The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a psychologist by the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact On February 6, 1995, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure by examination as a psychologist in the State of Florida. During its regular meeting of February 9-11, 1995, the Respondent considered and rejected the Petitioner's application. By letter dated February 13, 1995, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that his application had been denied. On May 11, 1995, the Respondent filed a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. The Notice appears to have been signed on April 20, 1995. The Notice of Intent identifies the basis for the denial as follows: In voting to deny the application, the Board found that the applicant's program did not require coursework in biological bases of behavior, cognitive-affective bases of behavior, or statistics. Moreover, the program did not require an internship that met the requirements of Rule 59AA-11.0061(3)(j), F.A.C. Prior to commencement of the hearing, the parties resolved the issue related to coursework in the Petitioner's favor. The issue remaining for hearing is whether the Petitioner's educational program required an internship that met the requirements of the cited rule. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner has 1660 of acceptable pre-doctoral internship hours. The Petitioner has also submitted 2340 hours of post-doctoral supervised experience. Post-doctoral experience may be used to augment pre-doctoral hours if the post-doctoral experience meets the requirements of Rule 59AA-11.003(30(j), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence fails to establish that any of the 2340 hours meet the requirements set forth for pre-doctoral experience. The evidence is insufficient to establish that, beyond those hours to which the parties have agreed, any of the Petitioner's remaining internship/experience hours meet the applicable requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Psychological Examiners, enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a psychologist in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Psychological Examiners Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert Jacobs, Pro Se 1114 Evening Trail Drive Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543 Allen R. Grossman Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner received his M.A. degree from New School of Social Research, Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science in New York, New York, in sociology. He received further training in counseling as part of a Ph.D. program in clinical psychology at the Florida Institute of Technology. He is scheduled to receive his Ph.D. this year, having completed all coursework. Petitioner worked as a counselor under the supervision of Dr. Limbillo of the Naples Community Hospital Mental Health Clinic, in 1973 and 1974. He also worked as a counselor under the supervision of Dr. Hughes from 1975 to 1977 and Dr. Roca from 1977 to 1979.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a marriage and family therapist by exception. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 27th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel D. Peck, Esquire Suite A-204, Park Square 4089 Tamiami Trail, North Naples, Florida 33940 Drucilla Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the deposition testimony and documentary evidence from the petitioner's application file, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner is a 1979 graduate of the University of Karachi and Dow Medical College in Pakistan. At the time of his application for Florida licensure by endorsement, he was licensed to practice medicine in Iowa. He is currently licensed to practice medicine in the states of Iowa, Georgia and Maryland. When the Florida Board of Medicine noticed its intent to deny petitioner's application, he had obtained a passing score on the federal licensing examination (FLEX). Contained within petitioner's application file are numerous letters from physicians who had, at one time or another, worked with the petitioner at various health care facilities. With one exception, all such letters recommended him for licensure in Florida and are quite positive regarding petitioner's competency as a physician. The one exception came from Dr. David W. Schultz, who was the director of petitioner's first year residency program at Lutheran Medical Center in Ohio. Petitioner participated in and completed a first year internal medicine residency program at Lutheran Medical Center from July 1, 1983 through June 30, 1984. Dr. David W. Schultz had held the position of director of the residency program for over twenty years. During petitioner's year of residency, Dr. Schultz taught the first year residents only one class. Other than his teacher/student relationship with petitioner during that one class in October and/or November of 1983, Dr. Schultz had no opportunity to directly and personally observe petitioner's ability to practice medicine. The entire faculty was involved in the teaching and observation of the residents. The "firm" or group to which petitioner was assigned as a first year resident did not manage or treat any of the patients admitted by Dr. Schultz. Other than his class observations, Dr. Schultz's opinions regarding petitioner's competency are based solely upon verbal reports and comments from other physicians and residents during the year. On January 13, 1984, Dr. Schultz wrote a letter "To Whom It May Concern," stating that petitioner is a "hard working and sincere physician" who "seems to get along with fellow residents and the Attending Staff." He recommended petitioner "for acceptance into your program." On or about February 10, 1984, Dr. Schultz completed and returned a form sent to him by the Florida Board of Medicine. The form advised Dr. Schultz that petitioner had applied for medical licensure in Florida and requested Dr. Schultz to rate petitioner in fifteen areas as either "poor," "fair," "good," "superior," or "don't know," and to provide an overall evaluation by checking one of the following: " 1. Recommend as outstanding applicant. 2. Recommended as qualified and competent. 3. Recommended with some reservation. 