The Issue Whether the disciplinary action taken against Arthur Ray Campbell was for good cause.
Findings Of Fact Arthur Ray Campbell is a Career Service Employee of the State of Florida employed by the Division of Law Enforcement, Department of Natural Resources. He was suspended for a period of eleven (11) working days for using the blue light on a Marine Patrol vehicle to run a red traffic signal in Cross City. Campbell filed a timely appeal of his suspension with the Career Service Commission. On February 10, 1976, the Florida Marine Patrol was ordered by the Office of the Governor of the State of Florida to provide personnel for a special assignment in Pensacola, Florida. These personnel were to assist local law enforcement authorities in controlling a civil disturbance in that city which had resulted from racial tensions in one of the high schools. Pursuant to those orders, Lieutenant Colonel J. J. Brown of the Florida Marine Patrol directed Major Louis Shelfer, the staff officer in charge of the Marine Patrol Emergency Squad, to notify the District Offices of the Florida Marine Patrol to dispatch Marine Patrol Emergency Squad personnel to Pensacola. Major Shelfer was ordered by Colonel Brown to make certain that all supportive personnel understood that in their movement to Pensacola blue lights and sirens would not be used. Colonel Brown further instructed Major Shelfer to advise the various district offices that personnel were to move as quickly as possible to Pensacola and that he wanted the Emergency Squad in Pensacola the morning of February 11, 1976. Just prior to 5:00 p.m. on February 10, 1976 Major Louis Shelfer called each of the district offices from which Emergency Squad personnel were being dispatched to Pensacola and advised the officer in charge or the dispatcher that the personnel on the Emergency Squad, who were already on standby for movement, were to be dispatched to Pensacola. Major Shelfer further directed that these personnel were to move to Pensacola as soon as possible but were not to run blue lights or sirens. He further advised that there was no emergency existing in Pensacola at the time. Major Shelfer did not give a time by which personnel would report in Pensacola. It was, however, the understanding of Colonel Brown and Major Shelfer that all personnel would be in Pensacola by 6:00 a.m. on February 11, 1976. In District 7, Major Shelfer spoke with Mrs. Patricia Morgan, secretary/dispatcher. Mrs. Patricia Morgan, who is also the wife of Captain H. C. Morgan, Jr., the District Supervisor of District Seven, received Major Shelfer's first alert call for the movement of the Emergency Squad personnel of District 7 to Pensacola at 4:45 p.m. on February 10, 1976. Shortly thereafter, she received the second call from Major Shelfer directing that the Emergency Squad personnel would proceed to Pensacola. Upon receiving the second call Mrs. Morgan contacted Officers Malcolm and Johnson on the communications radio and advised them that they were to proceed to Pensacola as quickly as possible but not "1018" by which she meant it was not an emergency. Mrs. Morgan further instructed these Marine Patrol Officers not to run red lights while proceeding to Pensacola. She specifically instructed Officer Malcolm that he would pick up Officer Campbell who would ride with him to Pensacola. While Officer Malcolm remembered Mrs. Morgan's reference to red lights, neither Officer Malcolm nor Officer Schumaker, who monitored their conversations, remembered any information passed on by Mrs. Morgan that the trip was not a "1018" run or not an emergency run. Mrs. Morgan was initially unable to contact Officer Campbell by radio and therefore called Officer Campbell's home and spoke with his wife giving her the information that she had given Officers Malcolm and Johnson. However, while speaking with Officer Campbell's wife, Officer Campbell called District 7 on his radio and asked Mrs. Morgan if she had any information for him. She advised Officer Campbell at that time that he would be going to Pensacola and would ride with Officer Malcolm. Mrs. Morgan did not remember giving Officer Campbell any information on the use of lights during the trip, but said that she did remember telling him it was not a "1018" run. Officer Campbell states that the information he received ordered him to return to his home and get ready to be picked up by Officer Campbell and that the information he needed had been passed on to his wife and Officer Malcolm. At approximately 7:30 p.m. on February 10, 1976, having secured from Water Patrol, gone to his home and packed, picked up Officer Campbell at his home, Officer Malcolm left Daytona for Pensacola. Officer Malcolm drove to Ocala using blue lights, where the men purchased hamburgers for their meal. Officer Malcolm ate while Officer Campbell continued to drive and the two officers changed over when they stopped to get gasoline. Officer Campbell then drove from the vicinity of Ocala to Cross City. As they approached Cross City, Officer Malcolm advised Officer Campbell to turn on the blue light because they were slightly over the local speed limit entering Cross City. As they approached the second traffic light in town which was red, Officer Campbell stopped or came almost to a complete stop at the light. As he started to proceed forward, having made certain the intersection was clear, the traffic light turned green. Malcolm and Campbell continued on through Cross City using the blue light until they reached the open highway on the north side of the city. Officer Malcolm's car does not have a siren but is equipped with blue light only. On the evening of February 10, 1976 Trooper J. R. Touchton was proceeding south on U.S. 19 in Cross City at approximately 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. He observed a northbound automobile, which shortly after he initially saw it, turn on its emergency blue lights. Trooper Touchton, not immediately identifying