Findings Of Fact For calendar year 1989 and until November 11, 1990, petitioner worked for respondent. As of January 5, 1989, having exhausted accumulated leave balances, petitioner was not entitled either to sick leave or to annual leave. After January 5, 1989, and until her employment with respondent ended on November 11, 1990, petitioner earned 192 hours of sick leave and 192 hours of annual leave. During the pay period ended January 19, 1989, she took 1.75 hours of leave. During the pay period ended February 2, 1989, she took 3.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended February 16, 1989, she took 1.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended March 2, 1989, she took 18.25 hours of leave. During the pay period ended March 16, 1989, she took 16 hours of leave. During the pay period ended March 30, 1989, she took 1.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended April 13, 1989, she took 36 hours of leave. During the pay period ended April 27, 1989, she took 22 hours of leave. During the pay period ended May 11, 1989, she took 20.75 hours of leave. During the pay period ended May 25, 1989, she took 6 hours of leave. During the pay period ended June 8, 1989, she took 8.75 hours of leave. During the pay period ended June 22, 1989, she took 17.25 hours of leave. During the pay period ended July 6, 1989, she took 16 hours of leave. During the pay period ended July 20, 1989, she took 1 hour of leave. During the pay period ended August 3, 1989, she took 9 hours of leave. During the pay period ended August 17, 1989, she took 10 hours of leave. During the pay period ended August 31, 1989, she took 4 hours of leave. During the pay period ended September 14, 1989, she took 12 hours of leave. During the pay period ended September 28, 1989, she took 8.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended October 12, 1989, she took 10.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended October 26, 1989, she took 8.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended November 9, 1989, she took 26.25 hours of leave. During the pay period ended November 23, 1989, she took one hour of leave. During the pay period ended December 7, 1989, there was no leave taken. During the pay period ended December 21, 1989, she took .5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended January 4, 1990, she took 18 hours of leave. During the pay period ended January 18, 1990, she took 10.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended February 1, 1990, she took 1.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended February 15, 1990, she took 1.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended March 1, 1990, she took 3 hours of leave. During the pay period ended March 15, 1990, she took 27 hours of leave. During the pay period ended March 29, 1990, she took 11.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended April 12, 1990, she took 36 hours of leave. During the pay period ended April 26, 1990, she took 24 hours of leave. During the pay period ended May 10, 1990, she took 34.25 hours of leave. During the pay period ended May 24, 1990, she took .5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended June 7, 1990, she took 2 hours of leave. During the pay period ended June 21, 1990, she took 27.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended July 5, 1990, there was no leave taken. During the pay period ended July 19, 1990, she took 8 hours of leave. During the pay period ended August 2, 1990, she took 26 hours of leave. During the pay period ended August 16, 1990, she took 31 hours of leave. During the pay period ended August 30, 1990, she took 8 hours of leave. During the pay period ended September 13, 1990, she took 16 hours of leave. During the pay period ended September 27, 1990, she took 24.5 hours of leave. During the pay period ended October 11, 1990, she took 13.25 hours of leave. Because petitioner's time sheets were not always processed in a timely manner, leave balances stated on contemporaneous print outs were not always accurate. (In 1989, respondent had no official mechanism for notifying employees that time sheets were missing.) After petitioner's situation came to the attention of payroll specialists at HRS, a manual audit was performed. For the period ending March 30, 1989, petitioner had an annual leave balance of 6.5 hours. During the next pay period, she used the entire balance, but at the end of the pay period, at the close of business on April 13, 1989, four more hours of annual leave were credited, all of which she used before the succeeding period ended. During the period ended May 25, 1989, she was also out on leave two hours for which she was not entitled to pay. In all, the audit established that respondent had taken some 563 hours of leave after January 5, 1989. This exceeded paid leave she was entitled to by 179 hours. Nothing in the evidence suggests she was docked for more than 135.25 hours' pay.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's request for refund. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Ruby Bush 3111-21 Mahan Drive, #113 Tallahassee, FL 32308