4. Cannot recommend." If either numbers 3 or 4 were checked, a written explanation was requested. Dr. Schultz rated petitioner "good" in all fifteen categories and checked item number 2 above -- "recommended as qualified and competent." On June 20, 1984, Dr. Schultz wrote a similar "To Whom It May Concern Letter" recommending petitioner "for acceptance into your program." On June 25, 1984, Dr. Schultz wrote a letter to the Florida Department of professional Regulation recommending petitioner "for a license in the State of Florida." Both of the June, 1984, letters again state that petitioner is "a hard working and sincere physician" and that "he seems to get along with fellow residents and the Attending Staff." In October of 1984, the Board of Medicine received a second completed form from Dr. Schultz regarding the petitioner. This form called for the identical information as the form completed by Dr. Schultz in February of 1984. However, this time Dr. Schultz rated petitioner as "fair" in thirteen categories, "poor" in one category (relationship with colleagues) and "good" in only one category (knowledge of English). As an overall evaluation, Dr. Schultz checked Item Number 3, "recommended with some reservation," but no written explanation was provided. At his deposition taken on September 17, 1987, Dr. Schultz attempted to explain the discrepancies between his evaluations of petitioner submitted in January, February and June of 1984 and his October, 1984, evaluation. When asked what happened between the two forms submitted in February and October of 1984, Dr. Schultz testified that it was only petitioner's failure to improve. Elaborating somewhat, Dr. Schultz stated: "I think, I admit to you it seems difficult to justify. I think if you have had the experience I've had over a period of many, many years in training residents and starting residents in what is a three-year program that you are always hopeful `that people who don't perform well at the first-year level may be able to find themselves, improve their basic knowledge level, and apply it better in the two years they have left in training, and that is the only justification I can give you for those letters. During his deposition, Dr. Schultz opined that petitioner was the "poorest" of the eight first year residents in the areas of basic medical knowledge, ability to apply knowledge to the effective management of patients and willingness to work hard. It was his opinion that, during the time of his first year residency, petitioner was not competent to independently practice medicine with skill and safety. The petitioner's application file also contains two letters written in January and February of 1984, from Dr. William T. Wilder, who was then an associate clinical director of the Medical Geropsychiatric Unit at Lutheran Medical Center. These letters represent that Dr. Wilder has worked closely with the petitioner during his residency program and that Dr. Wilder regards petitioner as having "excellent moral character" and "excellent qualifications to practice as a physician." He describes petitioner as a "very dedicated and thorough resident," "diligent in follow up on patient problems," and able to work well with patients. In 1983, Lutheran Medical Center was required to reduce the number of second year resident positions from eight to six. In the opinion of Dr. Schultz, even if Lutheran had had eight available second year residency positions, petitioner would not have been offered one of them because "his performance didn't warrant that." Petitioner was informed in October of 1983, that he would not be offered a second year residency position at Lutheran. Apparently, the month of October is a uniform appointment time throughout the country for residents in hospitals with approved medical programs. During the end of his second full month of residency at Lutheran Medical Center, petitioner underwent emergency eye surgery for a detached retina. It was petitioner's understanding that he was not offered a second year residency at Lutheran Medical because of his eye problems and because of the cutback in the number of second year residency positions. Although other residents were placed on probation due to unsatisfactory performance, petitioner was never placed on probation during his residency at Lutheran. On July 3, 1984, after the completion of his residency, petitioner filed a civil rights action against Lutheran Medical Center alleging that he had been discriminated against due to his eye problems. Dr. Schultz's deposition was taken in connection with that action in the summer of 1984. Since November of 1986, petitioner has been employed as a staff physician at the Georgia State Prison in Ridgeville, Georgia. In that capacity, petitioner sees approximately twenty to thirty male inmate patients per day and performs some minor surgery. His immediate supervisor is the medical director of the Georgia State Prison, Dr. Henry A. Robinson, who is board certified in obstetrics/gynecology and has been practicing medicine for 31 years. Dr. Robinson observes petitioner on a daily basis, and recommends him for licensure in Florida with no reservation. It is Dr. Robinson's opinion that petitioner is "very firm in his medical skills," has good medical knowledge which he applies very well, is willing to work, is cooperative and gets along well with his peers and his patients. Dr. Robinson has had fewer complaints from inmate patients regarding petitioner than any other health care worker. When asked to give an overall rating of petitioner as a physician, Dr. Robinson replied "I think he's well trained. He's motivated and does a fine job in the day-to-day practice."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 25th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2680 The proposed findings of fact submitted by counsel have been carefully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in the Recommended Order, except as noted below. Respondent 5, last sentence: Rejected; if respondent is referring to "approved" medical training, this is irrelevant and immaterial. The evidence does establish that petitioner has been practicing medicine since the time of his residency. 9. The first two sentences and the last four sentences are accepted. The last sentence is accepted as a reason stated by the Board, but not as a sufficient reason for denial. The remaining portions are rejected as contrary to the conclusions drawn by the undersigned upon a reading of the entire deposition. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary D. Fields, Esquire 230 Royal Palm Way Suite 400 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Administrative Law Section Suite 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner qualifies for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor level for supplemental compensation at the rate of $110.00 per month.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to these proceedings, the Petitioner has been employed as a firefighter with the Metro-Dade Fire Department. The Petitioner's primary function with the Metro-Dade Fire Department is as a firefighter. By letter dated May 30, 1991, and received on June 10, 1991, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for Firefighters Supplemental Compensation at the Bachelor degree level. Three transcripts were submitted with the Petitioner's application. The first was from Miami-Dade Community College, and showed that an Associate of Science degree in Fire Science was awarded to the Petitioner on May 4, 1991. The second transcript was from Broward Community College, showing many courses taken by Petitioner, but no degree awarded. 