the type of vehicle he had passed, called his dispatcher to determine if another Florida Highway Patrol vehicle was operating in the area because the car which he had passed was a marked state law enforcement car similar to those of the Florida Highway Patrol. Touchton thought that the car which he had passed was in the process of stopping a truck immediately ahead of him. Touchton executed a "U" turn and proceeded north but shortly after Touchton turned, the truck which Touchton had thought the other patrol car was stopping turned left off the highway and the patrol car in front of him proceeded north out of Cross City still using its blue lights. Touchton saw the patrol vehicle ahead of him slow down or stop at the second traffic light but did not observe whether the second traffic light was red or green when the vehicle proceeded through it. In response to Officer Touchton's call the Highway Patrol Dispatcher advised Touchton that the vehicle which he had observed was probably a Marine Patrol vehicle being dispatched to Pensacola. Sergeant J. D. Peacock was following Officer Touchton south on U.S. 19 in Cross City and first observed that later he identified as a Marine Patrol vehicle approaching the second traffic light in Cross City. At that time the Marine Patrol had its blue lights and emergency flashers on; however, it did not have its siren on. Sergeant Peacock observed the Marine Patrol vehicle slow or stop at the traffic light and then proceed through the traffic light headed north on U.S. 19. Both Highway Patrol Officers indicated that the Marine Patrol vehicle was driving within the posted speed limit. On March 5, 1976 personnel in the Cross City, Florida Marine Patrol Office brought to Colonel J. J. Brown's attention the fact that a Marine Patrol car had passed through Cross City on February 10, 1976 using blue lights. This had been brought to the attention of the Cross City Marine Patrol by the Florida Highway Patrol Supervisor in that area, Sergeant J. D. Peacock. Colonel Brown directed Major Shelfer to conduct an investigation into the matter. Major Shelfer contacted all of the district supervisors who had sent personnel to Pensacola and requested that they provide him with the times and routes of travel of personnel which had been sent to Pensacola. From an analysis of this data, Major Shelfer determined that only personnel sent from District 7 in Daytona to Pensacola would have passed through Cross City enroute to Pensacola at the hour in question. Having determined this Major Shelfer directed Captain Morgan, Supervisor of District 7, to have the personnel from District 7 who were sent to Pensacola prepare written reports on their trips to Pensacola. Officers Campbell and Malcolm prepared and submitted written reports to Captain Morgan which were received into evidence at the formal hearing as Exhibits 5 and 6 respectively. Based upon the investigation conducted by Major Shelfer, Officer Campbell was suspended. Employee evaluations were introduced that indicate that Officer Campbell's efficiency for the period of time involved here was downgraded as a result of the conduct for which he was suspended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer finds that substantial and competent evidence does not exist to show that the agency had good cause to suspend Officer Arthur Ray Campbell for insubordination. The Hearing Officer recommends that the suspension be set aside and further, that the Career Service Commission consider whether remedial action is necessary to clear his employee evaluation for the period in question. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of February, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Kent A. Zaiser, Esquire Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Department of Natural Resources Appeals Coordinator 202 Blount Street Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Melvin R. Horne, Esquire 800 Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At or about 5:30 a.m., July 25, 1977, Trooper Vayda, while on radar patrol on the I-95 just north of the Dade County line, observed a car proceeding south at a speed of 85 m.p.h. and gave chase with his identification lights flashing. When the suspect was overtaken by Trooper Vayda suspect swerved towards Vayda causing the latter to move two wheels off the paved surface to avoid collision. The suspect subsequently left the I-95 at the 135th Street exit and while on the ramp with no other vehicles in view Vayda fired one shot which struck suspect's vehicle on the left side just above the bumper. Suspect ran through the stop light at 135th Street and rejoined the I-95 pursued by Vayda. Suspect again exited the I-95 at 125th Street and after turning east on 125th Street Vayda fired a second shot hitting suspect's right tail light. Suspect lost control of his vehicle and struck another car. Vayda stopped his vehicle, got out and told the suspect to get out of his car. Suspect then restarted his car and started eastward with Vayda in pursuit. In the interim Vayda had, via radio, alerted the Highway Patrol office of the chase and requested assistance. With the assistance of other law enforcement officers the suspect was subsequently apprehended on Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida and found to be driving a stolen car. During the chase Vayda had no information to lead him to believe suspect was other than a speeder. As a result of firing the shots Vayda was suspended from duty for a period of eight hours by the Director of the Florida Highway Patrol. Exhibit 5, the disciplinary record of Vayda, shows that Vayda was suspended for eight hours without pay on September 7, 1977 for speeding on the Florida Turnpike on July 22, 1977. Vayda was aware of the contents of General Orders 17, 20 and 43 of the Florida Highway Patrol.