The Issue The issues presented here concern two administrative complaint letters filed by Petitioner against Respondent. Both complaint letters are dated March 26, 1982. The initial charges contain allegations concerning records keeping by Respondent related to patients and staff, and employee training, per Chapter 10A, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The second prosecution letter alleges that one of the owners of the Respondent corporation acted as legal guardian for a resident in Respondent's facility, contrary to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES Petitioner presented two witnesses, Orey William Crippen, II, Adult Congregate Living Facility Licensing Office, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, District IV, and Charles H. Carter, Supervisor of Licensure and Certification, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, District IV. Petitioner offered ten exhibits which were admitted. Respondent presented Lynn Costner, co-owner of Lynn's Care Center, Inc. Respondent's four exhibits were admitted.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Lynn and Ronny Costner were the owners of Lynn's Care Center, Inc., Respondent. In the relevant time sequence, that corporation operated through its co-owners. The business of Lynn's involved Adult Congregate Living Facilities, Phase II, by license issued by Petitioner in accordance with Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. One of the facilities was located at 1562 Garden Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. The second facility was located at 1529 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. On January 25, 1982, the Garden Avenue facility was inspected by Orey William Crippen, II, a facility inspector for Petitioner. The purpose of the inspection was to monitor Respondent's compliance with regulatory provisions set forth in Chapter 10A, Florida Administrative Code, which was enacted to effectuate the purposes of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Crippen's inspection revealed that required documentation to demonstrate that facility residents Schofield and Thomaszewski had been examined by a physician or nurse practitioner to certify acceptability of their health status to reside in the center was not available in the facility at the time of the inspection. The information that was necessary would have had to demonstrate medical examination of the residents within thirty days of admission to the facility. Schofield had been admitted into the facility on November 30, 1981, and Thomaszewski had been admitted to the facility on November 6, 1981. In Schofield's case, there was no date of X-ray or examination shown in his file. Required medical information on the patient Thomaszewski was not available at the facility. Crippen also spoke with the co-owner Lynn Costner on January 25, 1982, to ascertain the whereabouts of the aforementioned medical information for the patients Schofield and Thomaszewski. This inquiry took place in the central office of Respondent at 73 West Granada Avenue, Ormond Beach, Florida. Although Schofield and Thomaszewski had been admitted to the hospital with medical examination information, this information was not available at the central office on the inspection date. Effective March 31, 1981, the necessary medical information was replaced by employees of the Respondent and the Schofield and Thomaszewski files were complete on the subject of the necessary documentation of health status. This replacement entailed the updating of material related to Thomaszewski, in that the medical examination information that accompanied him at the time of his admission to the facility was not current. While at the facility on January 25, 1982, Crippen was unable to find requisite information to establish that two persons working in the facility on the inspection day were free from communicable diseases. Nor was he provided necessary documentation demonstrating a negative tuberculosis test, via chest X- ray or physician statement certifying no tuberculosis, or information dealing with these employees related to communicable diseases detectable by skin tests. The employees were Judy Russell and Rick Costner, son of the owners of the facility. Again, Crippen's conversation with Lynn Costner in her Ormond Beach office on the date of inspection did not lead to the production of the necessary information to demonstrate that Judy Russell and Rick Costner were free from communicable diseases. Judy Russell and Rick Costner were no longer employed by Respondent on March 31, 1982. The facility did not have an employee on duty at the time of the January 25, 1982, inspection who was certified in an approved course in first- aid, which would include cardiopulmonary resuscitation, training in bleeding and seizure control or training in antidotes for poisons. By March 31, 1982, certain employees of Respondent had achieved first-aid training. Crippen's January 25, 1982, inspection did not uncover an employment application for Judy Russell or Rick Costner, either at the Garden Avenue facility or Respondent's office in Ormond Beach, Florida. Finally, Crippen's January 25, 1982, inspection did not reveal a signed contract between the residents Bateman and Thomaszewski and the facility at Garden Avenue. Bateman had been admitted to the facility on November 26, 1981. Those contracts were not made available by Lynn Costner when Crippen spoke to her in the Respondent's Ormond Beach office on the date of the inspection. The patients had entered the facility with contracts. Mrs. Bateman's contract had been signed by her nephew and Thomaszewski's contract had been signed by a relative. The missing contract problem was subsequently rectified, effective March 31, 1982, through efforts of employees of Respondent. On January 29, 1982, Charles H. Carter, Licensure and Certification Supervisor for District IV, wrote to Lynn and Ronny Costner, owners of Lynn's Care Center, and attached a deficiency statement document to that correspondence. A copy of the letter and deficiency statement may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The purpose of the letter and statement was to allow Respondent to offer corrections by written indication of steps to be taken to resolve problems discovered in the course of Crippen's inspection and the deficiency document contained a column for offering written corrections. It afforded the Respondent through February 15, 1982, to satisfy the problem related to employment applications for Judy Russell and Rick Costner. Respondent was allowed, until March 1, 1982, to correct all other violations alluded to in these findings, with the exception of the first-aid certification. On the subject of first-aid certification, Respondent was given through March 31, 1982, to verify certification. All corrections which were made related to allegations spoken to in the administrative complaint and reported in these facts date from March 31, 1982, and notification of those corrections in writing was received by Petitioner on April 5, 1982. The statement of corrections was reported on the deficiencies and corrections form mailed on January 29, 1982. Corrections were not verified by Petitioner. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. The corrections were made subsequent to an exit conference on January 25, 1982, held between Crippen and Lynn Costner in Respondent's Ormond Beach Office in which Costner was made aware of the related problems. With the exception of the matter related to first-aid, the written notification of corrections was not timely. By the letter of transmittal of the statement of deficiencies, Carter had advised Respondent that the failure to submit the plan of corrections within the time specified would lead to a finding of noncompliance by Respondent and the possibility of administrative fine. On March 5, 1982, not having heard from Respondent on the topic of the March 1, 1982, deadline for certain corrections, Carter again wrote the Costners, as owners of Lynn's Care Center at Garden Avenue, requesting that the response by statement of corrections be made no later than March 18, 1982. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, which is a copy of the Carter correspondence. There being no reply to the March 5, 1982 correspondence, an administrative complaint letter was forwarded to Respondent, in the person of the Costners, Lynn's Care Center, at 1562 Garden Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. This item was sent certified mail, return receipt requested. It set forth violations related to the deficiencies which have been discussed in this Recommended Order. The complaint was received by an employee of Respondent on April 2, 1982. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 Respondent disputed the factual allegations in the complaint and a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing was conducted to resolve the dispute. On March 26, 1982, a second administrative complaint letter was served on the Costners reference a resident in their facility at 1529 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. That complaint was received on April 2, 1982, as shown by the certified mail return receipt request form. The administrative complaint and certified mail return receipt docket may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, admitted into evidence, a copy of the complaint and receipt item. The complaint letter charged that Ronny Costner had acted as the legal guardian of Margaret Wells, a resident in the Ridge Avenue facility, and in doing so violated Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. On January 19, 1982, letters of guardianship of the property of Margaret Wells had been presented to Ronny Costner, through action in the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County, Florida. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, a copy of the order issuing letters of guardianship. On March 8, 1982, Charles Carter wrote to inquire of Ronny Costner on the subject of whether Costner was indeed the legal guardian of the property and suggested the impropriety of such guardianship. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, which is a copy of the Carter correspondence. Resident Wells had been admitted to the Ridge Avenue facility upon referral by Dr. John Hall, D.O. At the time of admission, the Costners were unable to find family to serve as Wells' guardian. Wells was suffering from Organic Brain Syndrome. Following examination by two physicians and with the assistance of Patty Butcka, an Adult Caseworker with Petitioner, and her husband, serving as legal counsel, petition was made leading to the guardianship appointment of Ronny Costner for the benefit of Wells. During the time that he served as legal guardian he received no compensation. The guardianship of Wells was in view of the fact that no close relatives resided in the area where Wells was living. At the guardianship hearing no family member appeared or objected to the appointment of Costner as guardian. Following receipt of the March 8, 1982, letter from Carter, Costner employed counsel and petitioned the court to remove him as guardian for Margaret Wells, in view of the provision of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, which would not allow Costner to act as guardian of a resident in his Adult Congregate Living Facility. An order was entered removing Costner as Wells' guardian and Ronny Costner no longer served in that capacity at the time of the final hearing in this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Toledo Realty, Inc. (TRI), was a corporation registered as a real estate broker having been issued license number 0133053 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division or petitioner). Respondent, Ramiro J. Alfert, holds real estate broker license number 0223005 also issued by petitioner. Alfert, who has been a broker for eleven years, was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for TRI when the events herein occurred. The firm is located at 7175 Southwest 8th Street, Suite 210, Miami, Florida. Approximately three years ago, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) began foreclosing on a number of residential properties on which the owners had defaulted. Wishing to dispose of these repossessed properties in an expedited manner, FNMA selected at random a number of brokers in the Miami area who were given exclusive listings and agreed to advertise the properties, and take such other steps as were necessary to make a quick sale. Futrell Realty (Futrell) in Kendall, Florida was one such broker, and it had the exclusive listing on the two properties relevant to this proceeding. According to established FNMA procedure, a broker who obtained an offer on a FNMA property was obliged to send the original contract to the listing broker who then mailed it to FNMA area headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. Marie J. Pardo was a salesperson for TRI, having worked there for almost six years. Pardo represented two potential buyers, Lazara Rouco and Artemia Delgado, an unmarried couple, who were interested in purchasing a FNMA property at 794 Southwest 97th Court Circle, Miami. On March 19, 1986, Pardo prepared a purchase/sales contract on behalf of Rouco and Delgado in which the couple offered to buy the property for $65,000. A $4,000 deposit was given by Rouco to Pardo and then placed in TRI's trust account. In accordance with established procedure, the original contract was sent to Futrell which forwarded it by express mail to FNMA in Atlanta. Four days after the contract was executed, Pardo was advised by Rouco that she and her boyfriend had separated, and she could no longer afford such an expensive house. But by now, the offer had been accepted by FNMA, and Rouco's $4,000 deposit was at risk. In an effort to save Rouco's deposit, Pardo, with FNMA's approval, secured another buyer for the property, and had Rouco assign the contract to the new buyer. The house was thereafter sold by FNMA to the new purchaser on an undisclosed date. Pardo did not advise Alfert or other TRI personnel that this action had been taken. Knowing that Rouco still wished to buy a home, but one that was less expensive, Pardo obtained Rouco's agreement for TRI to retain the $4,000 deposit pending efforts to find another property. In June