3/ The third transcript was from Florida International University, and showed that a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Industrial Technology was awarded to Petitioner on December 12, 1980. Petitioner's Bachelor degree from Florida International University is not based upon, and does not include, any of the courses in fire science that formed the basis for Petitioner's Associate degree from Miami-Dade Community College. 4/ Petitioner's transcript of her Bachelor degree does not reveal a major study concentration area of at least 18 semester hours or 27 quarter hours which is readily identifiable and applicable as fire- related. On or about June 24, 1991, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that she was eligible for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Associate degree level by virtue of her Associate of Science degree in Fire Science from Miami-Dade Community College. On or about June 26, 1991, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that she was not eligible for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor degree level because Petitioner's major in Industrial Technology from Florida International University was not a recognized Major Study Concentration Area in Rule 4A-37.084. The denial letter cites and quotes the definition of "Bachelor's Degree" at Rule 4A-37.084(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a final order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for participation in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor degree level. 7/ DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of December, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 17th day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner graduated from high school in the People's Republic of China in 1972. She thereafter worked for a short time in a factory that manufactured Chinese medicines as a foreman. She became interested in Chinese medicine and enrolled in Kenchow Chinese Medical College, a nighttime professional university. She studied chemistry, biochemistry, and Chinese medicine. As a part of this program, she studied acupuncture meridians and points. For a full year, she spent two hours per day in classroom studies directly related to acupuncture and two hours practicing acupuncture as an apprentice. Thereafter, from 1973 until 1980, she worked as an acupuncturist for four hours per day, six days per week. She worked at a Chinese medicine industrial research center. In addition to her work with patients as an acupuncturist, she was involved in field studies regarding herbs and Chinese medicines and in the recording of statistics and research data. During this same time, the Petitioner enrolled in a correspondence course at Western Pacific College in Hong Kong. This program included courses in the basic theory of Chinese medicine, including courses specifically dealing with the theory and practice of acupuncture. The Petitioner enrolled at Western Pacific College so that she could receive certification as an acupuncturist. She already had completed similar work at Kenchow, and she was able to complete the course work by devoting approximately two hours per week to it. She received a certification from Western Pacific College that she completed the acupuncture course. The certification is dated January 20, 1980. In January, 1981, Petitioner moved to the United States. Since May, 1981, she has worked under the supervision of physicians performing acupuncture treatments in Volusia County, Florida. Petitioner appears to have sufficient education and experience to practice as an acupuncturist. The Department of Professional Regulation has not approved any programs of education in acupuncture or any apprenticeship programs in acupuncture. There is insufficient evidence in the record in this matter from which it could be determined that the programs offered at either Kenchow Chinese Medical College or Western Pacific College should be approved by the Department. Inquiries directed to the schools by the Department have not been answered, and the Petitioner has been unable to obtain transcripts of her course work. It cannot be determined whether anyone in any of the clinical portions of the educational programs attended by Petitioner were certified acupuncturists. The Department of Professional Regulation has not approved any apprenticeship programs for the practice of acupuncture. While it appears that Petitioner has an ample theoretical and practical background as an acupuncturist, it does not appear that prior to her coming to the United States she was ever supervised by a person who is licensed under Chapters 458, 459, or 468, Florida Statutes. Indeed, since all of her experience was in China, it is extremely unlikely that she was supervised by any such person. Petitioner has been practicing as an acupuncturist since May, 1981, under supervision as required under Chapters 458 and 459, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the application of Lucy Wei-Nor Yu for licensure as an acupuncturist in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 9th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Lucy Wei-Nor Yu 1360 Ridgewood Avenue Holly Hill, Florida 32017 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent on the basis of her failure to timely comply with continuing education requirements established by Section 626.2815, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is currently licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance ("Department") as a General Lines (2-20) Agent. During the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1997, the Respondent was licensed as a General Lines (2-20) Agent and as a Life, Health, and Variable Annuity (2-15) Agent. At all times material to this case, insurance agents licensed in Florida have been required to complete continuing education courses every two years. Licensed insurance agents can meet their continuing education requirements by attending seminars, taking classroom courses, or taking self-study courses. During the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1997, the Respondent was required to complete 28 hours of continuing education courses. /3 The required courses could be taken and completed at any time during that two-year period. At all times material, the Respondent has been aware of the continuing education requirements applicable to licensed insurance agents. The Respondent resides in Key Largo, Florida, and has lived at the same address for at least 10 years. Miami, Florida, is about 60 miles from Key Largo. Key West is about 100 miles from Key Largo. During the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1997, there were 11 continuing education courses offered in Key largo. During that same period there were 73 continuing education courses offered in Monroe County. During that same period there were approximately 3,000 continuing education courses offered in Dade County. The Respondent waited until July 16, 1997, which was 15 days before the end of her two-year continuing education