The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner submitted her application for a teaching certificate on May 26, 1993. Respondent notified Petitioner of its proposed denial of the application on April 5, 1994. Respondent's proposed agency action is based on events that occurred while Petitioner was teaching in the Florida public school system in 1988 and 1989. Background From August, 1988, until February, 1989, Petitioner taught Spanish as a first-year teacher at Lake Wales Senior High School ("Lake Wales") in Polk County, Florida. In the fall of 1988, Petitioner met Brian Keith Swinney. Mr. Swinney was a junior at Lake Wales but was not one of Petitioner's students. Mr. Swinney attended school in the morning and worked as a professional entertainer at Cypress Gardens in the afternoon. Although Mr. Swinney was not one of Petitioner's students, Mr. Swinney and Petitioner knew each other at school. Mr. Swinney's Spanish teacher shared a classroom with Petitioner. Mr. Swinney was also a varsity cheerleader, and Petitioner was a chaperon for the cheerleaders when they traveled to various games. Petitioner and Mr. Swinney dated and developed a relationship that included sexual relations. Sexual relations began on October 4, 1988. In November or December, 1988, Mr. Swinney began residing with Petitioner. On or about February 1, 1989, Petitioner resigned her position with Lake Wales. On February 12, 1989, Petitioner and Mr. Swinney were married. At the time of their marriage, Petitioner was 22. Mr. Swinney was 17 years old on February 17, 1989. Mr. Swinney's parents consented to the marriage. Mr. Swinney's mother drove Mr. Swinney and Petitioner to South Carolina where he and Petitioner were lawfully married. Petitioner and Mr. Swinney moved to California. A child was born of the marriage, and Petitioner remained married to Mr. Swinney for approximately five years. Following a period of separation, Petitioner and Mr. Swinney were divorced on February 28, 1994. After separating from Mr. Swinney, Petitioner relocated to Lee County, Florida. Petitioner applied for a teaching position with the Lee County School District. The District issued a letter of eligibility, and Petitioner began teaching in May, 1993. Current Qualifications And Good Moral Character Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate on May 26, 1993. Petitioner satisfies all of the academic and professional requirements for a teaching certificate. She is over the age of 18. She received her bachelor's degree from Florida Southern College, an accredited institution of higher learning. She executed the required loyalty oath for the state and federal constitutions. Her application was properly completed and executed. Petitioner is competent to perform the duties, functions, and responsibilities of a teacher. Petitioner taught school in several localities in California. Petitioner taught for the Lee County School District during the 1993-1994 school year. She taught as a full-time teacher at Paul Lawrence Dunbar Middle School ("Dunbar") during the day. At night, she taught in the District's night school program at Cape Coral High School ("Cape Coral") in Cape Coral, Florida. Petitioner was recommended for re-employment as a teacher with the Lee County School District for the 1994-1995 school year. Petitioner is a "very capable" and "creative" teacher. Both Renee Highbaugh, Assistant Principal at Dunbar and Petitioner's immediate supervisor, and Belle DeKoff, Administrator for the adult education program at Cape Coral, testified to Petitioner's competence and capability. Respondent stipulated that Petitioner is an "excellent" teacher. Petitioner is of good moral character. Ms. Highbaugh testified to Petitioner's good moral character. Her testimony was credible and persuasive. Petitioner's good moral character is further evidenced by her exemplary teaching record in California and Florida since 1989. Alleged Violations In Notice Of Reasons In 1988 and 1989, Petitioner did not fail to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their learning. Petitioner and Mr. Swinney did not engage in public displays of affection on campus. Nor did either of them create any condition that was otherwise harmful to students' learning. Petitioner did not fail to protect Mr. Swinney from conditions harmful to his learning. Mr. Swinney's grades did not decline during his relationship and subsequent marriage to Petitioner. Mr. Swinney voluntarily chose to marry Petitioner and obtain his G.E.D. He did so with his parents' permission. Mr. Swinney joined the United States Air Force and was honorably discharged. He is a licensed helicopter pilot. He attends helicopter flight school in California for certification as a commercial instrument instructor. He has a job waiting for him in his desired field when he graduates in February or March, 1995. Mr. Swinney is remarried and resides with his wife in California. Petitioner did not intentionally expose Mr. Swinney to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in 1988 and 1989. Petitioner passed notes to Mr. Swinney on occasions. Once, the two kissed in an empty classroom. The notes and kiss were not observed by students or faculty. In January, 1989, Mr. Swinney transferred to Winter Haven High School ("Winter Haven"). He transferred so that he and Petitioner could continue seeing each other without jeopardizing Petitioner's job. By January, rumors about Petitioner's relationship with Mr. Swinney had begun at Lake Wales, and Mr. Swinney wished to avoid further rumors. Mr. Swinney used a false address to enroll