of N.S. took place immediately after, and was in response to, N.S.'s act of kicking the Respondent while the Respondent was on a stairway landing and was in reasonable fear that his attacker (N.S.) might push him down the stairs. Under the circumstances, the Respondent's act of striking N.S. was a reasonable act of self-defense in the lawful protection of himself from physical harm.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued in this proceeding dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 1550 _ MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5321 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. (For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the details regarding the criminal prosecution of the Respondent are not competent substantial evidence of the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.) Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: The Respondent's proposed recommended order does not contain any specific portion designated as "findings of fact." Rather, the Respondent has intertwined his proposed findings, his proposed conclusions, and his arguments throughout his proposal. It appears to be sufficient to note that the findings of fact in this recommended order are generally consistent with the substance of the Respondent's version of the facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine Assistant General Counsel Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Number 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Stephen A. Shields 9441 Southwest 4th Street, Number 311 Miami, Florida 33174 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's certification as a Firefighter II Compliance should be permanently revoked for the reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint (Complaint), dated June 6, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating firefighters in the State. Respondent is certified in Florida as a Firefighter II Compliance. He holds Certificate No. 139586. Until the incident underlying this controversy arose, Respondent was employed by the Sarasota County Fire Department as a firefighter/paramedic. He now is working in the emergency room of a local hospital. The parties have stipulated that on March 21, 2018, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to aggravated assault with a weapon, a third-degree felony punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under Florida law. Adjudication was withheld, Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years, and he was ordered to pay court costs, fines, and fees in the amount of $1,525.00. See also Dep't Ex. 19. In response to the Complaint, Respondent essentially argues that: (a) he should not have been charged with the underlying criminal offense because he was defending himself against an aggressor in a road rage incident, and (b) he entered a nolo contendere plea based on bad advice from his attorney. At hearing, Respondent gave his version of the events resulting in his arrest. Also, two police officers involved with his arrest testified to what they observed and reported. Their testimony conflicts in many respects with Respondent's testimony. The undersigned will not attempt to reconcile the conflicts, as this proceeding is not the appropriate forum in which to relitigate the criminal charge. During the criminal case, Respondent was represented by a criminal law attorney who presented him with two options: enter into a plea arrangement or go to trial and risk a harsher penalty if he were found guilty. Respondent says he accepted his counsel's recommendation that he enter a plea of nolo contendere on the belief that he would not have a felony arrest on his record. After the plea agreement was accepted by the court, Respondent learned that the plea required revocation of his certification and loss of his job. Respondent also testified that even though he paid counsel a $15,000.00 fee, his counsel did little or no investigation regarding what happened, as he failed to depose a single witness before making a recommendation to take a plea.1/ In hindsight, Respondent says he would have gone to trial since he now believes he had a legitimate claim to the "castle defense," and the so-called victim in the incident (the driver of the other car) has a long criminal history and is now incarcerated. At this point, however, if Respondent believes an error in the legal process occurred, his only remedy, if one exists at all, is through the court system and not in an administrative proceeding. A felony plea constitutes noncompliance with the certification statute and requires permanent revocation of a certification. According to a Department witness, however, five years after all requirements of the court's sentencing have been met, the Department has the authority "in a formal process" to make a "felony conviction review" that may result in the reissuance of a certification. Except for this incident, Respondent has no other blemishes on his record. He served in the United States Marine Corps, with combat tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was honorably discharged, and he was honored for saving a life at a Target store while off-duty. He has apologized for his actions, taken an anger management course, and received further treatment for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder at a local Veteran's Administration facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2019.