deadline, before taking any action to comply with the continuing education requirements. On that day she ordered two self-study courses from a course provider named Noble. If an insurance agent chooses a self-study course to fulfill the continuing education requirements, the course is not considered to be completed until the agent has taken a monitored examination on the course material and has achieved a score of at least 70 percent. The Respondent finished her study of the course materials she bought from Noble by the end of July 1997, but she did not take and pass the examinations on those materials until the end of August 1997, which was three or four weeks past the end of her compliance deadline. In July of 1997, the Respondent was nursing an infant child. Although Noble had a testing site in Miami, the Respondent did not want to go to Miami to take the examinations for her self-study courses, because a trip to Miami would interfere with nursing her child. The Respondent waited until the end of August, because by that time Noble had opened a testing site in Key Largo. All insurance agents who failed to comply with the continuing education requirements for the period ending July 31, 1997, were sent a Preliminary Notice of Non-Compliance. All agents who did not respond to the Preliminary Notice of Non- Compliance were sent a Final Notice of Non-compliance. Both preliminary and final notices were sent to the Respondent. The Department initiated disciplinary action against all insurance agents who were found to have failed to comply with the continuing education requirements. The Department offered each of the non-compliant agents an opportunity to settle the disciplinary actions by payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Numerous insurance agents settled on those terms. In one case, such a disciplinary action was resolved by a stipulated six-month license suspension.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a final order concluding that the Respondent is guilty of failing to comply with statutory and rule provisions regarding continuing education, and imposing a penalty consisting of a six-month suspension of the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 8th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether the Florida educator’s certificate of Respondent, Carmen Komninos, is subject to discipline for violating section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the appropriate penalty therefor.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Komninos holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 985529, which covers Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and World Language – Spanish, and is valid through June 2021. Ms. Komninos began her 42-year career as an educator in New Jersey. She moved to Florida in 2006 and started working for the School District. She primarily taught Spanish at the School from 2007 until she retired in 2019. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Komninos served as a Spanish teacher and taught B.T. and C.M., among other students. The Administrative Complaint focuses on two separate incidents in which Ms. Komninos allegedly grabbed B.T. and C.M. by their arms. Neither B.T. nor C.M. reported the alleged incidents to the School when they happened. Rather, they only disclosed them during the School’s investigation of complaints made by other students. That investigation began on March 22, 2018, when a teacher received the following two documents from an unidentified student: (1) a handwritten letter of unknown origin purportedly signed by several students complaining about Ms. Komninos1; and (2) a copy of a photograph posted to Snapchat. The photograph clearly depicts Ms. Komninos standing behind B.T. and holding onto his left arm with both of her hands. She does not appear to be exerting any force. B.T. is facing away from her and clearly smiling. The photograph contained the following two captions: how aggressive Hey Look! “Los novios” The use of the cry-laughing emoji multiple times seems to reflect that the students who posted the photograph found the incident humorous. But, the record contains neither evidence as to who took the photograph, posted it to Snapchat, or drafted the captions, nor evidence as to when that occurred. The teacher brought the documents to a guidance counselor who gave them to the assistant principal. The assistant principal brought them to the principal and Corporal Soto, the School’s youth relations deputy. The principal notified the School District and immediately removed Ms. Komninos from teaching duties pending the investigation. Mr. Ghelman, the School District’s coordinator for secondary schools and human resources at the time, directed the principal to obtain statements from the students. In his statement, B.T. acknowledged that he got out of his seat to sharpen his pencil after being told not to do so by Ms. Komninos and then refused to heed her directive to sit down. At that point, she grabbed his arm and tried to pull him back into his seat while his classmates yelled. 1 The record is silent as to the letter’s author, no student who signed it testified, and it focuses on allegations beyond the scope of the Administrative Complaint. Thus, the undersigned excluded the letter and has not relied on it in making any finding of fact. In her statement, C.M. indicated that she got up out of her seat to throw a piece of paper in the recycling bin and did so without permission because Ms. Komninos did not have a rule requiring them to ask first. C.M. stated that Ms. Komninos approached her at the recycling bin, grabbed her arm forcefully, and pushed her down to pick up the paper from the bin. C.M. said she picked up the paper and walked back to her desk. In their written statements, neither B.T. nor C.M. indicated when their respective incidents occurred or stated that they suffered (or could have suffered) any harm. Upon receipt of the statements, Mr. Ghelman met with Ms. Komninos. Contrary to C.M.’s statement, Ms. Komninos confirmed that she required the students to ask permission before getting up from their seats. She also said that she never placed her hands on a student. When shown the photograph, she ultimately agreed that it depicted her and B.T., but she did not recall the incident. She noted that she met with B.T.’s parents earlier that year to address B.T.’s struggles in her class. As to C.M., Ms. Komninos recalled the incident, but said that she never pushed C.M. and only told her to sit down when she got up without permission. Around the same time, Corporal Soto interviewed B.T. B.T. conceded that he wrongly got up without permission and refused to sit after being told to do so. B.T. said that, at that point, Ms. Komninos grabbed his arm to prevent him from continuing to walk towards the pencil sharpener and he went back to his seat. B.T. confirmed he suffered no injuries. Corporal Soto contacted B.T.’s father, who did not know about the incident. After viewing the photograph and