The Issue Whether Respondent should take final action to deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a practical nurse on the grounds set forth in Respondent's Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Background On May 1, 2011, Petitioner graduated from Southeastern Community College (West Burlington, Iowa) with a certificate in Practical Nursing (PN). Thereafter, Petitioner received a passing score on the Iowa PN licensure examination, and was issued an Iowa PN license on June 13, 2012. Although both he and his wife hail from Iowa, Petitioner desired to relocate to Florida and seek employment as a practical nurse. In pursuit of that goal, Petitioner submitted an application for PN licensure by endorsement on October 19, 2012. Petitioner’s Criminal History Prior to submitting the Florida application, Petitioner had run afoul of the law on three occasions, only two of which are relevant to the application at issue. On May 10, 2007, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to misdemeanor battery in Henderson County, Illinois. As a result of this plea, Petitioner was sentenced to two years of supervision and was required to complete anger management counseling. At the request of the Florida Board of Nursing (Board), Petitioner provided a written account of the circumstances surrounding the battery charge as follows: I had just gotten married and my wife and I were out celebrating her birthday at a club. A bouncer came to me and said that the person I had came in with was being bothered by someone else and that I should go check on her. I got my wife and we were in the process of leaving along with the rest of our group. The person bothering my wife continued talking and fussing. As I turned my back to leave, the person grabed [sic] me by the shoulder and lunged at my wife. In reaction I instinctively protected my wife feeling that she was in danger. Everyday since then this has haunted me. If I had taken a different path I would not be writing you this letter today. I feel I have learned the hard lesson from this mistake. I completed the requirements of the court for this along with my own self evaluation of life of how better to handle the situation or avoid them all together. Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony at hearing regarding the circumstances of the battery incident was consistent with his written account above, and is found to be credible. Henderson County court records reflect that Petitioner was accused of striking the person who had been bothering his wife “in the face with his fist.” On July 27, 2011, Petitioner was charged with driving under the influence, also in Henderson County, Illinois. On August 30, 2011, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor charge. In his written submission to the Board, Petitioner explained the circumstances surrounding this incident as follows: Regarding my DUI, I had just finished my semester for LPN. I was out celebrating with some classmates. I was pulled over because my oversized tires went over the white line. I was arrested for DUI. I went to the states attorney and explained my situation. He informed me that he would allow me to have court supervision if I pled guilty and pay a hefty fine. My lawyer informed me that this was not a reasonable means for stopping me, but since I had already talked to the states attorney, he informed me that it would not be wise to fight this case because I had already spoke with the states attorney and gave a verbal agreement of what I agreed to do. I have completed all of my classes, I am still paying monthly on my fine, which will be finished this year. I have learned my lesson from this situation. As a nurse I have a high standard to uphold to help people get better and by drinking and driving I was endangering many lives which is the opposite of my civic, humanitarian and the basic oath I took when I decided to become a nurse. Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony at hearing regarding the circumstances of the DUI charge was consistent with his written account above, and is found to be credible. As a result of his guilty plea, Petitioner was ordered to pay a fine and attend a substance abuse class, which he successfully completed. Petitioner’s Application Respondent introduced a copy of Petitioner’s “Initial Application for Licensure” which was submitted by Petitioner through the Board’s online website. The online application contains the following question: Criminal History Have you ever been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty, nolo contender, or no contest to, a crime in any jurisdiction other than a minor traffic offense?2/ Your answer: NO At hearing, Petitioner testified that although he carefully reviewed his application before submitting it, he did not intend to answer the above question in the negative, and that “he made a mistake” when he did so. On cross-examination Petitioner confirmed that he read and understood the Affirmation Statement at the end of the application, and that he affirmed that the information he provided was true and correct. There is no question that Petitioner provided a false response on his application regarding his criminal history. However, the evidence of record does not support a finding that the false statement was intentional. At hearing, Petitioner presented as an articulate, intelligent, and well-educated individual. Petitioner had also successfully undergone the PN application process in Iowa, and was therefore familiar with the application review process. As such, it is reasonable to infer that Petitioner was aware that the information he provided on his application would be verified by Board personnel. This makes it increasingly unlikely that Petitioner intentionally falsified his application, since he could have no reasonable expectation of successfully perpetrating a fraud on the Board. Petitioner was notified by correspondence dated November 10, 2012, that he was required to provide information concerning his criminal history. As noted, it was not until after the notification that Petitioner provided explanations regarding his criminal charges to the Board. Petitioner included several letters of reference with his application to the Board. One of those letters was from his former employer in Iowa, Wayland Mennonite Home Association. In that letter, the facility’s director of nursing wrote: December 4, 2012 To Whom it may Concern: Hosea Pratt has been employed as a licensed practical nurse, at Parkview Home, Wayland, Iowa. He started employment September 11, 2012. Our pre-employment criminal background evaluation revealed a court proceeding regarding the suspension of his Iowa driver’s license. There was no disposition