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position with the Respondent and resigned from Career Service pursuant to the personnel rules of the Career Service System?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent for more than five years. At all times relevant hereto, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent. During the month of December, 1986, and the portion of January, 1987, prior to the date the Petitioner was removed from his position, the Petitioner was assigned to the Blountstown, Florida, road maintenance office. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Gustavev Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin was an HMT-3 with the Respondent and supervised a maintenance crew of three men, including the Petitioner. Mr. Goodwin was the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Lloyd Blackburn, a Highway Maintenance Supervisor with the Respondent, was Mr. Goodwin's immediate supervisor. Mr. Blackburn supervises all crews operating out of the Blountstown office. The Petitioner and his crew worked a 10-hour day, 4 days a week. Mr. Goodwin prepares a weekly crew report on a daily basis. Mr. Goodwin records the hours a crew member worked or, if a crew member was not present, Mr. Goodwin notes the absence and the reason for the absence. Mr. Blackburn transfers the information recorded on the weekly crew reports to timesheets which are used for payroll purposes. If approval of a request for leave is required, employees are required to report to their crew supervisor or Mr. Blackburn. The Petitioner would have been required to obtain approval of leave from Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn, if prior approval had been required. In cases of sick leave, employees were expected to call by telephone on the day of the illness or injury and inform Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn was at the office each work day in the morning before the crews completed fueling their trucks and departed for the day. Mr. Blackburn was then out of the office during most of the remainder of the day. During the last week of December, 1986, Mr. Goodwin, the Petitioner and the other members of Mr. Goodwin's crew were "bull skating" (joking and talking). The Petitioner told Mr. Goodwin in response to some comment, probably pertaining to the work that would be done the first week of January, 1987, that "I won't be here next week anyway. I be in the hospital." Although Mr. Goodwin did not remember the Petitioner having made these comments, the Petitioner and one of the crew members, Mr. Arthur Jackson, both testified that the comments were made. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that he could be absent from work during the first week of January, 1987. The Petitioner was absent from work during the first week of January, 1987 -- January 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1987. Neither Mr. Goodwin nor Mr. Blackburn were contacted on January 5-8, 1987, by the Petitioner or anyone on behalf of the Petitioner, about the Petitioner's absence. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that his absence on January 5-8, 1937, was approved. The Petitioner had obtained approval of annual leave prior to the period at issue in this case. The Petitioner had planned to go to the hospital on January 5, 1987, because of problems he has had with his legs, and to remain in the hospital for the remainder of the week. Because of the problems with his legs and his automobile, the Petitioner did not go to the hospital or see a doctor on January 5, 1987. On January 8, 1987, the Petitioner had a friend drive him to Panama City, Florida, where he remained under the care of Dr. Ernest G. Haslam, M.D., in the hospital, until January 12, 1987. Although the Petitioner does not have a telephone at his residence, Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn could have been contacted by Petitioner's wife, who works at Hardees, or by a friend. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt on April 14, 1983, of the Florida Department of Transportation Employee Handbook and his responsibility to review the handbook in detail and to request clarification, if necessary. On page 43 of the handbook it is provided that "[a]fter an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from Career Service ..." On page 22 of the handbook it is provided that "[i]f a medical appointment is necessary during work hours, you should obtain `approval, in advance, to use your earned sick leave." By certified letter from Allen Potter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department, dated January 8, 1976, the Petitioner was informed that he was deemed to have abandoned his position with the Respondent and to have resigned from the Career Service because of his absence from work during the first week of January, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration rule that the Petitioner, Albert T. Smith, has not abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, and has not resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0450 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s), if any, in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RD ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has filed a letter dated April 10, 1987. The only proposed finding of fact contained in this letter concerns the question of whether the Petitioner told his supervisor, Mr. Goodwin, that he would not be at work during the period of time at issue in this case. The proposed finding of fact has been accepted in RD 10. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding RD Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 RD 1-4 and 8. 2 RD 5-7 and 9. 3 RD 10-11. 