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a dentist, committed the offenses alleged in the second amended administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. References to Petitioner in this Recommended Order include the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which regulated the practice of dentistry prior to the creation of AHCA. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0005929. Respondent's main area of practice is general dentistry. Respondent's last known address is his residence at 1205 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent lived at that address with his wife, Lisa Iver. Cocaine is a highly addictive central nervous system stimulant. Benzodiazepines, such as Valium and oxazepam, are central nervous system depressants that have the opposite effect of cocaine on the central nervous system. The usage of these two types of drugs by a cocaine user with medical knowledge may act to balance the visible and medically detectable effects of cocaine on the central nervous system. Since at least 1988, Respondent has been a cocaine addict. Various toxicology tests have reflected that he has taken a form of benzodiazepine following cocaine use. There are several factors that have worked to make Respondent's recovery more difficult. He has experienced severe marital problems, his mother was an alcoholic, and wife is also chemically dependent. The addiction recovery of one spouse directly affects the addiction recovery of the other. If one spouse falls off the wagon, the other spouse is very likely to fall out of recovery. The Physician's Recovery Network (PRN) is an independent program for monitoring certain impaired professionals, including dentists. PRN requires individuals to be evaluated and enter drug treatment, if appropriate, pursuant to a written agreement with the impaired practitioner. The PRN conducts random drug screens and provides for the exchange of information between the treatment programs, PRN, and the Petitioner for the protection of the public. The advocacy of PRN is designed to protect practitioners who have been offered the opportunity to receive care instead of discipline. The PRN program is confidential and not subject to public scrutiny. THE FIRST PRN CONTRACT - 1988 On or about March 12, 1988, Respondent was arrested as a result of a shooting incident involving his wife. Respondent was transported to South Miami Hospital due to his alleged cocaine abuse. Respondent was admitted to South Miami Hospital for substance abuse evaluation and treatment. During his evaluation and treatment at South Miami-Hospital, Respondent claimed a prior sedative overdose which required hospitalization at Mount Sinai Medical Center, allegedly due to his wife spiking his drink. During his evaluation and treatment, Respondent admitted to prior sporadic use of intra-nasal cocaine. Respondent also admitted to previously free basingcocaine, experiencing paranoia, and having other reactions from cocaine. Respondent refused a nasal examination. Detoxification was required and Respondent was diagnosed as possibly being addicted to cocaine. Respondent left South Miami Hospital against medical advice on March 15, 1988, two days after being admitted. Respondent was readmitted to South Miami Hospital on April 11, 1988. As a result of Dr. Iver's arrest in March 1988, and the recommendations of the doctors who evaluated him, the PRN was contacted. Respondent signed a Chemical DependencyContract with the PRN on or about May 23, 1988. On or about June 26, 1990, Respondent signed a Chemical Dependency Contract extending his monitoring for an additional three (3) years. On or about June 26, 1993, Respondent completed his PRN contract. AFTER THE FIRST PRN CONTRACT - SEPTEMBER 1993 On September 21, 1993, the PRN received multiple telephone calls from Ms. Iver stating Respondent was using "free base" cocaine. She later retracted this story and stated that she had spiked his food. On that date, Mrs. Iver filed a domestic violence complaint (#93-33887) against Respondent with the Miami Beach Police Department. An assault rifle, and other gun-related items were taken into custody by the police. The offense report states that the attack by Respondent on his wife was a result of an argument regarding his "narcotic use." The PRN ordered Respondent to submit to a professional evaluation. On September 24, 1993, Respondent was admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital for an inpatient evaluation. Dr. John Eustace was the evaluating physician. Dr. Eustace is board certified by the American Society of Addiction Medicine and is the medical director of the addiction treatment program at Mount Sinai. During that evaluation, Respondent tested positive for oxazepam and cocaine. As a result of the inpatient evaluation, Dr. Eustace formed the opinion that Respondent was in relapse and recommended that Respondent sign a chemical dependency contract with PRN and that he refrain from practicing dentistry until he had entered a recovery life-style. Dr. Eustace used the term "relapse" without regard to whether the ingestion was voluntary or involuntary. Dr. Eustace was of the opinion that Respondent did not have an adequate recovery program in September 1993 because he was no longer involved in the PRN monitoring program, he was not attending or actively involved in the twelve step program for recovering addicts. During the evaluation, Respondent admitted responsibility for having an inadequate recovery program. Dr. Eustace's diagnosis on Respondent's discharge were as follows: Chemical dependency, inactive by history. Chemical dependency relapse behaviors, active. Obsessive compulsive traits. Adult child of alcoholic mother. Co-dependent behavior. Dr. Eustace's specific recommendations for Respondent pertinent to this proceeding, made at a time Respondent and his wife were contemplating divorce and before she entered a treatment program, were as follows: Reinstitute a program of total abstinence. Enter into a second PRN contract with the length of time to be determined by the PRN