Findings Of Fact O.L.T., the Petitioner, was hired by Disc Village, Inc., as a youth counselor at Greenville Hills Academy in December, 1995. Because of the nature of the employment, the Petitioner provided Disc Village, Inc. a fingerprint card for the purpose of conducting the statutorily required criminal records check. The Petitioner reported his prior arrest and subsequent plea of guilty to criminal charges in South Carolina to his employer at the time of his application for employment. The criminal records check reveal the Petitioner's arrest and the investigator at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS), which was administering this part of the program at the time, requested the Petitioner to provide them information regarding his criminal record in South Carolina in order to determine if the offense involved was disqualifying under the Florida law. The records from South Carolina were provided to DHRS by the Petitioner, and revealed he had plead guilty to "conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute," in Horry County, South Carolina on December 7, 1987. Based upon these records, which were provided to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) by DHRS when DJJ assumed full administration of the juvenile justice program, DJJ determined that the Petitioner was disqualified from employment as a youth counselor, and advised Disc Village, Inc., which discharged the Petitioner from the position in which he was employed. The Petitioner's court records from South Carolina were introduced as Department's Exhibit 3. These records reveal that the Petitioner pleaded guilty to "conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute." These records do not reveal the statute to which the Petitioner pleaded guilty. The sentencing document references only the indictment (87-GS-26-1796). Indictment 87-GS-26-1796 does not reference a specific statute, but recites the Petitioner did "knowingly, wilfully and intentionally, combine, conspire, confederate and agree between and among and have tacit understanding with a reliable informant working with the Myrtle Beach Police Department and with other evil disposed persons whose names are unknown to the Grand Jurors for the purpose of Possessing Cocaine with Intent to Distribute." Joint Exhibit 1 is a copy of a portion of the South Carolina Code defining criminal offenses involving possession of drugs. There are two portions of the exhibit which address conspiracy, Section 44-53-370(e) and Section 44-53-420. Section 44-53-420 provides that any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense made unlawful by the statutes, shall be fined or imprisoned not more than half of the punishment prescribed for the offense which was attempted or which was the object of the conspiracy. Section 44-53-370(e) provides that any person who knowingly sells, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who provides financial assistance or otherwise aids, abets, or conspires to sell, manufacture, deliver, or bring into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of: (1) ten pounds of marijuana . . . ; (2) ten grams or more of cocaine or any mixtures containing cocaine is guilty of a felony which is known as trafficking in cocaine and upon conviction must be punished as follows if the quantity is: (a) ten grams or more, but less than twenty-eight grams, . . . not less than three years . . . ; (b) twenty-eight grams of more, but less than one hundred grams . . . not less than twenty-five years . . . [.] These are mandatory minimum sentences. The Petitioner was sentenced to one year in prison, and that sentence was suspended and he was placed on one years probation. Although the Petitioner was arrested for conspiracy to possess more than 28 grams of cocaine, the indictment and sentencing documents do not reflect that he was charged with that offense, and his sentence is less than the minimum mandatory sentence for either of the offenses regarding possession or conspiracy to possess cocaine, even if the court reduced the sentence by a half pursuant to Section 44-53-420. None of the court records establish an amount of cocaine which Petitioner was charged with possessing, conspiring to possess, or to which the Petitioner plead guilty to conspiring to possess. The Petitioner is a Black male who graduated from Florida A and M University, and was commissioned in the U.S. Air Force. He was employed by the Florida Probation and Parole Commission as a probation officer until going on active duty in the Air Force where he was trained as an Air Policeman. He left the Air Force and was employed as by the Commission of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse in South Carolina where he established diversion programs for persons charged with driving under the influence. He was subsequently employed in the