4 RD 11 and 13. The evidence did not prove that the Petitioner had obtained prior approval for sick leave subsequent to the period of time involved in this case. The evidence only proved that the Petitioner had on other occasions received prior approval of annual leave. 5 RD 19-20. RD 16 and 18. The evidence does not prove that the Petitioner got into a car and drove to town. RD 21. The Petitioner was not, however, "absent from his position without authorized leave ..." COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kay N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mr. Albert T. Smith Route 1, Box 135, B 69A Blountstown, Florida 32424 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner received a salary overpayment for the pay period ending November 9, 2000, for which the State of Florida is entitled to be reimbursed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Juvenile Justice (Respondent) as a Group Treatment Leader, Class Code 5721, for a four-month period ending on November 6, 2000. This is a career service position. Petitioner resigned from the Respondent on November 6, 2000, due to significant personal problems associated with his marriage. Petitioner's resignation was accepted by his supervisor on the same day. Petitioner was not a permanent career service employee on the date of his resignation. Petitioner received a final payment for work performed for the period October 27, 2000 through November 5, 2000, on approximately November 20, 2001. Petitioner was concerned about the possibility of overpayment and contacted his local personnel office to inquire about it. Petitioner was told by his office personnel officer not to be concerned about it. At that time, Petitioner believed the matter to be resolved and no longer an issue. By letter dated May 16, 2001, Petitioner received correspondence from Respondent alleging that he was overpaid and seeking reimbursement in the amount of $233.53 for 21.0 hours of earned annual leave that was not compensable. The notification was not prompt, but is was made in a timely manner. On May 21, 2001, Petitioner requested a formal hearing before the DOAH. On June 26, 2001, Respondent notified Petitioner that a further audit revealed that he was entitled to be paid for 8.0 hours of special compensation leave. Applying these hours to the overpayment left a balance of 13.0 hours, equaling $144.57 due. While this matter was pending before DOAH, that amount was garnished from Petitioner's wages by the Comptroller, without prior notification. Petitioner had 21.0 hours of earned annual leave while employed by Respondent. Due to excessive working hours and the critical nature of the position with Respondent, Petitioner had very limited opportunities to use his leave during the time he was employed by Respondent. Due to the short time that he was employed by Respondent, Petitioner's earned leave was not transferable to the Department of Heath, his current employer. Petitioner seeks to withdraw his original letter of resignation and substitute a new letter, to be effective November 20, 2000. This would allow him to use the annual leave and special compensatory leave to account for the period in question and cancel the garnishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary enter a final order authorizing the garnishment of Petitioner's wages in the amount of $144.57 for salary overpayment for the pay period ending November 9, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 1st day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Davison, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Sheldon S. Scrivener 5253 Jamaica Road Cocoa, Florida 32927-9058 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ann Anderson, requested a hearing by a letter dated April 24, 1981. After the required informal conference with a supervisor in the Respondent Department, Petitioner requested a formal hearing. On January 13, 1981, Anderson, a white female, filed a Household Application for low income energy assistance. No one in her household is a migrant or migrant farm worker, and no one else has applied for the low income energy assistance. She lives alone, is legally blind, receives food stamps, and receives a bill for use of liquid propane for hearing purposes. By Notice of Application Denial mailed on February 13, 1981, Petitioner was informed that she was denied assistance for the reason that her monthly income exceeded the maximum income limit for a household of her size. The action was taken by Respondent within 45 days of Petitioner's application, and she was promptly notified of the reason for denial of benefits. Petitioner did not dispute the evidence presented by Respondent Department but was convinced the income limit by household size was unfair, particularly since she lives alone; but her house is large and rooms cannot be shut off, and she is elderly and blind. Petitioner Anderson's monthly household income is $343.30.