staff. Recruit a home group of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA). Recruit a sponsor for the purpose of working the twelve steps. Attend ninety meetings of AA or NA within the next ninety days. Detach from his office practice until his drug screen had cleared and he had entered a life- style of recovery. Detach emotionally and physically form his wife. Turn all further matters concerning his divorce over to his attorney. Obtain a personal physician to avoid self- medication. Begin a professional relationship with a therapist knowledgeable about the adult child of an alcoholic syndrome, knowledgeable about the disease of addiction, and knowledgeable about co-dependency treatment. PRN, based largely on Dr. Eustace's evaluation, recommended that Respondent enter into a new contract for monitoring and to continue treatment. Respondent refused to sign a new contract. On or about December 16, 1993, PRN forwarded a letter of complaint to Petitioner. Dr. Roger Goetz, Director of PRN, noted that Respondent had a urinalysis which contained metabolites of cocaine and benzodiazepines and that Respondent refused to voluntarily enter PRN. No further action was taken against the Respondent at that time. JULY AND AUGUST 1994 On or about July 7, 1994, PRN informed Petitioner it had information from a confidential informant that Respondent was free basing cocaine. The allegations stated that Respondent appeared to be "coked" up and failed to show up at his dental office. Dr. Goetz, Director of PRN, believed that intervention might be possible through a Miami affiliate. On July 7, 1994, Dr. Jules Trop, a doctor with the Miami affiliate of PRN, evaluated Respondent. Respondent denied any drug use but refused to submit a urine sample for drug testing. Dr. Trop observed Respondent's appearance to be disheveled and his speech pattern strained. Dr. Trop expressed the opinion that Respondent was in need of professional help. On or about July 26, 1994, the Agency was informed by PRN that Respondent refused intervention by PRN. As a result of the foregoing, an Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination was ordered by the Agency on August 15, 1994. The evaluation pursuant to the Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination was conducted a week after the Order was served upon Respondent. On August 23, 1994, Dr. Hans Ueli Steiner, a psychiatrist, evaluated Respondent pursuant to the Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination. Dr. Steiner formed the opinion that Respondent presented characteristics of an addict in denial and was a potential risk to his patients. Dr. Steiner believed that objective monitoring was the only reliable way to ascertain the continued sobriety of Respondent. Respondent admitted to Dr. Steiner that he had used drugs in the past. He further admitted that he was an addict. JULY AND AUGUST 1995 On July 28, 1995, police officers from the City of Miami Beach Police Department were called to the Iver residence in response to a 911 call. Upon arrival the officers observed drug paraphernalia commonly associated with free basing cocaine in the bedroom shared by Dr. and Mrs. Iver. Respondent had been free basing cocaine prior to the arrival of the police. The officers confiscated the paraphernalia, but took no further action against Respondent that evening. On Wednesday, August 2, 1995, at approximately 8:38 p.m., police officers with the City of Miami Beach Police Department were dispatched to the Iver residence because Mrs. Lisa Iver called 911 stating that her husband Robert Iver had overdosed on cocaine. The 911 tape reveals a voice in the background making a loud verbal noise. According to the incident report prepared by the Miami Beach Police Department, Ms. Iver told the police officers who came to the Iver residence in response to the 911 call that the Respondent had gone crazy and was out of control due to free-basing cocaine. Accompanied by professionals from the City of Miami Beach Fire and Rescue Unit, the police officers entered the Iver residence and found Respondent naked and covered in blood. Additionally, the police discovered broken glass along with a cocaine pipe, propane torch, a glass beaker, and a can that had been altered to accommodate the smoking of crack cocaine. The cocaine pipe, propane torch, and glass beaker are items or devices commonly associated with free basing cocaine and are similar to the items removed from the house on July 28, 1995. Respondent indicated to the police officers at the scene that he had been free-basing cocaine and stated that he had taken a "hit" off the pipe and then thought he was being attacked by three men. According to the Miami Beach Police Department incident report, Mrs. Iver stated that Respondent had been smoking a lot of cocaine and then requested that she sodomize him with a sexual apparatus. Upon refusing, he began punching her in the chest and kicking her. He also pulled her across the floor by her hair. Ms. Iver had physical injuries that were consistent with the reported abuse by Respondent. Respondent was arrested for battery as a result of this incident. During this police investigation, Mrs. Iver was wearing a bandage on her chin and had two (2) broken teeth. Mrs. Iver stated that the observed injuries were a result of her husband, Respondent, punching her two days earlier, on Monday, July 31, 1995 after an argument regarding Respondent's drug abuse. A police photographer was called to the scene by Officer Hochstadt. Color photographs of Dr. and Mrs. Iver and of the scene were taken by the crime scene technician. The photographer's report listed the investigation as a possible attempted suicide. The cocaine pipe, propane torch, and glass beaker were taken into custody by the police. Respondent was transported by the Fire and Rescue Unit to Jackson Memorial Hospital emergency room for treatment. The States Attorney's Office charged Respondent with two counts of misdemeanor battery and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia based on the events of August 2, 1995. On or about October 17, 1995, Robert Iver was found guilty of one count of use, possession, manufacture, delivery, or advertisement of drug paraphernalia, and one count battery, after pleading nolo contendre to each charge. Adjudication was withheld and Iver was sentenced to twelve months probation for each charge to run concurrently. Among the terms of his probation was the requirement that he participate in a PRN approved recovery program. The aforementioned crimes relate to the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. 