speaking to his son, he informed Corporal Soto that they did not want to press charges. However, he remained concerned because he had met with Ms. Komninos and the guidance counselor before the incident to address concerns with her teaching style. In early April 2018, the principal met with B.T., his father, and Ms. Komninos. B.T.’s father wanted to ensure that Ms. Komninos would not treat his son differently if she returned to the class. She apologized for the incident and promised to help B.T. with the class. The principal believed that B.T.’s parents accepted the apology and welcomed her assistance. On April 18, 2018, after concluding its investigation, the School District suspended Ms. Komninos for one day without pay. She accepted the discipline and returned to the classroom. B.T.’s father confirmed that she treated B.T. fairly and that he passed her class. Notwithstanding the discipline already imposed, the Commissioner conducted its own investigation and obtained additional written statements from the students in November 2018. In B.T.’s statement, he indicated that he stood up to sharpen his pencil during a test, after Ms. Komninos told him he could not do so, and she then grabbed his arm and pulled to get him back to his seat. This statement largely mirrored the one he gave in March 2018. In C.M.’s statement, she indicated that Ms. Komninos forcefully grabbed her arm when she got up to throw away trash, pulled her, and told her to return to her seat. C.M. did not believe she needed permission since they were doing independent study. She was upset that Ms. Komninos grabbed her, instead of asking her to sit down. This statement conflicted with the one she gave in March 2018, in which she never accused Ms. Komninos of pulling her. Much like their first statements, neither B.T. nor C.M. indicated when their respective incidents occurred or stated that they suffered (or could have suffered) any harm. Several other students also submitted statements, though none of them testified at the hearing. A.A. indicated that B.T. got out of his seat after the bell rang, at which point Ms. Komninos grabbed B.T.’s arm and would not allow him to leave until he handed in his work. M.C. indicated that Ms. Komninos grabbed B.T.’s arm and pulled him over to her desk. C.R. indicated that Ms. Komninos grabbed C.M.’s wrist and pulled her to the front of the room, yelling that she would not give C.M. respect without it being returned. Most of these accounts conflicted with the details described in the statements of B.T. and C.M. In the meantime, Ms. Komninos continued teaching at the School until her retirement in July 2019. Upon her retirement, the School District issued a “Resolution in Recognition of Outstanding Service Leading to Retirement” to recognize her excellent service, contributions to the School District, and devotion to the school system. The resolution recognized that Ms. Komninos served the School District in a meritorious, faithful, and outstanding manner. The honor bestowed on her is not surprising. The principal who evaluated Ms. Komninos’s performance for many years, including at the time of the alleged incidents, believed she was a strong educator, a hard worker, and a rule follower based on his observations of her in the classroom. According to him, she clearly communicated her rules to the students, had a great rapport with them, and maintained control over the classroom. After Ms. Komninos already had been disciplined by the School, received an award from the School District for her years of dedicated service, and retired from teaching, the Commissioner issued its Administrative Complaint seeking to discipline her educator’s certificate as a result of the two incidents. Specifically, the Commissioner alleged that she violated the Principle of Professional Conduct requiring her to make reasonable efforts to protect the students from conditions harmful to their learning, mental and physical health, and/or safety. In its PRO, the Commissioner seeks to issue a letter of reprimand, place Ms. Komninos on probation for two years, and levy a $750 fine against her. Only three witnesses who were in the classroom when the incidents allegedly occurred testified at the hearing—B.T., C.M., and Ms. Komninos. Ms. Komninos generally explained that she required students to raise their hands before getting out of their seat for any reason. They knew the rules because she wrote them on the bulletin board and repeated them verbally. However, some of the students pushed the envelope. As to the incident concerning B.T., Ms. Komninos credibly testified that she did not recall the incident even after seeing the photograph, which she agreed depicted her holding onto B.T.’s arm. She said the same thing to both the principal and Mr. Ghelman during the investigation. She credibly explained that the photograph must have been taken in the Fall of 2017 based on the items posted on the cabinet doors in the background. She agreed that she met with the principal and B.T.’s father after the investigation began, reassured them that she would harbor no ill will towards B.T., and offered to help him better his grade. The undersigned credits Ms. Komninos’s testimony and found her to be forthcoming and truthful. B.T. testified that he thought the incident occurred within a month or two before the March 2018 investigation. He explained that Ms. Komninos would not allow him to sharpen his pencil during a test, so he violated her rules and got up without permission. Instead of walking to the back of the room to the sharpener, he started walking to the front. Ms. Komninos then grabbed his arm to stop him from walking. She held onto his arm for a matter of seconds and let go. He initially confirmed that she never pulled him back into his seat, contrary to his prior written statements, but later waivered and agreed that his memory was better back then. B.T. confirmed that he suffered no injuries in the incident and felt embarrassed more than anything else. That is why he smiled. He definitively testified that he never felt there was even a chance of Ms. Komninos harming him, though he waivered when counsel for the Commissioner later asked whether he could have been harmed had he continued to walk forward. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the undersigned finds that Ms. Komninos held onto B.T.’s arm for a few seconds to stop him from further violating the rules by walking around during a test, but she did not pull him back into his seat. B.T. suffered no harm and the credible evidence established that Ms. Komninos never acted in a manner that could be seen as failing to make reasonable efforts to protect B.T. from conditions harmful to learning, mental and physical health, and/or safety. As to the incident concerning C.M., Ms. Komninos credibly explained that it occurred in March 2018. Ms. Komninos testified that C.M. got out of her seat without permission and, when Mr. Komninos instructed her to sit down, she further defied her order by continuing to walk to the recycling bin. Ms. Komninos walked to the recycling bin, instructed C.M. to remove the paper, and followed her back to her seat to ensure that she did not walk around the room and disturb the other students. Ms. Komninos credibly confirmed that she never touched C.M., pushed her down towards the recycling bin, or pushed her into her seat. She stayed at least a foot away from C.M. the entire time. C.M. testified that Ms. Komninos pushed her down towards the recycling bin, grabbed her arm for a brief period of time, and pulled her back to her seat. However, C.M.’s testimony conflicted with her prior written statements. In the first statement, she indicated that Ms. Komninos forcefully grabbed her arm and pushed her down to pick up the paper from the bin. In the second statement, she accused Ms. Komninos of forcefully grabbing her arm, pulling her, and telling her to sit down. When confronted with these inconsistencies, C.M. said the first statement—that omitted any reference to pulling her—more accurately reflected the incident. She also could not recall on what day the incident occurred. Nevertheless, C.M. confirmed that she suffered no harm and only got upset because Ms. Komninos could have asked her nicely to sit down. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the undersigned finds that Ms. Komninos did not forcefully grab C.M.’s arm, push her down towards the recycling bin, or pull her back to her seat. C.M. suffered no harm and the credible evidence established that Ms. Komninos never acted in a manner that could be seen as failing to make reasonable efforts to protect C.M. from conditions harmful to learning or to her mental and physical health, and/or safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission, issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Carmen Komninos. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 26th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman and Coleman Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears. General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s application for continuing education course approval should be granted by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Board of Chiropractic Medicine, is the state agency responsible for the licensure and regulation of chiropractic medicine in the State of Florida. Section 456.013(6) and Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. The Board has the responsibility to approve continuing education courses sponsored by chiropractic colleges. Section 460.408, Florida Statutes. Continuing education providers established through medical osteopathic or chiropractic colleges send their initial courses to the Board for approval. Ordinarily, once the course is approved they become an approved provider and do not send subsequent continuing courses to the Board for approval. Petitioner is an approved continuing education course provider. On July 24, 2001, Petitioner submitted an application of an online course to the Board for approval. The submitted course, ChiroCredit.com, is a 13-hour course consisting of nine regular hours, two HIV/AIDS hours, and two risk management hours. With the application, Petitioner submitted a letter dated July 19, 2001, by Drs. Richard Saporito and Paul Powers, Petitioner’s representative. The letter requested the Board “to review the issue of acceptance of distance based online education credits for Chiropractors continuing education requirements in the State of Florida.” On August 22, 2001, Stephanie Baxley, Regulatory Specialist for the Board, sent a memorandum to Dr. Gene Jenkins, D.C., chair of the Continuing Education Committee, requesting continuing education review. Dr. Jenkins signed and marked the memorandum "approved" on August 29, 2001. On the same date, Dr. Jenkins also indicated approval of an online course offered by another provider, Logan College. Ms. Baxley wrote to Dr. Richard Saporito notifying him that ChiroCredit.com had been approved for continuing education credit. Vicki Grant is a programs operations administrator with the Department of Health. Her responsibilities include managing the licensing and discipline of four professions, including chiropractic medicine. Ms. Grant received a phone call from Dr. Jenkins who informed her that he had made a mistake by indicating approval of the online course offered by Petitioner. In response to his inquiry as to how to proceed, she advised him to notify the continuing education staff, tell them he had made a mistake, and ask that the matter be presented to the full board. She also spoke to Sharon Guilford regarding the matter. Ms. Guilford is Ms. Baxley's supervisor. Sharon Guilford is a program operations administrator with the Department of Health. One of her responsibilities is serving as the administrator for the continuing education section that consists of six professions, including chiropractic medicine. Ms. Guilford and Ms. Grant spoke about Dr. Jenkins' phone call. On September 11, 2001, Ms. Guilford wrote a note on a copy of the August 29, 2001 letter from Ms. Baxley to Dr. Saporito that stated as follows: "Per Dr. Jenkins-course should've never been approved. Send letter correcting the error of approval." On September 11, 2001, Ms. Baxley sent a letter to Dr. Saporito advising him that the approval letter of August 29, 2001, was sent in error and that the Board would take up the matter at their October 2001 meeting.1/ The Board did address the matter at their October 1, 2001 meeting which was held via teleconference. Dr. Saporito and Dr. Paul Powers spoke to the Board on behalf of Petitioner. During the last part of the Board's consideration of this matter, various board members expressed concern that the Board did not have enough information to vote for an approval of the course and discussed having an opportunity to receive more information. After much discussion, the Board unanimously voted to deny Petitioner's application for approval of the course for continuing education purposes. At the same meeting, the Board also denied an application of Logan College to provide continuing education via an online course. The Notice of Intent to Deny states the grounds for denial: As grounds for denial, the Board found that the course did not meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B2- 13.004. Specifically, the rule does not contemplate the awarding of credit for virtual courses or those taken online by use of a computer. The Board opined that 'classroom hours' as used in the rule means in-person education and not time spent in front of a computer. The course offered by the applicant is an online offering. Additionally, the Board expressed concerns about the educational merit and security protocols used by online course providers, but welcomes more information regarding these topics. The Board has never approved an online, homestudy, or video-taped presentation for continuing education course credit. The courses presented to the Board by Petitioner and Logan College were the first