low energy assistance program of the state, and then left state employment to work for C & S Bank, at which time he left South Carolina. Subsequently, he left C & S and returned to South Carolina where he started his own construction company. Because of financial hard times, he lost money and had to declare bankruptcy. At the time of the events which gave rise to the charges against him, his wife was employed by the local prosecuting attorney, and he was well known to local law enforcement officers. In 1987, he was working in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; and it was his practice to eat lunch with a group of persons who were self employed, none of whom were involved in illegal dealings. This group of acquaintances also got together occasionally after work for a drink, and at one of these meetings one of the members of the group raised the possibility of investing in an enterprise which was not described, but which was represented to be very lucrative. From the way it was presented and very large return which was available, the Petitioner concluded it was an illegal activity, and was shocked that this person would make this representation. When he left the meeting, he was asked whether he wished to participate, he indicated that he would have get back to them about it. Upon leaving the meeting, Petitioner commented to one of the other attendees that the enterprise was undoubtedly illegal and something to be avoided. Several days later, he received a telephone call after having been out with another group of friends drinking. The caller did not identify himself and was not a party to the earlier meeting; however, the caller referenced that meeting. The caller advised the Petitioner that the caller had $40,000, and indicated indirectly he was calling about drugs and wanted to meet with Petitioner. The Petitioner said he did not know what the caller was talking about, but would meet him in a vacant parking lot, very close to Petitioner's house, to determine what the caller was calling about. The Petitioner did not acknowledge in the call what the caller was talking about or agree to do anything beyond meeting the caller. Petitioner admitted that he had been drinking most of the evening, was drunk, and agreed to meet with the caller just to see if he really had the money. The Petitioner thought it could be a practical joke, and really did not give a great deal of thought to the matter because he was so drunk. The Petitioner had picked the vacant parking lot in which to meet the caller because it was close to Petitioner's house and he would not have to drive far as drunk as he was. The area was also well lighted and he felt safe there. Petitioner arrived at the parking lot, stopped his car, and was immediately surrounded by police officers who arrested him for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. A search of Petitioner revealed Petitioner was carrying twenty-seven cents. A search of his wife's car, which he had driven to the meeting, revealed his wife's pistol for which she had a permit and which she kept under the driver's seat. The Petitioner knew the gun was there. There were no drugs found in the car. The caller was not present, and was never arrested or identified. Petitioner was represented by the former solicitor (prosecutor) for the county. Petitioner and his attorney listened to the tape of the telephone conversation shortly after Petitioner's arrest. The tape was consistent with the Petitioner's testimony above; however, prior to trial, a copy of the tape was produced which was altered to be more damaging. Petitioner's attorney indicated that it would be very expensive to have the tape analyzed and to fight the charges, and that Petitioner could be sentenced up to twenty-five years for the offense. Petitioner's attorney advised Petitioner that the prosecutor was offering one year's probation if Petitioner plead guilty. On the advise of counsel, Petitioner accepted the plea bargain. The Petitioner satisfactorily completed his probation, and has spent the intervening time supporting his children by working at various occupations to include installing cable TV and working on a electronic components assembly line after his return to Madison, Florida. He has attempted to rehabilitate his reputation by working regularly, avoiding disreputable persons, and attending church regularly. His employment with Disc Village, Inc. was his first attempt to reenter the criminal justice field since his probation. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was volunteering as a facilitator in a life skills class, but was unemployed. Petitioner's coworkers and supervisors testified in his behalf. They found him to be honest, truthful, and morally upright in his actions and dealings with them and the young people with whom he counseled. He spent many extra hours at the facility, and respected by young people for whom he was an effective counselor. Petitioner would not be a danger to young people. No credible evidence was presented that the Petitioner did not possess good character or was a danger to children. Since his probation, the Petitioner has had no further criminal involvement. He has been gainfully employed until discharged from Disc Village, and has been engaged in worthwhile volunteer work since then. He attends church regularly, sings in the choir, and lives with a minister. Petitioner has amended his life, and has a reputation of being honest and truthful. His work with the young people at Disc Village was exceptional, and he was held in high esteem by the staff and the young people.