The Issue The issue in this proceeding was whether Respondent violated the Nurse Practice Act, Subsections 464.018(d) and (f), Florida Statutes, by making a false record and by abandoning the care of her patient and thereby departing from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed as a practical nurse with license number 0797251. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1, T-22). Respondent, Sheri Ward, was employed by Bayshore Registry, a private-duty nursing service. (Petitioner's Exhibit #3). On August 3, 1985, Ms. Ward was assigned to Villa Maria Nursing Center, Bon Secours Hospital in Miami, to fill in for the regular LPN who was on leave. (T-26) Her only assigned patient was Estelle Crocoll. (T-10) The patient needed continual care because she remained either comatose or semi-conscious and had to be fed by a tube. She had to be watched to ensure that she didn't regurgitate the feeding. She also had bed sores and muscle contractures and had to be turned every couple of hours. (T-11, 26-28) When she checked in for her shift around 7:00 a.m., Ms. Ward learned that Cleo Bell, the nurse in charge of the unit, was the one who would sign her time sheet. She asked Ms. Bell if she could get off a little early, like around 2:00 p.m. Ms. Bell said okay and asked that she be notified when she (Ms. Ward) left. Ms. Ward's shift was supposed to end at 3:00 p.m. that day. (T-10, 42) Ms. Bell checked on the patient at 11:00 a.m. and around 12 noon but did not see Ms. Ward. (T-l1) Helen Bushey, R.N. is the head nurse on the wing where Ms. Ward was working on August 3, 1985. (T-23) She has thirty years of nursing experience and at the hearing was qualified as an expert to testify regarding nursing standards. (T-24, 26) Among her other duties, Ms. Bushey makes the rounds to check on the patients and to introduce herself to any new private duty nurse assigned to a patient. (T-29) On August 3, 1985, Ms. Bushey checked Estelle Crocoll's room at 8:30 a.m., between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m., and again around 12 noon, but at no time saw Sheri Ward. (T-29, 30) Ms. Ward failed to answer a page and members of the staff told Ms. Bushey they could not recall seeing her after 11:00 a.m. (T-31, 33) Ms. Bushey reviewed the notes on the patient's chart around 1:45 p.m., and found that notations for 3:00 p.m. had been written up already. (Petitioner's Exhibit #3, T-31) She notified Ms. Ward's employer and Ms. Ward was barred from practicing at Villa Marie. (Petitioner's Exhibit #3, T-32) Ms. Ward claimed that she left the patient's room only to help another nurse ("Virginia") move a patient and to get the nurse to come help her move Estelle Crocoll. (T-44) She claimed that the chair in which she sat was obscured from view by a person entering the room. (T-44) She admitted that she left the job no later than 1:25 p.m., and since she could not find Ms. Bell she told "Virginia" to tell Ms. Bell she was leaving. (T-51, 52) Sheri Ward also admitted that she pre-entered notes for 3:00 p.m., having learned that "little bad habit" (her characterization) from working and training in a county hospital where ". . . you are really pressed for time." (T-46, 53) The reason she left early was to go to a wedding. (T-13, 48) It is unnecessary to determine Ms. Ward's whereabouts during the day or the exact time she left her duty; clearly, by her own admissions, Sheri Ward falsified her patient's record and abandoned the care of that patient without proper notification. Ordinary common sense would conclude that, given the uncontroverted circumstances, these actions constitute extremely bad judgement. Competent expert opinion concluded that these actions constitute a departure from minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice. (T-36)
The Issue Whether Mr. Ross' license as a practical nurse in the State of Florida should be issued conditioned on a 1 year period of probation?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ross applied for licensure by examination as a licensed practical nurse in 1986. By Order dated January 13, 1987, the Board denied Mr. Ross' application. The Board denied the application based upon its conclusion that Mr. Ross was guilty of violating Section 464.018(1)(c) and (h), Florida Statutes. In its Order of January 13, 1987, the Board indicated that it would reconsider Mr. Ross' application in 6 months, upon the request of Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross requested an informal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, to contest the Board's Order of January 13, 1987. The informal hearing was held on February 5, 1987. At the request of the Board, Mr. Ross submitted a psychological evaluation conducted by Philip R. Yates, Ph.D. Mr. Ross also submitted an additional psychological evaluation conducted by A. de la Torre, M.D. Based upon the Board's review of the evaluations performed by Dr. Yates and Dr. de la Torre, the Board again concluded that Mr. Ross was guilty of violating Section 464.018(c) and (h), Florida Statutes. The Board, therefore, denied Mr. Ross' application. The Board agreed, however, that it would reconsider Mr. Ross' application upon submission of a satisfactory third evaluation by a Board-certified psychiatrist specializing in psychosexual counseling. The person selected to perform the third evaluation was to review the previous evaluations of Dr. Yates and Dr. de