at Winter Haven. School officials discovered the false address but permitted Mr. Swinney to attend Winter Haven anyway. At Winter Haven, a male teacher told Mr. Swinney in front of the class, "I know what happened with you in Lake Wales, and that crap's not going to work over here." Mr. Swinney was embarrassed, but his embarrassment was intended by the teacher at Winter Haven and not by Petitioner. Petitioner did not exploit her relationship with Mr. Swinney for personal gain or advantage. Petitioner did not pressure him into their relationship. Mr. Swinney testified that he entered the relationship by his own volition. Petitioner did not commit an act of gross immorality or moral turpitude in 1988 and 1989. Mr. Swinney was a professional entertainer. He periodically lived outside his parents' home with their permission. He frequented adult nightclubs where alcohol was served. He was sexually active and engaged in sexual intercourse with approximately four other partners before meeting Petitioner. Mr. Swinney's parents consented to his marriage to Petitioner and assisted the couple in getting married. Assuming arguendo that, in 1988 or 1989, Petitioner either lacked good moral character, committed an act of gross immorality or moral turpitude, or otherwise violated the provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education, the prior incidents, standing alone, do not support a conclusion that Petitioner currently lacks the good moral character required for a teaching certificate. Since 1989, Petitioner has demonstrated her good moral character through an exemplary teaching record in California and Florida. Petitioner is a valuable asset to the Lee County School District. The District observed Petitioner in the classroom, recommended Petitioner for re- employment, and is satisfied that Petitioner is of good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Petitioner not guilty of the allegations in the Notice Of Reasons and authorizing the issuance of Petitioner's teaching certificate, forthwith. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 13th day of January, 1995.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of making or filing a false report signed in the capacity of a licensed chiropractic physician, in violation of Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and, if so, the penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed chiropractor in Florida since 1978, holding license number CH0002696. Petitioner requires licensed chiropractors to file Mandatory Practitioner Profile Questionnaire Packets (Profiles). The subject Profile was due on or before April 15, 1999. The Profile asks the licensee to supply various items of information and answer several questions. Section II of the Profile requires information concerning "medical education." In response to the question of what medical school Respondent attended, he wrote: "Logan 'Quack Con-Artist' School of Chiropractic." In response to the type of his degree, Respondent wrote: "Quack Con-Artist Chiropractic Degree." In response to questions concerning medical training, Respondent answered: "'Fraudulent' Automobile Personal Injury Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)" and "'Fraudulent' Workers Compensation Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)." Respondent also added to these responses, as well as the responses cited in the preceding paragraph, the following: "Caveat: see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director)." Section VIII of the Profile requires information concerning criminal offenses. This section asks: "have you ever been convicted or found guilty, regardless of whether adjudication of guilt was withheld, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal misdemeanor or felony in any jurisdiction?" The question then states: "If "YES," briefly describe the offense(s), indicate whether the conviction is under appeal, and attach copy of notice of appeal." The form supplies three lines for each of these items of information. Respondent answered "no" to the first question in Section VIII and left the remainder of the section blank. The Profile concludes, immediately above the signature line: "I affirm these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 455.624, 458.327, 458.331, 459.013, 459.015, 460.413, 461.013, 775.082, 775.083 and 775.084, Florida Statutes." Respondent signed on the signature line and added the date of April 7, 1999. Immediately beneath the signature line, Respondent added: "Notice: Signed under caveat--see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director." Respondent's four-page letter to Gloria Henderson dated April 7, 1999, references the Profile, notifies Ms. Henderson and Petitioner of Respondent's intent to sue, and demands that Petitioner omit Respondent's listing from a website of chiropractors because, in part, "I do NOT accept their 'valueless treatment' known as an "adjustment" (it is a waste of money and time), and because I practice health care from an "Allopathic" (medical approach) point of view, including but not limited to, surgery, drug prescription, physical therapy " Respondent states in the letter that the Petitioner's failure to incorporate his comments in all computer files listing him as a chiropractor will result in his filing a federal action under tort and constitutional law seeking $1 million plus punitive damages. The final caveat in the April 7 letter states: My (Roy A. Day) signature on the instant letter, and the associated completed questionnaire, reflects the denial of Roy A. Day to have