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ann R. Anderson Route 4, Box 6325 Citra, FL 32627 James A. Sawyer, Esquire Department of HRS 3001 S.W. Broadway Ocala, FL 32671 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of HRS Building One, Room 406 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32301 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND, 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 5th day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact By application dated April 5, 1982, Petitioner, Carolyn W. Albury, sought financial assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program from Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The application was received by Respondent on April 15, 1982. By Notice dated May 10, 1982, Respondent requested Petitioner to furnish a form verifying the income reflected on her application no later than May 24, 1982. On May 20, 1982, Petitioner filed HRS Form 112 indicating that her employer, Dade County School Board, would not supply that information. Instead, she later submitted a pay stub for a two week pay-period in May, 1982, reflecting bi-weekly income of $493. The application was ultimately denied by notice dated June 1, 1982, on the ground Albury had not furnished verification of income for the month of April, 1982 and because such verification had not been timely filed in accordance with the instructions in the notice of May 10. Thereafter, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to appeal the decision of the Department. Petitioner's application states she resides in her household with two other persons. However, her daughter resides the majority of time in a college dormitory and cannot be included as a member of the household. The total countable monthly income for the household is approximately $1,070. After deducting a 20 percent allowance given to applicants who are employed, the income still exceeds the monthly income limitation of $474 for households having two persons. Therefore, Albury was ineligible for assistance. Applicant did not dispute the Department's determination that their total monthly countable income exceeded acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. However, she contended that HRS instructions were unclear as to the type of income verification required, and had she been told to furnish pay stubs for the month of April, she would have done so. She also stated that she must use an air-conditioner and respiratory equipment at her home because of asthma and emphysema, and is in need of financial assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Carolyn W. Albury for energy assistance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Carolyn W. Albury 1265 North West 86th Street Miami, Florida 33147 Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of HRS 401 North West 2nd Avenue, Suite 1040 Miami, Florida 33128
Findings Of Fact Prior to commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated and agreed to the following matters, which are incorporated into and made a part of the Findings of Fact: Petitioner has a two-person household; Petitioner made application for low income energy assistance benefits; Petitioner's total monthly income in the month of application was $535, which consisted of $143.70 SSI, $276.90 Social Security disability benefits to Petitioner and $141.50 Social Security benefits to Petitioner's daughter: The maximum monthly income a two-person household may receive and be eligible for benefits is $418; Except for exceeding the maximum income limit, the petitioner is otherwise eligible for low income energy assistance benefits; and Petitioner's application was received as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The Petitioner also testified concerning her expenses in the month in which she applied for benefits. Her expenses were $45 for medication for both Petitioner and her daughter, $10 for batteries for her daughter's hearing aids, $10 for counseling for her daughter, $25 for doctor's bills, $390 for rent, $40 for utilities, $72 for telephone (the average bill would be approximately $30, but Petitioner had surgery in that month and it was higher), and $150 for food. Petitioner's bills for the month of application were $742. Petitioner has emphysema and cancer, and her daughter has a breathing disorder and is deaf. Her electric bills have jumped from $30 to $190. Petitioner's income and expenses were carefully compared with the rules governing this program to determine whether any portion of her income was excludable or any portion of her expenses could be deducted from her income in determining her eligibility. None of her income was excludable, and none of her expenses could be deducted. Copies of the Department's rules were introduced as Respondent's Exhibit 1, together with its policy outlining excludable income, Respondent's Exhibit 2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services deny Petitioner's application for low income energy assistance benefits. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of September, 1981. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1981 COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Bette Kaufman 950 NE 171st Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of HRS Room 1040, Rhode Building 401 NW Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Attn: Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of HRS Building One, Room 406 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On July 11, 1981, Petitioner, Epifano Rodriguez, filed a household application for cooling assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner resides in Lee County, Florida, which is a part of the South Cooling Climatic Region for purposes of determining the level of assistance to be given claimants. Although the application required that applicant furnish his social security number and monthly countable income, he failed to do so. On July 14, 1981, the Department requested the claimant furnish the omitted information. Because he failed to comply with this request, the application was ultimately