1/ THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION ORDER - SEPTEMBER 15, 1995 On September 13, 1995, after reviewing the substance abuse history of Respondent and the foregoing police incident reports relating to drug usage in the middle of the workweek, Dr. Roger Goetz of PRN opined that Respondent is impaired and that his inability to practice dentistry poses an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. This opinion resulted in an Emergency Suspension Order being filed on September 15, 1995. Respondent has been prohibited from practicing dentistry since that date based on that order. MISCELLANEOUS FACTS BASED, IN PART, ON THE STIPULATION Respondent, by and through counsel, on approximately February 15, 1994, proffered to the Agency that Respondent had submitted himself to numerous drug screens and all were negative for any controlled or illegal substances. No actual laboratory reports were produced. From approximately January 1994 to June 1994, the Petitioner actively cooperated with Respondent's counsel to negotiate a satisfactory resolution to the complaint. Respondent has, at times, denied his addiction to cocaine after numerous past positive tests, treatment and counseling. Respondent's enthusiasm about prior recovery attempts tailed off as he became more involved with his dental practice. Lisa Iver testified that she and her husband, Robert Iver, Respondent, were getting along better since entering the Mount Sinai program in September 1995, because they were currently both clean and off drugs. THE SECOND PRN CONTRACT - OCTOBER 20, 1995 On September 22, 1995, Respondent went to Dr. Eustace for the purpose of establishing a program of personal recovery, marriage and family recovery, and reentry into the PRN. Mrs. Iver also entered a recovery program at Mt. Sinai. On October 20, 1995, Respondent signed a new contract with the PRN. While Respondent asserts that he "voluntarily" entered into this contract, that characterization is inaccurate since he entered this contract after the entry of the ESO. The order of probation entered in the criminal proceeding, also signed October 20, 1995, required his participation in such a program. By signing this PRN contract, Respondent agreed that he would have random unannounced urine or blood screens, that he would abstain from using all mood altering substances, medications, alcohol and others, that he would be monitored by a physician, that he would notify the PRN if he changed his address or employment; that he was to attend a self help group such as AA or NA seven times per week; that he would receive continuing care in group therapy one time per week; that he would attend a twelve step program for recovering professionals; that he would notify the PRN in the event of a relapse; that he would agree to withdraw from practice at the request of the PRN if any problem developed; and that his wife would also enter a recovery program. In his present capacity, Dr. Eustace provides evaluations for the PRN. In this respect he sees his role as that of a servant for the PRN. He renders reports and recommendations to the PRN. The PRN relies with confidence upon Dr. Eustace's opinions and reports. Since October 20, 1995, the date Respondent signed a PRN contract, Dr. Eustace has been his monitoring physician within the program. While in the program, Respondent has undergone psychological testing, personal interviews and has otherwise complied with the terms of his PRN contract. Dr. Eustace found no evidence of any chemical relapse, Respondent's behavior is one of compliance with the PRN and he is participating in a monitored group and in a peer professional group. Both Dr. and Mrs. Iver are progressing satisfactorily. It is important to the recovery life-style of Respondent that his wife continue progressing satisfactorily in her recovery program. One important difference in Respondent's life-style prior to his signing the October 20, 1995, PRN contract and subsequent thereto is that his wife is seeking professional help for her addiction. On October 31, 1995, Dr. Eustace wrote to Dr. Goetz advising him that it was his opinion that Respondent is adhering to a recovery life-style, is in full compliance with PRN directives, is not a danger to the public or himself and that he can safely practice dentistry. Dr. Goetz acquiesced in Dr. Eustace's opinion in testimony before the Board of Dentistry in November 1995. Both Dr. Eustace and Dr. Goetz testified that in their opinions, Respondent can practice dentistry with safety and without danger to the public health, safety or welfare as long as he is being monitored by the PRN. Dr. Goetz further testified that there has been a "decent" period of time over which to monitor Respondent since his emergency suspension in September. Dr. Hans Ueli Steiner, who had evaluated Respondent in August 1994, expressed the opinion that Respondent was beyond hope. Dr. Steiner based this opinion on his one and one half hour conversation with Respondent in August 1994, on the testimony presented at the formal hearing, and on his observations of Respondent at a deposition and on the first day of the formal hearing. He did not review any medical records as he thought that they were not important. It was Dr. Steiner's opinion that Respondent was not safe to practice dentistry