or July, Pardo located another FNMA property at 100 Southwest 110th Avenue, unit 138, Miami. Because Pardo considered Rouco to be a credit risk, Pardo decided to have Rouco prequalify for a loan before a formal contract was submitted to FNMA. Accordingly, Pardo obtained (presumably from TRI files) another FNMA contract executed on June 10, 1986, by three buyers (Julio Ugarto, and Patricia and Ernesto Duarte) on a different FNMA property. She made a copy of that contract, scratched out the existing names, address and price, and inserted a new price ($47,500), address and Rouco's name. The altered contract was dated July 10, 1986. Although Pardo showed Alfert a copy of the contract that day, he did not notice anything unusual about it, and sent a letter to the mortgage company confirming that TRI had an escrow deposit of $4,000. Pardo stated she did not disclose the alterations to Alfert since she feared being fired if respondents learned of her actions. Pardo sent a copy of the altered contract to a mortgage broker friend to see if Rouco could qualify for a loan. Before she heard from the lender, Pardo left Miami in early September for a three-week vacation in the Dominican Republic. She asked another salesman with whom she shared a desk, Carlos Cachaldora, to hold the contract while she was gone. Cachaldora was a long-time employee of TRI, having worked there for some twelve or thirteen years. The two had worked as "partners" for four years with Pardo securing the client and Cachaldora doing the follow-up work. Although Pardo told Carlos about the alterations, Carlos did not advise Alfert or any other TRI employee of Pardo's actions. At hearing, Paido stated she did not know who sent the altered contract to FNMA but "believes" it was Carlos. However, Carlos denied mailing the contract to FNMA, and testified he received it in early September. Since the evidence shows that FNMA received the contract prior to September, it is found that Pardo mailed the contract to FNMA in July or August without advising Futrell or respondents. By fortuitous circumstances FNMA happened to receive from Futrell a validly executed contract on the same property at 100 Southwest 110th Avenue. This contract and the altered July 10 contract were sent to the FNMA attorney in Miami for review in preparing the closing documents. When FNMA's attorney began checking the documents, she noted there were some discrepancies in the two contracts and brought this to the attention of FNMA. Thereafter, a FNMA area supervisor in Atlanta, Paul Buechele, compared the July 10 contract with the other contract and noted that the names on the contracts did not match, that the July 10 contract had the initials of a FNMA employee who no longer worked at FNMA, and that he did not have the original July 10 contract in his files. Buechele telephoned Alfert on Friday, September 5 and briefly told him he had a "problem," and followed up with a letter the same day advising that FNMA "(had) no record of this sales contract," and for Alfert to express mail the original within 48 hours or else FNMA would "consider any such contract null and void." Although Buechele suspected the second contract might be an altered document or a forgery, he did not tell this to Alfert. During their conversation, Alfert looked in the office file, but could not find the original contract. He then advised Buechele that he would have to check with the salesman involved with the sale and get back in touch after he learned what had happened. There were no further communications between the two. The following Monday, Alfert met with Cachaldora who told Alfert he thought the original copy had been sent to FNMA and it must have been misplaced. Alfert was not overly concerned since it was not unusual for the selling broker to have only a copy of a contract in its files, particularly since the listing broker is given the original on FNMA transactions. At no time did Carlos advise Alfert that the July 10 contract was an alteration of the June 10 contract. Carlos telephoned Buechele the same day and advised him TRI had a copy, but no original, of the contract, and it was being express mailed that day to FNMA in Atlanta. On September 11, 1986, Rouco wrote TRI a letter requesting the immediate return of her $4,000 deposit because she had just been advised she could not qualify for a loan. Alfert mailed her a refund check the same day. He gave no further thought to the matter since he felt the contract at that point was "terminated." This was because Rouco had requested a return of her deposit, and more than forty-eight hours had passed since receiving Buechele's letter. On December 2, 1986, a Division investigator visited Alfert to discuss the July 10 contract. His visit was prompted by a complaint from Buechele about the altered contract. For the first time, Alfert learned what Pardo had done. Alfert immediately sent her written notice that she was fired. He also advised the Division that she was no longer an employee of TRI. Cachaldora, who had worked for TRI for some twelve years, also left TRI a few months later, albeit voluntarily. He was not fired because Alfert considered Pardo, and not Cachaldora, to be the guilty party. TRI is a relatively large realty office having three brokers and approximately seventy-five salesmen. Alfert holds the position of manager and has biweekly meetings with sales personnel to go over office procedures and to discuss sales. According to office procedure, Alfert is, whenever practicable, supposed to review all contracts before they are presented or mailed. This advice was conveyed to Pardo and Cachaldora but they did not follow office procedure. Except for the activities of Pardo and Cachaldora, there is no evidence that any other employee was involved in the Rouco matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found not guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), as alleged in the administrative complaint. DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of December, 1987.
The Issue Fact Issues Did Petitioner, Flo-Ronke, Inc. (Flo-Ronke), fail to timely pay a fine imposed by Final Order of the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency)? Did the Agency reject attempts by Flo-Ronke to timely pay the fine in full by a single payment without conditions? Did Flo-Ronke attempt to pay the fine untimely in full by a single payment without conditions? If so, did the Agency reject the proffered payment? Did Flo-Ronke employ an individual in a position that required background screening who had a disqualifying criminal conviction? Law Issues Which party bears the burden of proof? What is the standard of proof? Do the facts support denying re-licensure of Flo-Ronke? Are untimely efforts to pay the fine in full with a single payment mitigating factors? If so, how should the factors be weighed?
