Findings Of Fact Background. Petitioner, George T. Lloyd, Jr., has been employed by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, for over 14 years, and was, at all times material hereto, a participant in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (Plan), with family coverage. On March 25, 1986, petitioner's son, George T. Lloyd, III (George), then 17 years of age and an eligible dependent under the Plan, was admitted through the emergency room to Broward General Medical Center (Hospital), Fort Lauderdale, Florida. George was placed in the Hospital's Intensive Care Unit, and remained there until his recovery and transfer to the Hospital's psychiatric floor on April 4, 1986. Upon admission, George was comatose and diagnosed as having suffered a severe barbiturate drug overdose. Blood tests performed at the time demonstrated a serum barbiturate level of 145.6 UG (milligrams per milliliter) and a serum Dilantin level of 23.3 UG. At such levels, or even one-half such levels, George would have died of respiratory depression absent medical intervention. On or about August 9, 1986, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., the State's administrator of the Plan, notified petitioner that the Hospital's statement for services and supplies rendered during the course of his son's admission of March 25, 1986 to April 4, 1986, totalling $17,402.95, was ineligible for payment based upon the Plan's exclusion of benefits for intentional self-inflicted injuries, to wit: attempted suicide. Pertinent to this case, the Plan provides: VII. EXCLUSIONS The following exclusions shall apply under the Plan: * * * E. Any services and supplies received due to the following circumstances: * * * 2. Resulting from an intentional self- inflicted injury. Over the course of the next two years petitioner's claim for such expenses was reevaluated by the Plan administrator, as well as respondent, Department of Administration (Department). At the conclusion of that review, the Plan administrator concluded that the documentation available to it demonstrated that such expenses were incurred as a consequence of George's attempt to take his own life and were therefore excluded from coverage. By letter of August 19, 1988, the Department notified petitioner that his claim for benefits arising from his son's hospital admission of March 25, 1986 to April 4, 1986, was denied because such expenses resulted from his son's attempt at suicide. Petitioner filed a timely protest of the Department's decision, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing. An Intentional Self-Inflicted Injury? Petitioner's son has a history of alcohol and drug (marijuana and cocaine) abuse and emotional problems accompanied by periods of depression that predate the incident in question by a number of years. His mother and father (petitioner) were divorced in 1971 when George was approximately three years of age. Thereafter, George resided in Florida with his mother until his fifth birthday, at which time he was sent out-of-state to reside with his father. George resided with his father until he was eleven years old, and then returned to live with his mother in Florida. In the summer of 1984, George was abusing alcohol and drugs, and experiencing difficulties in school. At that time, his mother again sent George to live with his father in the apparent hope that he could assist George in addressing these problems. The petitioner secured group counseling for George in an attempt to assist him. George continued, however, to use alcohol and drugs, and within four months, dropped out of school and ran away. Approximately four or five months later, George reappeared and returned to Fort Lauderdale to live with his mother and stepfather. Following his return, George did little of a constructive nature, and what jobs he was able to secure as a tenth grade dropout were menial in nature and of a minimal wage. Variously he worked as a bag boy, mowed lawns, and washed cars. On March 25, 1986, George was unemployed, and had just concluded an argument with his stepfather concerning his unemployment and failure to follow any constructive pursuit. Depressed at his circumstances, George ingested phenobarbital and Dilantin, drugs that had been prescribed for his stepfather, with the intention of taking his own life. But for the medical intervention previously discussed, George's attempt would have proven successful. At the time he ingested the drugs, George was not under the influence of alcohol or any other drug, and was of sufficient age and maturity to appreciate the consequences of his actions. Both the nature of the drugs he took and the vast quantity he ingested indicate an intentional attempt to take his own life rather than an accidental overdose during "recreational" use. Here, the drugs he took were not "recreational" drugs, they produce no "high," and the dosage, as heretofore noted, was massive. Considering these factors, George's admission that he attempted suicide, and the totality of the circumstances, compels the conclusion that he did consciously attempt to take his own life, and that what depression he suffered did not deprive him of the ability to appreciate the consequences of his actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing, with prejudice, the petition for administrative review. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of May 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 16th day of May, 1989.
The Issue The issue to be resolved concerns whether the Petitioner received, and should be compelled to repay, an alleged salary overpayment of $1,306.09.