la Torre. In order for the Board to reconsider its denial of Mr. Ross' application, the Board indicated that the third evaluation would have to resolve the conflicts between the first two evaluations and include a recommendation that Mr. Ross is able to engage in the safe practice of nursing. Mr. Ross submitted a third evaluation. The evaluation was conducted by William M. Hunt, III, M.D. Following the submission of the third evaluation, the Board issued an Order dated May 18, 1987. Paragraph 3 of the May 18, 1987, Order provides the following: 3. Applicant has submitted a satisfactory third psychological evaluation which reflects that the evaluating psychiatrist had reviewed the previous reports, which resolves the conflicts between the two previous evaluations, and which includes a recommendation that the Applicant is able to engage in the safe practice of nursing. Based in part on the evaluation of Dr. Hunt, the Board concluded that Mr. Ross' application should be approved. Because of the Board's conclusion that Mr. Ross was guilty of violating Section 464.018(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the Board concluded that "a period of probation is necessary to protect the public..." The terms of Mr. Ross' probation included requirements that Mr. Ross not violate any law, or rule or order of the Board, that he submit written reports to the Board quarterly, that he report any change in residence address, name, employer or place of employment or arrest and that he cause reports to be furnished to the Board by his employer. The period of probation was 1 year. The Board's conclusion that Mr. Ross is guilty of violating Section 464.018(c), Florida Statutes, is based upon Mr. Ross' conviction of exhibition of sexual organs in 1978 and his conviction of an unnatural and lascivious act in 1979. On December 7, 1978, Mr. Ross plead guilty to exhibition of sexual organs in violation of Section 800.03, Florida Statutes. He was found guilty of the offense and fined approximately $117.00. On December 31, 1979, Mr. Ross plead nolo contendere to an unnatural and lascivious act in violation of Section 800.02, Florida Statutes. He was found guilty of the offense and sentenced to thirty days in the Duval County Jail. His sentence was suspended and he was ordered to pay court costs. Mr. Ross was 18 or 19 years of age at the time of his offenses in 1978 and 1979. Mr. Ross was 27 years of age at the time of the formal hearing of this case. Mr. Ross is currently employed as a licensed practical nurse by Kimberly Nurses. Mr. Ross was employed by Kimberly Nurses as a nursing assistant prior to his licensure. Mr. Ross has not experienced any difficulty in his employment as a result of the conditions of probation imposed by the Board. Although Mr. Ross has not sought employment elsewhere, he has not done so because of his concern with the conditions of his licensure. He would like to seek a more permanent position but will not do so until this proceeding is concluded. Mr. Ross' convictions arose as a result of his sexual preference. Mr. Ross is "gay" and at the time of his convictions he frequented public places as a way of meeting others of his sexual persuasion. Although Mr. Ross realizes that he violated the law and accepts the fact that he will always be gay, he has abandoned the "gay life style" of his younger years. The evaluation of Mr. Ross performed by Dr. Hunt resolved the conflicts between the report of Dr. Yates and Dr. de la Torre. Dr. Hunt made the following observations, among others, about Mr. Ross: The evaluation provided no evidence that would indicate that Mr. Ross suffers from any diagnosable mental disorder, according to DSM III criteria. The activities in 1978 and 1979 can best be seen as involving an identity disturbance of late adolescence, a very common condition. Since that time Mr. Ross's history, corroborated with clinical interview, provides evidence of significant personality maturing since that time, and no indications of a pattern of aberrant behavior overtime [sic] that would warrant a diagnosis of a passive-aggressive personality disorder or any other personality disorder. Mr. Ross's approach to the entire licensure process, including his approach and manner during my interview all suggested a fairly high level of personality organization and integration, in spite of his sexual preferences. There is no history, at least in the past seven years, that would indicate any increased probability that Mr. Ross's performance as a nurse would not be in the best interests of the nursing profession nor the patients he serves. Although Dr. Yates's report makes reference to some concerns about his ability to modulate his anger and avoid acting out in problematic, passive- aggressive way [sic], as well as some statements regarding unresolved psychosexual issues, it should be noted that the statements were in the context of the understanding by Dr. Yates at that point of what was meant by having abandoning [sic] life style. In the context of my current evaluation this information was finally judged by me to be similar to a false positive laboratory test. In summary, after what I determined to be an adequate evaluation, I recommend that the applicant, Mr. Ross, is able to engage in the safe practice of nursing and that the board favorably consider his application for licensure in nursing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a license as a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida be issued to Samuel D. Ross without restriction. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of February, 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 5th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3123 The Board 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 Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-3. 2 4-6 and 12-13. 3 7. 4 9-10. 5 12. 6 13. 7 5-9. 8 10 and 15. 9 16. COPIES Samuel FURNISHED: D. Ross 2583 Minosa Circle North Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Susan Tully Proctor Assistant Attorney General Board of Nursing Suite 1602 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Judie Ritter Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 111 East Coastline Drive Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Ferman Barrett committed unprofessional conduct and departed from minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice, in violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes by abandoning his shift.
Findings Of Fact At all times material Ferman Barrett was licensed as a practical nurse, with State of Florida license number PN0628671. He was originally licensed by examination on December 14, 1981, and has regularly renewed' his license since then. Mr. Barrett was employed as a practical nurse at Westlake Hospital, in Longwood, Florida, from July 1987 until January 1988. Westlake is a psychiatric hospital serving individuals of all ages with complex psychiatric problems. On January 2, 1988, Mr. Barrett was assigned to the children's unit, consisting of 12-13 children with conduct disorders. He was given charge of three patients whose medication he was to maintain and whose activities he was to supervise. The children could have been combative and [illegible]. Barrett was scheduled to work a double shift on January 2, 1988 from 7:00 A.M. until 3:00 P.M., and from 3:00 P.M. until 11:00 P.M. At approximately 8:05 A.M., Barrett told Denise McCall, the charge nurse for that shift, that he "couldn't take it anymore" and was leaving. She asked him to wait until she could contact a supervisor to properly relieve him, but he left without permission. He was subsequently discharged by the hospital for abandoning his job. Diana Eftoda was qualified as an expert in the practice of nursing. She has been licensed as a registered nurse in Florida since 1978. She has 20 years experience in nursing, including beginning her nursing career as a licensed practical nurse. She has administered nursing staff of an entire hospital and has served in a policy making position with the Board of Nursing. Mrs. Eftoda established that abandonment of a shift without notice or permission is a breach of professional responsibility and constitutes misconduct. Ferman Barrett's action jeopardized the safety and well being of his patients and his license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Betty Jean Dempsey Hatton, L. P. N., holds License No. 29095-1. She was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Riverside Convalescent Center in Jacksonville, Florida, during the month of January, 1979. An Administrative Complaint was issued against Respondent Hatton on April 20, 1979, alleging that she was guilty of unprofessional conduct. The Respondent requested an administrative hearing. On or about January 27, 1979, Respondent Hatton had become unhappy with her work at the convalescent center and had decided to resign. She was requested to work 11:00 o'clock p.m. to 7:00 o'clock a.m. shift beginning the night of January 27, 1979. The Respondent agreed to work that shift, although she informed Eleanor L. Hennessey, the evening supervisor, that she intended to resign. The Respondent had not submitted a written resignation at that time. Ms. Hennessey finished her work at 11:00 o'clock p.m. and expected the Respondent to begin work at that time pursuant to her work schedule and pursuant to her agreement. The Respondent did in fact report to work at the convalescent center as agreed on the night of January 27, 1979. Fiona M. Morris, R. N., the Director of Nursing at Riverside Convalescent Center, was notified by Ms. Hennessey that Respondent Hatton had quit work, but Ms. Morris did not receive either an oral or a written resignation from the Respondent. Introduced into evidence was a copy of an official time and signature sheet for the month of January, 1979, for the employee, Respondent Hatton. The Respondent signed in for work on the night of January 27, 1979, at 10:45 o'clock p.m. and signed out at 4:00 o'clock a.m. January 28, 1979. The Respondent had previously agreed by conversation with Ms. Hennessey that evening to work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift for which she had been employed and from which she had not resigned. Respondent Hatton in fact did not work all of said shift, leaving some three (3) hours early. She left without informing her supervisor, Ms. Hennessey, and left her floor unattended. In mitigation of leaving her night shift early, Respondent Hatton contended that she told someone on the floor she was leaving, and that she had injured herself the day before and was suffering pain from her back. The Respondent also said she had informed several people that she was resigning as of January 27, 1979. Neither party submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law or proposed recommended orders.