meaningful access to so-called "licensed attorney" courts of law, and the associated denials of each and all discovery, and trial by jury, and the right to each and all appeals, and the denial to write a brief on appeals, and each and all associated "railroading" of Roy A. Day, with the overlay for "licensed attorney" courts of law to deny the law, facts and evidence existed when they pertained to Roy A. Day, since Roy A. Day is not represented by a so-called "licensed attorney" at $300.00 per hour in artificial-monopolistic legal fees. In addition, the signature reflects each and all associated "forced and coerced" action, specifically, Roy A. Day has been denied "due process and equal protection of the law." On February 6, 1995, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered an Order of Probation. The Order states that Respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated stalking, interception of oral communication, and uttering a check with a forged endorsement. The Order withholds adjudication and places Respondent on probation for two years. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of two counts of the third-degree felony of uttering a check with a forged endorsement, in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes. The checks totaled approximately $20,000, and, sometime between March 13 and May 5, 1993, Respondent passed each check knowing that the signature of his brother, Donald Day, was forged. For each count, the court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 130 days he had already served in jail, and the sentences ran concurrently. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of the third-degree felony of aggravated stalking, in violation of Section 784.048(3), Florida Statutes. The stalking consisted of repeated and harassing telephone calls that Respondent made to the house of a person who had, at one time, expressed interest in purchasing a home in which Respondent had an interest, but later decided not to pursue the purchase. The court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 133 days that he had already served in jail, and this sentence ran concurrently with the sentences for uttering a check with a forged endorsement. Petitioner lacked a copy of a judgment concerning the interception of oral communications. This offense arose out of Respondent's surreptitious recording of a conversation that he had with a police officer who was investigating the stalking charges. Absent a copy of the judgment, however, insufficient evidence of this conviction exists for the purpose of this disciplinary case. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that he did not disclose these criminal convictions on the Profile because doing so would somehow implicate him as a "co-conspirator" in the injustices perpetrated upon him by the authorities involved in prosecuting these offenses. Respondent falsely failed to disclose on the Profile his convictions for aggravated stalking and uttering a check with a forged instrument. His failure to disclose this information constitutes fraudulent concealment of these criminal offenses. In a fairly straightforward case, Respondent has filed nearly 250 pleadings containing thousands of pages. He also abused the subpoena power of this tribunal by subpoenaing judges and court officials from every level of the federal and state judiciaries. Last but not least, Respondent has defamed and discredited numerous persons without apparent reason, although some question exists whether Respondent is capable of exercising consistent control over the impulses leading to at least some of these utterances. The crimes of which Respondent was convicted may have arisen out of family disagreements, possibly concerning the sale of a family home. Respondent may be obsessively preoccupied with actual or perceived injustices that he suffered as a result of this transaction. Undoubtedly, Respondent compulsively litigates everything that has the most remote bearing upon this transaction, using court files as archives for materials that he believes will vindicate him, despite an ardent and often- expressed repulsion for judges, lawyers, and others connected with the legal system. No penalty but revocation is suitable under the circumstances, absent a showing by Respondent that he has commenced or is continuing therapy and that the prognosis is reasonably good. The record lacks such evidence. Respondent is not unintelligent, nor is he entirely devoid of insight. His thinking, although at times disordered, is capable of impressive organizational efforts, as best revealed by his meticulous organization in his proposed recommended order of what otherwise seemed to be a bewildering variety of materials that Respondent has seen fit to file in this case. Although his behavior seems at times compulsive, Respondent was capable of a certain level of self-restraint, at least during the hearing and when not directly confronting the underlying transaction or crimes. If they occur at some point in the future, successful diagnosis and treatment of Respondent should inform Petitioner's interpretation of the events and behaviors described in this Recommended Order, if Respondent seeks relicensure as a chiropractor.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Jr. Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Wings S. Benton, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Office of General Counsel Medical Quality Assurance Practitioner Regulation--Legal Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Roy A. Day Post Office Box 33 Tarpon Springs, Florida 34688-0033
