The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Eric R. Hartman has been licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate salesperson, having been issued license number 0455304. Mr. Hartman was originally licensed on August 12, 1985. The last status of Mr. Hartman's license was involuntarily inactive. On or about June 26, 1995, Mr. Hartman forwarded his real estate salesperson license renewal notice to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division of Real Estate). His license had expired on March 31, 1995. Mr. Hartman submitted the license renewal notice to the Division of Real Estate for the purpose of renewing his real estate salesperson license. On the license renewal notice, Mr. Hartman signed an affirmation that he had completed all of the requirements for renewal of his license. As a prerequisite for the renewal of his license, Mr. Hartman was required to successfully complete a minimum of 14 hours of real estate continuing education. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hartman knew of this requirement. Prior to submitting his signed license renewal notice, in order to comply with the required continuing education, Mr. Hartman had obtained a correspondence course for 14 hours of continuing education from the Bert Rodgers Schools of Real Estate, Incorporated (Bert Rodgers). The correspondence course included a course book and test booklet. At the end of each chapter in the course book was a progressive quiz, and the answers for the quiz were provided at the end of the course book. Mr. Hartman took the progressive quiz after completing each chapter and, for the total book, had only two incorrect answers. The test for the continuing education course was open book. After completing the test, Mr. Hartman forwarded the test booklet to Bert Rodgers for grading. Based upon his performance on the progressive quiz after each chapter, there was no reason for Mr. Hartman to believe that he had not passed the test and, therefore, successfully completed the course. Confident that he had passed the continuing education course, Mr. Hartman submitted his license renewal notice to the Division of Real Estate. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hartman knew that he was required to maintain and submit to the Division of Real Estate, upon request, a course report certificate for the continuing education. The certificate indicates that he had timely and successfully completed the continuing education course. At the time that Mr. Hartman submitted his signed license renewal notice, he had not received a course report certificate from Bert Rodgers. On July 10, 1995, relying upon Mr. Hartman's representation that he had successfully completed the requirements for renewal of his license, the Division of Real Estate renewed Mr. Hartman's license and issued him a real estate salesperson license. His license had an effective date of June 23, 1995, and an expiration date of March 31, 1997. Subsequently, Mr. Hartman received notification from Bert Rodgers that the course material, including the test booklet, had expired and was no longer valid. Simultaneously, Bert Rodgers provided Mr. Hartman with a new and valid course book and test booklet. He completed the new test booklet and forwarded it to Bert Rodgers for grading. At the time that Mr. Hartman signed his license renewal notice and forwarded it to the Division of Real Estate, he had no intent to deceive or mislead or to make a material misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing the Division of Real Estate to renew his license. On his own initiative, by letter dated August 28, 1995, Mr. Hartman notified the Division of Real Estate of the situation regarding the Bert Rodgers continuing education course. After having forwarded the new and valid test booklet to Bert Rodgers, Mr. Hartman, subsequently, received a course report certificate from Bert Rodgers. The certificate indicated, among other things, that Mr. Hartman had taken a 14-hour continuing education correspondence course, which was completed on August 25, 1995, and that he had received a grade of 93.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine against Eric R. Hartman. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1997.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and administrative rules or section 1012.795(1)(a),1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Mr. Richardson holds Florida Educator's Certificate 696450, covering the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all pertinent times, Mr. Richardson was employed as a fourth and fifth-grade reading teacher at WHE. As Ms. Kristen Rodriguez later testified, during the 2012-2013 school year, she encountered several students who asked her to let them remain with her in the media center at WHE rather than return to their scheduled class with Mr. Richardson. Based upon their accounts of Mr. Richardson's behavior in the classroom, she took the students to the school office and asked them to talk to the principal. The Broward County School District (District) subsequently conducted an investigation. Student A.C. credibly testified at hearing that during the 2012-2013 school year, when she was a fourth-grade student in his class, Mr. Richardson would sometimes scream at students who were not behaving, but did not scream at the well-behaved students. She testified