denied. Applicant and his wife are the only members of the household. Because of an acute or chronic medical condition, he is required to cool his residence. Through testimony at the hearing, Petitioner provided his social security number and monthly household income which totaled $394.25. This amount falls within the income limitations for households having two persons. Rodriguez also agreed to furnish verification of his monthly income to Department representatives no later than November 10, 1981, which is approximately one week after he receives his next social security checks. If such verification is supplied, Rodriguez will be entitled to $241 in cooling assistance benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Epifano Rodriguez be GRANTED and he be given cooling assistance in the amount of $241 provided that he furnish verification of his monthly household income to Department representatives in Fort Myers, Florida, no later than Tuesday, November 10, 1981; otherwise the application should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this , in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Epifano Rodriguez 5900 Winkler Road Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Anthony DeLuccia, Esquire 8000 Cleveland Avenue, South Fort Myers, Florida 33907
Findings Of Fact Petitioner June M. Fannon requested a hearing by a letter received in the office of Respondent on March 12, 1981. After the required informal conference with a supervisor in Respondent Department Petitioner requested a formal hearing. On January 15, 1981 Fannon, a white female, filed a Household Application for low income energy assistance. No one in her household is a migrant or migrant farm worker, and no one else has applied for the low income energy assistance. She lives alone and receives a bill for use of liquid propane for heating. By Notice of Application Denial mailed February 4, 1981 Petitioner was informed that she was denied assistance for the reason that her monthly income exceeded the maximum income limit for a household of her size. Action was taken by Respondent within 45 days of Petitioner's application, and she was promptly notified of the reason for denial of benefits. Petitioner did not dispute the evidence presented by Respondent Department but thought it was unfair to consider the amount deducted for Medicare as income. She is a heart patient and has high medical bills to pay. Under Rule 10 CER 80-11.07, Florida Administrative Code, and the applicable chart Petitioner Fannon's household income exceeds the income limit of $316.00 for a household of one person.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that low income energy benefits be denied Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. June M. Fannon 1746 NE Eighth Road Ocala, Florida 32670 James A. Sawyer, Esquire Department of HRS 3001 SW Broadway Ocala, Florida 32671 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was overpaid in the amount of $1,022.45 and should be required to repay that amount to the Department of Health.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a career-service employee of Respondent and was initially employed with the Department from October 14, 2005, until January 20, 2007. In February 2007 Petitioner received a cash payout for her annual leave balance of 3.25 hours in the amount of $67.18. In January 2007 when Petitioner terminated her employment with the Department, the state’s timekeeping system, People’s First, was not set up to automatically zero out leave balances for employees. The Department’s human resource office was responsible to manually adjust the leave balance to zero each time an employee left employment with the Department. The Department’s human resource office failed to zero out Petitioner’s leave when she left. On March 6, 2009, Petitioner became re-employed with the Department at a remote high school as a nurse. The People’s First system credited Petitioner leave balances she was not entitled to upon re-employment with the Department because her previous leave balances had not been adjusted to zero. Upon Petitioner’s re-employment, the People’s First system reflected incorrect leave balances in the amount of 3.25 hours accrued annual leave, and 107.75 hours of accrued sick leave. Petitioner noticed a leave balance when she returned to work for the Department and asked her supervisor about the hours. Petitioner’s supervisor provided her with incorrect information, which was, because she returned to the State within five years Petitioner was able to keep the time she had accumulated. Petitioner followed up with the Department’s personnel officer, Karen Cayson (“Cayson”), to see if the policy was true and Cayson confirmed that it was correct. During Petitioner’s last two pay periods prior to her second separation from employment with the Department, Petitioner took leave and used the unearned leave amount People’s First indicated she had. Petitioner was paid salary for 34.50 hours of leave for the May 30, 2014, warrant date and 37.50 hours of leave for the June 13, 2014, warrant date. When Petitioner took the 34.50 and 37.50 hours of leave, it should have been leave without pay had the Department’s Human Resource section properly accounted for her leave to ensure it was at a zero balance when she left the Department in 2007. Petitioner worked for the Department until May 30, 2014. After Petitioner left, the Department conducted a payroll and leave audit. Katie Williams (“Williams”) did an