Findings Of Fact Flo-Ronke is an Assisted Living Facility (ALF). An ALF is a building, part of a building, or a residential facility that provides “housing, meals, and one or more personal services for a period exceeding 24 hours to one or more adults who are not relatives of the owner or administrator.” § 429.02(5), Fla. Stat. (2015).1/ The Agency licenses and regulates ALFs. §§ 429.04 and 429.07, Fla. Stat. Flo-Ronke is subject to the Agency’s licensure requirements and is licensed by it. By Notice of Intent to Deny Renewal Application dated December 2, 2014, the Agency denied Flo-Ronke’s application to renew its license on the grounds that Flo-Ronke “failed to comply with the criminal background screening requirements by employing a caretaker who was not eligible to work in the facility.” On January 8, 2015, the Agency amended the Notice of Intent to Deny. On January 21, 2015, the Agency issued a Second Amended Notice of Intent to Intent to Deny for Renewal. This notice is the subject of this proceeding. The second amended notice asserts two bases for denial. One is the originally asserted background screening violation. The other is Flo-Ronke’s failure to pay an outstanding fine in AHCA Cases 2014002513 and 2014002514. Payment of the Fine In AHCA Cases 2014002513 and 2014002514, the Agency’s Administrative Complaint charged Flo-Ronke with four deficiencies involving insects, cleanliness, medication administration, and inadequate staffing. Originally, Flo-Ronke requested an evidentiary hearing before DOAH (DOAH Case No. 14-1939). Later, Flo-Ronke, through its owner Ms. Akintola, agreed there were no disputed issues of facts and stipulated to returning the matter to the Agency for an informal hearing. The Agency provided Flo-Ronke an opportunity for a hearing. No representative of Flo-Ronke appeared at the hearing. The Agency issued a Final Order on November 5, 2014, upholding the Administrative Complaint and imposing a $13,500 fine. The Agency’s Final Order included instructions on how to make the payment, advised that the payment was due within 30 days of the Final Order, and cautioned that interest would be imposed on overdue amounts. The Final Order included a Notice of Right to Judicial Review. On behalf of Flo-Ronke, Ms. Akintola appealed the Final Order pro se. The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide for an automatic stay of a decision if it is appealed. Flo-Ronke did not seek a stay of the Final Order. Consequently, the obligation to pay the fine was effective as of the date of the Final Order. The First District Court of Appeal rendered an Order requiring Flo-Ronke to obtain counsel for the appeal because a corporation cannot be represented by an employee or officer. Flo-Ronke did not obtain counsel or respond to the court’s Order. On January 16, 2015, the court dismissed Flo-Ronke’s appeal. On April 9, 2015, Flo-Ronke, represented by the same counsel as in this proceeding, moved to re-open the appellate case. On April 17, 2015, the court denied the motion. It also denied Flo-Ronke’s subsequent motion seeking reconsideration, clarification, a written opinion, and a stay. From the date that the Agency entered the Final Order imposing the fine in DOAH Case No. 14-1939 (AHCA Cases 2014002513 and 2014002514) to the date of the final hearing, Flo-Ronke did not pay the fine. Starting around February 2015, attorney Scott Flint tried, on Flo-Ronke’s behalf, to arrange a payment plan for the fine. He discussed the proposal with Agency Attorney Edwin Selby. Mr. Flint linked the discussions to resolving a separate investigation of Flo-Ronke that the Agency was conducting. Mr. Flint never offered unconditional payment of the fine on behalf of Flo-Ronke. Mr. Flint testified that at some point during conversations about the two cases, Mr. Selby said the Agency would not accept full payment if it was offered. Mr. Selby testified that he did not make this statement. Mr. Selby’s testimony is more credible in this instance, as it is in other instances when Mr. Selby’s testimony differed from Mr. Flint’s. One reason Mr. Selby’s testimony is more credible is that on February 11, 2015, after the time Mr. Flint says Mr. Selby made the statement, Mr. Flint wrote Mr. Selby a letter proposing an installment plan for paying the fine. The letter did not mention the alleged statement that the Agency would not accept payment. The proposal and the failure to mention the alleged refusal are inconsistent with the assertion that Mr. Selby said payment would not be accepted. Also, Mr. Flint hedged his testimony about the alleged refusals, noting that lawyers say many things during negotiations. Mr. Selby’s testimony about conversations after the February 11 letter is also more credible. Mr. Selby never said that the Agency would not accept full payment if it were tendered. The clear and convincing evidence proves that from the date the Agency entered the Final Order to the date of the final hearing, Flo-Ronke never tendered full and complete payment of the fine to the Agency. Flo-Ronke, despite its assertions during pre-hearing motion practice, did not offer any evidence that could be reasonably be interpreted as proving that Flo-Ronke tendered full payment of the fine or that the Agency refused the payment. Even Mr. Flint’s testimony, if fully credited, is not evidence that Flo-Ronke tendered full payment or that the Agency refused full payment. Background Screening At all relevant times, Florida law required level two background screening of any person seeking employment with a provider whose responsibilities may require him to provide personal care or other services directly to clients or who will have access to the client living area. § 408.809(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014). Individuals who have disqualifying offenses may not hold positions where they provide services to clients or will have access to client living areas. Florida law also requires re-screening every five years after employment. § 408.809(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). Agency surveyor, Laura Manville, surveyed Flo-Ronke and its records on September 2, 2014. At that time, F.M. was employed there. Flo-Ronke employed F.M. since at least 2009. F.M.’s duties included caring for residents. In addition, even when performing non-caretaking duties, such as grounds-keeping and maintenance, F.M. had unsupervised access to the residents and their living area. F.M. was adjudicated guilty of a disqualifying sex offense on October 28, 1999. Flo-Ronke’s records did not document the required level 2 background screening of F.M. when reviewed on September 2, 2014. At that time, Ms. Manville told Ms. Akintola of the deficiency and that F.M. was not eligible to work at the ALF. This was not the first time the Agency advised Ms. Akintola of the deficiency. By letter dated October 2, 2009, the Agency advised that background screening of F.M. had revealed he had a disqualifying criminal offense. It advised Flo-Ronke that it must either terminate the employment of F.M. or obtain an exemption from disqualification. Flo-Ronke did neither. Ms. Manville conducted a follow-up survey on September 10, 2014. Despite the notice given on September 2, 2014, F.M. was still present at the facility performing grounds work and had access to client living areas. Ms. Akintola presented testimony and a single document attempting to prove that F.M. passed background screening in 2010. The document appears to show a determination of no background screening violation in 2010. Why it differs from other documents from 2009 and after 2010 is not explained. The circumstances surrounding the document are somewhat mysterious. It does not appear in the Agency files. On September 2, 2014, Ms. Akintola did not mention it. On that day, she said she thought F.M. did not need to satisfy screening requirements because he had worked for so long at Flo-Ronke. More importantly, the issue is whether F.M. was employed in 2014 in violation of the background screening requirements. The clear and convincing evidence, including evidence of the conviction in the background screening database, the continued employment of F.M. after September 2, 2014, and the letter of October 2, 2009, proves that in 2014 F.M. had a disqualifying offense and did not have an exemption from the disqualification.