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner be qualified to work with youth in the Department's facilities and those of its contract agencies. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 8th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-3630J The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following states which facts were adopted and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1,2 Irrelevant. Paragraph 3 Paragraph 1. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 2. Paragraph 5 Irrelevant. Paragraph 6 Paragraph 3. Paragraph 7 Subsumed by Paragraph 4. Paragraph 8 Paragraphs 3,5. Paragraph 9 Subsumed by Paragraph 6. Paragraphs 10-12 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 13-16 Subsumed in Paragraph 18. Paragraphs 17-20 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 21-23 Subsumed in Paragraph 18. Paragraphs 24-26 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 27-31 Subsumed in Paragraph 18. Paragraphs 32-35 Discussed in the C/L and rejected as credible witnesses regarding the Petitioner's character Paragraphs 36-40 Unnecessary. Paragraphs 41,42 Subsumed in Paragraph 17. Paragraphs 43,44 Conclusions of Law (C/L). Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-3 Subsumed in Paragraphs 1,2 Paragraph 4 Conclusion of Law. Paragraphs 5,6 Subsumed in Paragraph 1. Paragraphs 7-9 Subsumed in Paragraph 4. Paragraphs 10,11 Subsumed in Paragraph 2. Paragraph 12 Paragraph 3. Paragraph 13 Paragraph 7. Paragraphs 14,15 Subsumed in Paragraph 4. Paragraphs 15-17 The discussion of the informal hearing and its results is irrelevant. Paragraph 18 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraphs 19-21 Irrelevant. Paragraph 22 Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard M. Summa, Esquire Post Office Box 1677 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-3100 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-3100
The Issue At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioner had filed applications for Class "A" and Class "C" licenses and was qualified except for the failure to demonstrate good moral character. The bases for the dispute over Petitioner's character were: Petitioner's arrest record; Petitioner's alleged falsification of his applications as to his employment with the Pittsburgh Police Department; and Petitioner's check for the application fee was dishonored for insufficient funds.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner duly filed applications with the Department of State, Division of Licensing for Class "A" and Class "C" licenses. Except for matters related to Petitioner's good moral character, Petitioner is qualified for licensure. Petitioner's application reflects that he answered the question whether he had been arrested affirmatively with the following comment: The Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in all five cases from 1965 to 1974 - ruled that as a Police Officer, I acted within the scope of my authority - These cases stem from being an undercover Narcotics Officer. The Petitioner's arrest records as maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation reveal several juvenile offenses, not considered by the Department and not at issue. This record also reveals the following arrests of Petitioner as an adult: Date Place Charge Disposition 06/09/66* Pittsburgh VDD & CA Not guilty 08/15/66* Pittsburgh VUFA Not guilty 08/20/66* Allegheny County VDDCA 06/24/67* Allegheny County VUFA Unavailable per contra 06/30/70 *Only one offense with different charges made on different dates 09/05/74 Allegheny County Theft, VUFA Discharged 09/23/74 05/07/75 Allegheny County Fraud - imper- sonating a public servant 12/19/79 Office of Provost No charge No charge Martial Petitioner presented testimony and supporting documentary evidence that the arrests reported on the FBI criminal history for the dates 06/09/66 through 06/24/67 were all related to the same offense, and that these charges were resolved in favor of the Petitioner by a verdict of not guilty. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. The judge arrested judgment of the two years' probation for the charge of 05/07/75. See Respondent's Exhibit #2. Petitioner stated that based upon his status as a capital police officer he was not guilty of fraud or impersonation of a public servant. The Petitioner's remaining arrest was on 09/05/74, and was discharged. Petitioner's explanation of these arrests is not consistent with the explanation stated on his application form. According to the resume accompanying his application, Petitioner was employed on the indicated dates in the following positions: Date Position 1963 to 1965 Globe Security 1965 to 1970 Pittsburgh Police Department, special patrolman 1970 to 1973 NAACP special investigator and Bucci Detective Agency 1972 to 1976 Commonwealth Property Police with State of Pennsylvania 1973 to 1974 Part-time security guard in addition to employment listed above May, 1976 January, 1977 Federal Civil Service guard March, 1977 September, 1977 Part-time security guard with A&S Security December, 1978 Sears, Roebuck and Company as to June, 1980 undercover security investigator February, 1979 Security guard to June, 1980 September, 1979 VA, guard at VA Hospital GS5 to June, 1980 June, 1980 Came to Florida Petitioner stated that his check for the application fee bounced because of his travel back and forth to Pennsylvania to try to develop the data to support his application, which depleted his bank account. He has since made the check good and paid the fees by money order.
Recommendation The Petitioner has failed to establish that he has the requisite good character for licensure; therefore, it is recommended that the Petitioner's applications for Class "A" and Class "C" licensure be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Barnett 758 Woodville Road Milton, Florida 32570 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing R. A. Gray Building, Room 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1982. George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. Jimmy Franklin Pinion, L.P.N., holds License No. 42845-1, as a Licensed Practical Nurse. Respondent was employed as a private duty nurse caring for Elsie B. Allen, a ninety-three-year-old woman, during the period April, 1978, through September 11, 1978, when he was dismissed for alleged physical abuse of Mrs. Allen and for alleged possession of controlled substances, to-wit: Valium and marijuana, on or about August 15, 1978. The Complaint alleges that on or about September 9, 1978, Respondent slapped Mrs. Allen twice on her forehead, resulting in bruises to the forehead. Concluding the Complaint alleges that the Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct in violation of Florida Statutes Subsections 464.21(1)(b) and (d). Anna Marie Snyder, an L.P.N. in Florida since approximately 1971, testified and expressed her familiarity with the Respondent since his employment with Mrs. Allen. Snyder testified that Mrs. Allen employed three round the clock nurses, one of whom was the Respondent, Jimmy Franklin Pinion. Ms. Snyder testified that she occasionally stayed at Mrs. Allen's home and that while so doing, she used a back bedroom which the Respondent also used occasionally. She testified that a problem arose with respect to a suspicion that some brownies had been placed in the refrigerator which were laced with marijuana. According to Ms. Snyder, the Respondent made the brownies and brought them to Mrs. Allen's home. Ms. Snyder also testified that she discovered marijuana in the back bedroom and that she brought the matter of the marijuana-laced brownies to the attention of Mrs. Allen's two nephews. According to Ms. Snyder, Respondent stressed the fact that Mrs. Allen had to be taken care of "firmly." On cross- examination, Ms. Snyder testified that the Respondent admitted that the brownies which were in a bag in the back bedroom belonged to him and that Respondent admitted that he had struck Mrs. Allen with a cane. Ms. Snyder's testimony is that bags of marijuana were found in a closed used by the Respondent, wherein crocheting and other personal items belonging to Respondent were located. She testified that vials of other drugs were confiscated by Mrs. Allen's attorney on or about September 11, 1978. Lorraine Clark Ruskin, an L.P.N. licensed for more than twenty-eight years, was also employed by Mrs. Allen as a private duty nurse. Ms. Ruskin testified that on August 15, 1978, she, along with Ms. Snyder, visited Respondent's rear bedroom where Respondent showed her marijuana in the rear bedroom. Approximately April 28, 1978, Ms. Ruskin had some photos taken which were introduced into evidence over the objections of Respondent's counsel. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 5.) According to Ms. Ruskin, Respondent and a friend of his allegedly hit Mrs. Allen on her forehead, causing bruises, on or about September 9, 1978. Attorneys Carl Hiassen and G. Ware Cornell, Jr., visited the Allen's home on the morning of September 11, 1978, and dismissed the Respondent from Mrs. Allen's employ for alleged patient abuse and possession of drugs. Ms. Ruskin testified that she took Mrs. Allen to a psychiatrist who diagnosed Mrs. Allen as being incompetent to handle her own affairs due to an organic brain syndrome caused by generalized arterioscleriotic cardiovascular disease. (Respondent's Exhibit 2.) She testified that Mrs. Allen had a history of falling and that the subject incident, which gave rise to the bruises, occurred approximately September 10, 1978. She testified that the Respondent was terminated on September 11, 1978, when bruises were found on Mrs. Allen's forehead. G. Ware Cornell, Jr., an associate of Attorney Carl Hiassen, visited Mrs. Allen's home on September 11, 1978, for the