on this case and Iowa Department of Human Services ruled this did not preclude him from practicing nursing. He had a valid Iowa driver’s license at the time of hire. Hosea functioned independently as a night shift charge nurse. He assisted with orientation of new nursing staff. He completed assigned tasks during his scheduled shift. He proved to be a thoughtful young man, who demonstrated kindness towards our residents. He had good assessment skills and excellent computer technical abilities. He would be welcomed back to work in this facility. On April 9, 2013, the Board informed Petitioner that it intended to deny his Florida application. Petitioner thereafter challenged the intended denial of his application, and the instant proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing issue a final order approving Petitioner's pending application for licensure as a practical nurse without conditions. However, should the Board determine that approval with conditions is warranted, a one-year probationary period is recommended. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 22nd day of October, 2013.
The Issue Whether one or more of the following penalties should be imposed on Elizabeth Worden: revocation or suspension of the Ms. Worden's practice, imposition of an administrative fine, and/or any other relief that the Board of Nursing deems appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Elizabeth Worden is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida. Ms. Worden holds State of Florida license number 0739611. Her license lapsed on April 1, 1987, and remained lapsed at least through September 20, 1988. On September 11, 1985, Ms. Worden was arrested and charged with one count of driving under the influence (hereinafter referred to as "DUI") and five counts of possession of controlled substance. On February 24, 1986, Ms. Worden was found guilty of DUI. Additionally, an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation was entered based upon a plea of nolo contendere by Ms. Worden to the five counts of possession of controlled substance. Ms. Worden was placed on three years probation for the charge of possession of controlled substance and was placed on a year of probation (to run concurrently with the sentence for possession of controlled substance), ordered to pay a fine, perform community service and had her drivers license suspended for six months for the charge of DUI. During at least part of 1986 and 1987, Ms. Worden was employed as a licensed practical nurse at the Ocala Geriatrics Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Center"). Ms. Worden was one of three licensed practical nurses at the facility during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift and was in charge of the patients on one floor of the facility. While on duty at the Center Ms. Worden retired to room 5 in the east wing of the Center almost every night to sleep. She generally went to the room at about 2:00 a.m. and remained in the room until approximately 6:00 a.m. While Ms. Worden slept, she left the certified nurses aides in charge of patient care and assigned duties to the aides which should have been conducted by a licensed nurse. Ms. Worden told the aides to wake her only if a patient needed medication, if another nurse appeared on her floor, and at 6:00 a.m. On three occasions Ms. Worden left the Center while she should have been on duty, leaving certified nurses aides in charge of patient care. On these occasions Ms. Worden was gone from fifteen to thirty minutes carrying out personal errands. Ms. Worden admitted on one occasion to a certified nurses aide that she had consumed a couple of beers before coming to work. Ms. Worden's breath often smelled of alcohol and the room in which she slept also smelled of beer on occasion. During 1987, Ms. Worden entered the Intervention Project for Nurses. She was dismissed from the program in August, 1987, for noncompliance with the program's requirements. On May 18, 1987, Ms. Worden was arrested and charged with DUI and resisting arrest without violence. She was adjudicated guilty of both offenses on July 13, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Elizabeth Worden be found guilty of having violated Sections 464.018(1)(c) and (g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count One and Count Three of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the portion of the Administrative Complaint alleging that Ms. Worden is guilty of having violated Sections 464.018(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the second Count One and Count Three of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Worden's license as a practical nurse be suspended until the later of the end of a five (5) year period from the date of the final order issued in this case or the date that Ms. Worden provides proof acceptable to the Petitioner of her successful completion of a rehabilitation program acceptable to the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2548 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3. 3-4 2. 5 3-4. 6 5. 7 7. 8 9. 9 10. 10 10-11. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone' Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elizabeth Worden 412-A Clark Street St. Charles, Missouri 63301 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Judie Ritter Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Stephen H. Rosenthal, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued on or about December 22, 1999, by Petitioner, Tom Gallagher, as Commissioner of Education and, if so, what penalty should be imposed upon Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Stephen Rosenthal, holds a valid Florida Educator's Certificate, Number 644646. Respondent's Certificate covers the areas of Elementary Education and Mathematics and is valid through June 30, 2001. At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent was employed as a fifth-grade teacher at Manatee Elementary School, an elementary school in the St. Lucie County School District. During the fall of 1997 Paul E. Griffeth, a detective with the Port St. Lucie Police Department, was informed that Respondent had been in contact through the internet with a detective of the Keene, New Hampshire Police Department, that Respondent believed that he was communicating with a minor, and that Respondent had sent the Keene detective pornographic pictures via the Internet. Based upon the information Officer Griffeth received, a search warrant was obtained. The search warrant authorized a search of an address where Respondent was believed to reside. Officer Griffeth, Todd Schrader, then a detective with the Port St. Lucie Police Department, and a Detective