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner Board reprimand the Respondent, Betty Jean Dempsey Hatton. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Betty Jean Dempsey Hatton 8201 Styers Court Jacksonville, Florida 32221 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Board of Nursing Ill Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ann Claycomb (Claycomb), was at all times material hereto a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 39853-1. On December 24, 1987, Claycomb was employed as an agency nurse by Alpha Health Care, Inc., and was on assignment to Health South Rehabilitation, a skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility in Miami, Florida. While at the facility on that date, Claycomb worked the morning shift 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and was assigned to the skilled nursing floor. The skilled nursing floor contained 20-25 elderly, though mostly alert patients. At the commencement of Claycomb's shift, it was her responsibility to administer medications to these patients which conformed with that prescribed by their medication administration record (MAR). Shortly after Claycomb began her rounds, Elaine Wood, the Unit Manager at Health South Rehabilitation, began to receive complaints from patients for what they perceived to be errors in the medicinal drugs administered or attempted to be administered to them by Claycomb. Upon investigation, the following medication errors were discovered. Claycomb administered what she believed to be two Tylenol tablets to patient H.B. Following administration, the patient became lethargic and her vital signs deteriorated but later returned to normal. Lethargy is not a side effect of Tylenol. Although the MAR prescribed two Slow K tablets at 9:00 a.m., and Lilbrax as needed, Claycomb recorded having administered one Slow K tablet and Atarax to patient H.R. Claycomb dispensed Atarax to patient A.J. at 9:00 a.m. when the MAR prescribed dose to be given at 1:00 p.m. Patient refused medication because given at the wrong time. In committing the foregoing medication errors Claycomb's practice fell below the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice in the administration of medicinal drugs. Verification of other complaints received by Ms. Wood could not be verified because, contrary to accepted and prevailing nursing practice, Claycomb did not annotate some patients' MAR upon dispensing medications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending the license of respondent, Ann Claycomb, until such time as she submits proof satisfactory to the Board of Nursing that she can practice nursing safely. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of December, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 27th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3603 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-4. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. 5 & 6. Addressed in paragraphs 46. Addressed in paragraph 4c. Subordinate or not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. To the extent supported by competent proof addressed in paragraph 4. Proposed findings 11a and 11d are based on hearsay which does not supplement or explain any competent proof. 12-15. Not pertinent nor necessary to result reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Ms. Ann Claycomb 4175 South West 98th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165 Lawrence M. Shoot, Esquire 6011 West 16th Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33012 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner, Joyce Lovasz, was employed as a nurse by Respondent, Boca Raton Community Hospital (Hospital). In 1987, after a medical leave of absence, the Hospital decided not to place Petitioner in the position she held prior to her leave. Petitioner was originally hired by the Respondent in 1970 as a staff nurse. She was promoted to a charge nurse position and then to supervisor of the home health unit. In 1974, she left the Hospital for a position at another hospital. Then, in 1979, Petitioner was asked to return to the Hospital by Tracy Reichert, then, the Director of Nursing Services Administration. Petitioner was selected as head nurse of the I.V. therapy team and began this service on February 12, 1979. In the summer of 1983, Ms. Reichert became aware that there was a significant amount of dissension within the I.V. team and considerable unhappiness on the part of the employees working under Petitioner's supervision with respect to their management by Petitioner. Also, beginning in the summer of 1983, members of the I.V. team met with Terrance Braun, the Hospital's Personnel Director, and discussed their problematic treatment by Petitioner. Their concerns continued, however. Around the same time, some of the I.V. team's members consulted Donna Hearn, who was, then, in charge of the Hospital's Employee Assistance Program. The team members sought Ms. Hearn's counsel because of their concern for Petitioner's well-being, as well as a concern for themselves and their job security. At the meeting with Ms. Hearn, the I.V. team members disclosed behavior of Petitioner which could be characterized as unprofessional. They also talked of Petitioner's favorable actions toward some members of the team. Petitioner's behavior was splitting the team and causing great dissension within it. Some of