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, David Fialko (Fialko), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since December 5, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Fialko. 3/Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Fialko had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of food moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Fialko and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Fialko filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Fialko denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Fialko on December 13, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana and cocaine. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Fialko's use of cocaine occurred prior to 1983, when he was 19 years of age, and was limited to two or three occasions. His use of marijuana commenced when he was approximately 16 years of age, and continued on an occasional basis until he was 19 years of age. Subsequent to 1982, Fialko has not used any controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Fialko's background, that Fialko possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his use of marijuana and cocaine prior to 1983. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. In 1982, at age 19, Fialko attended and graduated from the Broward Fire Academy with the aspiration of becoming a fireman; however, due to the want of available positions and the number of applicants, he was unable to secure employment. In January 1983, recognizing that the likelihood of securing employment as a fireman was scant, Fialko entered Sheridan Vocational School to pursue a career as a medical laboratory technician. Following his graduation from Sheridan in early 1984, and his certification as a medical laboratory technician, Fialko was employed by Quality Laboratory. He remained in the employ of Quality Laboratory for over three years, until employed by the County as a correctional officer, and was recognized as an excellent employee. To date, Fialko has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two and one-half years. His annual evaluations have been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. While Fialko, born December 10, 1983, used cocaine two or three times when he was 19 years of age and used marijuana occasionally between age 16 and 19, such use occurred approximately 7 years ago and was not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ More indicative of Fialko's moral character is his continuous employment since age 16, his drive to secure an education and training at his own expense, and his excellent performance in all his endeavors. Overall, Fialko has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, David Fialko, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 26th day of June 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary (Lamary), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since October 23, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Lamary.3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lamary had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Lamary and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lamary filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Lamary denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Lamary on March 10, 1985, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Lamary used marijuana no more than five times, and more probably three times, and that she last used marijuana in 1982 when she was in high school. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Lamary's background, that Lamary possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Lamary, born July 8, l964, used marijuana no more than five times, the last time being over 7 years ago when she was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ To date, Lamary has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over four years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Lamary has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 26th day of June 1989.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of chiropractic medicine, in violation of section 460.412, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of chiropractic medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Dr. Rodriguez was a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 9812 on September 17, 2009. Dr. Rodriguez's address of record with the Department is 1840 Northwest 122nd Terrace, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026. Patient D.H. was a 22-year-old patient of Dr. Rodriguez. She had been referred to Dr. Rodriguez by her mother, also a patient. Patient D.H. was the one who suggested initial treatment with Dr. Rodriguez. She had seen him about six times over a period of two months. On or about June 6, 2012, Patient D.H. presented to Dr. Rodriguez for chiropractic treatment. Dr. Rodriguez began treating Patient D.H. in one of the treatment rooms in his practice. As she was turning over on the examination table, Patient D.H.'s left breast was exposed. Dr. Rodriguez commented on her breast being exposed. Patient D.H. replaced her breast under her tank top. As Dr. Rodriguez continued with his treatment, her breast was again exposed, prompting Dr. Rodriguez to say that Patient D.H. was getting him excited, or words to that effect. Dr. Rodriguez touched both of her breasts with his hands. He then kissed her breasts. Patient D.H. testified that she was in shock because his actions were sudden and caught her off