Calabrese attempted to execute the search warrant. When they served the search warrant on Respondent they learned that Respondent no longer lived at the address identified in the search warrant. Respondent informed Detectives Schrader and Griffeth of his new residence address and agreed to allow them to search his residence without obtaining a new warrant. Respondent inquired into the reason for the search warrant and was told that it was believed that he was suspected of having sent child pornography on the internet and of having files on his computer and computer disks in his residence that contained child pornography. Respondent initially denied these allegations. Detective Schrader asked Respondent if he knew who "Luke 14" was. Respondent admitted that he believed that "Luke 14" was a 14-year-old male. Detective Schrader told Respondent that "Luke 14" was a police detective. Respondent shook his head and said, "No, no." Respondent later admitted that he had sent pornographic pictures, including pictures of Respondent naked, to "Luke 14," believing he was a 14-year-old boy. Respondent then admitted to Detective Schrader that he had a number of pictures that he had downloaded from the internet and acknowledged that some of the pictures could be construed as child pornography. Respondent also admitted that he had numerous diskettes with pictures of minors that he had downloaded from the internet. When the detectives entered Respondent's residence, they found two pictures of two individual nude males, with their genitalia exposed, which the detectives believed to be between the ages of 12 to 16. Respondent admitted that he believed that that was the age of the boys. Respondent also admitted that he had downloaded the pictures off the internet and that he had printed them. A number of diskettes were found at Respondent's residence which contained pictures of males with their genitalia exposed. Although some of the males pictured appeared to be minors, the evidence failed to prove that they were in fact pictures of minors. 1/ On November 3, 1997, Respondent was arrested. He was charged in an Indictment filed before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "U.S. District Court") with eight counts of Knowingly Receiving a Visual Depiction of a Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct that had been transported and shipped in Interstate Commerce by Computer and one count of Having Possession of Three or More Visual Depictions of a Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct that had been transported and shipped in Interstate Commerce by Computer. In March 1998 Respondent entered into a Plea Agreement in the U.S. District Court, agreeing, in part, to the following: The [Respondent] agrees to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment, which charges the defendant with the knowing receipt of child pornography in interstate commerce by computer, that is, visual depictions of minors engaged in sexual conduct . . . . The [Respondent] admits that he is, in fact, guilty of this offense. On March 12, 1998, Respondent appeared before the Honorable James C. Paine, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Respondent was questioned extensively concerning the Plea Agreement and Respondent's understanding of the charges to which he had admitted. During this proceeding, the essential facts relating to Counts 1 and 3 were summarized and Respondent was asked whether he agreed with those facts. Respondent agreed with all the summarized facts; except the allegation that he thought that Luke 14 was a minor. 2/ Among the summarized facts which Respondent admitted to are the following: That Respondent knowingly received a visual depiction; the visual depiction was shipped or transported by interstate commerce by any means, including computer; that the visual depiction was of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct; and that Respondent knew that the visual depiction was of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct; That Respondent sent several sexually explicit pictures to Luke 14. The pictures were of the Respondent, naked; and That Respondent had photographs of two nude minors in his residence. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment, was adjudicated guilty of the two counts, and was sentenced to 70 months in prison on each Count to run concurrently. The other seven counts were dismissed. The evidence failed to prove that Respondent's plea of guilty was made as the result of any threat, coercion, or fraud. By entering a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, Respondent admitted to the following: On or about February 5, 1997, in St. Lucie County, in the Southern District of Florida, the defendant, STEPHEN H. ROSENTHAL, did knowingly receive a visual depiction that had been transported and shipped in interstate commerce by computer . . . depicting a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . . to wit: a depiction of a minor male engaging anal-genital sexual intercourse with an adult male, the production of which involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. By entering a plea of guilty to Count 3 of the Indictment, Respondent admitted to the following: On or about April 15, 1997, in St. Lucie County, in the Southern District of Florida, the defendant, STEPHEN H. ROSENTHAL, did knowingly receive a visual depiction that had been transported and shipped in interstate commerce by computer . . . depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . . to wit: a depiction of two minor males engaging oral-genital sexual intercourse, the production of which involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. By pleading guilty to Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment and admitting to Judge Paine that he had committed those offenses, Respondent admitted that he had been in possession of child pornography and that he had downloaded the child pornography from the Internet. Respondent subsequently attempted to withdraw his plea. This effort was rejected. Respondent is currently incarcerated at FCC Coleman serving his 70-month sentence. The arrest and subsequent conviction of Respondent resulted in adverse and widespread publicity in St. Lucie County. Respondent's arrest and conviction and the resulting adverse publicity were sufficiently notorious to disgrace the teaching profession and seriously reduce Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent's employment with the St. Lucie County School Board was terminated due to the foregoing incidents. Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint on or about December 22, 1999, in which Petitioner recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose appropriate disciplinary sanctions on Respondent's educator's certificate pursuant to Sections 231.262 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, due to the following alleged facts: 3. During the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 school year, Respondent was in possession of child pornography and down loaded the child pornography from the Internet onto his home computer. On or about November 3, 1997, Respondent was arrested and charged with 8 counts of Knowingly Receiving a Visual Depiction of Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct that had been transported and shipped in Interstate Commerce by Computer, and one count of Having Possession of Three or More Visual Depictions of a Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct that had been transported and shipped in Interstate Commerce by Computer. On or about June 2, 1998, Respondent pled Guilty to two of the counts of receiving the photographs. The court dismissed all other charges and adjudicated Respondent Guilty on the remaining two. Respondent was sentenced to 70 months on each count to run concurrently, to receive health/psychiatric counseling during incarceration, 3 years of supervised release, not possess a firearm and pay $3200 in fines and fees. On or about November 25, 1997, Respondent was terminated from his position with the St. Lucie County School Board. Respondent filed an unexecuted Election of Rights form and a letter in response to the Administrative Complaint. Although Respondent did not specifically request an administrative hearing, he did dispute the material facts of the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint and Respondent's letter were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 19, 2000, with a request that the matter be assigned to an administrative law judge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent, Stephen H. Rosenthal, violated Sections 231.28(1)(c) and (f), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the charge that Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate, Number 644646, be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 10th day of January, 2001.
The Issue The primary issue in this case is whether Respondent pleaded no contest to, or was convicted of, crimes which directly relate to the practice of nursing. If so, then it will be necessary to determine an appropriate penalty for each such plea or conviction. In addition, a penalty must be formulated for Respondent's undisputed failures to tell the Board of Nursing about a plea he entered, and a conviction he suffered, within 30 days after the respective events.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Frankla M. LaFergola, R.N. ("LaFergola"), was a Florida-licensed registered nurse, having been issued license number RN2915432. Petitioner Department of Health (the "Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over registered nurses such as LaFergola. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a nurse, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Nursing has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the licensee has committed a disciplinable offense. Exercising its prosecutorial authority, the Department has charged LaFergola with two such offenses, namely, (1) being found guilty of, or pleading to, a crime which directly relates to the practice of nursing or the ability to practice nursing (two instances); and (2) failing timely to report a conviction or plea to the Board of Nursing (two instances). On September 23, 1999, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, LaFergola was sentenced to probation with conditions after entering a plea of no contest to one count of child abuse as defined in section 827.03(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1998). The court withheld adjudication of guilt. The elements of the crime to which LaFergola pleaded no contest were defined, in relevant part, as follows: "Child abuse" means: * * * An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; * * * A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. § 827.03, Fla. Stat. (1998). LaFergola failed to report his no-contest plea to the Board of Nursing within thirty days after entering the plea. At the time LaFergola pleaded no contest to the charge of child abuse, section 464.003(3)(a) defined the term "practice of professional nursing" to mean the performance of those acts requiring substantial specialized knowledge, judgment, and nursing skill based upon applied principles of psychological, biological, physical, and social sciences which shall include, but not be limited to: The observation, assessment, nursing diagnosis, planning, intervention, and evaluation of care; health teaching and counseling of the ill, injured, or infirm; and the promotion of wellness, maintenance of health, and prevention of illness of others. The administration of medications and treatments as prescribed or authorized by a duly licensed practitioner authorized by the laws of this state to prescribe such medications and treatments. The supervision and teaching of other personnel in the theory and performance of any of the above acts. (Emphasis added). There is a negative correlation between (a) the commission of an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child and, e.g., (b) the promotion of wellness, maintenance of health, and prevention of illness of others. That is, there is an inverse relationship between operations (a) and (b) inasmuch as an act of child abuse damages another person's health, whereas the promotion of wellness aims to enhance or restore another person's health; the performance of one, in short, undoes the effect of the other. Because both types of action——child abuse and professional nursing——affect the health and welfare of others, albeit in opposite ways, they are logically connected as diametric behaviors. Consequently, the crime of child abuse directly relates to the practice of nursing. On March 25, 2008, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County, a judgment of conviction was entered against LaFergola, who had been found guilty by a jury of the crime of soliciting a child via computer to engage in lewd behavior. To secure LaFergola's conviction of this particular crime, the government proved the following constituent elements beyond a reasonable doubt: CERTAIN USES OF COMPUTER SERVICES PROHIBITED.