the Petitioner's actions which caused concern included Petitioner's tape recording of conversations with employees, maintaining a hidden tape recorder in her drawer, taking unexplained absences from the Hospital during scheduled work time, making abrupt scheduling changes, announcing changes in procedures in the middle of doing an I.V. application, and writing different memos to the favored and disfavored factions of the I.V. team concerning the same subject, including constructive memos to the favored team and curt, nonconstructive memos to the disfavored group. The problems persisted, and members of the I.V. team continued to seek counsel from Ms. Hearn throughout the remainder of 1983, and all of 1984 and 1985. Ms. Hearn, who was trained as a counselor, was convinced of the truthfulness of the reports she was receiving from the I.V. team members. As a result of her meetings with the I.V. team, Ms. Hearn discussed the Petitioner's behavior towards I.V. team members with Mr. Braun and Ms. Reichert. Ms. Reichert disclosed to Ms. Hearn that she had concerns about Petitioner's management style and that she would talk to Petitioner. During this period, Ms. Reichert began a dialogue with Petitioner about her management style and problems in supervising the I.V. team. At Ms. Reichert's encouragement, Petitioner visited with Ms. Hearn but was not willing to discuss topics that related to her management of the team. Ms. Reichert had numerous other discussions with Petitioner concerning their difference of opinion on Petitioner's management of her employees and the continuing dissension within the I.V. team. Petitioner grew increasingly critical of Ms. Reichert in front of I.V. team members and was frequently critical of nursing administration in general. In the summer of 1985, Ms. Reichert and Petitioner engaged in a lengthy conversation relating to Petitioner's management of her team. Petitioner asked Reichert if she wanted her to vacate the I.V. head nurse position. Reichert declined on the condition that Petitioner change her management style of supervising the unit. As a result of this meeting, Ms. Reichert decided to assign Ann Capron, Assistant Director of Nursing, to be the immediate supervisor of Petitioner to see if she could influence Petitioner to change her management style and alleviate the problems in the I.V. team. At that point, Ms. Reichert decided to give Ms. Capron six months to work with Petitioner closely and if the problems did not resolve, Ms. Reichert would recommend the termination of Petitioner. The problems continued, however. Ms. Reichert communicated her decision to terminate Petitioner to Normand Guilbault, then Vice President of the Hospital, Mr. Braun and Ms. Capron. However, before action could be taken to implement her decision to terminate Petitioner, Petitioner was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and in February, 1986, she went on a medical leave of absence which was to last for nearly one year. During her leave of absence, Petitioner was replaced by Trish Hawkins, who had been her unofficial assistant. Under Ms. Hawkins's supervision, the problems which had persisted in the I.V. team for several years disappeared. Ms. Reichert determined that this was due to the absence of Petitioner and to the leadership of Hawkins. Petitioner was eligible for the Hospital's "30, 90, 365 day" leave of absence policy which provided that an employee is guaranteed the same job during the first 30 days of a leave of absence. After the first 30 days and prior to 90 days of a leave of absence, an employee is guaranteed a position with the Hospital at the same rate of pay. If an employee has been employed by the Hospital more than three years, the employee is eligible for long term disability benefits. These benefits guarantee the employee a position with the Hospital even after 90 days of leave of absence up to one year after the start of the leave but not necessarily at the same rate of pay. The Hospital's policy manual contains a second policy which relates to leaves of absence and which supplements the "30, 90, 365 day" policy and which Petitioner argues is somewhat inconsistent. The second policy states that the Hospital reserves the right to fill a vacancy created by a leave of absence but will make every effort to place an employee in a same or comparable position when he or she is able to return to work. The Hospital's experience in applying these policies to employees in comparable supervisory or management positions to Petitioner has been uniformly to bring those comparable employees, including Petitioner, back to a position in the Hospital other than the one they held prior to a leave of absence. Of the supervisory employees who have been on a leave of absence of more than 90 days, none has returned to the same position. This policy has been applied to employees with nonmedical leaves of absences as well as medical leaves. The Hospital has had numerous employees other than Petitioner take medical leaves of absence due to cancer conditions and return successfully from those leaves of absence to a position with the Hospital. At least one such person left the Hospital and came back to a higher position after a bout with cancer. Around January, 1987 and prior to the end of 365 days after her leave of absence began, Petitioner informed Ms. Reichert that she was released by her doctor, recovered from her cancer condition, was