that on a loudness scale of 1 to 10, he was a "7," while she rated other teachers at "5." Student A.C.'s testimony was supplemented and explained by the written statements of other students in that class: Student G.R. wrote that Mr. Richardson screamed at him close to his face; Student H.T. wrote that Mr. Richardson would scream if he was mad; Student J.G. wrote that when Mr. Richardson yelled at some students, he put his face within inches of the students' faces; Student T.W. wrote that he would yell in students' faces; and Student M.D. wrote that Mr. Richardson would yell in students' faces from inches away. The evidence was clear and convincing that when students were misbehaving, Mr. Richardson would sometimes yell or scream at them, placing his face close to theirs. Student J.G. credibly testified that if a student "wouldn't do like the work or behaved bad, he [Mr. Richardson] would grab them by their shoulders and yell at them and shake them." Student J.G. went on to clarify, "I mean not that bad, but like to get ahold." Student J.G.'s testimony was supplemented and explained by the written statements of other students: Student G.R. reported that Mr. Richardson "grabbed this kid and shook him"; and Student A.C. wrote that Mr. Richardson would shake students who were being bad, writing that "[w]hen he shaked [sic] kids he would shake them by the shoulders, on a scale from 0 to 5 he would shake kids like about a 2." The Department of Education (DOE) was notified of the allegations against Mr. Richardson. On or about April 5, 2013, Mr. Richardson received notice from Chief Marian Lambeth that the Office of Professional Practices of DOE had opened a case for purposes of investigating Mr. Richardson's alleged inappropriate conduct; and, if founded, the allegations could lead to disciplinary action against Mr. Richardson's Florida Educator's Certificate. On April 18, 2013, Mr. Richardson's attorney sent written notice to Chief Lambeth informing the DOE of her representation of Mr. Richardson in their investigation and requesting a copy of their investigative report upon its completion. Mr. Richardson was copied on the correspondence. As documented by letter later sent to Mr. Richardson, the Professional Standards Committee of the Broward County Public Schools met on May 8, 2013, and determined that there was no probable cause to support a charge of battery. However, the letter stated, "[l]et this correspondence serve as reprimand that any future violation of the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession will result in a recommendation for further disciplinary action up to and including termination."2/ Mr. Richardson successfully filed a grievance regarding the letter of reprimand imposed by the District. By letter dated March 26, 2014, Mr. Lerenzo Calhoun, employee and labor relations specialist of the District, advised the Broward Teachers Union, "[I]t has been determined that the written reprimand issued to the grievant be rescinded." On April 16, 2014, Mr. Richardson completed a "GC-10R Renewal Application Form rev 06/10 Legal Disclosure 1 - District Version" to initiate renewal of his Florida Educator Certificate, which was due to expire on June 30, 2014. Instructions on the bottom of the form direct the applicant to provide additional detailed information on a Legal Disclosure Supplement if any of the preceding 21 questions on the page are answered affirmatively. Mr. Richardson, having correctly answered "no" to 20 of these questions that deal with sealed records, criminal records, and license sanctions, but "yes" to the single question that asks if there is a "current investigative action" pending, turned to the supplementary page, "GC10R Application Form rev 06/10 Legal Disclosure 2 - District Version." Other than the applicant's name, however, the supplementary form solicited information about only three topics, each in its own section: "Sealed or Expunged Records"; "Criminal Offense Records"; and "Professional License or Certificate Sanctions." Mr. Richardson had no sealed or expunged records and so could not provide any supplementary information in response to the questions in that section. He had no criminal offense records and thus similarly could not provide responses to the questions in that section. He had no professional license or certificate sanctions and so could not answer those questions either. There were no questions pertaining to ongoing investigations. He logically left the supplementary page blank, and submitted the renewal application to the District's office, which was authorized to reissue the certificate. On the application, he made full disclosure of the pending investigation, complete with a handwritten notation indicating that there was no decision as of yet and including the investigation case number for easy reference (he volunteered this, for remarkably there is no question or blank space to include this information anywhere on the forms). The renewal application was reviewed on behalf of the District by Ms. Sheila Gipson, a certification specialist for the District. Ms. Gipson, dutifully implementing the policy reflected in the form's directions to complete the supplemental disclosure, refused to process the renewal application, deeming it incomplete. On April 23, 2014, Ms. Gipson sent an e-mail to Mr. Richardson illogically repeating the instruction on the form that if