--Any person who knowingly utilizes a computer on-line service, Internet service, or local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to commit any illegal act described in chapter 794, relating to sexual battery; chapter 800, relating to lewdness and indecent exposure; or chapter 827, relating to child abuse, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. § 847.0135(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). LaFergola failed to report to the Board of Nursing, within 30 days after being convicted, that he had been found guilty of lewd computer solicitation of a child. Based on this conviction, the court sentenced LaFergola to a term of 28.05 months' incarceration, to be followed by 31 months of Sex Offender Probation. The conditions of Sex Offender Probation generally prohibited LaFergola from having contact with or being near children under the age of 18, among other restrictions on his liberty. The crime of lewd online solicitation of a child directly relates to the practice of nursing for the same reasons, previously discussed, that the crime of child abuse directly relates to the practice of nursing.1/ Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department has established by clear and convincing evidence that LaFergola entered a plea of no contest to a crime (child abuse) which directly relates to the practice of nursing. LaFergola is therefore guilty of the offense defined in section 464.018(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). The Department has established by clear and convincing evidence that LaFergola was found guilty of a crime (lewd online solicitation of a child) which directly relates to the practice of nursing. LaFergola is therefore guilty of the offense defined in section 464.018(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2007). The Department has established by clear and convincing evidence that LaFergola failed to report to the Board of Nursing, within 30 days after the event, that he had entered a plea of no contest to a charge of child abuse. Consequently, LaFergola is guilty of the offense defined in section 455.624(1)(w), Florida Statutes (1999). The Department has established by clear and convincing evidence that LaFergola failed to report to the Board of Nursing, within 30 days after the event, that he had been found guilty of lewd online solicitation of a child. For that reason, LaFergola is guilty of the offense defined in section 456.072(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2007).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding LaFergola guilty of the offenses charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing revoke LaFergola's license, thereby denying him the right to practice nursing in the state of Florida unless he obtains a new license, for which he may not apply until after the expiration of a period of ineligibility not exceeding 10 years; and impose an administrative fine of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 3rd day of September, 2014.
The Issue Does the Department of Corrections' Sexual Harassment Policy, as contained in the Pamphlet "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities", in a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy", and Chapter 7 of the Department's Personnel Procedures Manual, constitute umpromulgated rules, pursuant to Section 120.535 F.S.? Are existing Department of Corrections Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4), and 33-4.003(22) and (24), F.A.C. invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority due to vagueness, pursuant to Section 120.56 F.S.?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner has been a career-service employee working as a Parole Officer I for DOC. He has earned a master's degree in criminology. At all times material, DOC has had in effect a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy" (P-5), a Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities" (P-3), and a Personnel Procedures Manual. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual is entitled "Sexual Harassment Complaints" (P-6). DOC has not adopted these documents as rules, and Petitioner here challenges them as unpromulgated rules. On February 22, 1996, Petitioner received written notice that he would be suspended without pay for ten days as a result of his violation of DOC Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4) and 33- 4.003(23)(25), F.A.C., (since renumbered) and the DOC's Policy on Sexual Harassment. The letter did not rely on Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual or its Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities". Petitioner appealed this action to PERC, which subsequently entered a recommended order upholding DOC's disciplinary action. Language from PERC's recommended order, which is pertinent to this instant rule challenge is: Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.001(4)(a) states, in pertinent part, that 'No . . . employee shall knowingly . . . commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any state statute, rule, directive or policy statement.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.002(4) states, in pertinent part, that 'Each employee . . . shall perform his duties fairly and impartially and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4,.003(23) states that a first offense of conduct unbecoming a public employee is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.003(25) states that a first offense of willful violation of rules, regulations, directives or policy statements is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. The DOC pamphlet entitled 'Florida Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment: Your Rights and Responsibilities,' provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual Harassment requires two elements: The alleged conduct must be of a sexual nature, must be unwelcome and unwanted. Sexual harassment may be any of, but not limited to, the following: * * * continued suggestions regarding invi- tations to social events outside the work place, after being told such suggestions are unwelcome; * * * prolonged staring or leering to [sic] a person; * * * 32. State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Personnel Procedures Manual, Chapter 7, Sexual Harassment, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * O. Sexual Harassment - Sexual Harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature from or involving an employee's supervisors, peers, subordinates or any other persons in contact with an employee or applicant during the course of the conduct of the employee's or applicant's business when: Submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment; or Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. 