based primarily on the fact that Respondent had relapsed in 1993 and 1994 and therefore the PRN program was unsatisfactory for him. Dr. Steiner also questions Respondent's honesty and his commitment to recovery. Dr. Steiner disagrees with Dr. Goetz and Dr. Eustace and states that they are emotionally involved with his recovery. This emotional involvement, in Dr. Steiner's opinion, prevents them from giving an objective medical opinion. However, Dr. Eustace clearly stated that all of his opinions related to Respondent were based upon the professional relationship and were medical opinions. Dr. Goetz stated that he had never met Respondent until the Board's November 1995 meeting and has relied, in most part, on the opinions expressed by Dr. Eustace. There was testimony as to the dangers of a recovering addict. An addict may be sober one day and under the influence of an addictive substance the next. It is possible that even after signing a PRN contract and being monitored, the Respondent may relapse. It is also possible that if the Respondent falls off the wagon or falls out of recovery, he could harm a patient before PRN is notified and appropriate action is taken. It is also true that no one, including PRN, Dr. Goetz, and Dr. Eustace, can guarantee that the Respondent will not use cocaine, and no one can guarantee that Respondent is able to practice dentistry with reasonable skill and safety. The greater weight of the evidence established, however, that the PRN was developed to assist recovering addicts, that the program is as good as any of its type, and that the program works as long as the impaired practitioner is adhering to the terms of the contract. The testimony of Dr. Eustace and of Dr. Goetz on January 10, 1996, that Respondent is presently safe to practice dentistry and that he poses no danger to the public's health, safety or welfare is more persuasive than that of Dr. Steiner that Respondent is beyond help. This conclusion is reached, in part, because of Dr. Eustace's expertise, his extensive work with the Respondent, and because Respondent was able to practice without incident while being monitored by the PRN. It is also concluded that Dr. Eustace is in a better position than Dr. Steiner to evaluate Respondent's honesty and his commitment to recovery. The PRN program worked for Respondent in the past as he was able to safely practice between 1988 and 1993 when he was being monitored pursuant to a PRN contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 466.028(1)(c) and (s), Florida Statutes, which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00, which suspends his license to practice dentistry until September 14, 1996, which requires the PRN to attest at its Board meeting in August 1996 that Respondent has adhered to the terms of his PRN contract and that he remains capable of safely practicing dentistry, and which places his licensure on probation for as long as he practices dentistry in Florida. It is further recommended that the terms of his suspension and the terms of his probation require that he maintain a contract with the PRN at all times and that he strictly adhere to all terms of the PRN contract. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded for these two offenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 2nd day of February 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be awarded attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act (the Act), Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the parties dispute whether Respondent was substantially justified in bringing the Administrative Complaint against Petitioner and/or whether special circumstances exist which would make the award of attorney's fees and costs unjust.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 455, 456, and 466, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Dr. Fish has been a dentist licensed by the State of Florida, where he has maintained a practice. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Dr. Fish was represented by Max Price, Esquire. By letter dated April 30, 1997, Allen Horowitz, D.D.S., filed a complaint against Dr. Fish. By letter dated October 22, 1997, Laura Eggnatz Tepperberg, an Investigation Specialist II employed by the Department, notified Dr. Fish that there was a pending investigation and enclosed documents that supported the investigation. By letter dated November 20, 1997, Mr. Price notified Ms. Tepperberg that he represented Dr. Fish and requested a copy of the complete investigation file as soon as the investigation was completed. This letter also suggested that Dr. Horowitz was retaliating against Dr. Fish because Dr. Fish had served as an expert witness for the plaintiff in a civil action brought against Dr. Horowitz. On December 15, 1997, Ms. Tepperberg completed her Investigative Report. By letter dated March 9, 1998, Mr. Price acknowledged receipt of a copy of the Department's investigative file. The letter requested a copy of a videotape that was referred to by the investigative material but was not enclosed in the package of materials that had been provided. By letter dated March 10, 1998, counsel for the Department advised Mr. Price that he had overlooked the videotapes when preparing the package of material and was in the process of having a copy made for him. By letter dated April 24, 1998, the Department mailed a copy of the videotape to Mr. Price. By letter dated April 30, 1998, Mr. Price advised the Department that the videotape had been damaged in transit and requested a second copy of the videotape. By letter dated June 12, 1998, the Department mailed Mr. Price a second copy of the videotape. By letter dated June 26, 1998, Mr. Price advised the Department that the second copy of the videotape had been damaged in transit and requested a third copy of the videotape. On July 9, 1998, the Department caused a third copy of the videotape to be hand-delivered to Mr. Price. In his correspondence