official attendance audit by pulling all of Petitioner’s leave and historical data. Williams completed the audit and discovered Petitioner had been overpaid $509.61 for the warrant date May 30, 2014, and overpaid $566.65 for the warrant date June 13, 2014. The Petitioner did not become aware of the overpayment until the Department requested repayment by letter. On July 3, 2014, the Department sent Petitioner a certified letter requesting the overpaid amount of $1,022.45, in which the Petitioner timely contested the letter. Petitioner did her best to determine and verify that she was entitled to the leave money and was assured the amount was correct by Department employees. Petitioner took leave relying upon the assurance that her leave balance credit was correct. Petitioner’s sole income is from her monthly $1,195.00 social security check. She does not have the money to pay the overpayment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner repay $10.00 to the Department of Health monthly and continue each month thereafter until the $1,022.45 overpayment amount is repaid. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2014, 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 14th day of November, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark John Henderson, Esquire Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Mary Jane Williams 1922 Northwest 113th Drive Gainesville, Florida 32606 (eServed) Jaime Briggs, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 (eServed) Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S. State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service under the facts and circumstances of this case. At the hearing the Respondent offered eleven exhibits into evidence and presented the testimony of two witnesses, Charles Crozier and Sam Visconti. The Petitioner offered two exhibits, both of which were rejected. The Petitioner did not call any witnesses to testify on his behalf. He expressly declined to be sworn as a witness and testify on his own behalf, even after being specifically advised of his right to do so and being specifically advised that no findings of fact could be made on the basis of his unsworn assertions.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the sworn testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, Leroy Williams-El, commenced his employment with the Respondent, Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, in 1977. His last position was Dorm Supervisor I, which position he had held since the 1980-81 school year. The position Petitioner held was somewhat critical in that not only did he have to oversee the portion of the dormitory that was assigned to him, but he was also specifically in charge of the care and safety of some ten or twelve students. The Petitioner was a permanent employee, but his work period coincided generally with the school year and ran for ten months, generally from August to June each year. The Petitioner's last official work day was June 11, 1985. He was not in a work status during the summer of 1985. The dorm supervisors were supervised by Charles Crozier, Director of Student Life. At the end of the 1985 school year, the dorm supervisors remained at the school for approximately a week after the students had left and the administration conducted a post-planning week. During the post-planning week, Crozier met with the employees, discussed the upcoming 1985-86 school calendar, and Petitioner and the other dorm supervisors were told that their date to report back to work was August 26, 1985. In addition to discussing the return date with the various employees at the June post-planning meeting, Crozier, under date of August 21, 1985, mailed a letter to the Petitioner at his last known address as it appeared in the school file, that is, 75 1/2 Lincoln Street, St. Augustine, Florida 32084, reminding the Petitioner that his return date for reporting back for work was August 26, 1985. The Petitioner did not return to work as instructed on August 26, 1985. On August 27, 1985, the Petitioner called Crozier and advised Crozier he had been unable to report to work on August 26, 1985. He was advised by Crozier that he must report to work on Thursday, August 29, at 8:00 a.m. (Exhibit 2) The Petitioner did not report to work on August 29, but instead again called Crozier. Crozier, at this point, got the personnel officer of the school, Sam Visconti, on the phone with him. During the conversation on August 29, 1985, the Petitioner requested that the school "transfer" him to a position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Miami. Crozier and Visconti both explained to him that the school had no authority to "transfer" the Petitioner to another job with another agency in another city. He was told that he should report to work immediately or submit a request for leave without pay. At the time of Petitioner's telephone call on August 29, 1985, Crozier had already prepared a letter dated August 29, 1985, advising the Petitioner that inasmuch as he had failed to report to work on August 26 and had not reported on August 29 as directed, he was being given an official reprimand. He was further advised that if he did not contact Crozier by September 4, 1985, he would be suspended without pay and failure to report to work would result in his termination. The Petitioner did not report to work on September 4, 1985, as instructed. On September 6, 1985, Crozier received a call from Lynn Rowe, Visconti's assistant in