healthy and ready to return to work. However, the previous November, after consultation with Mr. Braun, Ms. Reichert had decided not to return Petitioner to the head nurse position of the I.V. team because of Petitioner's lack of success in managing the team. Instead, she decided to retain Ms. Hawkins on a permanent basis. Ms. Reichert did not make Ms. Hawkins appointment permanent until after Petitioner returned from her leave nor did Ms. Reichert tell Petitioner about her decision. Ms. Reichert felt that the announcement might cause a set back in Petitioner's recuperation. Ms. Reichert did tell Mr. Braun and Mr. Guilbault, however. Then, on January 19, 1987, Petitioner met with Ms. Reichert at the Hospital. They chatted for a while about the changes at the Hospital, but Ms. Reichert did not tell Petitioner about her decision not to return her to the I.V. team. She told Petitioner to show up ready for work in her lab coat on January 22, 1987, which Petitioner did. Ms. Reichert was convinced that Petitioner had fully recovered from her condition and was not suffering from a disability of any kind. Petitioner herself was convinced that she was fully recovered from her condition and was not suffering from any disability. On January 22, 1987, Ms. Reichert told Petitioner that she decided to replace her as head nurse because of her poor performance as manager which they had discussed on numerous occasions before Petitioner went out on her leave of absence. Instead, Ms. Reichert, being aware of the hospital's policy, offered Petitioner a staff nurse job at the same rate of pay as the head nurse position. Although a staff nurse is essential to patient care, appointment to a staff nurse position after having held a head nurse position was considered a demotion by Mr. Braun. Petitioner refused the position and met with Mr. Braun, who reviewed with her potential positions which the Petitioner was qualified to fill. Mr. Braun located three potential positions. Although the first two positions did not work out because of budget problems, Mr. Braun was acting in good faith in attempting to find a position for Petitioner. The third of the three options proposed by Mr. Braun, a home health I.V. position, showed more promise to Petitioner. Petitioner was asked to do a feasibility study on I.V. therapy as part of the home health agency. She began the study sometime in February, 1987 and worked on it for approximately two and one-half months until April, 1987. Numerous problems arose during the course of this feasibility study. In April, 1987, the Hospital determined that a home health I.V. therapy function was not economically feasible and decided not to pursue that matter further. At that point, the Hospital's top administrative staff and Mr. Braun met and made good faith review of all potential available positions for Petitioner. They were unable to locate a position for which the Petitioner was qualified other than a staff nurse position, for which there were numerous openings. Petitioner was re-offered a staff nurse position at her head nurse salary, even though under the Hospital policy, the Hospital was not required to continue to pay Petitioner her head nurse salary since she had been absent more than 90 days. Petitioner was also offered an orientation period and training to reacquaint her with floor nursing since she had been an administrative nurse for several years. Petitioner was unhappy with this offer. For the first time since she had been back to work, she complained of tingling and numbness in her hands as an excuse not to take the staff nurse position. Mr. Braun asked Petitioner for a doctor's report that she was capable of coming to work full-time, which she had obtained without any difficulty. Also, at the time that Ms. Reichert hired Petitioner in 1979, she was aware that Petitioner had suffered with back problems and had undergone one or more Pap smears. However, the proof failed to demonstrate any connection between these suggestions of problematic health and the employment decisions made by the Hospital concerning Petitioner. Consequently, the offer of a staff nurse position was renewed. The Petitioner declined the offer and declined to report to work on instructions from her attorney. Petitioner voluntarily left her employment at the Hospital. During the first years of her employment, Petitioner had received satisfactory to exemplary performance evaluations. Then, during her final full year, the year prior to her leave of absence, Petitioner received a less than satisfactory evaluation. However, the evaluation system at the hospital had changed during that time. The Hospital's evaluation system had undergone criticism because the assessments were too high and did not properly reflect an employee's performance. A new system was implemented. The system became more criteria based and resulted in lower evaluations throughout the Hospital. It was under this new system that Ms. Capron assessed Petitioner's performance during 1985, her last full year of employment. Unfortunately, due to Petitioner's illness and leave of absence, her evaluation for 1985 was not delivered to her or formalized until she returned from her illness in 1987. No credible evidence was offered at the hearing which suggested that Petitioner suffered from a handicap at the time the Hospital made the decision not to return her to the head nurse position in the I.V. therapy team. In fact, the decision was based on Petitioner's poor performance as a manager of the I.V. team.