any question on page 4 was answered in the affirmative, that page 5 (the supplement) must be completed, and directed him to do so. If Mr. Richardson—eager to have his license renewed—was baffled by Ms. Gipson's e-mail and nonplussed at the impossible guidance it contained, his bewilderment might be excused. As previously noted, he had already provided complete details about the ongoing investigation to the District and could provide absolutely no information responsive to any of the supplemental questions. In any event, it is clear that strict enforcement of this "catch-22"3/ has the practical effect of preventing anyone under investigation but awaiting determination from completing an application at all. It is not clear if this structure results from accident or disingenuous design. Mr. Richardson testified that he telephoned Ms. Gipson and explained his dilemma. According to Mr. Richardson, Ms. Gipson concluded that he should not have said "yes" to the investigation question if no sanctions had been imposed, again explaining to him that any "yes" response meant that the application could not be processed without sanctions information. He testified that she directed him to change his answer on page 4 and resubmit the application so it could be considered complete. Mr. Richardson's testimony as to what Ms. Gipson told him was unrefuted. Ms. Gipson's instruction to Mr. Richardson did not make sense, any more than the form itself did. Mr. Richardson did as Ms. Gipson had instructed and filled out a second application form, which he dated April 26, 2014, indicating no "current investigative action pending" as he was told to do. He executed the Affidavit, which in bold print states: "Giving false information in order to obtain or renew a Florida Educator's Certificate is a criminal offense under Florida law. Anyone giving false information on this affidavit is subject to criminal prosecution, as well as disciplinary action by the Education Practices Commission."4/ On or about April 23, 2014, notice had been sent to both Mr. Richardson and his attorney that the DOE's preliminary investigation was completed and available for review. An Informal Conference was scheduled for May 22, 2014. Both Mr. Richardson and his attorney acknowledged receipt of the notice on April 28, 2014. After some delays, reflected in e-mail communications, Mr. Richardson hand-delivered the second application to Ms. Gipson, who received it on May 2, 2014. The Commissioner has failed to show that Mr. Richardson gave false information with the intent to deceive or defraud the District or DOE. Mr. Richardson's alternative explanation of his intent is plausible given the irrational structure of the application form and the fact that he had already fully disclosed the existence of the investigation to the District in the earlier application dated April 16, 2014. His insistence that his only intent was to break the bureaucratic logjam and allow his application to be considered complete, as the District's certification specialist, Ms. Gipson, advised him to do, is plausible. Mr. Richardson's testimony that Ms. Gipson advised him to fill out the second application as he did was not a new assertion: he had said so nearly two years prior to the hearing in his deposition. The Commissioner did not list Ms. Gipson as a witness, and she did not testify. Mr. Richardson's testimony regarding the April 26, 2014, application was unrefuted. The Commissioner failed to prove fraudulent intent. There was no competent evidence presented at hearing that Mr. Richardson ever used profanity in the classroom. Although there was considerable testimony at hearing about a clinic pass associated with an injury to Student N.M. on an occasion when Mr. Richardson's class was engaged in "indoor P.E.," it was not shown that Mr. Richardson in any way caused that injury, and he was not charged with doing so in the Administrative Complaint. There was no competent evidence that Mr. Richardson or any other person ever threw a book at Student N.M., as was charged. Mr. Richardson has been employed by the District for almost 21 years. He has never before had any discipline imposed against his license. He has taught successfully at Challenger Elementary School for almost five years after the 2012-2013 school year, without incident. Ms. Kalima Carson testified that she co-taught with Mr. Richardson. As she testified, he was a good classroom manager. Ms. Carson also credibly testified that he was a good teacher and that his students showed tremendous academic gains. As Ms. Diane Velasco-Ortiz credibly testified, Mr. Richardson was good at motivating his students, and he did well with students who faced challenges at home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Mr. Elijah Mark Richardson in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through his violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e); issuing him a letter of reprimand; and placing him on probation for a period of one employment year. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 16th day of April, 2018.