Findings Of Fact James L. Lowery, the Petitioner, was employed by the Respondent Department, at all times pertinent. The Department employees are paid bi-weekly, with pay warrants being issued eight days after the end of a pay period. This is based on employee timesheets submitted to the Peoples’ First leave and payroll system. The payroll system will issue an employee a paycheck for the full pay period hours, if his or her timesheet is not timely submitted or if no timesheet is submitted (until a correction and re-calculation is done). That is the default posture. An employee is only paid less or a different amount than his regular salary if a timesheet is timely submitted and reflects less than a full-time number of hours of work or leave- time. Upon an employee’s separation from employment, an audit is conducted of his leave and attendance, to ensure that his final pay is correct. During the audit, the Department reviews the employee’s timesheets to determine what leave codes were used. It generates a cumulative pay report to ensure that the employee was paid correctly for each pay period. Upon conclusion of the audit, the Department sends the employee payment for any leave to which he is entitled, or, if it is determined that he was overpaid, the employee is notified of the hours and amount of the overpayment and repayment is demanded. Mr. Lowery was injured and therefore, had to be absent from work on workers’ compensation leave, starting in May of 2008, for approximately six weeks. He recovered from that injury, but did not return to work because his medication regimen for another condition interfered with his work schedule. Mr. Lowery thereupon began to use his accrued sick and annual leave. He exhausted his sick and annual leave by August 2008. He thereupon began using sick leave that he believed had been donated to him from the sick leave pool. Although he believed he was using sick leave pool leave, he actually had received donated sick leave for the period August 8, 2008 through October 30, 2008. The total amount of leave donated to him was 470 hours. Sick leave donations are not a pre-determined amount, but rather the amount an employee can receive depends strictly on how much leave is actually donated to that individual by other employees. Mr. Lowry used all the leave which had been donated to him as of November 14, 2008. Therefore, for the November 14 through November 27, 2008, pay period he had no leave left to his credit, but did not return to work. His timesheets for that pay period show that he was on “Authorized Leave Without Pay.” When the pay warrants were issued for that pay period, the system did not recognize that the Petitioner was on “Authorized Leave Without Pay” and on December 5, 2008, he was paid for 80 hours, in a gross amount of $1,162.00. Since he only had 4.75 hours of sick leave available for that pay period, he was, thus, overpaid for 75.25 hours. Between November 28, 2008, and December 25, 2008, the Petitioner did not work and had no annual, sick or other type of leave to his credit. Nonetheless, a pay warrant was issued to him on January 2, 2009, for payment for 30.75 hours. He was, thus, overpaid for that number of hours. The Petitioner’s timesheet for the period January 9 through January 22, 2009, shows that his hours were coded or entered as follows: 1.50 hours of annual leave, 1.00 hour of sick leave and 77.50 hours of unauthorized leave without pay. Although he had no annual, sick or other leave available to him, a pay warrant was issued to him on January 30, 2009, for the 2.50 hours. He was, thus, overpaid for that amount of hours. The Petitioner did not question the amounts he was paid on December 5, 2008, January 2, 2009, or January 30, 2009, because he believed he was drawing sick leave credit from the sick leave pool and that his timesheets were being taken care of by a supervisor, Otis Ray, in the Tallahassee office. After January 30, 2009, he received no more pay warrants. Upon the Petitioner’s separation from employment, the Respondent conducted the leave audit referenced above, as delineated in the Department of Financial Services’ Payroll Preparation Manual. It was thus determined that the Petitioner had been overpaid for a total of 108.50 hours for the above- referenced pay periods, due to the fact that he had used leave to which he was not entitled and because his timesheet was not timely submitted. In accordance with the Payroll Preparation Manual (in evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit 7), the amount of salary overpaid, and to be repaid, was calculated as follows: $1,013.56 for the warrant issued on December 5, 2008, $267.71 for the warrant issued on January 2, 2009, and $24.82 for the warrant issued on January 30, 2009. When an agency has determined that a salary overpayment has occurred, it is required to follow procedures set forth in the above-referenced manual, to seek repayment. The Respondent followed those procedures in making the calculations relevant in this case. On May 29, 2009, the Respondent notified Petitioner of its position that he owed repayment of $1306.09, the total amount of the three erroneously paid warrants.