guard. Dr. Rodriguez left the room. Dr. Rodriguez's staff placed Patient D.H. in a massage chair in a common area of the office. After Patient D.H. stated that she still had pain, she was taken into another room for an additional treatment on her shoulder. In the new room, Patient D.H. lay down on the treatment table. After placing some patches on her shoulder, Dr. Rodriguez again touched her breasts. He placed his hand inside her pants and inserted two fingers into her vagina. She testified that she told him to stop. Dr. Rodriguez again told her how she excited him. Patient D.H. later testified that she was in shock and unable to react. Dr. Rodriguez and Patient D.H. made a "pinky promise" not to say anything, and then Dr. Rodriguez washed and dried his hands. He placed a Chinese herbal remedy above her left breast, told her to sleep, and left the room. When he returned, Patient D.H. began crying. Dr. Rodriguez gave her a hug and kissed her on the cheek. While Patient D.H. was in a treatment room with Dr. Rodriguez, he engaged in sexual contact with her which was outside the scope of her medical treatment. Other than as described, Patient D.H. made no complaint to Dr. Rodriguez, nor did she complain to an office staff member. Patient D.H. left Dr. Rodriguez's office and started driving to her cousin's house. She then pulled over and called the police and her mother to tell what had happened. Patient D.H.'s mother testified that she received a phone call from her daughter about 5:00 p.m., saying that Dr. Rodriguez had molested her, and immediately went to meet her. Patient D.H.'s parents took her to the Cooper City district office of the BCSO to report the crime. On June 11, 2012, in conjunction with a criminal investigation by the BCSO, Patient D.H. made a controlled telephone call to Dr. Rodriguez while in the presence of a detective. During the conversation, Dr. Rodriguez said that he did not want to discuss things on the telephone because he could not be sure he was not being recorded, and asked Patient D.H. to come see him at the office. Patient D.H. said she would be uncomfortable seeing him and that is why she had called on the telephone. Their conversation included words to the following effect: Patient D.H.: Do you . . . do you really do this to your other patients? Dr. R.: I don't. That's why I'm . . . I couldn't sleep this weekend. I . . . I . . . I'm exhausted. I'm physically and mentally exhausted. Patient D.H.: But why me? Dr. R.: I don't know. It just happened, hon. That's what I'm telling you, it just, it just happened. Patient D.H.: I just want to know why me? Dr. R.: I don't . . . I don't know . . . I, I just don't know. Um . . . you know, and I wasn't sure because you know, um . . . you know you, you um, when you came about, you showed me your breasts, um . . . . Patient D.H.: It wasn't . . . you know, it was an accident, I wasn't trying to personally . . . . Dr. R.: No, but you know, but when you did the other part, you know, then I thought that that was um. Patient D.H.: What other part are you talking about? Dr. R.: No dear, no, your breasts, and that was an invitation . . . or an open, you know, "here" and for some reason we were talking about stuff, it's a blank to me. I do not remember . . . if you asked me . . . it was just, I do not remember, um, how exactly everything happened, but it just happened. Patient D.H.: Don't you remember . . . don't you remember putting your hand on my breasts and putting your two fingers in my vagina? Do you remember that? Dr. R.: Yes. Patient D.H.: Yes, you do remember that, right? Dr. R.: Hon, I don't even want to, I don't even want to go there. I don't even want to be going there, because I didn't feel comfortable with that at all. Patient D.H.: How, how do you think I feel? I'm not comfortable at all myself. Dr. Rodriguez later engaged the services of a forensic audio engineer who generated an enhanced audio version of the above-described controlled telephone call. During this call, Detective Wernath's voice can be heard in the background, coaching Patient D.H. through portions of the conversation. The criminal investigation also found that a DNA sample from a buccal swab taken from Dr. Rodriguez matched DNA collected from Patient D.H.'s breast. As Mr. Rhodes testified, the chance of a false positive was less than one in 30 billion. Dr. Rodriguez has admitted the sexual activity, while maintaining that his conduct was invited by Patient D.H.'s actions. Specifically, Dr. Rodriguez testified that he believed that Patient D.H. intentionally made her breast "slip out" of her tank top several times, that it was not an accident. He testified that when he told her that he could see her exposed breast, she responded, "Oh, I don't mind." He testified that Patient D.H. was being flirtatious and, by her provocative actions, was encouraging his behavior. Dr. Rodriguez's testimony that he believed Patient D.H. encouraged his sexual misconduct is supported by his statements directly to Patient D.H. on the recorded call, when he thought no one else was listening, and is credible. But regardless of what Dr. Rodriguez may have perceived, or the degree, if any, to which Patient D.H. was complicit in Dr. Rodriguez's sexual misconduct, her involvement would not excuse his actions. A chiropractor is not free to engage in sexual activity with his patient even if the patient encourages or consents to it. There was scant evidence in the record to suggest that Dr. Rodriguez accepts or understands this professional responsibility. Patient D.H.'s testimony as to Dr. Rodriguez's actions was