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 the application of Flo-Ronke, Inc., for renewal of its ALF license. Jurisdiction over the Motion for Fees and Costs is retained for further appropriate proceedings once the prevailing party has been determined. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lori Engelleiter, advertised in the Island Trader, a local shopper publication, and in the newspaper, holding herself out to provide regular care for the elderly, the handicapped and the retarded in her private home for unspecified monthly rates. In response to these advertisements, at least two individuals were taken into the Respondent's home for care, as arranged by relatives of these clients. The Respondent provided regular personal care for not more than three residents at a time. This personal care consisted of housing, meals, help with bathing, and with dressing and changing clothes. In the cases of the two clients of the Respondent whose stays at the facility were detailed at the hearing, the personal care was provided by the Respondent for a period of three weeks in one instance, and for more than four weeks in the other instance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent is guilty of operating an Adult congregate Living Facility without a license, and imposing a fine of $500 as penalty therefor. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 12 day of April, 1984. 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 12th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas E. Whitney, Esquire 400 East Robinson Street Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Lori Engelleiter Post Office Box 24 Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Rusty Santangelo, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Owens Facility Services (Owens), based on his disability, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act; and, if so, what remedy is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Owens provides maintenance and custodial services to multiple public facilities in Orange County, Florida. Owens does not own any of the facilities, but oversees the conversions of the facilities from one event to the next. Owens secures services from various staffing companies to fulfill its obligations. In order to accommodate its staffing requirements, Owens will contact a subcontractor, discuss the event specifics, determine how many laborers are necessary, and how many laborers the subcontractor can provide. Once a verbal agreement is reached, Owens issues an initial purchase order to the subcontractor requesting the necessary staff for an event. Thereafter, the subcontractor notifies Owens of the specific laborers, their shift schedules and where those laborers will report. Once the event is completed, the laborers complete a timekeeping report, and the hours are reviewed. The subcontractor generates an invoice and Owens then pays the subcontractor. The subcontractor then pays the laborers. The entire process may take 90 days for payment to be issued to the laborers. Ace Staffing (Ace) was one of the subcontracting companies that provided day laborers to Owens. Mr. Santangelo was an employee of Ace. Ace could send Mr. Santangelo to various locations to work. Mr. Santangelo preferred to work for Owens, and specifically wanted to work during the basketball season at the Amway Center. It is undisputed that Ace set the pay scale for Mr. Santangelo, and that Mr. Santangelo received his paychecks from Ace. Owens does not have any ownership interest in Ace. Owens is not responsible for any hiring decisions by Ace. Owens has the ability to review the background checks performed on Ace employees who are sent to work for Owens, but Owens does not hire or evaluate those workers. Owens has the ability to ask that certain Ace employees not return to work for Owens, but does not have the ability to fire or terminate an Ace employee. Mr. Santangelo attempted to resolve a perceived discrepancy in his pay. Mr. Santangelo brought the pay issue to the attention of Mr. Lichtarski, who in turn brought the pay issue to an Ace employee. Communication between Owens, Ace and Mr. Santangelo deteriorated. Mr. Santangelo was paid, but his employment by Ace ended. Mr. Santangelo was not employed by Owens. He was, at all times, employed by Ace. Mr. Santangelo failed to present any credible evidence that Respondent discriminated against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Mr. Santangelo in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 8th day of November, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether discipline should be imposed against Respondent for operating on an expired public lodging establishment license, an offense which is deemed by rule to constitute operation without a license.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Lakeside is an apartment building with 19 units located at 1048 Northeast 18 Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304- 2408. The Division issued Lakeside a license, numbered 16- 10553-H, to operate as a public lodging establishment. According to information in the Division's official database, as reproduced in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, 1/ the "current license expiration date [for Lakeside's license] is December 1, 2000." On July 20, 2000, Division employee Robert Shaw conducted a routine inspection of Lakeside and found the apartment complex to be open and operating. On a Lodging Inspection Report that he prepared on that date, 2/ Mr. Shaw noted two minor violations, neither of which is at issue here. On the same form, Mr. Shaw inscribed the date that Lakeside's license would expire, as shown below, in the blank spaces provided for that purpose in a line that read: REMINDER: Your license expires 12 /01 /00 Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Shaw testified, however, that at the time of this inspection, he did not know whether or not Lakeside was licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Lakeside Apartments. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2001.