33. The DOC Sexual Harassment Policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual harassment may result from unwelcome sexual advances or a hostile environment created by conduct offensive to the victim such as suggestive or lewd comments, dirty jokes, offensive pictures or physical touching. Accordingly, all employees are being placed on notice that any employee found guilty of having engaged in sexual harassment will be severely disciplined, up to and including dismissal. * * * The charge of conduct unbecoming a public employee is a general charge that is subsumed if the Agency has a more specific charge that fully describes the alleged misconduct. Ford v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FCSR Para. 148 (1993); Mathis v. Department of Corrections, 6 FCSR Para. 122 (1991). In this case, I conclude that the charge of unbecoming conduct is subsumed within the charge of sexual harassment and should be dismissed. PERC's recommended order also applied the foregoing provisions. At the date of formal hearing in the instant rule challenge, PERC had issued no final order. Before this instant Division of Administrative Hearings final order could be entered, PERC had extended the time for the parties to file exceptions to its hearing officer's recommended order, and ultimately, on August 13, 1996, PERC adopted its hearing officer's recommended order, thereby rendering Petitioner subject to future disciplinary action at the second occurrence level under Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C. The final order of PERC is now under appeal by Petitioner. These facts are officially recognized, sua sponte. Petitioner received copies of the Pamphlet, the Sexual Harassment Policy, and a copy of Chapter 33-4, F.A.C., on July 16, 1993, when he began employment with the agency. He did not receive a copy of Chapter 7 of the Personnel Manual and was unaware of it until his PERC proceeding. DOC imposes disciplinary action against its employees for conduct which constitutes sexual harassment. Petitioner received periodic training in agency seminars on the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, including annual film presentations. He did not receive similar training regarding "conduct unbecoming a public employee", which is a term utilized in Section 110.227(1), F.S., and for which an employee may be disciplined. Section 110.227(1), F.S., also permits discipline of employees for "willful violation of the provisions of law or agency rules". Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., provides, in pertinent part: Responsibility for Conduct of Employees, Inmates and Others. No Administrator, Superintendent, Officer-In-Charge, Supervisor, or other employee shall knowingly permit any subordinate, inmate or other person to, nor shall he, commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any statute, rule, directive or policy statement . . . . Petitioner claims that Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., is vague as applied to him because he is not an administrator, superintendent, officer-in-charge, or a supervisor. According to Petitioner, this rule in only applicable to those who supervise subordinates. Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: (4) Each employee shall keep himself physically fit, mentally alert, personally neat and clean and shall perform his duties fairly and impartially, and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public . . . . Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., is entitled "Range of Disciplinary Actions" and lists a number of violations. Item (22) is "Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee"; Item (24) is "Willful Violation of Rules, Regulations, Directives, or Policy Statements". The range of disciplinary penalties is increased at the second occurrence level under the rule. The agency Policy Statement, Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the agency Personnel Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming a public employee and contain definitions of sexual harassment, including hostile work place sexual harassment. The first sentence of the Pamphlet states that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and is conduct unbecoming a public employee, as provided in Sections 110.105, 110.227 and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. (Rules of the Department). The first page of the Pamphlet states EEOC guidelines defining sexual harassment, as recognized by the agency: Unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person's employment, or Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by [sic] decisions affecting an individual, or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a person's work [sic] hostile or offensive working environment. The Pamphlet goes on to advise that sexual harassment requires two elements: conduct of a sexual nature/that is unwelcome and unwanted. It lists examples of harassing behavior, advises of the need to report such behavior, and explains the agency's internal complaint procedure and the procedure's protections against retaliation. It gives references for legal remedies outside the agency. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual states basically the same information as the Pamphlet, lists the same legal authorities and details the internal complaint procedure. It specifically provides, If there is a determination that there is cause to believe sexual harassment occurred, disciplinary action shall be taken in accordance with Chapter 33-4 Department of Corrections Rules. Chapter 7 was first effective on January 25, 1989 and last amended on March 5, 1993. It derives its authority from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Sections 110.105, 110.227, and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. Both the agency Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming an employee. Petitioner's position with regard to whether or not the Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual constitute unpromulgated rules appears to center on his belief that without them, employees are not on notice as to exactly what behavior constitutes sexual harassment, that they contain a subtext of what types of sexual harassment, i.e. hostile work environment, will be disciplined, or that they alone reveal that sexual harassment constitutes "conduct unbecoming". Petitioner testified that he understood blatant sexual harassment, such as unconsented physical contact, to be conduct unbecoming a public employee, but he did not have a clear understanding about the "gray areas", such as complimenting co- workers, socializing outside work, or what acts constituted hostile work place sexual harassment. However, Petitioner testified that he was on notice that the agency had an Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy and that at all times material, he knew that if he committed sexual harassment, he