online courses to be presented for Board approval. The Board interprets its applicable rule, which requires each licensee to obtain 40 classroom hours of continuing education, to require live and in-person classroom hours. Petitioner offered the testimony of two expert witnesses, Dr. Terry Heller and Dr. Joseph Boyle. Dr. Heller has knowledge regarding theories of learning and education, but lacks knowledge about chiropractors, chiropractic education, or chiropractic continuing education and does not appear to be very familiar with Petitioner’s particular online course. Dr. Boyle is familiar with both chiropractic continuing education and Petitioner's course. He disagrees with the Board's interpretation that the term "classroom hours" must mean a lecture or live format. However, Dr. Boyle described the broadest definition of "classroom" to be "anywhere, anyplace, at any pace, anytime." He acknowledged that the Board could set up criteria for online courses that differ from the criteria for traditional classrooms. Respondent’s expert witness, Dr. David Brown, noted that most chiropractors practice in isolation and very few have staff privileges at hospitals. In his opinion, a legitimate policy reason for requiring chiropractors to obtain a certain amount of in-person continuing education is that they can “rub shoulders with their peers” and learn from one another. Dr. Brown noted that many states impose restrictions on the number of online hours that may be taken or on the type of licensees who are eligible to receive credit. Dr. Brown interpreted the word "classroom" within the context of the rule containing the requirement of 40 classroom hours of continuing education to mean ". . . to physically sit in a room, in a classroom type environment which could be an auditorium or some other environment, with your peers who are also taking the class in order to obtain course credit. I think that's a traditional type of view." Dr. Brown's interpretation of "classroom" within the context of the Board's rule is more persuasive than those of Petitioner's experts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner’s application for continuing education course approval.2/ DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 5th day of March, 2002.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has met the requirements for licensure as a medical doctor in the State of Florida set forth in Section 458.311(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), as required by Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.)?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner applied for licensure by endorsement as a medical doctor in Florida in September of 1986. Following notification by the Respondent that additional materials were required to complete the Petitioner's application, the Petitioner timely submitted the materials. In March of 1987, the Petitioner appeared before the Foreign Medical Graduate Committee of the Respondent. On April 5, 1987, the Respondent entered an Order titled Notice of Intent to Deny the Application for Licensure by Endorsement of Hien B. Nguyen. The stated basis for the denial of the Petitioner's application was that the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he graduated from a medical school. The Petitioner began medical school in 1967 at the University of Saigon, Faculty of Medicine, in Saigon, Republic of Vietnam. The Petitioner Successfully completed the six years required course work in medicine at the University of Saigon, Faculty of Medicine, in 1974. Following the completion of the course work required to earn a medical degree at the University of Saigon, Faculty of Medicine, the Petitioner was drafted into the Republic of Vietnam's military. He attended training for approximately six months immediately following the completion of his medical degree course work. The Petitioner was required to complete a thesis before being eligible for a medical degree from the University of Saigon, Faculty of Medicine. Upon completion of military training, the Petitioner commenced and completed work on his thesis. The Petitioner's thesis consisted of a translation of "Central Nervous Disease in Children," of Nelson's Pediatric Textbook, from English into Vietnamese. The Petitioner presented his thesis on April 14, 1975. Thuc R. Bach, M.D. attended the presentation of his wife's thesis on April 14, 1975, and witnessed the Petitioner's thesis presentation. The Petitioner was awarded a Certificate from the University of Saigon, Faculty of Medicine, on April 14, 1975, which indicated that the Petitioner had completed work necessary to be awarded a medical degree. The Certificate was issued temporarily. After approximately five years the Petitioner was required to return the Certificate at which time he could be issued an official diploma. On approximately April 30, 1975, the government of the Republic of Vietnam fell to the army of North Vietnam. Following the fall of the Republic of Vietnam, the Petitioner was confined to a concentration camp where the Petitioner acted as camp doctor. Following the Petitioner's release from confinement in 1976, the Petitioner worked as a physician at Saint Paul Clinic in Saigon until 1979. From 1977 until 1980 the Petitioner also attended and taught at a medical training center in Saigon. In October, 1980, the Petitioner escaped from Vietnam. He resided in Galang, Indonesia until March, 1981, when he moved to the United States. The Petitioner has completed the following since his arrival in the United States: December, 1981: Sat for the Federation Licensing Examination and was subsequently certified by the Federation of State Medical Boards; January 24, 1983: Certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates; July, 1984 - June, 1985: Interned at the Cook County Hospital, Chicago, Illinois; July, 1985 - June, 1987: Residency program at Cook County Hospital, and February 19, 1986: Licensed as a physician by the State of Illinois (the license is currently active and unrestricted). The Petitioner was presented with a certificate from the Faculty- Council-in-Exile of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Saigon dated April 20, 1981. The certificate affirms that the Petitioner "Successfully completed the course of study leading to the degree of Doctor of Medicine..." The certificate is signed by the Dean Emeritus of the University and Dao Huu Anh, M.D., Associate Dean of the University. Prior to the fall of the government of the Republic of Vietnam, graduates of the University of Saigon, Faculty of Medicine, were presented with a certificate authorizing them to practice as a physician without restriction upon completion of the required courses of study and a thesis. Graduates were not issued an Official Diploma until five years had passed since the issuance of their certificate. Although the Petitioner completed the required courses of study, presented his thesis and received a certificate authorizing him to practice as a physician, the Petitioner was not able to obtain an Official Diploma five years later because of the fall of the government of the Republic of Vietnam. In light of the fall of the government of the Republic of Vietnam, it is doubtful that the records of the University of Saigon, Faculty of Medicine are available or that the Petitioner could obtain an Official Diploma. The Petitioner is a graduate of the University of Saigon, Faculty of Medicine, a medical school.