clear and convincing. Her testimony as to his actions is credited and is confirmed by his own statements in the controlled telephone call and at hearing. Respondent's touching of Patient D.H.'s breasts with his hand and mouth and insertion of his fingers into her vagina constituted engaging in sexual activity with a patient and was sexual misconduct in the practice of chiropractic medicine. Patient D.H. engaged in a civil lawsuit against Dr. Rodriguez. She has since executed a release in that case. Dr. Rodriguez has not previously been subject to disciplinary action by the Board. Dr. Rodriguez credibly testified that he has installed video cameras in the treatment rooms to ensure that there will be no further incidents. He noted that the purpose of these cameras was to protect him. Dr. Rodriguez demonstrated little or no remorse, the focus of his spirited testimony being directed towards the provocative conduct of Patient D.H., not his own inappropriate actions. Revocation or suspension of Dr. Rodriguez's professional license would have a great effect upon his livelihood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Chiropractic Medicine, enter a final order finding Dr. Enrique Rodriguez in violation of section 460.412, Florida Statutes; revoking his license to practice chiropractic medicine; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 29th day of March, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on February 6, 2003, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving chiropractic physicians licensed to practice in Florida. Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been licensed in Florida since 1985. Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice has not been previously disciplined. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Practice. At the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld operated Foundation Chiropractic (hereinafter referred to as "Foundation"), a chiropractic clinic located in West Palm Beach, Florida. Foundation employees three individuals, in addition to Dr. Mitzelfeld's wife, daughter, father, and mother.2 It is, and was at the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld's practice to open the offices of Foundation between 5:15 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day the clinic was open.3 Dr. Mitzelfeld opened the clinic early in order to see patients who needed adjustments prior to reporting to their jobs. Once Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door at Foundation, the door remained unlocked and open to the public. After Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door and before staff arrived, whenever anyone arrived at Foundation and opened the front door, a buzzer or bell sounded to announce their arrival. Dr. Mitzelfeld established and maintained an "open- door" policy at Foundation. Pursuant to this policy, the doors to all of the treatment rooms at Foundation remained open at all times and staff were allowed to enter a treatment room at any time. Dr. Mitzelfeld did not as a matter of course, however, have a staff member present whenever he was seeing a female patient. The evidence failed to prove that, even though the front door of Foundation was unlocked at all times relevant to this matter and Dr. Mitzelfeld maintained an open-door policy, Dr. Mitzelfeld could not have from engaged in the conduct described in this Recommended Order. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Treatment of Patient C.H. On or about September 6, 2001 Dr. Mitzelfeld began treating patient C.H. C.H., a female, earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1992, and was, therefore, in all likelihood in her 30's during the times relevant to this matter. During the period of time that Dr. Mitzelfeld was treating C.H., he was also treating C.H.'s husband.4 From the time that C.H. began coming to Foundation until approximately January of 2002, C.H. was seen by Dr. Mitzelfeld during the afternoon, when staff and other patients were present. Most often, her appointments were at approximately 3:00 p.m. In approximately January 2002 C.H.'s appointment time was moved, at her request, to the early morning, before staff arrived. C.H. began arriving at approximately 6:30 a.m. for treatments and, although on occasion there were one or two individuals in the waiting room, she usually saw no one else at Foundation other than Dr. Mitzelfeld during her appointments. After C.H. began seeing Dr. Mitzelfeld in the early morning, their relationship began to change from that of a purely doctor-patient relationship to a more personal one. Their conversations started to become more personal and, gradually, they became verbally flirtatious. For example, Dr. Mitzelfeld began to tell C.H. that she was pretty and that she looked good in whatever she was wearing. Dr. Mitzelfeld's personal comments were welcomed by C.H. She responded by telling him personal things about her life, telling him that her marriage was "terrible," that her husband no longer slept in the same room with her, and that they no longer had sexual relations. Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments to C.H. continued to become more flirtatious and suggestive. Among other things, he told her that he found her attractive and that he could not understand why her husband did not find her attractive and desirable. He also told her that, if her were married to her, "I would treat you so good and I would definitely be sleeping in the same bed with you and I'd be making love to you every night." Lines 11-14, Page 69, Transcript of June 19, 2003. As C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld became verbally flirtatious, C.H. began to perceive that the manner that Dr. Mitzelfeld touched her was no longer just professional, but more personal and intimate, a change she welcomed. The change in their relationship was not unwelcome to C.H. C.H. believed, without having discussed the matter directly with Dr. Mitzelfeld, that they "had a relationship" and that she "was in love with him and [she] thought he was in love with [her]." Lines 22-24, Page 67, Transcript of June 19, 2003. C.H. naively believed that the physical lust they were experiencing, amounted to something more emotionally meaningful. In approximately February 2002 Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that he wanted to give her a hug after her treatment. They hugged and he kissed her on the cheek. After that, they hugged after each visit. Over time, their hugs became more lasting and intimate, with Dr. Mitzelfeld eventually becoming aroused to the point where he had an erection and "he would rub it all over [C.H.]." Lines 11-12, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. Dr. Mitzelfeld began performing a new treatment on C.H. for her upper back where she held her arms out to the side, he lifted her up from behind, and her body rested against his. Dr. Mitzelfeld would become aroused during these treatments; his penis would become erect.5 The increased intimacy between C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld, was not unwelcome to C.H., because". . . it was very obvious we were very attracted to each other and there was chemistry." C.H. was "happy about it. I mean, I was attracted to him so it didn't bother me at all." Lines 14-15, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. On May 9, 2002, during a prolonged hug, C.H. kissed Dr. Mitzelfeld on the cheek, then quickly on the mouth, and then passionately on the mouth, a kiss which Dr. Mitzelfeld returned. C.H. continued to naively believe that she was in love with Dr. Mitzelfeld and, although he had not said so, that he was in love with her. She took time prior to each visit to look as good as she could, doing her hair, nails, and make-up, and carefully selecting what she would wear, all in an effort to please Dr. Mitzelfeld and further the relationship she believed they had. On May 13, 2002, C.H. saw Dr. Mitzelfeld for the first time after the May 9th kiss. During this visit, Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that they should not let anything like the kiss happen again "because if it does, [my] hands are going to start traveling and [your] clothes are going to come off." C.H.'s next visit was the morning of May 16, 2002. After receiving her adjustment, C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld began hugging and kissing passionately. Dr. Mitzelfeld put his hand down C.H.'s jeans and she began to rub his penis through his clothes with her hand. After a while, C.H. told Dr. Mitzelfeld that she "wanted to do something to him" although she did not specify what. Dr. Mitzelfeld took her by the hand and led her into a bathroom, locking the door behind them. Given the circumstances, Dr. Mitzelfeld correctly assumed that what C.H. wanted to do to him was sexual. Once in the bathroom, they continued to hug and kiss while she attempted to pull down his pants so that she could perform fellatio on him. He eventually pulled his pants down for her and C.H. began to fellate him. While she did, Dr. Mitzelfeld told her to "take it deep, baby." C.H. caused Dr. Mitzelfeld to have an orgasm, after which he told her repeatedly how much he had enjoyed it. She told him that next time she would bring whipped cream. Eventually, Dr. Mitzelfeld, having been sexually satisfied, realized the possible consequences of what had happened and told C.H. that what had just happened should not have; and that he had a great marriage and that he loved his wife. Dr. Mitzelfeld became cold and distant. Dr. Mitzelfeld knew that what had happened was unethical. C.H. left Foundation upset and, because of Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments and cold treatment of her, she spoke with a neighbor and her mental health counselor and told both what had happened. Her mental health counselor told her that what had happened was unethical and that she should report it. C.H., however, was not yet realized that Dr. Mitzelfeld did not have deep emotional feelings for her. By the next morning, May 17, 2002, C.H. had recovered from her concern over Dr. Mitzelfeld's reaction the day before and convinced herself that they indeed had a relationship. C.H. naively believed that Dr. Mitzelfeld had to have feelings for her because they had engaged in a sexual act. She decided to surprise him with an unscheduled visit to his office. C.H. dressed in a black negligee which she covered with a denim dress. She entered Foundation at approximately 6:30 a.m. She did not sign in upon arrival,6 which she normally did when she arrived for a scheduled appointment. She had not come to Foundation that morning for any medical treatment. Dr. Mitzelfeld, who was upstairs in his loft-like office, came downstairs to see who had come in and met C.H.. When he asked what she was doing there that morning, she told him she had something to show him, walked up the stairs to his office, taking off her dress as she went and leaving it on the stairs, and waited for him wearing only the negligee and black high- heeled shoes. She intended to engage in sexual intercourse with him. When Dr. Mitzelfeld came into his office