would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. Petitioner admitted that if any employee engaged in actual sexual harassment against another employee, the offending employee would not command the respect of fellow employees, as described in Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C. He also was on notice through Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., that he could be disciplined for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violations of law or policy statements". He is charged at law with knowledge of Section 110.227(1) requiring discipline for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violation" and Chapter 760 F.S., which implements Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The agency routinely disciplines its employees for sexual harassment and has a long history of application of its Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy. Petitioner did not submit any evidence as to how Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual, the Pamphlet, or the one- page Policy Statement had any affect on him, beyond the discipline described, supra. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to show that the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, the Pamphlet, or Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual have any affect on any person not employed by Respondent. There was no evidence that any of the provisions in these documents were self-executing.
The Issue Did Respondent, Jennifer Abadie, R.R.T., violate sections 468.365(1)(q), 468.365(1)(x), 456.072(1)(v), or 456.063(1), Florida Statutes (2018),1/ by committing sexual misconduct?
Findings Of Fact Section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 468, Florida Statutes, charge the Board with regulating the practice of respiratory care in Florida. Ms. Abadie is a licensed registered respiratory therapist in Florida. Ms. Abadie worked for Comprehensive Healthcare of Clearwater (Comprehensive) from October 24, 2017, through February 4, 2018, at its Pinellas County, Florida, location. Comprehensive is a residential rehabilitation and nursing facility. Ms. Abadies’s 89-year-old father was a patient at Comprehensive from before she started working there until his death. He suffered from dementia. Ms. Abadie visited her father frequently, before and after her shifts and when she was not working. G.B. was a severely ill patient at Comprehensive trying to recover from multiple strokes. G.B. was only 56 years old. However, he had extensive medical conditions. They included hypertension, congestive heart failure, fibromyalgia, diabetes, blindness and end-stage renal (kidney) disease. G.B. received dialysis three times a week for his kidney disorder. He took dozens of medications daily. G.B. also had a tracheostomy. A tracheostomy is a tube that goes into the trachea to help people with impaired breathing breathe. The heavy treatment load weighed on G.B. psychologically and caused him anxiety and depression. Ms. Abadie provided respiratory therapy services to G.B. G.B. recognized Ms. Abadie from an earlier time when she worked at Florida Hospital where he had been a patient. He reminded her of that time and established a friendship with her. Over time, the friendship grew closer. As a result of their friendship and Ms. Abadie's compassion for G.B., Ms. Abadie and G.B. spoke regularly. When Ms. Abadie visited her father, she usually checked on G.B. He and Ms. Abadie talked about the range of subjects that acquaintances talk about including families, children, marital status, holiday plans, and day-to-day lives. They spoke regularly by telephone as well as in person. Although they spoke regularly, Ms. Abadie and G.B. did not always speak at length. Sometimes she just waved and poked her head in to say hello. At G.B.'s request, Ms. Abadie brought him items from outside the facility, such as toiletries and a blanket. G.B. grew very fond of Ms. Abadie and wanted her as his girlfriend and eventually his wife. Ms. Abadie did not encourage or reciprocate these feelings or intentions. Lisa Isabelle was G.B.'s only other visitor. G.B. was a friend of her husband. She had known G.B. for most of their lives. Ms. Isabelle rented G.B. a residence on her property. Ms. Isabelle described her relationship with G.B. as "love-hate." Ms. Isabelle held a durable power of attorney for G.B. His family lived out of town and decided it would be good for somebody local to hold the power of attorney. On Sunday, February 4, 2018, Ms. Abadie came to Comprehensive to visit her father. She wanted to watch the Eagles play in the Super Bowl with him. Their family is from Philadelphia. Ms. Abadie stopped at G.B.'s room first. Charity Forest, L.P.N., was on-duty that day. G.B. was one of her patients. Towards the end of the first of her two shifts, Ms. Forest noticed that the curtain by G.B.’s bed was pulled halfway around his bed, which was unusual. The door was open. Ms. Forest entered G.B.’s room and looked around the curtain. She saw G.B. and Ms. Abadie sitting on the bed, on top of the covers. The head of the bed was raised about 45 degrees to provide a backrest. G.B. was wearing long pajama pants but not wearing a shirt. Ms. Abadie was wearing jean shorts, a T-shirt, and Keds®. Ms. Abadie was resting her feet on her iPad® so she would not dirty the covers. G.B. and Ms. Abadie were not touching each other. They were talking, watching television, and looking at pictures on Ms. Abadie's telephone. The room was a two-bed room. There was a patient in the other bed. Ms. Forest thought that the two sitting on the bed was inappropriate and left in search of her supervisor. Ms. Forest could not locate her supervisor. But she met another L.P.N., Ruth Schneck. Ms. Forest told Ms. Schneck what she had observed. Ms. Schneck went to G.B.'s room. The door was open. Ms. Schneck briefly entered the room. G.B. and Ms. Abadie were still sitting on the bed. Ms. Schneck left immediately, closing the door behind her. She joined the search for the supervisor. Neither Ms. Schneck nor Ms. Forest could locate the supervisor. While looking for the supervisor, Ms. Forest and Ms. Schneck encountered Sean Flynn, L.P.N. They told him what they had seen. Mr. Flynn was a licensed practical nurse and a case manager at Comprehensive. He had come to the facility briefly that day in order to take care of some paperwork. After talking to Ms. Forest and Ms. Schneck, Mr. Flynn went to G.B.’s room and opened the door. Ms. Abadie and G.B. were sitting on the edge of the bed facing the door. Mr. Flynn asked them if anything was going on. They said no. Mr. Flynn left the room and called Nicole Lawlor, Comprehensive's Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Lawlor