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the question of the entitlement of Petitioners to be granted a further license to own and operate an Adult Congregate Living Facility. Pursuant to Subsection 400.414(2)(b) Florida Statutes, Respondent has denied the relicensure of petitioners based upon the contention that the facility owner or operator "lacks the financial ability to provide continuing adequate care to residents." Respondent further relies on Rule 10A-5.21 Florida Administrative Code, for the licensure denial, claiming that evidence of issuance of bad checks or accumulation of delinquent bills constitutes prima facie evidence that the owners do not have the necessary financial ability to operate the facility. In particular, Respondent offered the following explanation of the license denial: Your credit history with the local credit bureau indicates long term delinquent accounts and civil judgments. During the period from January 4, 1982, until April 8, 1982, five (5) civil judgments were filed against you in the County Court of Citrus County. Copies of those actions (Aultman, Citrus Publishing, Allen, Schultz, Citrus Memorial) are enclosed. A report, a copy of which is attached, from the Citrus County Clerk of the Court indicates you have been convicted of worthless check charges. The Marion County Sheriff's Department has confirmed the existence of an outstanding warrant against you for worthless checks, a copy of which is attached. The Citrus County Sheriff's Department has levied against the real estate on which your facility is located, on instructions from a Judgment being issued out of the County Court of Pinellas County, Florida. You stated on the License Renewal Questionnaire that you owed no accounts which were over 60 days overdue. Your credit history, the levy against your property and a letter of 5/17/82 from the Citrus County Sheriff's office refute that claim. You stated on the License Renewal Questionnaire that you had had no checks in the last six (6) months returned for insufficient funds. Pending charges, set forth in the attached copy of warrant refute that claim.
Findings Of Fact Prior to April 7, 1982, the date that Respondent received the most current application for licensure as an Adult Congregate Living Facility, Petitioners had owned and operated such a facility in Inverness, Florida, under the business name Guiding Star. On that date, Respondent received the application for relicensure, a copy of which is Respondent's Exhibit 12, 2/ in the form as shown by that exhibit with the exception of the signatures found on the fourth, fifth and sixth pages. The application form indicated that Mrs. Wilder was the owner of the facility as had been reported in the past in other periods when the facility was licensed as an Adult Congregate Living Facility pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On the occasions prior to the April 7, 1982, request for relicensure, records of Respondent had shown Peggy Thornburg Wilder to be the owner and had also shown her to be the operator and administrator of the facility. In actuality, Peggy Thornburg Wilder had ownership interest in the facility, to include hiring practices; however, with the exception of twenty-three (23) days in August, 1981, Roy Wilder has been in charge of the day-to-day operations of the facility. (Peggy Thornburg Wilder, Petitioner, has been variously referred to for purposes of this hearing as Peggy Thornburg Wilder, Peggy A. Wilder, Peggy Ann Stone Wilder, Peggy Wilder, Peggy Ann Wilders and Peggy Thornburg.) On April 7, 1982, the date of receipt of the application, Roy Wilder and Peggy Thornburg Wilder were divorced. Nonetheless, with the exception of the twenty-three (23) days mentioned before, Roy Wilder had continued to live in the facility. On April 24, 1982, the Wilders were remarried. On April 29, 1982, an official with Respondent spoke to Mrs. Wilder and was told that Mr. Wilder was not in charge of the facility, notwithstanding his continued involvement as operator. As a result, the official believed Mrs. Wilder to be in charge of operations on the occasion of relicensure. On May 3, 1982, Mrs. Wilder told the official, a Karen Hubbell, that Mrs. Wilder had remarried her husband. During the pendency of the communications involving the application for the annual relicensure, it was discovered that the application signatures were missing and Hubbell requested that the application he signed in the appropriate places, which was subsequently accomplished as shown in Respondent's Exhibit 12. It was signed by Roy Wilder as operator and applicant. Mrs. Wilder did not sign as owner/applicant, and the form continued to reflect an application made in the name of Peggy Thornburg, as opposed to Peggy Thornburg Wilder. Respondent did not attempt to have Mrs. Wilder sign the application, and the application was processed with the name Peggy Thornburg being reflected as facility owner/operator/administrator in the body of the application form, and Roy Wilder being shown as the operator and applicant by signature. Nonetheless, it is evident, as it was in the past history of the facility, that Mrs. Wilder had ownership interest in the facility and Roy Wilder was operator of the facility. In deciding the question of relicensure under the April 7, 1982, application, Respondent focused its attention on the financial responsibility of Peggy Thornburg Wilder. In this process, the following items were discovered: A final judgment in the County Court in and for Citrus County, Fifth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Civil Division, against Roy L. Wilder (also known as Roy Wilder) and Peggy A. Wilder in the amount of $786.56 plus $25.00 court costs. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. A final judgment in the County Court in and for Citrus County, Fifth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Civil Division, against Peggy Wilder d/b/a Guiding Star Nursing Home in the amount of $100.00 and $22.00 costs. See Respondent's Exhibit 2. A final judgment in the County Court in and for Citrus County, Fifth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Civil Division, against Peggy Wilder and Roy Wilder d/b/a Guiding Star ACLF Home, in the amount of $275.00. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. A final judgment in the County Court in and for Citrus County, Fifth Judicial Circuit of Florida, against Roy Wilder and Peggy Wilder in the amount of $61.95 and $15.00 costs. See Respondent's Exhibit 4. A final judgment in the County Court in and for Citrus County, Fifth Judicial Circuit of Florida, against Peggy Wilder in the amount of 44.50 and $21.00 costs. See Respondent's Exhibit 5. In the County Court of Citrus County, Florida, a plea by Peggy Wilder to the offense of obtaining property by means of a worthless check in the amount of $300 as nolo contendere to the offense charged, a finding of guilt and $115.00 costs in an action in which restitution was made. See Respondent's Exhibit 6. Reference Peggy Wilder in the County Court of Citrus County, Florida, a misdemeanor finding of violation of probation, a nolo contendere plea to that violation, a finding of guilt, a payment of $115.00 cost, a jail sentence of thirty (30) days. See Respondent's Exhibit 7. In County Court of Citrus County, Florida, misdemeanor worthless check charge in the amount of $168.29 against Peggy Wilder, a plea of nolo contendere to the offense charged, a finding of guilt, $115.00 cost, six months probation, special conditions of payment of $25.00 per month and an indication that restitution had been made. See Respondent's Exhibit 8. Copy of a Capias for the arrest of Peggy A. Wilder for two counts of worthless check Subsection 832.05(4), Florida Statutes, dating from April 1, 1982. Respondent's Exhibit 9. From the County Court, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, a notice of levy against Peggy Ann Stone Wilder, reference property in Citrus County, Florida, Lot 8, Block E of Highlands Trailer Park. See Respondent's Exhibit 10. Correspondence from the law firm of Jenkins, Brooks, Wharrier, Kaiser & Walters reference Item 10 instructing the Sheriff's office of Citrus, Florida, to withdraw the levy, in view of indication that Mrs. Wilder would make payments towards settlement of the matter. In view of the circumstances, that have been related above, on June 9, 1982, the application for relicensure of the Adult Congregate Living Facility known as Guiding Star was denied. 