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Juvenile Justice requiring the Petitioner to repay erroneously paid salary in the amount of $1,306.09, pursuant to a reasonable installment arrangement to be agreed upon by the parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 24th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James L. Lowery, Jr. 3875 Old Cottondale Road Marianna, Florida 32448-492 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue This case was presented upon an administrative complaint filed by the Florida State Board of Nursing against Shirley A. White Cocks, R.N. alleging that she was guilty of unprofessional conduct and was believed by the Board to be in such poor physical or mental health that an undue risk existed that she could cause harm to other persons contrary to the provisions of Section 464.21(1)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes. Prior to commencing hearing the parties stipulated that prior to July, 1977, Ms. Cocks' performance of her professional duties was acceptable. Between September, 1977 and November, 1977, Ms. Cocks was unable to perform her professional duties in a professional manner as outlined in subparagraphs a - i of paragraph one of the administrative complaint. Ms. Cocks' inability to perform these duties is substantiated by the testimony contained in the four depositions which were admitted into evidence. The parties further stipulated to the admission into evidence off the hospital discharge summaries dated July 18 - 22, 1977; July 24 - 27, 1977; and August 3 - 17, 1977 and to the fact that after August 17th and treatment with lithium carbonate she was discharged as being in an improved state. The primary issue presented is whether Ms. Cocks was responsible for her failure to perform her duties in a professional manner and whether at this time her physical and mental health are such that an undue risk is created that she would cause harm to another person.
Findings Of Fact Shirley Cocks is a registered nurse holding license no. 16354-4 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. Shirley Cocks was employed at Hubert Rutland Hospital until November, 1977. Prior to July, 1977, Cocks' professional conduct as a nurse was acceptable or better. Persons familiar with her professional conduct described her as a meticulous nurse who performed her duties in a better than average manner. July, 1977, Cocks suffered an attack of unknown origin that caused her to have blackout spells (Syncope). Cocks was hospitalized in July and August at Hubert Rutland Hospital during which time a complete physical work up was done. No physical abnormalities were discovered which would contribute to the blackout spells which Cocks suffered. During this period, Cocks was observed to have radical shifts in her moods. Because of her condition was tentatively diagnosed by her neurologist as manic depressive illness. She was prescribed lithium carbonate by her neurologist although a psychiatric work up had never been done on her. See discharge summaries. Subsequent to her last hospitalization and while on lithium carbonate maintenance Cocks returned to work at Hubert Rutland Hospital. It was at this time that her coworkers observed that she was unable to perform her nursing duties in a professional manner and was unable to do the tasks required of her as enumerated A in subparagraphs A - I of paragraph one of the complaint. During this period she was observed by the other R.N.s with whom she worked to have slurred speech, disjointed speech, stumbling gait, loss of muscular coordination, and loss of memory. According to Dio Regner, R.N. who was her direct supervisor, Cocks was mentally and physically incompetent after her discharge from the hospital on August 17, 1977. See Regner deposition, page All of the nurses with whom she had worked indicated that Cocks' problems began after she had been hospitalized. Cocks was discharged from her employment at Hubert Rutland Hospital on November 11, 1977. After her discharge from Hubert Rutland Hospital she was employed at Oak Manor Nursing Center. At this time, she discontinued lithium carbonate maintenance and has not taken the drug since that time. The director of nursing and nursing supervisor with whom she works at Oak Manor Nursing Home both testified that Cooks' performance was better than average and that she was able to perform her duties in a professional manner. This is the same observational analysis of Cocks' work made by the nurses who worked with her prior to her illness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Nursing take no action on the administrative complaint against Shirley A. White Cocks. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Michael B. Steeves, Esquire 1249 Rogers Street, Suite 1 Clearwater, Florida 33516 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing Coordinator Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Bldg. B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Shirley Ann Cocks As a Registered Nurse Case No. 78-777 12311 105th Street North License Number 86804-2 Largo, Florida 33540 /