purpose of terminating the Respondent. The reasons given for the termination were "unsatisfactory performance and suggestion of drug possession." Attorney Cornell testified that he visited the back bedroom where the Respondent stayed while at Mrs. Allen's home and discovered what appeared to be Valium, marijuana and other drugs. Attorney Cornell testified that when the Respondent was terminated, he was told to return all keys to the Allen's home that were in his possession. Carl A. Hiassen, Esquire, has been representing Mrs. Allen since World War II and visited the Allen's residence on September 11, 1978, for the express purpose of preparing a termination notice for the Respondent. He testified that he discovered drugs in a bedroom which he was told was being occupied by the Respondent. He testified that he made a list of the substances which he considered to be drugs and gave it to Mrs. Markowitz, Petitioner's representative in the Fort Lauderdale area. Attorney Hiassen testified that he retained custody of the drugs until approximately January of 1979, at which time there were given to Mrs. Markowitz. Mrs. Markowitz later turned the substances over to the Broward County Sheriff's office for chemical analysis. According to Mrs. Markowitz, the substances were analyzed by John T. Pennie, a forensic chemist for the Broward County Sheriff's office Crime Laboratory. Neither the substances nor the person performing the analysis appeared at the hearing to testify with respect to the identify of the substances. Respondent appeared at the hearing and testified that he had a prescription for Valium and, to the best of his recollection, he only had one or two tablets remaining from a prescription which he had filled sometime ago. Respondent denied having in his possession marijuana or any other controlled substance prescribed by Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Respondent testified that Mrs. Allen had a problem signing blank checks for a Mrs. Carr who had taken approximately $40,000 from Mrs. Allen. Additionally, Respondent testified that Mrs. Allen never called him by his name. He testified that he contacted Mr. Hiassen's office to report the fact that Mrs. Allen was signing blank checks and the funds were diverted for the purposes for which they were intended by Mrs. Allen. Mrs. Allen did not testify at the hearing allegedly due to her physical condition.
Conclusions Due to the hearsay nature of the identity of the substances analyzed by the Crime Laboratory, the undersigned is unable to conclude that the Respondent had possession of drugs or other prescribed substances in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, as alleged. Among other things, there were problems with the chain of custody from the Allen's residence to the Crime Laboratory and the fact that at least one other nurse shared the same room in which it is alleged that the Respondent allegedly stored Valium and marijuana. Finally, the Respondent emphatically denied that he struck Mrs. Allen and the only testimony to refute this denial was heresay and thus falls within the proscriptions of Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. In view thereof, I shall recommend that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Department of Professional Regulation Board of Nursing Suite 504, Richard P. Daniel State Office Building 111 East Coast Line Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Julius Finegold, Esq. 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Roger D. Haagenson, Esq. Suite 601, Cumberland Building 800 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Findings Of Fact The facts stated in the Joint Stipulation of the parties to the extent set forth below are hereby adopted as findings of fact: On December 21, 1990, Petitioners, each of which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dean Foods Company ("Dean"), were each convicted of a one-count felony charge brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On January 7, 1992, Respondent filed and Petitioners received notices of intent to each Petitioner pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(e)1, F.S. On January 28, 1992, Petitioners, pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(e)2, F.S., filed a petition, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S., requesting an order determining that it is not in the public interest for Petitioners to be placed on the State of Florida Convicted Vendor List. Petitioners' convictions arose out of an investigation initiated by the Florida Attorney General into possible bid-rigging of school milk requirements contracts in Florida by dairies and distributors. In 1988, the Attorney General filed a civil action against these dairies and distributors, including Petitioners. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.c, F.S., establishes "[t]he degree of culpability of the person or affiliate proposed to be placed on the convicted vendor list" as a factor to be considered in the decision whether to place such person or affiliate on such list. The State of Florida's complaint alleged that the bid-rigging and contract allocation scheme began at least as early as 1978. According to the State's attorneys, the illegal activities actually started as early as the 1960's in southeastern Florida (McArthur Dairy's principal market area) and the 1970's in central and southwestern Florida (T.G. Lee Foods' principal market area). Dean purchased Petitioners in 1980. According to the State's attorneys, Jack Wells and James Clark, former sales managers at McArthur Dairy and T.G. Lee Foods, respectively, participated in such conspiracies during the 1960's and 1970's and fraudulently concealed their efforts from the former owners of T.G. Lee Foods and McArthur Dairy, from Dean and from the school boards. Thus, Dean unknowingly bought into these on-going conspiracies. While the fact that Dean bought into these preexisting schemes was not a legal defense, it is relevant to the issue of culpability. This fact and Dean's early settlement offer were given favorable consideration by the State of Florida during settlement discussions. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.d, F.S., establishes "[p]rompt or voluntary payment of any damages or penalty as a result of the conviction" as a factor mitigating against placement on the convicted vendor list. Dean promptly paid on behalf of Petitioners all civil damages owed the State arising out of such activities. In a press release dated August 1, 1988, the Attorney General confirmed Dean's payment in full settlement of the charges brought by the State of Florida against Petitioners. A federal grand jury sitting in Tampa, Florida also investigated this matter. Dean and Petitioners cooperated fully with that investigation. Pursuant to plea and settlement agreements dated September 12, 1990, entered into by each of Petitioners with the United States Department of Justice, Dean and Petitioners agreed to a comprehensive settlement. Said settlement required that Petitioner plead guilty to a one-count criminal information and pay $1 million each in criminal penalties and $175,000 each in civil damages to the federal government. Such civil liabilities and criminal penalties were paid to the federal government, as reflected in a letter from the federal prosecutor to officials of the United States Defense Logistics Agency dated February 21, 1991, which letter appears as Exhibit A to the Memorandum submitted by Dean to the Defense Logistics Agency. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.e, F.S., establishes "[c]ooperation with state or federal investigation or prosecution of any public entity crime" as a mitigating factor. Petitioners agreed to and did cooperate fully with the State of Florida in connection with its investigation. Petitioners also cooperated fully with the federal grand jury investigation. This cooperation was confirmed in the letter from the federal prosecutor referred to above, which states: We have found McArthur & T.G. Lee and their attorneys to have been most cooperative in this matter. We believe both the companies and their attorneys have shown a high degree of responsibility by agreeing to settle this matter in an expeditious manner. The negotiated settlement with these defendants resolves all matters relating to their operations in Florida. As a final point, we believe the early agreement by these companies and their counsel to settle this matter for a substantial sum gave the incentive for other corporate defendants to come forward and also offer substantial criminal and civil settlements. Several of those cases have now been favorably concluded. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.f., F.S., establishes "[d]isassociation from any other person or affiliate convicted of the public entity crime" as a mitigating factor. Jack Wells and James Clark, the only individuals at McArthur Dairy and T.G. Lee Foods implicated in the wrongdoing that give rise to the convictions in question, were terminated. The investigations conducted by the State of Florida and the Department of Justice disclosed no involvement or knowledge on the part of any other employee of Petitioners, Dean or any of Dean's other subsidiaries, as reflected in a letter form attorneys representing the State of Florida to Dean's attorney dated June 29, 1988. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.g, F.S., establishes "[p]rior or future self- policing by the person or affiliate to prevent public entity crimes' as a mitigating factor. All of Dean's subsidiaries, including Petitioners, have an active antitrust compliance program. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.k, F.S., establishes "demonstration of good citizenship" as a mitigating factor. Petitioners have been involved in civic and philanthropic affairs throughout the years. For example, T.G. Lee Foods and McArthur Dairy have spearheaded fundraising events for Edgewood Children's Ranch, a non-sectarian foundation for the support of under-privileged and abused children. T.G. Lee Foods and McArthur Dairy have also donated milk to the Ranch for a number of years. McArthur Dairy has made substantial contributions to organizations such as the University of Miami, and Miami Dade Junior College.