pertaining to the videotape, Mr. Price repeatedly asserted that he would need to review the entire investigative file, including the videotape, before he could file a response to be considered by the Probable Cause panel. By letter dated July 24, 1998, Mr. Price filed his response to the investigative file. The Department received the letter and attachments in Tallahassee on July 28, 1998. Dr. Fish's response to the investigative file disputed, but did not disprove, the evidence supporting the allegations against him. By letter dated July 28, 1998, Mr. Price filed a supplemental response to the investigative file. The Department received the supplemental response in Tallahassee on August 7, 1998. This supplemental response also disputed, but did not disprove, the evidence supporting the allegations against him. On July 31, 1998, the Probable Cause Panel met in Fort Myers and found that probable cause existed to file an administrative complaint against Dr. Fish. The Probable Cause Panel had before it at its meeting on July 31, 1998, an investigative report and supporting documentation. That packet of information substantially justified the Department's decision to initiate the Administrative Complaint that underpinned DOAH Case No. 99-3742. In its Proposed Recommended [sic] Order, the Department stipulated that Dr. Fish's response dated July 24, 1998, and his supplemental response dated July 28, 1998, were not reviewed by the Probable Cause Panel at or before its meeting of July 31, 1998. The parties stipulated that Dr. Fish was entitled to file his response within 20 days after he received the entire investigative file on July 9, 1998. Dr. Fish's response filed July 24, 1998, was timely. The parties stipulated that Dr. Fish was entitled as a matter of law to have his timely response considered by the Probable Cause Panel prior to its consideration and vote of probable cause on July 31, 1998.3 The failure to do so constituted a due process violation. On June 1, 2000, the undersigned granted the Department's Amended Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and closed DOAH Case No. 99-3742. Dr. Fish thereafter timely filed his petition for attorney's fees and costs4 pursuant to the Act. The parties stipulated that the proceeding below was initiated by the Department5, that Dr. Fish qualified as a prevailing small business6, and that he incurred attorney's fees and costs in excess of $15,000.00, which Section 57.111(4)(d)2, Florida Statutes, sets as the maximum that can be awarded. Consequently, if Dr. Fish is to be awarded attorney's fees and costs, the amount of the award should be $15,000.00. Section 57.111(4), Florida Statutes, mandates an award of attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing small business party as follows: (4)(a) Unless otherwise provided by law, an award of attorney's fees and costs shall be made to a prevailing small business party in any adjudicatory proceeding or administrative proceeding pursuant to chapter 120 initiated by a state agency, unless the actions of the agency were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust. Section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes, defines the term "substantially justified" as follows: (3)(e) A proceeding is "substantially justified" if it had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by the state agency. The Act does not specify what acts constitute special circumstances which would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust within the meaning of Section 57.111(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department failed to establish the existence of special circumstances which would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust. The Department established that it had information that substantially justified the filing of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 99-3742. Dr. Fish did not prove that the Probable Cause Panel's failure to consider his responses to the investigative file vitiated that substantial justification.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of trust.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with protecting vulnerable persons, such as Medicaid recipients and the Medicaid program, and, in that capacity, it maintains discretion to approve or deny requests for exemption from disqualification. Petitioner is seeking to work as a certified nursing assistant. Petitioner’s employment goals require her to have a Level 2 criminal background screening to ensure she does not have any disqualifying offenses to prohibit her from working with AHCA-regulated facilities. Petitioner’s background screening of February 5, 2020, identified the following five criminal offenses: elder abuse/neglect; trespass (refuse to leave property, peace officer’s request); and three counts of obstructing/resisting executive officer with minor injury. By letter dated February 5, 2020, AHCA notified Petitioner that she was disqualified from employment due to the disqualifying offense of “04/22/2017 Sheriff’s Office San Diego, Obstruct/Resist Exec Off.” The letter also informed Petitioner that she may be eligible to apply for an exemption from disqualification and how to apply. On or around February 7, 2020, Petitioner submitted a request for exemption from disqualification and supporting documentation to AHCA. By letter dated February 18, 2020, AHCA denied Petitioner’s request for exemption. On April 6, 2020, Petitioner submitted a second Application for Exemption (“exemption package”) to AHCA. Petitioner’s exemption package contained documentation including employment history, education/training, a criminal history report, arrest reports, investigation reports, a California Department of Public Health investigation report, and a 12-month suspension of nurse assistant certification. By letter dated April 7, 2020, AHCA denied Petitioner’s request for exemption, stating Petitioner is not eligible for the exemption