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 464.204(1)(b) and 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.005(1)(h), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Georges was a certified nursing assistant (CNA) within the State of Florida, having been issued license number CNA 139966. On May 10, 2009, Ms. Georges was employed at Valencia Hills Health and Rehabilitation Center (Valencia Hills) in Lakeland, Florida, as a CNA. T.K. is a patient at Valencia Hills and suffers from a muscular disease, which prohibits her from being able to communicate orally. At the final hearing, T.K. appeared to be mentally alert and responded well to the questions being asked of her. She communicates through the use of a word board, which contains letters of the alphabet and numbers. When she wants to communicate, she points to the letters of each of the words she is trying to convey. She can convey affirmative and negative answers with nods and shakes of her head. T.K. is not ambulatory. On May 10, 2009, Ms. Georges worked a double shift at Valencia Hills from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. She was assigned to T.K. for both shifts. Ms. Georges was not regularly assigned to provide care for T.K., and her assignment on May 10, 2009, was only the second time that she had provided care for T.K. Sometime during the day of May 10, 2009, T.K. left the facility and visited with her family. She returned to the facility and went to bed around 10:30 p.m. She was tired, but did not fall asleep immediately. T.K. kept her wallet and her cellular telephone in her purse at the foot of her bed. Around 10:45 p.m. on May 10, 2009, T.K. saw a shadow of a person taking the wallet from T.K.’s purse and placing the wallet inside the waist of the person’s pants. T.K. identified the shadow as Ms. Georges based on Ms. Georges’ hair. T.K. did not report the theft until the following morning when she was brought her breakfast. T.K. did not report the theft earlier because she was tired and wanted to sleep. On the morning of May 11, 2009, T.K. advised Shirley (last name unknown), who was the activities assistant at Valencia Hills, that her wallet had been stolen by Ms. Georges. T.K. told Shirley that there was ten dollars in her wallet. T.K. also told Sherry Harden that her wallet had been taken and the amount of money that was in the wallet. Ms. Harden was a nurse manager at Valencia Hills and was in charge of managing nurses and CNAs. Ms. Harden notified the assistant director of nursing at Valencia Hills and the risk manager. The police were notified that a possible theft had occurred and Officer Christina Barrett was dispatched to Valencia Hills to investigate. Officer Barrett talked to T.K., who identified Ms. Georges as the person who took her wallet. After obtaining Ms. Georges’ telephone number from staff at Valencia Hills, Officer Barrett called Ms. Georges and asked to meet with her. Officer Barrett went to Ms. Georges’ home and told Ms. Georges that T.K. had accused her of taking T.K.’s wallet. Ms. Georges’ first response was not a denial of the allegation, but the following statement: “How can she report that, she cannot even speak?” To Officer Barrett, Ms. Georges appeared that she “was more concerned about [T.K.’s] inability to be able to report this crime versus her [Ms. Georges’] involvement in it.” Ms. Georges returned to Valencia Hills, where Officer Barrett, T.K., Ms. Georges, and staff from Valencia Hills met in a vacant patient’s room to discuss the issue. Ms. Georges became agitated and at one point stated: “I can’t believe that you are going to charge me for ten dollars?” Ms. Georges claims that Officer Barrett had told her the amount of money that was in the wallet. In response to the question at final hearing of whether she had told Ms. Georges the amount of money in the wallet, Officer Barrett replies: “Not that I recall.” There is no reference in Officer Barrett’s report concerning the amount of money that was in the wallet or that she told Ms. Georges the amount. Ms. Harden, who knew the amount of money in the wallet, did not tell Ms. Georges how much was in the wallet. During the interview, Ms. Georges became confrontational with T.K. to the point that the assistant director of nursing had Ms. Georges escorted from the facility. Ms. Georges attempted to reenter the room where the interview was being held and was again escorted from the facility. Ms. Georges’ employment at Valencia Hills was terminated because of her actions during the interview. Ms. Georges told Officer Barrett that she had found T.K.’s cellular telephone and her wallet in a bag with some urine-soaked clothes that T.K. had brought back from her trip home that day. According to Ms. Georges, she put the wallet in the cabinet next to T.K.’s bed. T.K. told Officer Barrett that Ms. Georges did not place the wallet in the cabinet. At the final hearing, T.K. testified that Ms. Georges put the wallet in her pants. Having observed the demeanor of the witnesses, Ms. Georges’ testimony that she put the wallet in the cabinet is not credited. At the final hearing, T.K. was adamant that she saw Ms. Georges take her wallet. T.K. physically pointed to Ms. Georges at the final hearing, identifying her as the culprit. Despite her difficulties in communicating, T.K. did not waiver from her identification of Ms. Georges. T.K.’s testimony is credited that Ms. Georges stole her wallet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ms. Georges violated Subsections 464.204(1)(b) and 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.005; imposing