3/ Mrs. Wilder gave testimony in the course of the hearing. By way of explanation on the subject of her financial problems, she indicated that, following an October, 1981, notification of accusations which had been placed against Mr. and Mrs. Wilder, related to the then current license for the subject facility, there was a reduction of clients from twelve (12) in December, 1981; two (2) in July, 1982, and finally a closing of the facility in August, 1982. (A copy of the charges involved in DOAH Case No. 82-104 and the balance of the grounds for denial of license reapplication which have been withdrawn in the present action may be found as attachment "A" to this Recommended Order, to assist in understanding Mrs. Wilder's explanation.)
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether three forms used by the Florida Commission on Human Relations are unpromulgated rules; (2) whether Petitioners, M.B.F. and Citizens for Pets in Condos, Inc., are substantially affected by the forms they seek to challenge as unpromulgated rules; and (3) whether, if Petitioners prevail, they are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Citizens for Pets in Condos, Inc., (CPC), is a not-for-profit corporation, dedicated to the education of the public about the health benefits of living with companion animals, with an emphasis on helping individuals change or obtain a waiver from no-pet policies that restrict housing opportunities for individuals with pets. CPC seeks to educate individuals who may benefit from companion animals regarding their housing rights. CPC works to ensure equal housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities that are benefitted by living with assistive animals. CPC helps those individuals acquire waivers based on their disability, where the housing entity has a no-pet policy. CPC’s resources are scarce. These resources are diverted, and CPC’s organizational mission has been frustrated, when individuals are sent the FCHR forms at issue and CPC is asked to assist these individuals through the housing discrimination process with FCHR. CPC has had to spend resources to educate individuals over their privacy rights, and ensure that complainants understand the use of the FCHR forms. On August 17, 2011, Petitioner M.B.F. filed a housing discrimination complaint with FCHR. The forms at issue in the present case were sent to M.B.F.; he did not execute the FCHR forms. On September 29, 2011, a no cause determination was issued by FCHR. It stated: Complainant failed to return the signed Authorization to Release Medical Information so that a Medical Certification Form could be submitted by his doctor. Therefore, it could not be established that Complainant belongs to a class of persons whom the Fair Housing Act protects from lawful discrimination, based on handicap. Respondent provided a copy of correspondence from Nancy Lee Greenfield, M.D., stating Complainant has a [redacted medical diagnosis]. Dr. Greenfield stated it is important for Complainant to always have his service dog, Jake, available for him. Dr. Greenfield’s letter did not state what major life functions were substantially limited by Complainant’s disability. Although Respondent knew or should have known that Complainant had a disability, Respondent did not know or should not have known that Complainant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Act. On October 20, 2011, FCHR issued a Notice of Determination of No Cause to M.F.K. FCHR is the Florida enforcing agency for the Fair Housing Act. The Forms FCHR sends, to every individual who has filed a housing discrimination case, two forms. A cover letter that comes with the two forms states: Dear , Attached is a medical release form. Please complete this form with the contact information of the doctor who treats you for your disability. Then sign and date the form. Please return it to our office with your Diary of Events and supporting documentation. We need this medical release form so that we can send a medical certification form to your treating doctor in order to verify that you are disabled within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act. Also attached is an Authorization for the Use and Disclosure of Protected Health Information. Please complete this form and return it to our office with your Diary of Events and supporting documentation. The first form, titled “Authorization to Release Medical Information,” releases “medical records and any medical certification required for my Disability status with reference to my Complaint of Housing Discrimination” to FCHR. The second form, titled “Authorization for the Use and Disclosure of Protected Health Information,” gives FCHR permission to share health information which substantiates the Complainant’s medical condition relating to a claim of discrimination with third parties listed by a Complainant. It also states that refusal to sign the authorization will not affect the Complainant’s ability to obtain treatment, payment or eligibility for benefits. The third form is one sent to medical providers, and can only be sent if the first form sent to the Complainant is signed. This third form is titled, “Medical Certification Form.” It explains to the provider that the Complainant, a patient of the provider, has requested a housing accommodation. It goes on to state: In order to consider whether the request is reasonable, it is necessary that we have the following information from you as the physician who treats Complainant. The Florida and Federal Fair Housing Acts define “disability” with respect to a person as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. The form then defines physical and mental impairments, and defines “major life activities” as functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. The form then asks a series of seven questions: Are you the Complainant’s treating medical professional with knowledge of Complainant’s medical condition and history? YES NO Does the Complainant have a physical or mental impairment as described above? YES NO What is the expected duration of the impairment? PERMANENT TEMPORARY Does the impairment substantially limit one or more of the Complainant’s major life activities? YES