told Mr. Flynn to return to G.B.'s room, instruct Ms. Abadie to leave, and tell her that she would be suspended pending an investigation. He returned to G.B.'s room with Ms. Forest and Ms. Schneck. G.B. and Ms. Abadie were still sitting on the bed. Mr. Flynn asked Ms. Abadie to step outside. She did. G.B. soon followed in his wheelchair. Mr. Flynn told Ms. Abadie that she was suspended and had to leave. G.B. overheard this and became very upset and aggressive. He insisted that Ms. Abadie was his girlfriend and that he wanted her to stay. Ms. Abadie asked to visit her father before she left. Mr. Flynn agreed. Ms. Abadie visited her father for a couple of hours. Ms. Abadie also called Ms. Isabelle to tell her that Mr. Flynn asked her to leave and that G.B. was very upset. After Ms. Abadie's departure, G.B. became increasingly upset and loud. His behavior escalated to slamming doors and throwing objects. Comprehensive employees decided G.B. was a danger to himself and others and had him involuntarily committed under Florida's Baker Act at Mease Dunedin Hospital. On her way home, Ms. Abadie received a telephone call offering her full-time employment at Lakeland Regional Hospital. February 4, 2018, at 6:08 p.m., Ms. Abadie submitted her resignation from Comprehensive in an e-mail to Ms. Lawlor. Ms. Abadie's only patient/caregiver relationship with G.B. was through her employment with Comprehensive. As of 6:08 p.m. on February 4, 2018, G.B. was not a patient of Ms. Abadie. She no longer had a professional relationship with him. Ms. Lawlor suspended Ms. Abadie on February 4, 2018. She based her decision on the information that Ms. Forest, Ms. Schneck, and Mr. Flynn told her, not all of which is persuasively established or found as fact in this proceeding. Still, Ms. Lawlor's memorandum suspending Ms. Abadie reveals that the nature of G.B.'s relationship with Ms. Abadie and the events of February 4, 2018, were not sexual. Ms. Lawlor's Employee Memorandum suspending Ms. Abadie does not identify a state or institution rule violated in the part of the form calling for one. She wrote "Flagrant violation of code of conduct." The description in the "Nature of Infraction" section of the form reads, "Employee was found cuddling in bed with a resident during her time off." There is no mention of sex, breasts, genitalia, or sexual language. None of the varying and sometimes inconsistent accounts of the day mention touching or exposure of breasts, buttocks, or genitalia. None of the accounts describes or even alludes to sex acts or statements about sex. The only kiss reported is a kiss on the cheek that G.B. reportedly forced upon Ms. Abadie as she was leaving. The deposition testimony of the Board's "expert," offers many statements showing that what the Board complains of might be called "inappropriate" or a "boundary violation" but does not amount to sexual misconduct. He testified about the strain a patient expressing romantic feelings toward a therapist puts on the professional relationship. He says the professional should tell the patient that the statements are inappropriate. The witness says that if the patient starts expressing the romantic feelings by touching the therapist, the therapist must tell the patient that his behavior is inappropriate and begin recording the events for the therapist's protection so that "no inappropriate allegations are made later." (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 3). Asked his opinion about allegations that Ms. Abadie was laying on G.B.'s bed, the witness says the behavior "crossed a professional boundary" and that he was not aware of the "behavior being appropriate in any situation." (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 16). The witness acknowledged that a hug is not inherently sexual. (Jt. Ex. 3, pp. 24 & 30). In addition, the training and experience of the witness do not qualify him as someone whose opinion should be entitled to significant weight. Among other things, he has never written about, lectured about, or testified to an opinion about sexual misconduct. Had the deposition not been offered without objection, whether the testimony would have been admissible is a fair question. § 90.702, Fla. Stat. After February 4, 2018, Ms. Abadie attempted to continue her friendship with G.B. by telephone calls and visits. However, Comprehensive refused for several weeks, against G.B.'s wishes, to allow Ms. Abadie to visit G.B. and would only permit Ms. Abadie brief, supervised visits with her father. G.B. was very upset by Comprehensive's prohibition of visits from Ms. Abadie. He began refusing food and treatment, including medications and dialysis. G.B.'s condition deteriorated to the point that he was admitted to hospice care. At that point, on February 24, 2018, Comprehensive contacted Ms. Abadie and gave her permission to visit G.B and lifted restrictions on visiting her father. A February 27, 2018, e-mail from Shelly Wise, Director of Nursing, confirmed this and admitted that the Agency for Health Care Administration had advised that G.B.'s right as a resident to visitors trumped Comprehensive's concerns. Ms. Abadie resumed visiting her friend, G.B. On May 21, 2018, G.B. passed away. G.B. was a lonely, mortally ill man. He initiated a friendship with Ms. Abadie that she reciprocated. Ultimately, he developed unfounded feelings about her being his girlfriend and them having a future together. The clear and convincing evidence does not prove that the relationship was more than a friendship or that it was sexual in any way.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Mary A. Iglehart, Esquire Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire Florida Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Respondent: Kennan George Dandar, Esquire Dandar & Dandar, P.A. Post Office Box 24597 Tampa, Florida 33623
Recommendation Based on the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Respiratory Care, dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 17th day of July, 2019.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Florida State Board of Nursing give Madeline Gerardo a letter of official reprimand for her unprofessional conduct and place her on probation for a period of one year. For the other violation, the Hearing Officer would recommend an additional one year's probation to run concurrent with the probation assessed for unprofessional conduct. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Madeline S. Gerardo, L. P. N. Box 1124 Belleview, Florida 32620 STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Madeline S. Akoboff Gerardo Box 1124 Belleview, Florida 32620 CASE NO. 79-285 As a Licensed Practical Nurse License Number 29985-1 /