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s applications for a Florida Educator’s Certificate (teaching certificate) should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued by Respondent on April 20, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed as a behavioral specialist by Tri-County, an entity that provided certain employees to the School Board. Pursuant to his employment with Tri-County during the 2003-04 school year, Petitioner worked at Port St. Lucie High School (PSLHS) in a classroom for students who had been identified by the School Board’s Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Program as being severely emotionally disturbed (SED). Petitioner has never been employed directly by the School Board. Petitioner’s position with Tri-County did not require that he have a teaching certificate. Likewise, the work Petitioner did in the SED class pursuant to the contract between Tri-County and the School Board did not require that he have a teaching certificate. For reasons that were not revealed at the formal hearing, the SED teacher with whom Petitioner worked left his or her employment during the school year. As a result of the teacher’s absence, Petitioner took over the SED for a short period of time. There was no evidence that Petitioner’s continued employment was dependent on his having a teaching certificate. The school administration of PSLHS was required to annually check the certification of each teacher at the school and to submit to the School Board a report listing any educator who was teaching outside of his or her certified field. This report is called an “out of field” report. For the school year 2003–04, Ms. Brooks, the assistant principal of PSLHS, was required to prepare the out-of-field report for the school. Ms. Brooks initially listed Petitioner as teaching out of field. However, while preparing the out of field report, Ms. Brooks discovered what appeared to be a temporary teaching certificate bearing Petitioner’s name (the subject certificate). The subject certificate reflected that Petitioner was certified in ESE for grades K-12 for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005. Ms. Brooks located the subject certificate in a binder that contained photocopies of teaching certificates for all of the PSLHS instructional personnel. The subject certificate looked suspicious to Ms. Brooks because it had no certification number on it and because Petitioner’s name was written in a different font than the font that is typically used on teacher’s certificates. Ms. Brooks promptly reported the suspicious certificate to Ms. Thompson at the School Board office. Ms. Thompson immediately called Ms. White at the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) offices in Tallahassee. Upon investigation with the FDOE, it was discovered that the subject certificate was fraudulent. The FDOE has never issued a teaching certificate to Petitioner of any kind. Ms. Brooks testified that photocopies of teaching certificates are provided to the school by teachers and that as far as she knew, no one other than the teacher would have a copy of the teacher’s teaching certificate. It is clear from her testimony that Ms. Brooks was referring to certified teachers with properly-issued teaching certificates. It is also clear from her testimony that Ms. Brooks had no first-hand knowledge as to how or when the subject certificate was placed in the binder. Petitioner testified that he did not provide the school the subject certificate. Petitioner testified that he did not know who would have provided the subject fraudulent teaching certificate to the PSLHS and offered no other explanation as to its existence. The undersigned concludes that the evidence presented by Respondent is insufficient to establish that Petitioner furnished the subject certificate to the administration of PSLHS.3 Petitioner applied to FDOE for a teaching certificate on two occasions. Neither application has been processed to completion. On December 19, 2001, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the field of athletic coaching. On December 22, 2003, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the field of physical education. Those teaching certificates were never issued because Petitioner’s prior criminal history caused Professional Practices Services (PPS) to place a hold on his applications4 and because Petitioner has not provided an official transcript documenting his college degree.5 Those reasons were in addition to the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons dated April 20, 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order deny Petitioner’s applications for teaching certificates. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 9th day of June, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Thomas Vincent Savino, M.D., is presently licensed in New York and New Jersey. He has taken and passed all the necessary examinations in order to be licensed under Florida law. Prior to medical school, Petitioner was enrolled in osteopathic medical school for one year. Eventually in part due to financial considerations and in part because Petitioner desired to go to medical school, Dr. Savino was accepted to medical school at the State University of New York (SUNY) medical school. While in medical school, Dr. Savino had some academic difficulties that were documented in the transcript presented to the Board. His academic difficulty was unrelated to his abilities to render medical care. Eventually, the problems he had at SUNY were the subject of a lawsuit against the University. The lawsuit took over a year during which time Petitioner was enrolled and attended classes at