NO If yes, please indicate which major life activity is affected and describe how it affects Complainant. Check all that apply. Breathing: Caring for Oneself: Concentrating: Hearing: Interacting with Others: Learning: Lifting: Performing Manual Tasks: Reaching: Seeing: Sitting: Sleeping: Standing: Walking: Working: Other: In your professional, medical opinion, is the above-described modification or accommodation necessary, in order for Complainant to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling as a person without a disability? YES NO If yes, please describe how the requested modification or accommodation lessens the effects of Complainant’s ability to function. Would you be willing to provide a deposition regarding your treatment of Complainant and your medical opinion concerning Complainant’s disability? YES NO If no, please explain why. Would you be willing to testify in court regarding your treatment of Complainant and your medical opinion concerning Complainant’s disability? YES NO If no, please explain why. I swear under penalty of perjury that the above statements are true. [Signature and date lines] Each housing discrimination complaint filed with FCHR is assigned to an FCHR investigator. Prior to an investigator’s reviewing the file, the two forms are generated by the “intake” process, and automatically sent to every complainant in a housing discrimination case. Although these forms are sent out in every housing discrimination case, they are not used in every case by the investigator assigned to each individual case. Each investigator has discretion in whether to use the forms. If the file contains medical information that defines the disability and accommodation needed, and answers all the necessary questions, than the forms are not needed. The forms are not mandatory; complainants are not required to complete the forms in order to establish or verify their disability claim. Third-party verification of a complainant’s disability and need for an accommodation is necessary, and Complainants may establish their disability and need for an accommodation through letters from their doctors, licensed social workers, or psychologists. The forms are sent with an offer for mediation or conciliation to both parties, so that the parties are aware that during the course of the proceedings, the parties have a right to request that the claim be mediated or conciliated by FCHR, at no charge to the parties. The failure to complete and return the forms is not fatal to a complainant’s housing discrimination claim; the forms exist simply to assist the complainant in gathering the information to establish the need for an accommodation. Since the FCHR forms are optional, do not confer any rights to those who use them, or penalize those who choose not to use them, the forms do not constitute rules by definition. Standing alone, the forms do not create rights, require compliance, and do not have the effect of law.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an ACLF which is owned by Vivian Zaleta, its sole stockholder. Prior to May, 1980, and continuing through the present, the Petitioner corporation operated the ACLF from its location at 700 S. E. 20th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mrs. Zaleta purchased the property and improvements at 700 S. E. 20th Street for $150,000 and from the period May, 1980, through the date of the final hearing, November 16, 1982, invested an additional $80,000 to $100,000 on repairs and improvements to the property. Petitioner was granted a license by the Department to operate as an ACLF and began operations on May 2, 1981. The Petitioner's initial license expiration date was August 5, 1981. Applications for renewal of the license must be submitted to the Department on required renewal forms which were furnished to Petitioner by the Respondent for completion and submission. Petitioner's renewal license application was completed May 9, 1981, and received by the Department on May 11, 1981. By letter dated June 2, 1981, the Department requested the Petitioner to complete certain financial reports which were enclosed in said letter and required: ...in order to comply with the Florida Statute 400, Chapter II and the changes in Section 10A-5 of the Florida Administrative Code which became effective May 14, 1981.." (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Petitioner completed the additional financial report requested by the Department. This financial report was received by the Department on August 7, 1981. On September 14, 1981, the Department requested additional information from the Petitioner. The Petitioner's application was denied by the Department by letter to Mrs. Zaleta dated November 24, 1981, due to a failure of Petitioner to comply with Chapter 10A-5.14, Florida Administrative Code, and requests for specified information. Moreover, in its letter of denial, the following was noted: Florida Statute 120, "Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that every application for license shall be approved or denied within ninety days after receipt of the application. Since your application was received on May 11, 1981, the expiration of the ninety-day time limit was August 11, 1981. There is no statutory provision (sic) to extend this mandated time limit on applications, there fore, it is necessary that your application for a license for an Adult Congregate Living Facility be denied because the fol lowing licensure requirements have not been met... (Petitioner's Exhibit 1a) By letter dated November 27, 1981, and received by the Department on November 30, 1981, Mrs. Zaleta, as administrator of Yesterday's, filed a timely request for an administrative hearing to review the denial of the requested license renewal. During the pendency of these proceedings, counsel for the parties attempted to resolve their dispute. On behalf of Petitioner, Rosen and Santini, P.A., Certified Public Accountants, prepared a financial report and revised financial report concerning the financial status of the corporation on forms furnished by the Department and submitted the same to Aging and Adult Services. The Department apparently considered the documents submitted pursuant to settlement discussions between counsel as part of a new and separate license renewal application and by letter dated June 29, 1982, again denied the requested license renewal for the failure of the Petitioner to provide a Statement of Operation or Renewal Questionnaire. At the final hearing, the Department conceded that the letter of June 29, 1982, was incorrect, and that Petitioner had submitted and the Department had received and reviewed a Statement of Operations or Renewal Questionnaire which was submitted by the Petitioner's accounting firm. Since August, 1981, the Department has deleted the Petitioner from its list of Adult Congregate Living Facilities to which health care providers may refer potential residents, thereby, causing Petitioner to lose both referrals and income.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services granting the requested license to the Petitioner Yesterday's Retirement Manor, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 7th day of March, 1983.