and saw C.H. standing there, he told her that they could not do anything like they had done the day before. Dr. Mitzelfeld had realized that what he had done was unethical and he told C.H. so. He also told her that he could be in trouble for the incident, a prophetic comment. Dr. Mitzelfeld also told her that they could not kiss, hug, or have any other sexual contact again. Dismayed and confused, C.H. dressed, as Dr. Mitzelfeld instructed her, and left the Foundation, never to return. Later the same day, Dr. Mitzelfeld discussed C.H. with a colleague, Dr. Robert McLaughlin. Dr. Mitzelfeld asked Dr. McLaughlin for advice about what he should do about a patient, C.H., who had become agitated when he rejected her sexual advances. Dr. McLaughlin correctly advised Dr. Mitzelfeld that he should discontinue any doctor-patient relationship with C.H., an act which Dr. Mitzelfeld should have taken earlier when his relationship with C.H. started to become more than just a doctor-patient relationship.7 Dr. Mitzelfeld did not admit the events found is this Recommended Order to Dr. McLaughlin. Upset, disappointed, and angry about her May 17, 2002, visit with Dr. Mitzelfeld, C.H. reported the foregoing incidents to the Department on May 22, 2002, after finally realizing that her relationship with Dr. Mitzelfeld was based upon lust and not some deeper emotional feeling. The Department's Administrative Complaint and Dr. Mitzelfeld's Request for Hearing. On February 6, 2003, after investigating C.H.'s allegations, the Department filed a one-count Administrative Complaint against Dr. Mitzelfeld before the Board alleging that he had committed "sexual misconduct" in the chiropractic physician-patient relationship, which is prohibited by Section 460.412 and, therefore, that he had violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), which provides that "[v]iolating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto" constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. On or about March 18, 2003, Dr. Mitzelfeld, through counsel, filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings, indicating that he disputed the allegations of fact contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(a). On March 19, 2003, the matter was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, with a request that an administrative law judge be assigned the case. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 03-0946PL and was assigned to the undersigned. C.H.'s Legal Name. At the times relevant to this proceeding and up until May 21, 2003, C.H.'s legal name was S.C.H.H. The "C" in her legal name and the last "H" are the same names in "C.H.," the name that she has gone by during the times material to this case and throughout this proceeding. When sworn in during her deposition in this matter on May 13, 2003, rather than stating that her name was S.C.H.H. she stated that her name was C.H. She did so simply because she has always gone by the name C.H. The evidence failed to prove that, because of her technical error, her testimony in this matter was not believable. On May 21, 2003, C.H.'s name was changed to C.S.L. as a result of her divorce. Throughout this proceeding, including when she was sworn in on June 19, 2003, to testify at the final hearing of this matter, she indicated that her name was C.H. Again, it is concluded that her technical error was insufficient to conclude that her testimony in this matter was not believable. C.H.'s Use of Prescription Medicines. At all times material to this matter, C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. The evidence failed to prove why C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. C.H. was prescribed and has taken Wellbutrin, Adderall, and Serzone. She also was prescribed and took Zolof for a period of two months. While these drugs, taken singly or in combination may have serious side effects,8 including hallucinations, the evidence failed to prove that C.H. had any such side effects. While C.H. admitted taking the drugs in question, the evidence failed to prove that she took them during the times at issue in this matter or, if she did, what dosage she took them in. Finally, while the evidence proved that C.H. has suffered from a number of maladies, the evidence failed to prove whether she was suffering from those maladies between September 6, 2001, and the date of C.H.'s testimony at final hearing or that any of her medical problems affected in any way her memory or truthfulness in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine finding that Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., has violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), by violating Section 460.412, as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint; suspending Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice chiropractic medicine for a period of three months from the date the final order becomes final; requiring the payment of a $1,000.00 administrative fine within a reasonable time after the final order is issued; placing Dr. Mitzelfeld's license on probation for a period of two years; requiring that Dr. Mitzelfeld attend ethics courses relating to the practice of chiropractic medicine as it relates to sexual misconduct, as directed by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine; and requiring the presence of a third person during any examination and treatment by Dr. Mitzelfeld of any female patient during his probation and for a period of not less than ten years thereafter. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2003.