SUNY, including a neurology course or clerkship. The neurology course was successfully completed as attested to in a letter from the Dean of Students of SUNY. The letter was submitted to the Board. Petitioner eventually lost his suit against the University and did not receive credit for the neurology course. Therefore, Petitioner's transcript from SUNY showed that Dr. Savino eventually successfully completed every required course except neurology. Neurology is not required by most medical schools. However, Petitioner was permitted to take the course. He successfully completed the course at St. Vincent's Medical Center. Dr. Savino did not list the neurology course under the area designated for listing medical school clerkships in the application. The reason that the neurology clerkship was not listed in Petitioner's application was that Petitioner did not receive credit for it despite completing the course successfully. Petitioner reasonably believed that listing the neurology course as a clerkship would have implied that he had received credit for it. The information was not hidden, but was contained in other documentation to the application. Clearly Petitioner was not attempting to mislead or hide the information from the Board. Petitioner finished his last year of medical school at Ross University. Petitioner was awarded an M.D. degree from Ross University School of Medicine in 1990. Petitioner adequately documented that he attended and passed the medical school curriculum necessary for licensure in the State of Florida. Importantly, since Petitioner has been in practice, there have been no allegations of malpractice made against him, nor have there been any Medicare or Medicaid complaints filed against him. He has had a successful career after graduation. The Board contends that Petitioner misrepresented the facts in response to question 11 on the application. Question 11 states: Was attendance in medical school for a period other than the normal curriculum? Petitioner answered "no" to question 11. In Petitioner's case, he took 4 years to complete medical school while he was officially enrolled in various medical school programs. The question is at best vague, ambiguous, and subject to varying interpretations, especially on facts like those here. Moreover, the dates of Petitioner's attendance at medical school were documented in his application. The Board was never misled by Petitioner's negative response and was well aware of Petitioner's time in medical school. The Board discussed this very subject at its meeting regarding Dr. Savino. In short, the answer to question 11 was not material to any matter necessary to be found by the Board and does not demonstrate bad character. The Board, in its order, and in its pretrial statement, contends that Dr. Savino misrepresented a material fact by stating on his curriculum vitae that he was an Assistant Clinical Physician at a time prior to when he graduated from medical school. It was a phrase Petitioner made up in order to describe his position while he was employed as an assistant office manager/aide in his father's medical practice. Petitioner's father was a clinical physician. The curriculum vitae itself shows that Dr. Savino was not awarded an medical degree until 1990. The curriculum vitae listed the assistant clinical physician's job from 1987-1988. Additionally, Dr. Savino properly reflected his job in his father's office as "assistant and office manager" in a letter he wrote to the Board dated May 6, 1996. The letter was written to the Board prior to the curriculum vitae's becoming an issue. In reviewing the record, all the facts regarding Petitioner's job with his father were contained in Petitioner's application. They were not hidden from the Board. In short, the statement regarding Petitioner's job with his father is not a material misrepresentation. It was a poor choice of words and use of the English language. Finally, the Board asserted that Petitioner received his other medical licenses and medical degree through fraudulent means. The Board bases this charge on the job description discussed above. However, the record is devoid of any evidence that any other jurisdiction or school relied on or used this information or description in any manner or that any fraud was committed by Dr. Savino in regard to these other jurisdictions. There is no evidence that Dr. Savino intended to mislead the Board as to either when he became licensed elsewhere or when he began active practice. There is no evidence in the record that contradicts either his testimony or the written evidence that he supplied concerning the jobs he has held in the past or his medical education, all of which was in Petitioner's favor. None of the technicalities raised by the Board demonstrate that Petitioner is of bad character, lacks candor, or has committed any fraud or misrepresentation to the Board or in any other jurisdictions. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered granting the Petitioner's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric B. Tilton, Esquire Gustafson, Tilton, Henning and Metzger, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lynne Quimby Pennock, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Building 6, Room 102-E 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health Building 6, Room 306 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