based on the following grounds: A disqualifying felony offense(s) and you have not been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony 3 years prior to the date you applied for the exemption. Our records indicate you met the above criteria for the following: ELDER/DEP ADULT CRUELTY, Case number CN3772399 Petitioner contested the denial and requested a formal administrative hearing. AHCA acknowledged the disqualifying offense error in the denial letter of April 7, 2020, and corrected its denial letter. The corrected denial letter dated September 8, 2020, deemed Petitioner not eligible for an exemption based on the following grounds: A disqualifying felony offense(s) and you have not been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony 3 years prior to the date you applied for the exemption. Our records indicate you met the above criteria for the following: Corrected Disqualifying Offense: 04/22/2017 SHERIFF’S OFFICE SAN DIEGO, RESISTING AN OFFICER (California Penal Code section 148,) Case Number CN372399. Hearing At hearing, Petitioner testified about the incident that occurred on April 22, 2017, while working at Fallbrook Skilled Nursing (“Fallbrook”) in California. Petitioner explained that three police officers came to her job at Fallbrook while she was working her shift and asked to speak to her outside the facility about allegations of resident abuse. Petitioner testified she refused to leave the facility upon multiple instructions from the police to leave. Petitioner admitted that after an officer told her several times he was going to arrest her, she told the police “you don’t have a right to arrest me.” Petitioner detailed how she did not allow the police to put handcuffs on her because she believed the reports about her were lies. Ultimately, the incident escalated--Petitioner testified that when she did not allow the police to handcuff her, the three police officers put her on the ground, one put his knee on her back, and she was handcuffed. Petitioner weighed approximately 125 pounds when arrested. After the police got Petitioner outside, the three police officers picked her up, put her in the police car, and took her to jail. Petitioner was charged with: elder abuse/neglect; trespass (refuse to leave property, peace officer’s request); and three counts of obstructing/resisting an officer, all stemming from the same April 22, 2017, incident. The elder abuse and trespass charges against Lalanne were dismissed. On January 30, 2018, Petitioner proceeded to a bench trial before a judge on the resisting an officer charge. At trial, Petitioner was found guilty and convicted of “count 1 PC 148 (a)(1), resisting an officer” in case number CN372399. That same day, the judge sentenced Petitioner to three years’ probation2 and community service for the resisting an officer conviction. Subsequently, the County of San Diego, California, probation department provided Petitioner a certificate of completion for completing her three days of public work service on or about September 13, 2018. Petitioner testified that she made a mistake when she did not listen to the officers and it was a lesson for her. She also testified that she believed there was no harm to the police and her offense is a misdemeanor not a felony. Vanessa Risch (“Risch”), AHCA’s operations and management consultant manager in the Background Screening Unit, testified that because Petitioner’s offense occurred in California, AHCA had to evaluate the nature of the offense, what occurred during the incident, and the final outcome of the case to determine the correlating criminal offense in Florida. Risch testified that she contacted the California Clerk of Courts to validate the outcome of Petitioner’s case and probationary status. Risch testified that, through her investigation, she confirmed that Petitioner’s probation started on January 30, 2018, and terminates on January 30, 2021. Risch also detailed how AHCA converted Petitioner’s California resisting an officer charge to a Florida resisting arrest with violence felony offense, after determining the officers in California had to force Petitioner’s body to the ground after Petitioner did not comply with the officers’ repeated instructions. AHCA concluded that Petitioner’s actions of opposing the three 2 The compelling evidence at hearing supports Petitioner’s probationary sentence. The undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to testify honestly and forthright regarding her three-year probationary period. First, Petitioner denied knowledge of any probationary period even though probation was listed on the sentencing documents Petitioner presented as Exhibit 1. Also, Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 is from the probation department. Additionally, Petitioner testified that her lawyer told her she had probation, which confirms Petitioner’s knowledge of her probationary period. officers is equivalent to the criminal offense of resisting arrest with violence in Florida. Risch testified that resisting an officer with violence is a disqualifying felony offense. Risch testified further that AHCA ultimately concluded that Petitioner was not eligible to apply for an exemption. Risch explained that Petitioner’s current probationary status prohibited her from being eligible to apply for an exemption because eligibility starts three years after Petitioner’s probationary period for the disqualifying felony offense is terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order denying Shaddainah Lalanne’s, request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 9th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaddainah Sherly Lalanne Apartment 206 6609 Woods Island Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 (eServed) Katie Jackson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Bill Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shevaun L. Harris, Acting Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