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued GRANTING the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a medical doctor in the State of Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2969 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) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 3. 4 4 and 5. 5 6. 6 7-10. 7 11-12. 13. The Petitioner worked at the training center from 1977 through 1980. 15. The Petitioner went from Vietnam to Indonesia in October of 1980. He did not travel to the United States until March of 1981. 10-12 Cummulative, summary of the evidence and unnecessary. Dr. Nghia Van Tran's letter was not accepted into evidence. 13 16. The last sentence is cummulative, a summary of evidence and unnecessary. The footnote is irrelevant. The burden of proof in this proceeding was on the Petitioner. The Respondent is not required to verify the signature of Dr. Dao. 14 10 and 17. 15 17-18. 16-18 Cummulative, summary of the evidence and unnecessary. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1 and 3. 2-5 The Respondent's remaining proposed findings of fact are essentially summaries of the Respondent's inter- pretation of the evidence and argument concerning the evidence. The Respondent's interpretation of the evidence is rejected. The following is a brief discussion of why the Respondent's arguments have been rejected. The first two sentences are true and support the finding of fact that the Petitioner began medical school in 1967, completed his course work in 1974 and presented his thesis in April of 1975. See findings of fact 4-5 and 9. The third and fourth sentences are true but the Respondent has overlooked the fact that the Petitioner presented other evidence which supports his position. Therefore, even if the fifth sentence were correct, there is other evidence which supports findings of fact 4-5 and 9. The sixth sentence is irrelevant. Although the Board may have raised a question, the correct answer to that question is a matter of proof. The seventh sentence is true but irrelevant. The eighth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. There was no testimony sufficient to support any finding of fact concerning Dr. Dao's signature on any document. Although the ninth sentence is correct, the weight of the evidence does not support the alleged fact set out in the tenth sentence. The eleventh sentence was taken into account in the weight given to Dr. Dao's statement. Although the twelfth sentence is correct the thirteenth and fourteenth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. While it is true that the Petitioner's testimony with regard to when he completed his course work at the University of Saigon was not totally consistent, the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that the Petitioner finished his course work in June of 1974. The Petitioner's explanation concerning the inconsistency in his testimony was credible. The first and second sentences are true. The third sentence is true but overlooks the fact that it corroborates non-hearsay evidence. The fourth sentence is law. The fifth sentence is true. The sixth and seventh sentences are true. The eight sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The ninth and tenth sentences are true but they do not support the ultimate conclusion the Respondent suggests. It is possible that the Certificate in question could have been based upon other credible evidence. The first sentence is true. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Petitioner testified that he completed his course work in 1974. The third sentence is true. The fourth and fifth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams 420 First Florida Bank Building Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Administrative Law Section Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should withdraw its approval of a continuing education course that Petitioner offers to life, health, and variable annuity insurance agents.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible, in relevant part, for regulating continuing education courses for insurance licensees, pursuant to Chapters 626 and 627, Florida Statutes (2008).1 Petitioner provides a course entitled, Reverse Mortgages, identified in the record by course number I.D. 64231 (the course). On June 12, 2008, Respondent approved the course for two hours of continuing education credit for licensed life, health, or variable annuity insurance agents. The course content addresses reverse mortgages rather than insurance. A reverse mortgage is a financing device. It is a special type of home loan that converts a portion of the equity in a home into cash. Unlike a traditional home equity loan or second mortgage, no repayment is required until the borrowers no longer use the home as their principal residence. References to life insurance in the course pertain to the use of a reverse mortgage as a funding mechanism for life insurance. The course does not have significant intellectual or practical content to enhance and improve the insurance knowledge of licensees who participate in the course. The course is not a formal program of learning which contributes directly to the professionalism, ethics, or competence of a licensee acting under the scope of his or her license. Respondent has statutory authority to regulate continuing education courses for insurance licensees. Respondent does not have statutory authority to regulate lending and financing, including financing through reverse mortgages. Withdrawal of approval for continuing education credit does not prevent an insurance agent from taking the course in addition to the required continuing education. If an insurance agent conducts financial transactions in conjunction with an insurance transaction, the agent should be sufficiently educated to avoid a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to the insurance consumer. Petitioner presented evidence of courses that Respondent has approved for continuing education, and those courses do not address insurance topics. Respondent approved those courses pursuant to rules that provide partial credit for certain non-insurance topics, such as communication or time management.2 Respondent is currently seeking to amend the rule to remove the partial credit provision because that provision is not consistent with national standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order withdrawing approval of the course. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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, 2009.