the personnel office, relaying a telephone call from a lady purporting to be the Petitioner's sister. Ms. Rowe was inquiring whether or not Crozier had any instructions for the Petitioner. Crozier advised Ms. Rowe that the Petitioner was to report to work by the time his normal work week would start, which would be Sunday, September 8. The Petitioner did not report to work on September 8, September 9, or September 10, 1985. The Petitioner did not call in and make contact with Crozier or Visconti on any one of those days. When the Petitioner did not report to work for those three days, Crozier again contacted Sam Visconti, the personnel officer, and reported this fact to him. At no time during the period from August 26 through September 10, 1985, did the Petitioner request from Crozier or Visconti, the personnel officer, annual leave, leave without pay, or any other type of approved leave. The conversations he had with Crozier and Visconti concerned a request that he be "transferred" to a job with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Miami. On September 11, 1985, after Crozier advised Visconti of the Petitioner's failure to report to work, Visconti prepared a dismissal letter under the date of September 11, 1985. This letter summarized the chronology of events concerning Petitioner's failure to report to work and advised the Petitioner that he was considered to have abandoned his position. Petitioner was further told of his right to seek a determination and review of his abandonment. The letter of September 11, 1985, was mailed to the Petitioner's last known address in the personnel file, which was the St. Augustine address. Late in the afternoon of September 11, Petitioner called Visconti and informed him of the new address in Miami, Florida. Visconti then sent an additional copy of the same letter to Petitioner on September 13, 1985, to the Miami address. The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is a separate state agency and is not in any way connected with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Furthermore, the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind has no offices or positions available in the Miami area. Visconti and Crozier discussed with Petitioner his repeated requests for a "transfer" on more than one occasion and repeatedly advised him the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind had no authority to transfer him to a different job with another state agency. At no time did the Petitioner request a leave of absence from Visconti. Visconti advised the Petitioner of the critical nature of his position as a Dorm Supervisor I and explained to him the difficulties created by Petitioner's failure to return to work. Visconti further advised the Petitioner that if he wanted a leave of absence, the personnel officer had to receive the request for the leave of absence in writing and the president of the school would consider the request after it had been received. It was imperative, however, that the Petitioner either bring or mail in a written request for a leave of absence. The Petitioner did not send a request for leave of absence to the school. The last conversation Crozier had with the Petitioner occurred sometime in late October or November and concerned a request by the Petitioner that Crozier send a copy of the Petitioner's college transcripts to an HRS office in Miami. At that time the Petitioner did not request to be re-employed or to be reinstated. Crozier mailed the materials as requested. Williams did not report to the school for employment on or after August 26, 1985, and was considered to have resigned effective September 10, 1985.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner abandoned his position and that his petition should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leroy Williams 1360 N.W. 199th Street Miami, Florida 33169 Mr. Leroy Williams-E1 10566 McLaurin Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Mr. Samuel R. Visconti Personnel Officer Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 207 North San Marco Avenue St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda H. Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Kopel, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on each of the findings of fact proposed by each of the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner The rulings which follow immediately below refer to the five (5) unnumbered paragraphs which appear under the caption "Facts To Examine" in Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Order To Commence On Final Argument. The paragraphs are referred to in the order in which they appear. First paragraph on first page: First sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion not supported by the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. First paragraph on second page: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected in its entirety as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Third paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings. Fourth paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected in its entirety as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent All of the findings proposed by the Respondent have been accepted with a few editorial modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION LEROY WTLLlAMS-EL, Petitioner, vs. DOA Case No. AB-85-18 DOAH Case No. 85-3600 FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND, Respondent. /