an administrative fine of $250; and placing Ms. Georges on probation for two years under conditions as prescribed by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 May, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the parties' prehearing statement, the testimony of the witness, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent, Michael Joseph Fiorese, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in the State of Florida as a health insurance agent. At all times material to these cases, the Respondent was eligible for licensure and was licensed as a health insurance agent. Respondent's responsibility under the insurance laws extends to persons working under his direct supervision and control. At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, Respondent was employed by the Associated Doctors Health and Life Insurance Company (Associated Doctors) as the manager of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida district office. Associated Doctors utilized a zero balance checking account at Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Premiums paid to Associated Doctors were to be deposited into the Sun Bank account. All findings of fact related to the Associated Doctors Sun Bank account refer only to the zero balance account used to receive premiums paid to the company. Respondent was authorized to remit commissions to agents from the Sun Bank account. The balance of the deposited premium was to be transferred to the Associated Doctors home office in Birmingham, Alabama. The "zero balance" is designated as the ledger amount carried for each policy if transfers are completed as described above. No other use of the Sun Bank account was authorized. On May 12, 1989, Respondent caused a check to be drawn on the Associated Doctors Sun Bank account payable to Michael Fiorese in the amount of $800.00. That check, number 37546 (Department's exhibit 1), was then cashed by the Respondent. That check was not remitted to Respondent as a commission for a policy sold. The basis for the draft is unknown. On June 9, 1989, Respondent caused another check to be drawn on the Associated Doctors Sun Bank account. This check, number 37573 (Department's exhibit 2), was made payable to Michael Fiorese and was in the amount of $289.34. Respondent also cashed this check. Respondent was not entitled to this check as a commission for an insurance policy sold. The basis for the draft is unknown. On June 16, 1989, Respondent drafted a third check on the Associated Doctors Sun Bank account. This check, number 37574 (Department's exhibit 3), was made payable to Michael Fiorese and was in the amount of $156.18. The check was negotiated by Respondent but was not for a commission due him for an insurance policy sold. The basis for the draft is unknown. On June 23, 1989, Respondent received a fourth check drawn on the Associated Doctors Sun Bank account. This check, number 37576 (Department's exhibit 4), was payable to Michael Fiorese in the amount of $323.76. Respondent was not entitled to this check as a commission on an insurance policy sold. The basis for this draft is unknown. As with the other three checks, Respondent cashed this check. Respondent has not provided an accounting of the Associated Doctors Sun Bank account. There is no evidence which would establish that he was entitled to the monies received for any purpose. It can reasonably be inferred that since Respondent was the manager of the Fort Lauderdale office, he was aware of the purpose of the account from which he obtained funds. All expenses incurred by the Fort Lauderdale office (rent, utilities, telephone, etc.) were paid for by Associated Doctors from Birmingham. Further, Respondent's contract with Associated Doctors provided, in part: 4. The Agent shall promptly remit to the Company the full amount of all collections received from the applicant, without right of offset or deduction for any claims for compensations due him/her hereunder, and such monies until so remitted shall be held in trust for the Company. Respondent was terminated from his employment with Associated Doctors on or about June 27, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order suspending the license and the eligibility for licensure of the Respondent for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 7, it is accepted that Respondent was not entitled to the proceeds from the check as a commission for a policy sold. Otherwise, rejected as not supported by the evidence. Whether Respondent was entitled to the funds for some reason not disclosed by this record is unknown. Clearly, Respondent was not entitled to a commission. Paragraphs 8 through 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as not supported by the evidence. See comment in paragraph 2 above. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as not supported by the evidence. See comment in paragraph 2 above. Paragraphs 15 and 16 are accepted. Paragraph 17 is rejected as not supported by the evidence. See comment in paragraph 2 above. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: David D. Hershel Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida Gloria Gross Mercede Citycenter, Suite 315 200 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