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Human Rights Commission issue a Final Order that Petitioner has failed to establish that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of handicap in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of April, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 27th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, IN CASE NO. 89-4386 The following represents the rulings of the undersigned on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The rulings are listed by paragraph within the proposed findings of fact. PETITIONER Adopted in findings 2 and 25. Adopted in findings 2 and 25. Adopted, in relevant part, in findings 11, 17 and 23. Adopted in finding 13. Adopted, in part, in findings 14 and 18; in part, rejected as conclusion of law. Adopted in finding 20. Adopted, in part, in findings 15 and 16; in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted, in relevant part, in finding 25. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in finding 25. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence, RESPONDENT Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted in finding 2. Adopted in finding 23. Adopted in finding 3. Adopted in finding 4, Adopted in finding 5. Adopted, in relevant part, in finding 6. Adopted, in relevant part, in finding 6. Adopted in finding 7. Adopted in finding 8. Adopted in finding 9. Adopted, in part, in finding 9. Adopted, in part, in finding 9. Adopted in finding 10. Adopted in finding 10. Adopted in finding 11. Adopted in finding 12. Adopted in finding 12. Adopted in finding 13. Adopted in finding 14. Adopted in finding 15. Adopted in finding 16. Adopted in finding 17. Adopted in finding 18. Adopted in finding 18. Adopted in relevant part in finding 20. Adopted in relevant part in finding 19. Adopted in finding 21. Adopted, in part, in finding 21; in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in finding 21. Adopted in finding 22. Adopted in finding 22. Adopted in finding 22. Adopted in finding 23. Adopted in finding 24. COPIES FURNISHED: Glen J. Torcivia, Esquire One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1404 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Michael D. Malfitano, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison Kelly P.O. Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Respondent, Kimberly Bauzon, L.P.N., is a licensed practical nurse in the state of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0803361. Respondent has been so licensed at all times material to the allegations in the complaint. Between the dates of October 25, 1985, and December 2, 1985, the Respondent was employed as an LPN by the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach. On various occasions during her employment as an LPN at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, Respondent charted vital signs for patients that she had not, in fact, taken. On or about November 21, 1985, while employed as an LPN on duty at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, without authority or authorization, Respondent left her unit within the Care Unit for at least thirty (30) minutes. During that period of at least thirty (30) minutes on November 21, 1985, during which Respondent was out of her unit, there was no nurse present in the unit to take care of patient needs. Also on or about November 21, 1985, while on duty at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, Respondent was asleep for a period of at least two (2) hours. On one occasion during Respondent's employment at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, Respondent pulled a male adolescent by the waistband at the front of his trousers in the course of directing the patient to provide a urine specimen. The manner in which Respondent pulled on the patient's clothing was inappropriate and unprofessional. It is unprofessional conduct and a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for an LPN to be asleep while on duty. It is unprofessional conduct and a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for an LPN to chart vital signs which she has not, in fact, taken. It is unprofessional conduct and a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for an LPN to leave her unit for a period of thirty (30) minutes in the absence of a replacement nurse.
Recommendation In view of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order in this case finding the Respondent guilty of one incident of violation of Section 464.018(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and four incidents of violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes. And in view of the provisions of Rule 210-10.05(4)(d), Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing impose a penalty consisting of a letter of reprimand and further consisting of a requirement that Respondent attend required specific continuing education courses, with an emphasis on the legal responsibilities of a nurse to the patients under her care. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of March, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. M. M. PARRISH 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 19th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Bassett, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kimberly Bauzon, LPN 2968 Songbird Trail Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Kimberly Bauzon, LPN 216B Seagate Avenue, #B Neptune Beach, Florida 32233 Joe Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0695621. Before 1987, the Respondent practiced nursing for approximately 30 years, including some time for the United States Marine Corps, without any occasion for license discipline. During 1987, through August 2,1987, the Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Haines City Health Care Center. During 1987, the Respondent's performance at work at the nursing home was adversely affected by situational depression caused in part by the pain probably caused by an arthritic condition that involved the temporomandibular joint and in part by a reaction to the medication prescribed to alleviate the pain On many occasions while the Respondent was working at the Haines City Health Care Center in 1987, the Respondent experienced dramatic mood changes.. She would act normal, even very happy, one minute, and become very depressed, even crying, the next. In February, 1987, the Respondent signed the medication administration record indicating that she had performed a dressing change on a patient when she in fact had not performed the dressing change. On July 31, 1987, the Respondent charted in the medication administration record the administration of procardia to a patient when she in fact had not administered the medication. On August 2, 1987, the Respondent had the assignment, among other things, to clean out some medicine carts. She accumulated 14 assorted pills but could not dispose of them because another nurse was required to be there to verify the proper disposition of the pills. She put the pills in a souffle cup and covered them with a plastic cup, planning to dispose of them properly when another nurse was available to watch her. Time went by, and the Respondent got busy doing other things, and she forgot to dispose of the pills. She did not realize her error until she got home after her shift was over. She telephoned to ask the nurse on the next shift to dispose of the pills in the presence of another nurse. She also asked the nurse not to report her error to their supervisor. The incidents described in Findings 4 through 6, above, constitute unprofessional conduct which departs from, or fails to conform to , the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. There was no evidence that any of the incidents described in Findings 3 through 6, above, resulted in any physical harm or injury to a patient (although failure to administer prescribed procardia could have endangered the health of the patient under some circumstances.) Thinking that the Respondent's performance deficiencies and mood changes may have been evidence of a chemical dependency of some kind, the staff at the Haines City Health Care Center recommended that the Respondent submit to an evaluation and treatment, if necessary, by the Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN). The Respondent agreed and enrolled on September 23, 1987. Testing convinced the professional working for the IPN that the Respondent had no chemical dependencies but indicated to them that she may benefit from psychiatric evaluation and treatment for depression. The Respondent considered some of the suggestion to be cost-prohibitive for her means, but she did see visit her medical doctor, who prescribed an antidepressant. Her doctor advised her to discontinue the medication when the Respondent noticed undesirable side- effects. By not completing the recommended psychiatric evaluation and treatment and not filing required status reports, the Respondent did not comply with the requirements of the IPN, and was dismissed from the program without having completed it. When the Respondent returned to the Haines City Health Care Center, she was not given back her job. She then sought and was given employment as an LPN at another facility, the Ridge Convalescent Center, Inc., and has been a satisfactory employee from February 15, 1988, through the date of the final hearing, December 9, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusion Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding the Respondent, Gloria A. Williams, guilty of three separate violations of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1987), and placing her on probation for one year conditioned on her submission for reevaluation of her mental and emotional stability by a psychiatrist or psychologist approved by the IPN, on her completion of any recommended follow-up treatment, and on her submission of quarterly progress reports while on probation. RECOMMENDED this 13 day of January, Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 13 day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-4411 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Accepted and incorporated. Rejected, but only because the Respondent's employment at Ridge Convalescent Center, In., between February 15 and at least December 9, 1988, is relevant to the alleged violation of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1987); otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 3.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary and not subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Gloria A. Williams 2900 Powerline Road, Lot 88 Haines City, Florida 33844 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
